In an attempt to paraphrase/summarize what Jeremy is saying.
The game system itself is irrespective of the style brought into it.
Someone can play any edition of any system, and as long as they run their game in the same style that they were presented during the days of yore, then they will be that style of game.
The rules do not determine how you run a game, they determine how that game is adjudicated. You can run it however you want, the rules are only there to assist you in determining success or failure of actions taken.
Whenever I see someone saying they can't do something unassociated with rules, because of a particular ruleset, it makes me think that they just haven't had it presented to them from a different POV.
EDIT:
Just as his words are relevant today to all game masters within earshot of my voice - - - you know that when the game begins, all the rules in the world aren't as important as the special craft of "DMing", and the execution of story as it unfolds at your hand. Good DMs know implicitly what Gary meant, and understand that its not an affront to Third Edition so much as a clarion bell rung to remind DMs that the true game lies underneath and above the ruleset.
Pax said it right here, through another's quote,"when the game begins, all the rules in the world aren't as important as the special craft of "DMing""
Which is why I balk when any one person says that any one system cannot support the feel of the game. It is not the game, that sets the tone... it is the players.
In an attempt to paraphrase/summarize what Jeremy is saying.
The game system itself is irrespective of the style brought into it.
Someone can play any edition of any system, and as long as they run their game in the same style that they were presented during the days of yore, then they will be that style of game.
The rules do not determine how you run a game, they determine how that game is adjudicated. You can run it however you want, the rules are only there to assist you in determining success or failure of actions taken.
Whenever I see someone saying they can't do something unassociated with rules, because of a particular ruleset, it makes me think that they just haven't had it presented to them from a different POV.
You might want to let some of those anti-WotC/anti-4e folks in on that. They haven't quite caught it yet.
It's kinda hard to trace a line ...Not true.
Its easy to trace a line... just consider this quote from a famous D&D/Pathfinder RPG player:Originally Posted by Clark Peterson
"That's right.I am swearing off 4E. You heard it first here.
I'm about to start up a new RPG campaign and you want to know what I am playing? What Clark Peterson the President of Necromancer Games is playing? PATHFINDER.
Why? Because Pathfinder is D&D--its the D&D that I love.
Now don't get me wrong. There are lots of things I like about 4E. But when push comes to shove and I have to choose a rules system to use for my home game its Pathfinder. 4E may work for you, I am not criticizing. But for me, its Pathfinder.
And I am going to run the Legacy of Fire Adventure Path (updated to Pathfinder) from Paizo and with a first adventure by my pal Erik Mona.
Clark"
**** If Necromancer Games isn't testimonial enough, just speak with the boys at Troll Lord games. They'll tell you about bus rides past the old TSR building, and gaming on Gary's front porch - and while the core siege engine mechanic of Castles & Crusades was a preference due to its kinship to first edition D&D, they'll all attest that Monte's game was also carried the legacy of D&D. The fundamental difference between the directions of C&C and D&D in the 2000s was either the progress toward complexity and options (a sign of the times, and this was Monte's D&D), versus a retrograde to the Prime Attribute system and simplicity of making your character in 15 minutes and starting to play (and this was Chenault's D&D).
In context, and context is king, Gary's rebuttle to the progressvie D&D of the 2000s was still true today of most systems that carry a complex ratio of subsystems along with the core mechnic. Gary, the father of D&D, knew how to straddle the line between ambiguity (which caused tension at the game table) and the use of rules (that served to provide the illusion of a game). This type of game has evolved....
Preach on, brother! Pathfinder is "real" D&D!
Preach on, brother! Pathfinder is "real" D&D!
Say it to the mountain! It is more D&D than that stupid crap some Gygax guy and others come up with back in the 70's. Now that stuff was really not D&D.
Preach on, brother! Pathfinder is "real" D&D!Say it to the mountain! It is more D&D than that stupid crap some Gygax guy and others come up with back in the 70's. Now that stuff was really not D&D.
I know, right?
P.S. Aren't there bonus points for using an appeal to authority on the Internet?
4e also has a dedication to Gary Gygax, you know.
Literally all you're doing is saying "Look Pathfinder is Gary's RPG because these other guys like it."
Really? Because let's look at what Gary actually said.
"The new D&D [3rd edition] is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. "
The best thing about this quote is that it's almost word for word what people here have said about 4e.
