|
701st Post
First, I want to say thank you to all those who have posted into this insightful thread. I've spent the past few days working my way through the wanderings of these 700 posts and picking up ideas here and there.
Welcome to our thread. Please stroll around the grounds until you feel at home:)
To a few of your points.... I am going to conduct an experiment... I've texted a posse of gamers (I said pah-see. and the table will fill tomorrow night with a random group. I am dropping them into an OSRIC 2.0 game (the equivalent of an OGL first edition). I have nothing planned.
I will allot 15 minutes for character generation, and start playing. Afterwords, I will ask each player what they liked? I predict they will immediately compare the experience to some previous or current edition. I predict they will say everything flowed so well, and that they haven't gotten this "much" done in one game session in a long time.
The fact is, 3.x/Pathfinder is still my preferred edition of choice. It is a refined work of art, and a sophisticated game system in a category all its own.
So is it me, the GM? Or is it the system? Is it facilitation/game management and improvisation that wins the day? Or is it the system? Will the players feel good about the game, the hobby, and the time spent because of characterization, fast-spontaneity, and wit? Or will the system be credited for the fun?
I must admit, there are many factors that go into a "great game." It is pretty hard to slice out any single factors, because the GM can make or break any game. A good GM can breathe life and fun into nearly any game system, or compensate for its fund4mental short-comings.
And all of these factors don't necessarily address what type of game each player enjoys.
Some variables come to mind, if ever there were an equation for "variables to consider at the game table"; and, please excuse the missing ones you will undoubtedly think of:
>GM years of experience (actual hours spent GMing)
>Type of mentor the GM had when she was first learning how to GM (this makes a huge impact on style)
>Game system
>Level of realism (high or low)
>Level of magic (high or low)
>Level of society advancement
>Setting (classic, dark sun, FR, GH, The known lands, Karimekos, homebrew, Planescape, The Scarred Lands, Ptolus, homebrew, etc.)
>Types of players (simulationists, gamists, narrativist)
>Type of GM (simulationist, gamist, narrativist)
>Player knowledge of the rules
>The GM's prospectus of the campaign (if one exists)
>Houserules
>Game materials (elaborate or simple)
>Player levels of experience (new or seasoned)
>Maturity level of communication (articulation of needs or disatisfactions when it really matters)
>Expectations (wow, this one is huge! if players want pew, pew, pew... the bleeding-heart esthetic GM will put everyone to sleep)
>Knowledge of the game's history (slightly different from experience; this variable asks whether the players are even familiar with the original game, or the implied Gygaxian setting)
>Type of session (1-off, or beginning of an epic campaign)
>Creativity levels of players and GM (includes ability to be open, play characters, without fear of embarrasment; includes ability to see each scenario/situation in its own context without always doing things the same way every time)
>Level of game control (GM); Level of game submissiveness (Player) [explanation: Players rules lawyers vs. GM dictators!]
>Perception of the role of the GM: This is different than the rest (some players think the GM is antagonistic versus facilitator, and some players think the GM is a screen-monkey/dice-roller rather than the master of the game - and here is one variable where edition might play a factor, among others...)
Okay - enough for now. Just some fast thoughts. Good gaming!
Possibly, but keep in mind that if you can make a somewhat better diplomacy check you can get a result were the NPC is willing to die at your command (see Epic level handbook - though you should manage that roll well before Epic if you put your mind to it). It really does seem that if you have a good enough diplomacy skill you can profoundly effect the NPCs and the rules seem to support that.
Isn't that rather the point of pre-battle oratory in all the plays and movies? That's essentially what Henry V is doing with his "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more" speech? He's whipping them up into a state where they don't mind dying so much and will fight for him.
It's quite a tradition. Henry V, Braveheart,Gladiator, The Return of the King, Alexander, the list goes on and on.
Pax, in the early 1980's, the game was extremely popular in society at large. Video games were limited to the Atari system, and thus, lacking today's awesome computer RPG games & graphics, kids played the tabletop RPGs. I would estimate that roughly HALF of the adolescent males I attended middle school with played the game. Most of my peers that I knew (and I knew a lot of them) played the game. It was unbelievably popular. In society at large, the game was very well known (although the subject of some degree of concern-albeit unnecessary), and very popular. I was told (I don't know if the number is true) that 'X1 The Isle of Dread' adventure module had sold/published 2,000,000 copies.
Also, Allen Steward - what did you man by rp being loooong way...? More specifically do you mean within society at large, or withing the gaming community, just wondering?
I'm seriously skeptical about anything even close to 'half'. My experience, in Toronto, was that the fear of 'Satans Game' was comparatively minor. I encountered it and lost the odd possible friend over it but nothing huge. What really made the game something to avoid was its massive association with geeks. Was a time when calling someone a geek was an pretty much an insult and being part of that sub-culture regulated someone right down near the bottom of the pre-teen and teen pecking order. Good cultural example of this is the movie The Breakfast Club. Released in 1985 it serves as an example of this cultural context.
I also find the 2 million copies of X1 sold a bit of a strange number. Does that include all the ones released with the blue box or not? I've read that WotC believes that Keep on the Borderlands is the most widely played module of all time but that's mainly because it came packaged with the red box making it the default module for huge numbers of starting players.
"Naturism"? Are you now restricting my freedom to play a naked character? Argh! Such arbitrary character restrictions! ;DYeah, we don't really wanna see what you got under that hat.
A +5 vorpal sword of course.
|
A +5 vorpal sword of course."Naturism"? Are you now restricting my freedom to play a naked character? Argh! Such arbitrary character restrictions! ;DYeah, we don't really wanna see what you got under that hat.
Huh? Thought you rather use a heavy club* as weapon of choice.
* or a sap if that is your style.
