|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 13, 2015 12:04:02 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong: I definitely see the value of the 1974 D&D rulebooks being reformatted in the same format as B/X. I see the value of AD&D. I see the value of the retro-clones. Etc.
That said, there is also value in the chaotic, disorganized, stream-of-consciousness style of the 1974 rulebooks and the supplements thereof. I know that I get a unique frisson when using the old rulebooks, and I don't think it's merely nostalgia.
(As a parallel instance, consider the difference between the rigidly alphabetized and organized AD&D Monster Manual and Players Handbook on the one hand, and the gloriously unorganized AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide on the other. Which of these books is often cited as the greatest D&D book of all time? The DMG.)
Perhaps I like the disorganized, contradictory, lightly-sketched rulebooks best because they seem to hint at fantastic worlds, while the more structured books seem to define and delimit them.
Perhaps I like the 1974-6 rulebooks because their chaos does not lend themselves to rules-lawyering.
Perhaps I like the old rulebooks because their contradictions shock me into realizing that there is NO OFFICIAL RULE here. I have to choose which rule to use, or somehow blend two conflicting rules, or even perhaps ignore them both and give my own ruling.
Perhaps I like the indefiniteness even of things that one would think would have a simple, straightforward answer: "How many monsters are in the 1974 rules?" I don't know, and nobody else does, either. Do dragon turtles count? Gelatinous cubes? Androids? Tharks? Sith? Hobbits? Everyone will have his own answers.
Perhaps I like how optional things are. It is gloriously easy to cherry-pick and choose from Supplement I: GREYHAWK. ("Let's see, I'll include these spells, those magic items, and exceptional strength.") If all of GREYHAWK was seamlessly integrated into the 1974 rules, then many more people would have the expectation that "you have to have all this stuff".
Perhaps I like the amateurish art, not much better than your average D&D player could doodle during a slow game session in which the party can't seem to start the adventure or even so much as get out of town.
Perhaps it's all these things, and perhaps more. There is a craziness there, a freedom and a primordial chaos that I don't feel in any of the later editions of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Feb 13, 2015 12:44:55 GMT -6
But they're just rule books, not the game itself. The rule books don't play the game. You can be as crazy, free, and chaotic as you like with any version of the rules; nothing that's written limits you. The 1974 rules simply embody that principle more in their style.
And since you've surely internalized all the rules and don't actually need to read them to play the game, I'd say what you're feeling really is nostalgia.
The value of, say, the 1981 rules is that they made the game easy for beginners to understand. It has nothing to do with how creative you are when you play it.
I find most of the retro-clones amusing, because they always include a "what is role-playing?" section, as if 99% of their readers weren't crusty, middle-aged gamers. (The other 1% are the kids of the crusty, middle-aged gamers to whom they've given a copy.)
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 13, 2015 12:57:47 GMT -6
I'd say what you're feeling really is nostalgia. I should note that I do not get the same feeling from the old AD&D hardbacks, and I owned them before I owned the OD&D rulebooks and supplements. If it were only nostalgia, shouldn't these feelings be for AD&D rather than for OD&D?  (For that matter, I get the that same OD&D feeling with 2008's Random Esoteric Creature Generator and Eldritch Weirdness. Those two have "melted into" and become indispensable parts of OD&D for me. Certainly these 7-year-old products can't be engendering nostalgia!) |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Feb 13, 2015 21:53:25 GMT -6
I find most of the retro-clones amusing, because they always include a "what is role-playing?" section, as if 99% of their readers weren't crusty, middle-aged gamers. It's not a proper retroclone without that kind of introduction. Or without a ™ behind the name.  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Feb 14, 2015 0:17:00 GMT -6
I find most of the retro-clones amusing, because they always include a "what is role-playing?" section, as if 99% of their readers weren't crusty, middle-aged gamers. It's not a proper retroclone without that kind of introduction. Or without a ™ behind the name. Is that true? Crap. I don't have anything about what role playing is in my game. There's three short sentences about how to play, so maybe that counts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 1:58:56 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong: I definitely see the value of the 1974 D&D rulebooks being reformatted in the same format as B/X. I see the value of AD&D. I see the value of the retro-clones. Etc. That said, there is also value in the chaotic, disorganized, stream-of-consciousness style of the 1974 rulebooks and the supplements thereof. I know that I get a unique frisson when using the old rulebooks, and I don't think it's merely nostalgia. Snip Perhaps it's all these things, and perhaps more. There is a craziness there, a freedom and a primordial chaos that I don't feel in any of the later editions of the game.This+, I think you nailed it. No, it is not nostalgia, you have the right of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 2:10:26 GMT -6