Sorry champ - Gary hated 3e, and he would've disliked Pathfinder, too. I mean, he probably wouldn't have liked 4e either, in all fairness, but then, he was also strongly un-fond of 2e, too, so it's not like it's alone in this.
Incidentally....
But don't take Clarks word alone, nor mine, million play Pathfinder RPG and see it as the hier of Gygax, and rightfully the game is also literally dedicated to him.
Millions play 4e and see it as the heir of Gygax, and rightfully the game is also literally dedicated to him as well.
But here's the thing - It doesn't matter. It doesn't. Gygax isn't a saint. Nor did he want to be one. He didn't want his name invoked or quoted as if it were scripture. What Gygax really wanted above all else was for people to play the game they enjoy. Period. End stop. He didn't demand people play OD&D, he demanded they play. And when people came up to him with questions, first and foremost, his answer was "I'm not your DM, and I'm not in your game. They are who you ask first."
He knew he had his opinions, and strong ones, but he also knew that at the end of the day his opinions were just that - the opinions of one man.
You can do no greater disservice to him then to invoke his name as an appeal to authority. That you are also shoving words into a dead man's mouth is utterly atrocious. And that you are doing all of this for the simple desire to "prove" that "your game" is somehow objectively better then "other people's game" - to claim that others are having the wrong kind of fun, an idea he found abhorant - is morally bankrupt in it's entirety.
That you are doing all of this while championing an edition he in fact disliked only adds a layer of bleak comedy to the whole thing.
|
In an attempt to paraphrase/summarize what Jeremy is saying.
The game system itself is irrespective of the style brought into it.
Someone can play any edition of any system, and as long as they run their game in the same style that they were presented during the days of yore, then they will be that style of game.
The rules do not determine how you run a game, they determine how that game is adjudicated. You can run it however you want, the rules are only there to assist you in determining success or failure of actions taken.
Whenever I see someone saying they can't do something unassociated with rules, because of a particular ruleset, it makes me think that they just haven't had it presented to them from a different POV.
EDIT:
Just as his words are relevant today to all game masters within earshot of my voice - - - you know that when the game begins, all the rules in the world aren't as important as the special craft of "DMing", and the execution of story as it unfolds at your hand. Good DMs know implicitly what Gary meant, and understand that its not an affront to Third Edition so much as a clarion bell rung to remind DMs that the true game lies underneath and above the ruleset.
Pax said it right here, through another's quote,"when the game begins, all the rules in the world aren't as important as the special craft of "DMing""
Which is why I balk when any one person says that any one system cannot support the feel of the game. It is not the game, that sets the tone... it is the players.
All I think from the limited amount of this thread I have been reading is that some people feel that Certain games capture the feel of earlier editions of DND better the 4E. If they feel like this, well then that is their opinion and as such they are welcome too it.
Rule systems can be made to fit a particular style of DMing, however, some are easier to fit then others.
Having an ad nauseum debate about the fact that someone has a difference of opinion, which is what this thread, or should I say some posters, seem to be driving the thread along a course counter to a point of debate, by asserting someone could not or should not hold this opinion. To this I say relax, take a load off and sit down play one of hundreds of modules out there, in the play style of your choice, with the rules of your choice, then we can all have a laugh and a smile.
...relax, take a load off and sit down play one of hundreds of modules out there, in the play style of your choice, with the rules of your choice, then we can all have a laugh and a smile.
Nobody in this entire thread has quoted the spirit of Gygax more then this.
Incidentally....
But don't take Clarks word alone, nor mine, million play Pathfinder RPG and see it as the hier of Gygax, and rightfully the game is also literally dedicated to him.Millions play 4e and see it as the heir of Gygax, and rightfully the game is also literally dedicated to him as well.
But here's the thing - It doesn't matter. It doesn't. Gygax isn't a saint. Nor did he want to be one. He didn't want his name invoked or quoted as if it were scripture. What Gygax really wanted above all else was for people to play the game they enjoy. Period. End stop. He didn't demand people play OD&D, he demanded they play. And when people came up to him with questions, first and foremost, his answer was "I'm not your DM, and I'm not in your game. They are who you ask first."
He knew he had his opinions, and strong ones, but he also knew that at the end of the day his opinions were just that - the opinions of one man.