"Naturism"? Are you now restricting my freedom to play a naked character? Argh! Such arbitrary character restrictions! ;D
Specifically Gygaxian Naturism. I was a fool to think that anyone would want naked pictures of Gary Gygax!
*throws box of photos into bottomless pit*
*box of photos is ejected from bottomless pit*
Do you have a cursed bag of holding? See if the extra-dimensional creature will swallow them!
I'm seriously skeptical about anything even close to 'half'. What really made the game something to avoid was its massive association with geeks. Was a time when calling someone a geek was an pretty much an insult and being part of that sub-culture regulated someone right down near the bottom of the pre-teen and teen pecking order. Good cultural example of this is the movie The Breakfast Club. Released in 1985 it serves as an example of this cultural context.I also find the 2 million copies of X1 sold a bit of a strange number. Does that include all the ones released with the blue box or not? I've read that WotC believes that Keep on the Borderlands is the most widely played module of all time but that's mainly because it came packaged with the red box making it the default module for huge numbers of starting players.
In the early 1980's, middle-school aged males did not view the game as "geekdom". Furthermore, I think that many "non-stereotypical-geeks" played the game. Perhaps that viewpoint was held by older adolescents or adults. Even today, when I listen to a middle-school aged client who plays the game, I detect no comprehension by said youngster that the game he plays is for nerds. I usually only note that perception from adults.
Is it possible that D&D is a part of what lead to an explosion of the category "geek"? If so, it should be spelled Geex...
|
|
Is it possible that D&D is a part of what lead to an explosion of the category "geek"? If so, it should be spelled Geex...
Wow, I really admire someone who can turn a phrase. Well done M.
Yes, the fact that Gary influenced the whole world, and the world is now dripping with innovations because of the game, did indeed make Geek, chique. I like the idea that we're Geex.But to the other points made recently, I must say that geeks in the 1980s weren't the kind of friends I wanted to play d&d with.
I looked for kids who dressed in black (yes, this was before it was cliche - the original goth scene). I also looked for well-read, enlightened types who were either dramatic, or philosophical. I looked for nature-lovers who perhaps knew a bit about zoology, and who could comment on the believability of monster ecologies and beast physiques. I also welcomed the occasional, fun-guy, who, would really get into the game, even though he would drive the GM mad by making silly jokes all the time. Additionally, although it was near impossible to find GMs who were dead-serious about the game (since we didn't have the internet), I would have very much like to have found a GM who would light candles and wear a cloak. Some of us did this a time or two at most, but not with any regularity.
And, I welcome disagreement on this, because I certainly didn't live in all places at the same time, and couldn't possible know what the whole world was doing. But, that said, I can fairly confidently say that even in those days.... when adults or kids or whomever would imply that geeks or nerds played that game (as seen in movies of that era), I can tell you with certainty that we just laughed and laughed at this. Nope. We weren't nerds. And we recognized that there were convention-going, computery-geeks, who probably did represent a slice of the demographic, we knew, we just knew, the game was so cool that the majority of players were probably like us—isolated pockets of well-read, introspective, highly intelligent, advanced-thinking, learned kids, who, loved the freshness of a game that provoked and inspired the imagination and spontaneous creativity.
Because, even then - there probably was a convention culture that did absorb modules and publications and adhere to rules and discuss mechanics. But man.... as tweens and teens, the many rest of us didn't really treat published works with any deal of priority, because independently the game provided us with everything we needed to get imaginative. We blew the doors off d&d in terms of where we took the game in our imaginations.
So, M, this isn't any disagreement to your Geex word. I like it a lot. But it made me reflect on some of the differences in those that played the game back then.
And those that said it was very popular - - my experience was "yes" and "no." It was popular to those of us who enjoyed or had no choice but to be who we were, kids who were privately willing to be counter-culture.
|
|
I am going to conduct an experiment... I am dropping them into an OSRIC 2.0 game (the equivalent of an OGL first edition). I have nothing planned.
Wiz Bam! Tonight was fun. OSRIC 2.0 delivered a first edition game experience. For some, this was the first time they played first edition. It was also nice for me as a GM to completely master the game from top to bottom. I am generally so in other games of Pathfinder etc., however, usually there is at least 1 or two players at the table who have ninja memory when is comes to some aspects of the rules. In this case, the group had none of that.
It was fast, it was fun. A dream, a tavern, a quest, huge frogs, an earthquake, a temple, another town, interesting npcs, a cool dungeon cairn, and an interesting story overall that leaves room for a part two or continued adventure. My point is, first edition is such a viable and fun game system, even for the modern player, and yes - even for a connoisseur of fine gaming. I fully know now, that one can appreciate Pathfinder (still my preferred game of choice), and also play OSRIC 2.0.
Okay - what's the hub-bub with OSRIC 2.0? Why won't I "name" the first edition game. Well, I was a big fan of the wotci (Mairkurion's term for you know who) until they pulled Dungeon and Dragon magazines from PAIZO, and until they abandoned support for v.3.5, and until they pulled all the .pdfs from fine companies such as PAIZO and RPGNOW, until they destroyed the forgotten realms... well, I need not go on. Anyhow, OSRIC 2.0 delivers a near-perfect first edition experience.
And, frankly, its very fun to write homebrew adventures for, and its also very fun to play. Did I mention how fun it was?
Gygaxian? You bet! Just to name a few heightened elements:
a) Things were left to chance (see % tables)
b) Combat was fast, descriptive, and unrestrictive to all kinds of actions and ideas
c) Got more "story" in one session that as in a usual 3.5 sesssion
d) Ecologies and naturalism pervaded all things
e) After an injury sustained from a falling beam, 1 Character feel unconscious, spent 10 minutes in a coma, and then needed to exit the adventure and rest for a week.
f) Only 1 in maybe 100 local persons had an actual "class"
g) Situations were fatal if failed (open pit, deadly traps)
h) Rust monster, troglodytes, spiders, huge frogs, and much more all in one weeknight game session!
