Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #15 on Nov 7, 2011, 7:38am »
aldarron and kris,
I guess for me the thing I took away from the attitude Gary had about the rules so early on was that there have always been those who favor rules and those who favor freedom of imagination. It's a tension that's been present since the beginning of the hobby. It may even represent the tension between Gary and Dave. One of the things that I've found so empowering about the original rules is that they call for the Dungeon Master to do what works best for their game. If you want rules and rulings make then build your game of complexity. If you like flexibility and imagination leave things open. It's not something that I personally have picked up from later editions of the game but it's an attitude that I've picked up from some players.
from four to fifty players … ratio should be about 1:20
Sorry, I cannot even fathom 50 players at a time. Or even the suggested ratio of 1:20. Seems like a WAG to me. No clue what the audience might be but hey, if you have 50 friends, you might need to recruit another buddy to help referee.
Sigh.
Once again, it wasn't 50 people AT ONE TIME.
Gary had a pool of approximately 15 to 20 players. Typically, 3 to 4 of us played at a time. And no, the composition was NOT constant. That was part of the fun.
That is also why Gary was so insistent about keeping track of time; if one group finds a treasure, it's not there later for OTHER groups.
You might be exasperated repeating yourself but its a study. They were my thoughts. For the thousands of people who read them without the benefit of knowing the actual interpretation via interaction of the author, that number is overly large. I appreciate the information on how it was actually by Gary but it doesn't change my initial response.
Joined: Oct 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 50 Location: Stouffville, Ontario, Canada Karma: 6
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #19 on Jan 12, 2012, 11:21am »
Regarding the tension between the use of miniatures or none, I am curious how often miniatures were used and in what specific circumstances. D&D's roots in Chainmail and wargames generally (OD&D really is a wargame, as Aldarron reminds us; the role-playing game category does not yet exist in 1974), would seem to point towards miniatures use as not uncommon by existing wargamers who are playing early D&D. Nevertheless, the case is made from 1974 on that "imaginative" play (i.e., without miniatures) is the normal mode of play too (see under "Scope," M&T, p. 4, specifically). How did this tension between play styles play out during OD&D's heyday?
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #20 on Feb 4, 2012, 5:25pm »
I can't speak to the world at large, but my longest-running players also did miniatures. Despite that, we basically only used miniatures as markers to indicate the marching order...
Joined: Mar 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 393 Location: Los Angeles, CA Karma: 10
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #21 on Feb 5, 2012, 2:35am »
We never really did miniatures. Mostly it was a cost issue.
And really, precision in movement felt very much like precision in encumbrance; not worth the effort. So the point of miniatures was mostly moot. Certainly we busted out dice or other markers on occasion to define more complex situations. But it felt pretty obvious from very early on that it wasn't really a wargame at all. I'm not saying it couldn't be played like that if you wanted to, but it really felt besides the point. It was imagination become real, it was adventure and glory, straight from your mind. Wargaming it just got in the way, slowed it down, muffled the noise. And going the other way, we still continued to do lots of wargaming because D&D didn't scratch that itch.
Maybe in Lake Geneva or St Paul it was about the sandbox and precision of movement, but in Southern California it really never was.
But it felt pretty obvious from very early on that it wasn't really a wargame at all. I'm not saying it couldn't be played like that if you wanted to, but it really felt besides the point. It was imagination become real, it was adventure and glory, straight from your mind. Wargaming it just got in the way, slowed it down, muffled the noise.
Certainly using miniatures to represent the party's marching order seems a common enough play experience. Your description (quoted above) is, I think, quite evocative of the tension I was talking about. Use of miniatures can change the locus of play from the game in the mind's eye to the game on the table top, which can be a less immersive experience. That OD&D was a "wargame" (that's what the packaging said, at least), I suspect, was an attitude sloughed off quite soon after the game's release in a great many cases.
Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 477 Karma: 37
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #23 on Feb 5, 2012, 12:28pm »
Go read the original "Gods Demigods and Heroes". Tim Kask in the introduction states that Odin Allfather with "only" 300 HP made the idea of a 33rd level fighter absurd.
However, most players treated GDGH as another monster manual; "if you stat it, they will kill it."