You can do no greater disservice to him then to invoke his name as an appeal to authority. That you are also shoving words into a dead man's mouth is utterly atrocious. And that you are doing all of this for the simple desire to "prove" that "your game" is somehow objectively better then "other people's game" - to claim that others are having the wrong kind of fun, an idea he found abhorant - is morally bankrupt in it's entirety.
That you are doing all of this while championing an edition he in fact disliked only adds a layer of bleak comedy to the whole thing.
I agree with you...except Gygax did have some rather strong opinion on how the game should be played...and did say people were playing it 'wrong.' Though he mellowed out as he got older.
Though it always seemed to me his dislike for any edition was more due to him not being involved than any other reason. In other words he is hardly impartial. There was a very nasty law suit between Gygax and TSR at the time of 2nd ed....and 3rd ed decsion to go back to D&D was a slap against Gygax who only went w/ AD&D to screw over Arenson.
But also a factor was Gygax could not accept change. He created something he that was great(though with help from Arenson...who he lated stabbed in the back...) and did not like people taking it evoling it in ways he did not like. It is like with any writter once you release a work to the public....people will interpert it anyway they want....even if they have no bearing on your intent. A good author nows when to let go...Gygax I think did not know when to do this.
But as far as Pathfinder and 4th ed D&D being 'The Inheritors of D&D'...that is nonsense. Both choosed to evole and focus on different aspects of D&D...though I think with 4th ed gleefuly slaughtering of sacred cows it is futher away from D&D than say Pathfinder...both have a line to Gygax and orginal D&D. As to most RPGs out there now....no matter how much they try to say their anti-D&D.
though I think with 4th ed gleefuly slaughtering of sacred cows it is futher away from D&D than say Pathfinder
See, I don't hold cows as sacred. What is a sacred cow to some, is just a hamburger and a baseball mitt to others. The claim that they removed something that you liked, but I didn't, doesn't make it any more or less the same game.
When 3rd ed came out, some people may have rallied against the loss of the sacred cow of level caps. Or from 1st to 2nd the sacred cow of females having lower scores than males, and rolling 3d6 in order, take them as they land.
Changes get made, some people agree with them some people don't. The game is still the game, you still play it how you play it, we all just choose the ruleset we agree with the most. No one's D&D is less D&D than any others, they are just not your preference.
Incidentaly incidentally,
When wotc ostensibly burned our .pdfs of the legacy games, they stold the very history of gamers. For those who do not recall the sudden midnight announcement that was sent to third party publishers to remove all legacy .pdfs from sale - then they vanished from the face of the earth, and a witch hunt was conducted to erradicate them from all 4shared type Web sites.
Really?
We're getting mad at WotC for going after piracy sites?
That's where the line is being drawn? For going after piracy?
though I think with 4th ed gleefuly slaughtering of sacred cows it is futher away from D&D than say PathfinderSee, I don't hold cows as sacred. What is a sacred cow to some, is just a hamburger and a baseball mitt to others. The claim that they removed something that you liked, but I didn't, doesn't make it any more or less the same game.
When 3rd ed came out, some people may have rallied against the loss of the sacred cow of level caps. Or from 1st to 2nd the sacred cow of females having lower scores than males, and rolling 3d6 in order, take them as they land.
Changes get made, some people agree with them some people don't. The game is still the game, you still play it how you play it, we all just choose the ruleset we agree with the most. No one's D&D is less D&D than any others, they are just not your preference.
Don't really disagree. Funny how you had to focus on a little comment I made.
I might be my opinion but yes I do feel Pathfinder is more 'D&D' than 4th ed...because of the slaughtering of Too many sacred cows...I mean 4th ed took away dwarve's darkvision and had them move above ground....also former slave race to giants...wtf? Those are the changes I am talking about that makes it less D&D than say 3.5. I won't even go into all the changes they made, but to say the sacred cows don't matter....well it is short sighted of you.
Actualy you know I have never met anyone on messages board or in RL that ever complained about the lost of level caps, females having lowered scores than males, or 3d6 in order and keep where they land(the last one is still a option...). Ok I might have heard one person complain about it...but compared to the thousands of people I hear about complaining about 4th ed...I think it seems to me to indicate 4th ed made steps away from what alot of people consider D&D...more so than anyother edition change. Not that it is wrong for people to enjoy...but for a lot of people....it is just not D&D.
though I think with 4th ed gleefuly slaughtering of sacred cows it is futher away from D&D than say PathfinderSee, I don't hold cows as sacred. What is a sacred cow to some, is just a hamburger and a baseball mitt to others. The claim that they removed something that you liked, but I didn't, doesn't make it any more or less the same game.