I) Players knew they couldn't level without finding a mentor and spending large sums. This idea of commerce is very healthy for the GM e.g. give out treasure, watch players spend treasure, rather than hoarding and growing fat.
j) Character generation and introduction to the edition only took 40 minutes for 4 players. A little longer than I hoped, but I only had 1 full copy of OSRIC 2.0.
My only regret... I would have liked to get just a little bit more in tonight, but GMs always feel that way, I guess.
In the early 1980's, middle-school aged males did not view the game as "geekdom". Furthermore, I think that many "non-stereotypical-geeks" played the game. Perhaps that viewpoint was held by older adolescents or adults. Even today, when I listen to a middle-school aged client who plays the game, I detect no comprehension by said youngster that the game he plays is for nerds. I usually only note that perception from adults.
I'd have gone into middle school about '87 and it certainly regulated one to the bottom of the pecking order by that point along with things like an interest in computers and good grades at least in Toronto. I even find the idea that this simply was not so an odd argument as the cultural artifacts of this sort of a view seem to be a dime a dozen. Certainly there came a point by around the late '90s where being a Geek became cool but that was not the case in the late '80s, not in Toronto anyway.
Yeah, my thoughts on this reflect '81-83 as my formative years, perhaps a different time. Hell, we made ET.
All the girls in our social circle wanted to date the oldest guy in our group, who played a paladin. And was a jerk.
|
Wiz Bam! Tonight was fun. OSRIC 2.0 delivered a first edition game experience.
Ain't it just. I have one guy in our old school group with a stat of 17 - he's like a god... :)
btw: we used the method IV - roll 12 characters 3d6 in order - choose the one you like. I have an excel spread sheet (modified from one a guy gave me from the K&K forums) for method III & IV. If want a copy let me know - small enough to email.
Like I have always said newer doesn't by default mean better, sometimes only different.
S.
PS: Wish that OSRIC would put the old psionics system back in. Guess they can't due to copyright issues. But yeh, OSRIC is almost just like being there. Oh and the Monk (cause it was just funny), and the Bard (all hail the Bard - or he'll make you...).
|
Okay - what's the hub-bub with OSRIC 2.0?
Being the gaming connoisseur that you are ;-P
If I, as an "old school DM" (at least in my mind anyway, LOL), run my 3.5 games in a similar fashion as I did "back in the day", and my players likewise play in the "old school" style, what should I expect to get out of running OSRIC or C&C (or even 1e for that matter) that I (and my players) don't already have?
Believe me, I have been itching to give it a try, but I just feel I would be trying to recapture something I never really lost...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Believe me, I have been itching to give it a try, but I just feel I would be trying to recapture something I never really lost...
DMing style and players count a huge amount for sure but differing rules sets support differing feels to a game. Give OSRIC a bash (it is free after all). I have come to the conclusion that adventurers have become soft over the years. In 1e only 1/2-wits and PC's became adventurers - because you could be killed and often were. As time has past the "I hope I survive this adventure" has become "it is my right to survive this adventure". In OSRIC (1e) due to the limited hp's and limited healing there is a real feeling of do or die. Parties who failed to work together at very least usually died together - more so than later editions as they were more "adventurers" and less "heroes" we see and play today.
I was thinking, a 1e fighter vs a 1e Magic-User at say 18th each. Magic-User without having prior preparation automatically loses if in melee range. Now I know many who would say that the system must be broken, it's unfair - in 1e that was life. Now put the Magic-User 200' away and you going to need another fighter. That unfairness was what attracted many to AD&D, the overcoming the odds. Balanced encounters in 1e were ones were someone else other than you died... :)
OSRIC 2.0 - just do it. (PS: for those still not aware OSRIC 2.0 is a "remake" under OGL for 1e AD&D - one pdf has PHB/DMG/MM, for free)
S.
PS: It's easy as pie to convert the most excellent Paizo AP's to OSRIC - in fact we are doing Age of Worms and I'll say it was almost built for 1e play!
|
|
Okay - what's the hub-bub with OSRIC 2.0?Being the gaming connoisseur that you are ;-P
If I, as an "old school DM" (at least in my mind anyway, LOL), run my 3.5 games in a similar fashion as I did "back in the day", and my players likewise play in the "old school" style, what should I expect to get out of running OSRIC or C&C (or even 1e for that matter) that I (and my players) don't already have?
Believe me, I have been itching to give it a try, but I just feel I would be trying to recapture something I never really lost...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Hey Digitalelf! You've got 25+ years of experience, as do I. I can't think that there would be anything you don't already have, and I won't try to persuade you otherwise. I trust your years of experience, and seasoned tenure. I mean that. Just continue, there isn't anything your missing at your game table. (In fact, I wish I could be there).
That said, you might find a few things refreshing about OSRIC 2.0. And, Stefan has made some fine points already. Additionally here are just a few sample points (not all inclusive) :
>Nice to adjudicate Gygax's surprise sequence using the d6 to d6 comparison in terms of segments of surprise. This can enhance the flow of the game.
>Rounds of combat are literally very, very fast.
>All players declare their actions... in a lightning round of swift declarations prior to actually digging in. Again, this might enhance the flow of the game.
>While miniatures can be used, they are not necessary. I did use them last night upon dungeon tiles, upon some nice black rubber shelf-liner to eliminate slippage. Very nice indeed. In this case, pieces are used to represent who is in a room vs. hall, or marching order, and sometimes line of sight or infravision distance.
>Infravision is still fun to play, and because it doesn't provide minute detail, this relieves the GM a bit from having to provide verbose and detailed descriptions.