It's not a proper retroclone without that kind of introduction. Or without a ™ behind the name. Is that true? Crap. I don't have anything about what role playing is in my game. There's three short sentences about how to play, so maybe that counts. I seem to have missed your game. What is it? Links please and I will add it to my thread here Ye Olde School List of Retro Games & Clones, Retro Clones, and What Have You. I try to maintain the most complete list anywhere and I duplicate that list on my blog and on my new forum. Anyone knowing of a game that I have missed (including non-english) please post to the thread and I will update it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Feb 14, 2015 3:33:52 GMT -6
You must pop into Dragonsfoot more often, Perilous Dreamer! Scott's "Treasure Hunters" is shaping up to be a very nice little game indeed, and you can watch the process unfolding here and here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 10:27:00 GMT -6
You must pop into Dragonsfoot more often, Perilous Dreamer! Scott's "Treasure Hunters" is shaping up to be a very nice little game indeed, and you can watch the process unfolding here and here. Thank you! :)Not where I would have looked for a Workshop Thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Feb 14, 2015 10:57:11 GMT -6
Wow, thanks for the linkie love. Presently, I will put up links to get the newest revisions. Maybe I should put up a thread here for it.
Edit: current versions are up as of 2/14/15
|
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Feb 14, 2015 12:12:31 GMT -6
How many times have you been searching through the books trying to find a rule, and discover something you'd forgotten was there or never noticed in the first place? Sometimes the original rules are just as much a treasure hunt as the dungeon itself!
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 14, 2015 17:49:08 GMT -6
I'm not sure that "disorganization" is a proper statement, because I think that the White Box OD&D rulebooks are organized pretty well overall. They are divided up into the three key components of many later rules sets -- what the player needs to know, what the DM needs to know, and how the DM should run a campaign. I will certainly agree that the addition of the supplements blurrs this somewhat, but that's the nature of most games that have supplements. And it's worth pointing out that the supplements each tend to follow that same three-way organizational pattern. I do like the fact that in some places OD&D offers options over hard-fast rules, but there aren't really that many places where this happens. The obvious one is the combat system, which is tied to hit dice progression and fighting capability and other stuff like that. And I certainly like the fact that the OD&D rulebooks do not attempt to answer every question or codify every situation -- to me this is the essence of rules bloat and the demise of a "rules light" system. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 19:41:53 GMT -6
I'm not sure that "disorganization" is a proper statement, because I think that the White Box OD&D rulebooks are organized pretty well overall. They are divided up into the three key components of many later rules sets -- what the player needs to know, what the DM needs to know, and how the DM should run a campaign. I will certainly agree that the addition of the supplements blurs this somewhat, but that's the nature of most games that have supplements. And it's worth pointing out that the supplements each tend to follow that same three-way organizational pattern. I do like the fact that in some places OD&D offers options over hard-fast rules, but there aren't really that many places where this happens. The obvious one is the combat system, which is tied to hit dice progression and fighting capability and other stuff like that. And I certainly like the fact that the OD&D rulebooks do not attempt to answer every question or codify every situation -- to me this is the essence of rules bloat and the demise of a "rules light" system. I would agree that "disorganization" is not quite the correct word; however, on the other hand I think it conveyed the thought since "disorganized" is one of the knocks on OD&D. I would agree with you that is an undeserved knock and that most of it stems from not being organized the same way as later versions. Where if later versions had been organized the same way we would not even be talking about that point. If, and that is a big if, I was ever to do a three volume writeup that included the supplements and selected info from The Strategic Review and the early issues of The Dragon; everything after the 3LBBs themselves would be clearly labeled optional, whereas many do not see the supplements as containing options. Many, I believe, tend to see the supplements as all or nothing; that is they don't adopt pieces but all of it or none of it. Whereas I see the supplements as all pieces are options and ideas to be adopted one part or many or just adapt some of the ideas but not the rules(suggestions) themselves. I also tend to view the 3LBBs that way, it is all options, suggestions not hard and fast rules. That is tweak it all, make it uniquely yours, that is the spirit of the game and the only version that explicitly lends itself to that approach. Therefore, geoffrey is correct they are not just rule books; but in a way that is special and unique among all rpgs, they are the "game" in a way that no other rule-set is. While perhaps you can be as , that is not what other versions of the rules are designed for while that is expressly what the 3LBBs are designed for. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 15, 2015 5:50:54 GMT -6