This marks the point at which Gary lost control of what D&D had become. He played in a lot of different games; the one thing he hated was a game that was too easy.
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Go read the original "Gods Demigods and Heroes". Tim Kask in the introduction states that Odin Allfather with "only" 300 HP made the idea of a 33rd level fighter absurd.
However, most players treated GDGH as another monster manual; "if you stat it, they will kill it."
This marks the point at which Gary lost control of what D&D had become. He played in a lot of different games; the one thing he hated was a game that was too easy.
Sorry, Michael, I don't follow. I understand the sentiment, but what is this post in response to?
Go read the original "Gods Demigods and Heroes". Tim Kask in the introduction states that Odin Allfather with "only" 300 HP made the idea of a 33rd level fighter absurd.
However, most players treated GDGH as another monster manual; "if you stat it, they will kill it."
This marks the point at which Gary lost control of what D&D had become. He played in a lot of different games; the one thing he hated was a game that was too easy.
Sorry, Michael, I don't follow. I understand the sentiment, but what is this post in response to?
Oopsie. Forgot to quote.
"In the waning years of the 1970s, I suspect that Gygax was increasingly unhappy with the idea that D&D was a framework to be used by others to build the games/campaigns individual referees wanted to play. D&D's early emphasis on imagination and creativity, as applied to the rules of the game (not just in playing the game as characters), had led to a number of imitators, unsanctioned add-ons, an explosion of role-playing games in general. In addition, as tournament play became increasingly popular, there seemed to be little common, regularised play between referees. Already by the summer of 1977, you can find Gygax commenting about how he had been unsatisfied with the original set as published and that a revision was in progress.(1) What the specific cause of this dissatisfaction was is not made explicit at that time (In the same article, Gygax simply mentions that the game was "not ready"). However, by the summer of 1979, Gygax has formed a clear opinion that the D&D game is not sufficiently regularised and that, therefore, there is a decided lack of uniformity in play to the detriment of the game and correct play. This attitude seemed to carry the day for some time thereafter."
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
I guess for me the thing I took away from the attitude Gary had about the rules so early on was that there have always been those who favor rules and those who favor freedom of imagination. It's a tension that's been present since the beginning of the hobby. It may even represent the tension between Gary and Dave.
If you read CHAINMAIL, DGUTS, and TRACTICS, you'll discover that Gary was big on "only enough rules to get the job done."
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
Go read the original "Gods Demigods and Heroes". Tim Kask in the introduction states that Odin Allfather with "only" 300 HP made the idea of a 33rd level fighter absurd.
However, most players treated GDGH as another monster manual; "if you stat it, they will kill it."
This marks the point at which Gary lost control of what D&D had become. He played in a lot of different games; the one thing he hated was a game that was too easy.
The relevant section from the Foreword to Supplement IV reads:
This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the “Monty Hall” DM’s. Perhaps now some of the ‘giveaway’ campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th-level Lord seriously?
So, from this I infer that a growing concern regarding D&D that many referees were becoming too permissive regarding the game’s rewards (“giveaways”: gold/XP/magical items) for Gary’s tastes. Supplement IV, therefore, was and attempt to limit the enabling of munchkinism by DMs by demonstrating to them a proper measure between PCs and NPCs of deific stature within the D&D game’s intended/implied campaign scale. This attempt was unsuccessful, as you point out -- statted gods only became fuel for the fire -- and so Gary felt the need for more a more codified rules set in order to better structure play expectations and outcomes. Thus, the end of the original game line, and the introduction of AD&D are, in part, a response to these?
« Last Edit: Feb 6, 2012, 11:06am by Kris Kobold »
Joined: Jul 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 477 Karma: 37
Re: 2/16/2010 Study: Men & Magic Vol 1 - Scope « Reply #29 on Feb 6, 2012, 9:15pm »
I'm not sure how much it was a response to that, how much a desire to make D&D "his," and how much a desire to have a uniform rules set for convention games with multiple referees (which were howlingly popular).
Michael Mornard -------------------------- Played in the original Blackmoor, Greyhawk, and EPT Campaigns "Gronan of Simmerya" aka "Old Geezer" aka "LORD Grumpy"
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c100/Mortania/Carrington.jpg "[avatar]")