>Gary's initiative sequence works rather nicely. Players roll the initiative count for the monsters/opponents, and the GM rolls the player initiative count. Very fun indeed. This can enhance the order of events in ways I'm sure you, as a GM of 25+ years will quickly understand
>OSRIC 2.0 is new and shiny, and washes whiter than previous versions. This means its nice to have the version (monster guide plus game rules all in one nice spiral bound book - Kinko's does the trick. It looks very nice with a single color cover, be sure to ask for it.) It is also nice that it is FREE, and can be printed on clean white paper, rather than ask players to use the 30-year-old guides.
>My players had a really good time. There was something refreshing about playing first edition with a first edition feel. There was something genuine in the experience... like touching an artifact in a museum, and admiring it for what it is (but this point isn't necessary; I understand not everyone cares or feels this way about such things)
>Players seem to have an easier time setting aside their knowledge of the system, when told in its entirety that we are playing a different system. For example, the rule of "yes" was very evident, and players were very supportive, especially when they don't know the rules. This was an element Gygax favored... and even when players knew the basic rules, Gary ensured they they were always guessing. OSRIC 2.0 captures exactly the detailed "white space" areas where rules are not defined - deliberately.
>Functionally, you might find you get through more encounters/events/scenarios/chapters, etc. Though mileage may vary. When play occurs at the I. A. B. II. A. B. level, there isn't much time spent mucking about in the minutae of I. A. 1) a) B. 1) a) b) c) level. The players seemed more focused on character development.
But again, there are others that I can post later, for I'm sure I am missing something... but honestly, if like Digitalelf, you've got 25 years of experience and you bring all the original style, flavor, etc. to your Pathfinder game, then you don't need a thing. Not one bit. And, don't let anyone tell you that you're missing something, unless you feel that you are. And if so, I gotta say hats-off to OSRIC 2.0. Well done!
We had a fantastic time, and as a GM my time was spent on story elements and outlines etc.
I must say that geeks in the 1980s weren't the kind of friends I wanted to play d&d with.
I embraced my inner geek in the mid 80’s. I was athletic and not terribly well read, but not to be bound by convention. In my experience, one did not feel one had to prove themself to the geek crowd. They accepted you for you no matter how non-popular you were. I found there was no peer pressure in the geek crowd. I also preferred one or two good friends to a room full of acquaintances.
Okay - what's the hub-bub with OSRIC 2.0?
Is this no longer the debate over Gygaxian Naturalism but the pro-OSRIC thread? :P
You should check out Questers of the Middle Realms.
|
|
Is this no longer the debate over Gygaxian Naturalism but the pro-OSRIC thread? :P
I think it was a "realism" that has hit a few of us old timers (?) that if we really want that Gyaxian Naturism then systems other than 1e is not where we will truly find it. So yes that does make it look pro-OSRIC 2.0. But only because the primary works are harder to come by and OSRIC is a great second choice. As stated lots of times OSRIC is free and that means there isn't mush reason not to at least try it?! I think that a new DM will have an easier time learning our trade with OSRIC, less things to remember and less likely to have more experience players quote rules to you. The "grey" areas in 1e rules were there on purpose not omission. New players aren't hit with such any array of choices when making a character making the game feel less mechanical and perhaps overwhelming. As for viability of the game (as OSRIC) it works fine. I believe that later editions went the way they did in part to distance Gygax from his creation by making it less Gygax in the messiness that occurred at T$R.
The Age of Worms AP is humming along after the first session, this is going to sound pro-OSRIC but we have found there is a story behind the Age of Worms, you knew (well other than me as DM)? Seems a funny thing to say but the players were so busy planning character builds and trying to see you had the highest damage output that the information about the story became secondary. The players have said they are having a far different experience (some played under v3.5 with me) this time around. They have bothered to interact with town folk at Diamond Lake and seem to be really into doing homework before running head long into danger. They have 1 Cure Light Wounds spell for the whole party, for the whole day...*
Personal comments and experiences - ignore as required,
S.
*I have not found a 15-min adventuring day has resulted either. The story and the feeling that "danger" = "adventure" has meant the days last, about a day.
PS: The look on the Magic-User (Mage/Wizard/whatever) when he saw he doesn't get effectively +1 BAB until until 6th level - classic. For him to get a BAB of a 3.xe Wizard at 6th level (+3) he needs to be 16th level... :)
|
|
I must say that geeks in the 1980s weren't the kind of friends I wanted to play d&d with.I embraced my inner geek in the mid 80’s. I was athletic and not terribly well read, but not to be bound by convention. In my experience, one did not feel one had to prove themself to the geek crowd. They accepted you for you no matter how non-popular you were. I found there was no peer pressure in the geek crowd. I also preferred one or two good friends to a room full of acquaintances.
Okay - what's the hub-bub with OSRIC 2.0?Is this no longer the debate over Gygaxian Naturalism but the pro-OSRIC thread? :P
You should check out Questers of the Middle Realms.
Hey, don't you have a poodlelords thread to attend to? lol
OSRIC does indeed embody an impressive host of what this thread is about, so, yeah, we're morphing, but it shows we're thinking, evolving. IMO, very much still on topic, but yet another facet for consideration.
Let's not even get into the Skills&Powers/Combat&Tactics phase... which was like 3E, but badly implemented.
I have to disagree on this.
The Player's Option books (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, and Spells & Magic), as well as DM Option: High Level Campaigns, were to 2nd Ed AD&D what Unearthed Arcana was to 3.5 D&D: a collection of optional rules to expand on and personalize various aspects of the game world. Considering that they were published to (mostly) follow 2nd Ed AD&D rules, rather than completely redesign the rules, I'd say they were pretty well implemented.