You speak truth. I guess I get a little sensitive about folks who wring their hands and use terms like "unplayable" and "disorganized" and suggest that it's impossible to decipher the OD&D books as written. I found them at age 12 and, although I had a background in wargames and Chainmail minis, I don't ever recall having that frustration and to this day still find the LBB to be a special read. info from The Strategic Review and the early issues of The Dragon; everything after the 3LBBs themselves would be clearly labeled optional As to the "optional" part I suppose that for me it comes down to the fact that we had the boxed set before the supplements came out, plus we were constantly adding on from Strategic Review (later Dragon) and various Judges Guild products, so add-on rules naturally seemed optional to us. I think we saw OD&D as constantly evolving and never looked for anything as codified as AD&D, so the notion of "use what you like" was obvious to us at the time. Look at my S&W:WB rules set and you'll notice this very approach. It's all about options and choices so that each DM can create a campaign the way they see it, not about encyclopedic rules tomes. Some praise it as a strength in my rules, others a weakness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2015 13:24:53 GMT -6
As to the "optional" part I suppose that for me it comes down to the fact that we had the boxed set before the supplements came out, plus we were constantly adding on from Strategic Review (later Dragon) and various Judges Guild products, so add-on rules naturally seemed optional to us. I think we saw OD&D as constantly evolving and never looked for anything as codified as AD&D, so the notion of "use what you like" was obvious to us at the time. Look at my S&W:WB rules set and you'll notice this very approach. It's all about options and choices so that each DM can create a campaign the way they see it, not about encyclopedic rules tomes. Some praise it as a strength in my rules, others a weakness. I agree with you here, for you and I this viewpoint is reflex, but that is not the case for most. I think that perspective/viewpoint is the biggest difference between those who started with just the 3LBBs and those who started with later rule-sets. Not saying there is any right or wrong here, just starting at different times and places affects the perspective/viewpoint that you start from. Sometimes that leads to miscommunication and misunderstandings between people since some terms have different meanings to some of us, than it does to others of us. That difference in definitions that is inherent in the different perspectives that may only be a few years apart can lead to people feeling like they have been insulted, when no such thing was intended. If only 4-5 years can make that kind of difference, think of the misunderstandings and miscommunications that a 15, 20, 30 or 35+ year difference can lead to. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjackbrass on Feb 15, 2015 14:43:31 GMT -6
Sometimes the original rules are just as much a treasure hunt as the dungeon itself! There's a story, related in a book I once read (possibly something by Bill Bryson, but I'm afraid I forget exactly where I found it), of an ongoing series of adverts for a store placed in a small town newspaper. They were clearly done by the owner, haphazardly assembled, cut-and-pasted together and a complete visual mess. They violated all of the rules of clear marketing, and one day an ad man approached the store owner and offered to clean up the advertisements for him and boost sales. Sales dropped sharply. The ad man, perplexed, questioned many of the people who shopped at the store and discovered that they liked the chaos of the old adverts better. The amateurish, more confused ad gave the sense of a jumble sale, the idea that the reader could spot a hidden gem in there and grab a bargain that others might have missed, and people spent a long time poring over them. I also find that, in some cases, having to put in more work to tease out the meaning or locate a rule I could swear I found earlier makes the information stick in the mind a little better. Of course, there are also times when I would kill for a full and detailed index and a perfectly clear, unambiguous presentation  |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 15, 2015 14:58:29 GMT -6
The rules read to me like a couple of men who have just discovered a new way to make their wargamming fascinating and engaging and they want other people to know about it and enjoy it.