When 3rd ed came out, some people may have rallied against the loss of the sacred cow of level caps. Or from 1st to 2nd the sacred cow of females having lower scores than males, and rolling 3d6 in order, take them as they land.
Changes get made, some people agree with them some people don't. The game is still the game, you still play it how you play it, we all just choose the ruleset we agree with the most. No one's D&D is less D&D than any others, they are just not your preference.
Don't really disagree. Funny how you had to focus on a little comment I made.
I might be my opinion but yes I do feel Pathfinder is more 'D&D' than 4th ed...because of the slaughtering of Too many sacred cows...I mean 4th ed took away dwarve's darkvision and had them move above ground....also former slave race to giants...wtf? Those are the changes I am talking about that makes it less D&D than say 3.5. I won't even go into all the changes they made, but to say the sacred cows don't matter....well it is short sighted of you.
Actualy you know I have never met anyone on messages board or in RL that ever complained about the lost of level caps, females having lowered scores than males, or 3d6 in order and keep where they land(the last one is still a option...). Ok I might have heard one person complain about it...but compared to the thousands of people I hear about complaining about 4th ed...I think it seems to me to indicate 4th ed made steps away from what alot of people consider D&D...more so than anyother edition change. Not that it is wrong for people to enjoy...but for a lot of people....it is just not...
You've never been to Dragonsfoot ;p. 3e there is "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named."
Honestly, every edition change has had it's shake-ups - 2e included. The biggest difference is that the proliferation of the internet allows for more of those problems to be broadcast out to the public rather then being left to Dragon! letters.
You've never been to Dragonsfoot ;p. 3e there is "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named."
Um...no never been there.
Honestly, every edition change has had it's shake-ups - 2e included. The biggest difference is that the proliferation of the internet allows for more of those problems to be broadcast out to the public rather then being left to Dragon! letters.
You are right...but most of the time people have moved on at this point.
I think we can look at WotC for the reason. But I know you think they can do wrong.
You've never been to Dragonsfoot ;p. 3e there is "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named."Um...no never been there.
Dragonsfoot is a huge OD&D - 2e fansite. It's where Gygax actually used to post the most regularly. They're adamantly against 3e and 4e there.
Honestly, every edition change has had it's shake-ups - 2e included. The biggest difference is that the proliferation of the internet allows for more of those problems to be broadcast out to the public rather then being left to Dragon! letters.
You are right...but most of the time people have moved on at this point.
I think we can look at WotC for the reason. But I know you think they can do wrong.
I think WotC can and has done plenty wrong. Don't confuse the hero worship for Paizo that others portray here as a mandatory part of the hobby.
I think WotC has made a few boneheaded decisions, yes. But I feel that, by and large, the larger portion of 4e angst - not simply "I prefer 3e," but the actual angst over 4e - is caused by the same nerd rage that lead people to declare that 3e was just Diablo on a table, or that AD&D was a roguelike.
In an attempt to paraphrase/summarize what Jeremy is saying.
The game system itself is irrespective of the style brought into it.
Yes.
My post had a bit of trouble with making the thread of its own argument succinct. In essence after reading Mr. Maliszewski's blog post I got to thinking that in reality the structure of the campaigns (and the worlds they are based in) that most of us play in around here really are the spiritual descendants of Hickman's innovations (with other influences like Sagan as well of course).
The point of introducing the Story Before, Story Now and Story After terminology was simply to use it to compare and contrast how such campaigns are set up and show how current style ones like an AP differ from the old style norms.
Your right that it is possible to take a rule set and simply run it under old style norms and depending on ones DM one might still see some of those old style norms even in a modern AP style campaign.
though I think with 4th ed gleefuly slaughtering of sacred cows it is futher away from D&D than say PathfinderSee, I don't hold cows as sacred. What is a sacred cow to some, is just a hamburger and a baseball mitt to others. The claim that they removed something that you liked, but I didn't, doesn't make it any more or less the same game.
When 3rd ed came out, some people may have rallied against the loss of the sacred cow of level caps. Or from 1st to 2nd the sacred cow of females having lower scores than males, and rolling 3d6 in order, take them as they land.