If anything, the Option books were even more ground-breaking than 3.0 in that they actually quantified a method for creating variants of the character classes, down to what abilities are gained and when (Skills & Powers and Spells & Magic); you could, quite literally, design setting and regional class variants, unique priests for each deity, etc. Also, Combat & Tactics is extremely useful as a reference for the benefits and use of various types of armor and weapons, while High Level Campaigns gives a lot of tips that are still relevant when running a high-level game.
But to the other points made recently, I must say that geeks in the 1980s weren't the kind of friends I wanted to play d&d with.
Pax, I didn't play the game with the kids dressed in black. In the 1982-84 era of middle school, d&d was a competitive game of who's character could kill the other guy's character, what modules had your character played in, what cool items did you have that the next guy's character didn't have. It was a new game to the middle school aged crowd. It was novel. And it was a dog-eat-dog game where characters died like flies, and you waited all of 3 seconds before you rolled up another character and dived in, just thrilled to be playing... Adults may have deemed the game for nerds, but I don't think the typical middle school student in the early 1980's cared one way or the other. I remember that when in high school, I didn't announce that I played the game, as I comprehended that the game was perceived as the realm of geeks, and as I played high school football and track & field, I didn't want to advertise my hobby. But in middle school, nobody cared, and life was beautiful...
|
|
Pax, I didn't play the game with the kids dressed in black. In the 1982-84 era of middle school, d&d was a competitive game of who's character could kill the other guy's character, what modules had your character played in, what cool items did you have that the next guy's character didn't have. It was a new game to the middle school aged crowd. It was novel. And it was a dog-eat-dog game where characters died like flies, and you waited all of 3 seconds before you rolled up another character and dived in, just thrilled to be playing... Adults may have deemed the game for nerds, but I don't think the typical middle school student in the early 1980's cared one way or the other. I remember that when in high school, I didn't announce that I played the game, as I comprehended that the game was perceived as the realm of geeks, and as I played high school football and track & field, I didn't want to advertise my hobby. But in middle school, nobody cared, and life was beautiful...But to the other points made recently, I must say that geeks in the 1980s weren't the kind of friends I wanted to play d&d with.
I hear you. There were many types of kids who played: jocks, nerds, geeks, band-fags*, goths, metal-heads, you-name-it. It was indeed popular, but at the time very "underground." I was lucky when I started because the type of niche our group fell into was one of deep immersion story-telling, long before White Wolf, before Vampire the Masquerade, before Tracy and Laura Hickman, and I'm talking '82-88. I recognize, and find this particularly interesting, that back then, depending on your individual group dynamic and the types of kids you gamed with, your group dynamic would have varied on the continuum between utter chaos and meaningful depth of play. No judgment here. Yes, it would have varied.
Additionally, I'll say that my "geek" comment shouldn't imply that I was of a social class that judged the geek/nerd whatever. I was quite transcendent, and belonged everywhere and nowhere at the same time. From what I could tell of true geeks/nerds, is they weren't exactly the type to really innovate imaginative original homebrew stories, and personalize the game. That's what I really enjoyed then, and now. We imagined they did a lot of reading from text boxes, and delivered linear games with focus on rule details. But I'm open to reason. Perhaps they were good at homemade creative stuff too. I just never met any geeks/nerds during those years who had the "dnd" skill of a Gygax to pull off a highly compelling game. Well, except for my friend KGB. Who incidentally is now a director/actor. So, hell yeah, I was lucky to have learned from him quite a bit early on. He intuited Gygax's game in a way that would take a book for me to describe. And did it amazingly well.
Funny - - as I think back now... I realize we had quite the archetypal triumvirate for success: A guru (rules lawyer), A director (KGB who could run a game more compelling than anything you've ever seen), and an actor (me. My characters were larger than life, and often drove the story no matter what the GM had planned. In many ways I still do, and wish more players were like that. I later went on to do some good theater lead work but now spend my time seeking dramatic highs on the PAIZO boards).
SO - here would be my message to anyone looking to set up a new group: find a guru, a director, an actor... and I'm sure you all can think of other essentials....?
My point is - diversity at the table is great, especially having those three types included. And again, no value judgment to the afore mentioned teen social groups of that decade. In fact, I was interestingly transcendendent and had good friends in all such groups.
The beauty of Gary's game, anyhow, is that it was meant for all of us.
*apologies for the derrogatory term earlier on—there were a lot of stupid lables slung about in those years.
|
|
metal-headsHave we met? Ah the 80's. I wonder if the 2080's will be as silly?
:)
Maybe music videos will be available once again on MTV by then.
Metal music and d&d went so very well together back then... remember?
We used to cut out pictures from song lyric mags and use rock musicians as npcs.
I mean, really, ... who didn't use David Bowie? Ozzy? That bassist from Cinderella (definately elven), the lead singer of Ratt, Sting, and Billy Idol?
We all did, right? lol
|
|
metal-headsHave we met? Ah the 80's. I wonder if the 2080's will be as silly?
:)
Maybe music videos will be available once again on MTV by then.
Metal music and d&d went so very well together back then... remember?
We used to cut out pictures from song lyric mags and use rock musicians as npcs.
I mean, really, ... who didn't use David Bowie? Ozzy? That bassist from Cinderella (definately elven), the lead singer of Ratt, Sting, and Billy Idol?
We all did, right? lol
I am pleading the 5th...
I have a vivid memory of one night in our group when our Paladin asked, "Why am I wearing glasses? She blinded me with science!"
He then leaped up on top of a file cabinent in the room. "How did I get up here? She hit me with technology!"