That energy cannot be duplicated in more "organized" rule-sets.
I think the very "stream-of-consciousness" style writing helps me to understand that I am trying to wargame a fantastical world, not find a perfect "game mechanic."
I like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 17, 2015 10:22:25 GMT -6
Yeah, the excitement dripping off each page, as Gygax madly throws awesome ideas at the reader, is a big part of what makes OD&D such a great read. I think “disorganized” IS part of it, too; when you have a well-organized, well-indexed, and “elegant” ruleset, with every rule available at your fingertips, perhaps it doesn’t as much lend itself to poring over the way OD&D (or the 1e DMG) do.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdn2006 on Feb 17, 2015 11:32:39 GMT -6
OD&D isn't all that badly organized, just missing a few explanations and maybe a paragraph can be moved around here and there. Although I enjoy B/X it isn't the epitome of organizaion nor explanation. Crap strewn about in places, repeated details in the books, details contradicted by one book or the other, mediocre rules to fill gaps - all of that is annoying to me....
As published, OD&D is a pick-the-details-you-want game and doesn't throw a bunch of bad rules at the user, unlike more highly polished games that fix everything that isn't broken because the writer is reacting to the spastic insanity of people on internet forums or letters-to-the editor. I could swear I was reading Gary Gygax (in some places of the DMG) wanting to scream, "Use your brain, you idiot!"
The AD&D DMG offers all sorts of handy non-rules help, clarifications (and befuddlement) of some rules, while the AD&D PHB are lists of spells and muddled explanations about elements intended to help players learn to play. The Monster Manual is just lists of Monsters, no glory there. AD&D is so much OD&D with added details and rules that generally do not help me enjoy myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Feb 17, 2015 13:02:20 GMT -6
So apart from the thrill you receive from rereading the rule books, what is the positive value of their supposed disorganization?
|
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Feb 17, 2015 13:21:58 GMT -6
So apart from the thrill you receive from rereading the rule books, what is the positive value of their supposed disorganization? I'll chime in. There seems to me to be a metatextual element to Gygax's early works that is quite impossible in a rulebook that can be navigated by a table of contents, index, or other, similar organization. You're reading and learning about a game about exploring unknown worlds and discovering hidden treasures, by exploring unknown worlds (of Gygax's and Arneson's imaginations) and discovering hidden treasures (maybe a single-line rule, or an entire section you missed on a previous skim). In this sense, just sitting down and reading through Men & Magic, the Greyhawk Supplement, or the Dungeon Masters Guide is like a solo game of D&D that you're playing with Gygax himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Feb 17, 2015 16:08:33 GMT -6
just sitting down and reading through Men & Magic, the Greyhawk Supplement, or the Dungeon Masters Guide is like a solo game of D&D that you're playing with Gygax himself. Wouldn't that qualify as the thrill I mentioned? Let me ask this another way: what is the value, if any, of the writing style of the rules on the actual play of the game? Or is its only value how it makes you feel when you read it? The original post was presented from the point of view of someone who knows the rules well and doesn't need to reread them to play. What is the value of the style to this sort of person? |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Feb 17, 2015 16:51:18 GMT -6
Perhaps it discourages players from rules lawyering because the organization and vagueness are not conducive to it.
Perhaps it makes the referee feel more confident in making rulings if he feels it’s less likely there’s an answer in the text (or if there is, it’s hard to find and non-definitive due to vagueness).