Changes get made, some people agree with them some people don't. The game is still the game, you still play it how you play it, we all just choose the ruleset we agree with the most. No one's D&D is less D&D than any others, they are just not your preference.
Don't really disagree. Funny how you had to focus on a little comment I made.
I might be my opinion but yes I do feel Pathfinder is more 'D&D' than 4th ed...because of the slaughtering of Too many sacred cows...I mean 4th ed took away dwarve's darkvision and had them move above ground....also former slave race to giants...wtf? Those are the changes I am talking about that makes it less D&D than say 3.5. I won't even go into all the changes they made, but to say the sacred cows don't matter....well it is short sighted of you.
Actualy you know I have never met anyone on messages board or in RL that ever complained about the lost of level caps, females having lowered scores than males, or 3d6 in order and keep where they land(the last one is still a option...). Ok I might have heard one person complain about it...but compared to the thousands of people I hear about complaining about 4th ed...I think it seems to me to indicate 4th ed made steps away from what alot of people consider D&D...more so than anyother edition change. Not that it is wrong for people to enjoy...but for a lot of people....it is just not...
Anybody remember the scene in The Hobbit where Biblo and the dwarves were sneaking down to Smaug's treasure room (Smaug had been killed by this point but the party did not yet know it). And how the dwarves couldn't see any better in the dark than poor Bilbo? So I guess 4e is going back to some of the original source material? Is that really a sacred cow or did Gygax murder the first sacred cow and 4e is just resurrecting it?
EDIT: Also, didn't dwarves in older editions have infravision and not darkvision. Sure you can argue the change was an elegant solution, like Sean Reynolds. But the fact that he felt the argument had to be made indicates that some were, at least initially, dissatisfied with the change. So how sacred is the darkvision cow anyway?
Anybody remember the scene in The Hobbit where Biblo and the dwarves were sneaking down to Smaug's treasure room (Smaug had been killed by this point but the party did not yet know it). And how the dwarves couldn't see any better in the dark than poor Bilbo? So I guess 4e is going back to some of the original source material? Is that really a sacred cow or did Gygax murder the first sacred cow and 4e is just resurrecting it?
Ah but who said Tolkien was the main inspiration for everything D&D? Gygax often said D&D had nothing to do with Tolkien. The concept of dwarves existed before Tokien you know...so said Tolkien did not murder any sacred cows?
EDIT: Also, didn't dwarves in older editions have infravision and not darkvision. Sure you can argue the change was an elegant solution, like Sean Reynolds. But the fact that he felt the argument had to be made indicates that some were, at least initially, dissatisfied with the change. So how sacred is the darkvision cow anyway?
There is a rather large difference between changing something that makes more sense and is more accurate...than saying 'We can't write good desciptions using darkvision...so we are going to fundementaly change a race to live above ground and get rid of it.'
Which was the reasoning behind alot of changes 4th ed did according to them. Which to me works great for a line of novels set in a shared world...but fails pretty badly in a RPG.
Anybody remember the scene in The Hobbit where Biblo and the dwarves were sneaking down to Smaug's treasure room (Smaug had been killed by this point but the party did not yet know it). And how the dwarves couldn't see any better in the dark than poor Bilbo? So I guess 4e is going back to some of the original source material? Is that really a sacred cow or did Gygax murder the first sacred cow and 4e is just resurrecting it?Ah but who said Tolkien was the main inspiration for everything D&D? Gygax often said D&D had nothing to do with Tolkien. The concept of dwarves existed before Tokien you know...so said Tolkien did not murder any sacred cows?
EDIT: Also, didn't dwarves in older editions have infravision and not darkvision. Sure you can argue the change was an elegant solution, like Sean Reynolds. But the fact that he felt the argument had to be made indicates that some were, at least initially, dissatisfied with the change. So how sacred is the darkvision cow anyway?There is a rather large difference between changing something that makes more sense and is more accurate...than saying 'We can't write good desciptions using darkvision...so we are going to fundementaly change a race to live above ground and get rid of it.'
Which was the reasoning behind alot of changes 4th ed did according to them. Which to me works great for a line of novels set in a shared world...but fails pretty badly in a RPG.
What I am seeing from your comments is:
"I like changes X, so it is/was reasonable to make them. I don't like changes Y, so it is isn't/wasn't reasonable to make them. My view is the only arbiter as to what is legitimate and what is not."