I could never tell you for sure, but we might have been somewhere in the midst of the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.
|
|
On another point, I recently reviewed again the unusually un-d&d points-of-light synopsis by Rich Baker. It sounds more like a post-apocalyptic setting than d&d. Sure, any GM should feel empowered to create any setting she likes, but when the owners of the IP disrespectfully try to sell their own wild homebrew spins as the definition of the game itself, I resign as their customer.
...and I though George Bush Sr.'s 'points of light' was esoteric.
My experience, in Toronto, was that the fear of 'Satans Game' was comparatively minor. I encountered it and lost the odd possible friend over it but nothing huge.
I wish I grew up in Toronto then. Here in the midwest USA it was a big deal. I remember distinctly being forced by my friends parents (who were in charge of me until my own parents came back from wherever) to watch some kind of documentary that came on TV. It was about how satanic D&D was and how even the TSR logo was a symbol from the dark depths of historic devil worship. Afterwards my friend was forced to retrieve all his D&D books from his room and tear them up in front of his parents. And they knew how many he had. Since he was the only one who had D&D books this ended my gaming for a bit.
Later, after I had gotten my own books and gamed for several years (losing my soul according to several dozen people, some of whom actually demonstrated outside a comic book store that sold D&D stuff.) my father remarried. When I left for Basic Training I left four cardboard boxes up in my father's attic. When I got back on leave I went to retrieve some of my things to take with me to my duty station. There was only half a box left. My step-mother's son (my step-brother) who was 14 years old had gone up and gotten into my boxes. He then read them and showed them to his mother. She was horrified that this sort of thing was even in the house much less where her son could get to them (I did tape the boxes shut and wrote my name all over them). So she went through my things and threw out all the "satanic stuff" which included not only an entire BECMI D&D boxed set collection but other RPG books, a first run deck of M:tG (this was just coming out), all my heavy metal concert Tees, and all my music tapes. All I had left was a half-dozen pairs of jeans.Some gamers still call those years "The Purge".
|
|
My experience, in Toronto, was that the fear of 'Satans Game' was comparatively minor. I encountered it and lost the odd possible friend over it but nothing huge.I wish I grew up in Toronto then. Here in the midwest USA it was a big deal. I remember distinctly being forced by my friends parents (who were in charge of me until my own parents came back from wherever) to watch some kind of documentary that came on TV. It was about how satanic D&D was and how even the TSR logo was a symbol from the dark depths of historic devil worship. Afterwards my friend was forced to retrieve all his D&D books from his room and tear them up in front of his parents. And they knew how many he had. Since he was the only one who had D&D books this ended my gaming for a bit.
Later, after I had gotten my own books and gamed for several years (losing my soul according to several dozen people, some of whom actually demonstrated outside a comic book store that sold D&D stuff.) my father remarried. When I left for Basic Training I left four cardboard boxes up in my father's attic. When I got back on leave I went to retrieve some of my things to take with me to my duty station. There was only half a box left. My step-mother's son (my step-brother) who was 14 years old had gone up and gotten into my boxes. He then read them and showed them to his mother. She was horrified that this sort of thing was even in the house much less where her son could get to them (I did tape the boxes shut and wrote my name all over them). So she went through my things and threw out all the "satanic stuff" which included not only an entire BECMI D&D boxed set collection but other RPG books, a first run deck of M:tG (this was just coming out), all my heavy metal concert Tees, and all my music tapes. All I had left was a half-dozen pairs of jeans.
Some gamers still call those years "The Purge".
Sorry this happened to you. This was indeed happening, and perhaps what makes the history of our game so important to millions of us. This is something that, perhaps, also endears us to the original materials in a way that no other edition does. And I was fortunate to have a very open-minded parent who encouraged game play. I even won a fourth place honorable mention in the gradeshool science fair in 1985 for my display and research paper entitled, The Uses and Abuses of Roleplaying Games. I read about all those isolated incidents including James Dallas Egbert III, and I interviewed a lot of people including parish priests. I remember very well, citing the local priests quotation that the game, "expands the mind."
I propose that although many may think that perserving Gygaxian traditions and promoting old school gaming is an act of nostalgia, in many ways it is about continuing fidelity to a game that expanded our minds, and taught so very much to us at an early age. Gary's design, only one aspect of which is the naturalism we discuss, created a tool for observing and interpreting the world around us through roleplay. On this metagame level, kids learned about the real world, through play in a fantasy one.
Yes. The Gygaxian fantasy realm deserves more than to be destroyed at the whim of an r&d director, or for greed's sake, or to morph at the shallow whim of pop culture, or because of corporate mandate. There is heritage and history here. There is tradition, meaning, lessons... very much worth continuing.
Logos, even if Pax is nostalgic, it doesn't mean he is just nostalgic or irrationally so. If you plow through this thread from the beginning, you'll see not only specific instances of EGG's contributions towards verisimilitude in the game, but criticisms of him as well.
Ideally, we might have had multiple threads on GN: one on 4e, an analytical one on what it is, one normative thread slugging out its value, one on how to bring it more fully into 3.x games, one on Osric as continuing that tradition, etc. It may be too late for that, but I enjoy the ongoing insights that are more on the analytical side that continue to pop up.
Maybe trying strike more of a balance in the thread between the various elements in it will help bring this out to new readers.
Pax, I think I disagree with you on the points of light issue. Now, I would have never used it to wreck the Forgotten Realms, but I would have employed it for the default setting (would I have been less unpopular than the 4e developers if I had done that to Greyhawk?). Not only do I think it makes sense it terms of classic-feel gaming, but it is great for starting new campaigns and new players. But for me (and gamers of my circle), Greyhawk never was what it apparently became. Instead, it was a world that gradually was fleshed out by adventuring, but largely wild lands and ancient sites between outposts of civilization, in other words, a points of light setting. Why Greyhawk (or Eberron?) couldn't have been that for 4e rather than FR, thus leaving the civilized setting alone, takes us far from GN and other realms that you and I are interested in.
My experience, in Toronto, was that the fear of 'Satans Game' was comparatively minor. I encountered it and lost the odd possible friend over it but nothing huge.I wish I grew up in Toronto then. Here in the midwest USA it was a big deal. I remember distinctly being forced by my friends parents (who were in charge of me until my own parents came back from wherever) to watch some kind of documentary that came on TV. It was about how satanic D&D was and how even the TSR logo was a symbol from the dark depths of historic devil worship. Afterwards my friend was forced to retrieve all his D&D books from his room and tear them up in front of his parents. And they knew how many he had. Since he was the only one who had D&D books this ended my gaming for a bit.
Later, after I had gotten my own books and gamed for several years (losing my soul according to several dozen people, some of whom actually demonstrated outside a comic book store that sold D&D stuff.) my father remarried. When I left for Basic Training I left four cardboard boxes up in my father's attic. When I got back on leave I went to retrieve some of my things to take with me to my duty station. There was only half a box left. My step-mother's son (my step-brother) who was 14 years old had gone up and gotten into my boxes. He then read them and showed them to his mother. She was horrified that this sort of thing was even in the house much less where her son could get to them (I did tape the boxes shut and wrote my name all over them). So she went through my things and threw out all the "satanic stuff" which included not only an entire BECMI D&D boxed set collection but other RPG books, a first run deck of M:tG (this was just coming out), all my heavy metal concert Tees, and all my music tapes. All I had left was a half-dozen pairs of jeans.
Some gamers still call those years "The Purge".
You certainly have my sympathy - I was lucky enough to have relatively rational parents growing up (and being in the Southwestern US, the "devil scare" probably wasn't as bad as in the Bible Belt/Midwest).
When I picked up D&D at about 10 (1981), my parents heard the scare talk and their reaction was to... wait for it... sit down and watch me play a game with my friends. After about an hour, and no one got down on his knees to pray to St. Cuthbert and no one wanted to commit suicide after Blackleaf died or tried to cast an actual spell, they said "meh" and went on to more realistic worries about my upbringing.
Sixteen years later (1997), I was newly married and my wife was talking to her sister; somehow the fact that I was a gamer came up. My sister-in-law told my wife, in no uncertain terms, that for the sake of my immortal soul she should take all of my gaming material and burn - not throw away, but burn it. Luckily my wife had long known me for a gamer and, while not her cup of tea, was as intelligent about it as my parents had been. She told her sister to go jump in a lake.
Anyway, I just thank Heaven I have had such rational people around me my whole life. I'm not sure how my life would have turned out without D&D, but I don't think it would have been better. It was one of the few outlets I had as an introverted, odd-duck type of kid (many of us were, I know, but you always feel alone when you're the one going through it), even if some of our early games were no more "naturalistic" than "you find a (roll) sleeping dragon in the 10'x10' room to your right."
In 3E the Concentration check to complete the spell after taking damage is just too easy.
Actually, the Concentration check after taking damage is DC 10 + damage dealt (+ spell level in 3.0); continuing damage requires a DC 10 + half continuing damage last dealt (+ spell level in 3.0). That's not necessarily "easy" when the caster just took 30+, 40+, or 50+ (which also triggers a Massive Damage save) points of damage (not that hard to attain with a single attack at high level).
The DC 15 + spell level check for casting defensively (and not triggering an AoO) is the concern. If almost all spells are cast as standard actions, then casting defensively means the only way to disrupt most casting is with a readied action (which makes it the only action taken that round) or through some effect that deals continuing damage (which is usually not a large amount) or some other distraction.
|
|
In New Zealand at the high schools D&D went crazy in the 80's. There were some reports and grumblings from the right-wing. But really nothing that caused any issues or book burnings. We use to have a "club day", actually 3 hours on a Wednesday afternoon. The D&D club drew so many (ok entirely males) that the soccer and football clubs had trouble getting the number together to make two teams to play!
Last poster;
Yep agreed, the original spell caster was not seen as someone standing in or too near combat.
S.
|
|
Yep agreed, the original spell caster was not seen as someone standing in or too near combat.
S.
To paraphrase Gygax, from the DMG: If you're stupid enough to try to cast spells where critters or people are within range to eviscerate you, here's the rules:
1. You get hit, you lose your spell.
2. You probably die.
:)
|
|
Yep agreed, the original spell caster was not seen as someone standing in or too near combat.
S.
To paraphrase Gygax, from the DMG: If you're stupid enough to try to cast spells where critters or people are within range to eviscerate you, here's the rules:
1. You get hit, you lose your spell.
2. You probably die.
:)
Oh paraphrase, sorry I was thinking it sounded a direct quote...
|
|
Oh paraphrase, sorry I was thinking it sounded a direct quote...Yep agreed, the original spell caster was not seen as someone standing in or too near combat.
S.
To paraphrase Gygax, from the DMG: If you're stupid enough to try to cast spells where critters or people are within range to eviscerate you, here's the rules:
1. You get hit, you lose your spell.
2. You probably die.
:)
I'm sure it was exactly that in the first draft, but it lacked a certain Gygaxian, um, what's the opposite of terseness again?
I'm sure it was exactly that in the first draft, but it lacked a certain Gygaxian, um, what's the opposite of terseness again?
Verbosity?
Loquaciousness?
Florid prose?
In New Zealand at the high schools D&D went crazy in the 80's. There were some reports and grumblings from the right-wing. But really nothing that caused any issues or book burnings. We use to have a "club day", actually 3 hours on a Wednesday afternoon. The D&D club drew so many (ok entirely males) that the soccer and football clubs had trouble getting the number together to make two teams to play!