There is a rather large difference between changing something that makes more sense and is more accurate...than saying 'We can't write good desciptions using darkvision...so we are going to fundementaly change a race to live above ground and get rid of it.'
Which was the reasoning behind alot of changes 4th ed did according to them. Which to me works great for a line of novels set in a shared world...but fails pretty badly in a RPG.
This is objectively wrong.
Dwarves don't have darkvision because no races have darkvision, not because "hurrr it's hard to write" but because non-magical darkness is freaking meaningless in 3e because everyone and their dog has a means of bypassing it.
Now with nobody having darkvision, horrible dark caverns with no light is now meaningful because you need to find a means of lighting it.
I'd love to see your link or proof of your claim that alot of 4e changes came from that.
Ah but who said Tolkien was the main inspiration for everything D&D? Gygax often said D&D had nothing to do with Tolkien. The concept of dwarves existed before Tokien you know...so said Tolkien did not murder any sacred cows?
I had to just come back to this. I guess I see your point, it is not like the game ever ran afoul of the Tolkien's estate for trying to use some of their intellectual property like the terms: hobbit and ent.
EDIT: Though I do find the claim that D&D isn't related to Tolkien a bit strange. Consider, 3.x (and 4e I think) have moved even farther from the halfling = hobbit, with depictions of halflings not going shoeless. And yet, PF, what some here claim as the heir to D&D, does have their halflings moving back towards the furry footed fellows. Wouldn't that indicated that PF is moving more towards the true roots of D&D and Tolkien is part of those roots?
I had to just come back to this. I guess I see your point, it is not like the game ever ran afoul of the Tolkien's estate for trying to use some of their intellectual property like the terms: hobbit and ent.
You do realize there was fantasy before Tolien right? Alot of the inspiration Gygax got for D&D came from alot of the pulp fantasies from the 30's, 40's etc. You names like Howard...Leiber...etc
Sure he included some Tolkienesque things like the hobbits( eh I mean Halflings) but to say that was his only souce...or even his main souce of inspiration is just wrong.
Heck I would wager Halflings were a tack on because Tolkien's works were so popular at the time
EDIT: Though I do find the claim that D&D isn't related to Tolkien a bit strange. Consider, 3.x (and 4e I think) have moved even farther from the halfling = hobbit, with depictions of halflings not going shoeless. And yet, PF, what some here claim as the heir to D&D, does have their halflings moving back towards the furry footed fellows. Wouldn't that indicated that PF is moving more towards the true roots of D&D and Tolkien is part of those roots?
Never said it was not related. It was inspired by many things(Tolkien was just a part...and one I think is rather small)...but in the end it became it's own world.
You do realize there was fantasy before Tolien right? Alot of the inspiration Gygax got for D&D came from alot of the pulp fantasies from the 30's, 40's etc. You names like Howard...Leiber...etcSure he included some Tolkienesque things like the hobbits( eh I mean Halflings) but to say that was his only souce...or even his main souce of inspiration is just wrong.
Heck I would wager Halflings were a tack on because Tolkien's works were so popular at the time
I agree that there are substantial other influences, none of which can really claim primacy. But I don't believe anything from Tolkien was a tack-on. Gygax tried to claim that himself and it never rang true. Here's one Tolkien scholar's (and long time gamer's) take on it: A Brief History of Tolkien RPGs
I had to just come back to this. I guess I see your point, it is not like the game ever ran afoul of the Tolkien's estate for trying to use some of their intellectual property like the terms: hobbit and ent.You do realize there was fantasy before Tolien right? Alot of the inspiration Gygax got for D&D came from alot of the pulp fantasies from the 30's, 40's etc. You names like Howard...Leiber...etc
Sure he included some Tolkienesque things like the hobbits( eh I mean Halflings) but to say that was his only souce...or even his main souce of inspiration is just wrong.
Heck I would wager Halflings were a tack on because Tolkien's works were so popular at the time
EDIT: Though I do find the claim that D&D isn't related to Tolkien a bit strange. Consider, 3.x (and 4e I think) have moved even farther from the halfling = hobbit, with depictions of halflings not going shoeless. And yet, PF, what some here claim as the heir to D&D, does have their halflings moving back towards the furry footed fellows. Wouldn't that indicated that PF is moving more towards the true roots of D&D and Tolkien is part of those roots?Never said it was not related. It was inspired by many things(Tolkien was just a part...and one I think is rather small)...but in the end it became it's own world.