I can remember being told not to bring D&D books to school. They simply weren't allowed. The school teachers didnt say it was satanic or confiscate them. But we were told that it was too much of a disturbance and couldnt bring them.
Sorry. No more horror stories. I promise. =)|
|
I did a little library research today... since these posts reminded me of a time long ago when people judged Gary's game BUT we could always seem to find books in the local library.
I went to the library today, and found PAIZO's Dragon Compendium Volume #1.
*I smiled*
I've always been impressed with the open-mindedness of libraries and their staff.
|
|
Something like that ;)
I'm sure it was exactly that in the first draft, but it lacked a certain Gygaxian, um, what's the opposite of terseness again?
Verbosity?
Loquaciousness?
Florid prose?
Gotta love that Jame Malisewski! In addition to the article that I posted to start this thread, I've gotten a few laughs at his blog on High Gygaxian. This term wasn't the first time I'd heard it... we've joked a time or two about High Gygaxian over the years... but in any case, those terms Patrick Curtin suggested will do just fine:)
I have always admired E.G.G.'s writing, mostly because his prose tended to help my mind wander a bit as a youth, and his vocabulary kept me confident that I could make use of my own vocabulary despite society's seeming preference to dummy down language and avoid nuances.
For everyone's amusement and enjoyment, here is James Malisewski's post on the topic.
"Whatever other virtues later editions of Dungeons & Dragons may possess, none of them can compare to the baroque splendor of High Gygaxian speech. It is, hands down, the one thing I miss most about D&D. Reading Gygax at his florid best -- even when he's misusing words, which he sometimes did -- transports me in a way that no other gaming books ever have. Consider this classic description of the alignment restrictions on the assassin class:
'Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal).'
Perforce? Anthithesis of weal? Who writes like that anymore? In what game book can you find such prose nowadays?
Modern game books read like what they are: technical manuals. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I much prefer my roleplaying books to be quirky, idiosyncratic things that reveal the mind of their authors. I like to be reminded that there was an actual human being behind these volumes, whose word choices reflect his personality and preferences rather than the demands of mere utility.
High Gygaxian speech sounds to me like a local dialect of High Vancian. I once told Gary my opinion on this and he demurred. He didn't think his own peculiar voice was anywhere as erudite and witty as that of Jack Vance, saying that it was mostly the result of his having read a lot of rather "old fashioned" books when he was a kid, coupled with his lifelong love of dictionaries and thesauruses. Even so, there's something rapturous about the way Gary wrote and it's part of the lasting appeal 1e has for me. There are hints of it in OD&D, even in the three little brown books, but it's not until later that it reaches its fullest flower.
I know there are many for whom High Gygaxian is the thing they miss least about D&D. I can certainly understand not liking the particular way Gary wrote, as it's an acquired taste, but I have a hard time fathoming a preference for game books being treated primarily as instruction manuals rather than as occasions to inspire, exhort, and enchant one's imagination through words, like this bit from Vault of the Drow:
'The true splendor of the Vault can be appreciated only by those with infravision, or by use of the roseate lenses or a gem of seeing. The Vault is a strange anomaly, a hemispherical cyst in the crust of the earth, an incredibly huge domed fault over 6 miles long and nearly as broad. The dome overhead is a hundred feet high at the walls, arching to several thousand feet height in the center. When properly viewed, the radiation from certain unique minerals give the visual effect of a starry heaven, while near the zenith of this black stone bowl is a huge mass of tumkeoite -- which in its slow decay and transformation to lacofcite sheds a lurid gleam, a ghostly plum-colored light to human eyes, but with ultravision a wholly different sight.
The small "star" nodes glow in radiant hues of mauve, lake, violet, puce, lilac, and deep blue. The large "moon" of tumkeoite casts beams of shimmering amethyst which touch the crystalline formations with colors unknown to any other visual experience. The lichens seem to glow in rose madder and pale damson, the fungi growths in golden and red ochres, vermillions, russets, citron, and aquamarine shades. (Elsewhere the river and other water courses sheen a deep velvety purple with reflected highlights from the radiant gleams overhead vying with streaks and whorls of old silver where the liquid laps the stony banks or surges against the ebon piles of the jetties and bridge of the elfin city for the viewers' attention.) The rock walls of the Vault appear hazy and insubstantial in the wine-colored light, more like mist than solid walls. The place is indeed a dark fairyland.'
Again, I say, you'll find few passages in contemporary adventures that are as evocative.
Like Gary himself, I've demurred when someone called my style of writing "Gygaxian." I lack Gary's flair and too many years in academia have infected my writing with adverbitis. Yet, I can't deny that High Gygaxian was a major influence on me as a kid. I know that my vocabulary grew considerably as a result of reading my AD&D books. His writing was challenging and often difficult to decipher, but it also showed me the importance of finding one's own unique voice and using it to make connections to other people. Goodness knows Gary connected to me through his writings and, as I've been recently reminded, in this respect I certainly am following in his footsteps."
* * *
To relate this back to 4e - I have never seen such a sterile, utilitarian, and generally uninspired book with the name dungeons and dragons on it before. This, at first blush was, to me, one of the final nails in the 4dventure books' coffin, and unmistakably devoid of the feel I've come to appreciate and expect to inspire me.
I can accept that like James points out, many do not miss this quirky writing style. But all I can suggest, as a most humble plea to anyone young enough to have never leafed through his books, is to sit down with your favorite beverage one night, and have a go at it. Read his words in the gamebooks, to not only get back to source, but to enjoy and frolic in the twists of description that leave you imagining a fantasy realm wherin, mayhaps, people speak as such:)
This was going so well as a thread; now it's just devolved into name-calling. Shame.
Take heart, Fabes. I think it will take more than that little bump to derail this Gygaxian train.