And I never said it was only influenced by Tolkien. I said returning to "some" of the original source material.
You, on the other hand stated that Gygax claimed that D&D had NOTHING to do with Tolkien. I think it is pretty clear that is b.s. Since you mentioned it and didn't put in the context that Gygax wasn't being truthful, I can only assume that you agreed with his comment.
I'm going to say that Gygax does have a spot on criticism in his first line. I took a ten year break from D+D and so pretty much skipped 2nd edition. But players seem to have a much more of a "I'm going to dictate this to the DM stance" than what I remember from my AD+D days. And I think alot of it has to do with the fact that there are far far more rulebooks that are targeted for players than gamemasters. In the old days, the GM had 3 books and the players had one. And most of TSR's output was modules and maybe some settings materials The heydey of 3.x had a new rulebook for players practically every month.4e also has a dedication to Gary Gygax, you know.
Literally all you're doing is saying "Look Pathfinder is Gary's RPG because these other guys like it."
Really? Because let's look at what Gary actually said.
"The new D&D [3rd edition] is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good. "
The best thing about this quote is that it's almost word for word what people here have said about 4e.
Sorry champ - Gary hated 3e, and he would've disliked Pathfinder, too. I mean, he probably wouldn't have liked 4e either, in all fairness, but then, he was also strongly un-fond of 2e, too, so it's not like it's alone in this.
Let me give you an alternative prospective.
One of the greatest weaknesses of earlier editions, IMO, was the need to be so dependent on the abilities of the DM. Yes, still good DMs are important, but in earlier editions it was crucial. So many of the situations were not covered by the game rules, that the DM had a huge control on the game. This meant that a bad DM could ruin the game experience for the players. And I have seen people that have been turned off of gaming permanently by a horrible DM.In the 3rd edition, this changed. The rules tried to cover more things, thus removing those areas from DM whim and possible abuse. Of course DMs still will houserule or ignore them but it lowered the number of things a bad DM could easily damage. Result was that players were on a much more even footing with regards to the rules than they had been in previous editions. You started getting more players "correcting" DMs when they were using a rule incorrectly. It is this that some see as the player empowerment of 3.x. So DMs saw this as an attack on their control of the game, "Players are dictating to me how the game should be run." And no doubt that did happen, but for the most part it was players wanting fair and impartial approach to the game rules.
So yes in 3.x, a lot of power was transfered from the DM whim to the rules themselves (which added to the complexity of the game). Was this a bad thing? Depends on the person point of view.
Personally, as a DM, I prefer to have rules set in stone, that way if something doesn't work out for the players there is no confusion as to was it me being a jerk or their bad luck.
As for splatbooks in 3.x, well remember that foes in these versions are built in very similar fashions as PCs. So any option for PCs is an option for DMs as well. DMs tend to buy most of the books and DMs tend to get more opportunities to play a variety of characters (unless you are playing a really lethal game and players go through 3-4 characters a session). So while the choices may have been focused mostly on player choices, they also functioned as DM choices as well.
And I never said it was only influenced by Tolkien. I said returning to "some" of the original source material.
You, on the other hand stated that Gygax claimed that D&D had NOTHING to do with Tolkien. I think it is pretty clear that is b.s. Since you mentioned it and didn't put in the context that Gygax wasn't being truthful, I can only assume that you agreed with his comment.
Actualy I believed Gygax was according to him being truthful. And I think in response to people saying D&D was Tolkien fantasy...which it was not. But yes I'll admitt I misspoke...I should have clarfied it. But your statement that Tolkien's dwarves did not have darkvision(or the equilvant) means nothing in regards to D&D dwarves.
Like everything D&D is inspired by lots of things....but being inspired does not mean you have to follow lockstep with the souce of inspiration. It became it's own thing.
I agree that there are substantial other influences, none of which can really claim primacy. But I don't believe anything from Tolkien was a tack-on. Gygax tried to claim that himself and it never rang true. Here's one Tolkien scholar's (and long time gamer's) take on it: A Brief History of Tolkien RPGs
Good stuff.
This thread has been running for more than two years. I doubt anyone jumping in is going to have read the whole thing, and it's been in and out of edition warring for quite some time.
I'm going to go ahead and lock it. If the topic still requires discussion, please make a new thread.