Perhaps a big part of the “actual play of the game” is the referee reading the book by himself and gaining inspiration for his prep work; and the act of discovery, that we have all experienced hundreds of times with the OD&D books and supplements and the DMG, is really conducive to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 20:33:36 GMT -6
I'll chime in. There seems to me to be a metatextual element to Gygax's early works that is quite impossible in a rulebook that can be navigated by a table of contents, index, or other, similar organization. You're reading and learning about a game about exploring unknown worlds and discovering hidden treasures, by exploring unknown worlds (of Gygax's and Arneson's imaginations) and discovering hidden treasures (maybe a single-line rule, or an entire section you missed on a previous skim). In this sense, just sitting down and reading through Men & Magic, the Greyhawk Supplement, or the Dungeon Masters Guide is like a solo game of D&D that you're playing with Gygax himself. I think you make a very good point here, using the 3LBBs is an exploration of yourself and because of the way it is written, everyone finds something different. The 3LBBs are not designed to generate one standard game for all, as most games do, it is designed to generate unique games as each of us is unique and so no two games are exactly alike and that is the old school way to play. It is not about imitation, it is about making the game your own. The 3LBBs are designed for that specific result, unique every time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 20:39:36 GMT -6
Perhaps it discourages players from rules lawyering because the organization and vagueness are not conducive to it. Perhaps it makes the referee feel more confident in making rulings if he feels it’s less likely there’s an answer in the text (or if there is, it’s hard to find and non-definitive due to vagueness). Perhaps a big part of the “actual play of the game” is the referee reading the book by himself and gaining inspiration for his prep work; and the act of discovery, that we have all experienced hundreds of times with the OD&D books and supplements and the DMG, is really conducive to that. I think it is all three of those things. Each ref creates a unique one of a kind game, that is what the 3LBBs are designed to do. When I learned to ref back in 1975, none of the players (the non-refs), ever read any of the 3LBBs, they truly didn't need to. With OD&D only the ref needs to read the guidelines, then he alone brings a unique game to life for the players to create and play characters in a one of a kind world. The referee is not imitating the vision of a world that someone else has, the referee presents a unique vision that only he has to the players. |
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 17, 2015 23:06:54 GMT -6
... Each ref creates a unique one of a kind game, that is what the 3LBBs are designed to do. When I learned to ref back in 1975, none of the players (the non-refs), ever read any of the 3LBBs, they truly didn't need to. With OD&D only the ref needs to read the guidelines, then he alone brings a unique game to life for the players to create and play characters in a one of a kind world. The referee is not imitating the vision of a world that someone else has, the referee presents a unique vision that only he has to the players. I think it is this rather than the disorganization that I find appealing about this version of the game. AD&D with its explicit emphasis on unifying different campaign worlds was a reaction to this for whatever reason but the earliest version really encouraged a more unbounded approach to campaign building. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Feb 18, 2015 5:16:53 GMT -6
I think rules referencing is a pretty big part of it. There are certainly hard and fast rules to be found in OD&D, like experience tables or item costs, but I'd say that most of the minor rules, and probably a good chunk of the major rules, contain at least some ambiguity in the way they're written. Some aspects gaining levels beyond the tables provided are clear, for example, but others aren't. Later editions make these sorts of things much more explicit, and when they aren't explicit, they are much more clear about the fact that the DM has to come up with a house rule himself.
I've run a number of different systems, and OD&D provided a complete change in player interaction from the more codified rulesets we've used before. I really think it was because everyone understood that the line between 'official rules' and 'house rules' were very hazy. Using most other rules, I'd have to take the time to get everyone to understand that what's in the book isn't what's in our game: use the house rule instead. With OD&D, frequently there isn't any 'instead' to consider, so everyone just embraces the house rule without having to mentally jigsaw into the official rules. It seems like a negligible quibble, since it's only a psychological hangup, but people are psychological beings, and I think I very clearly saw a difference.
The only other game I've played where people 'clicked' with house rules in the same way was when I ran an RPG campaign using the HeroQuest boardgame, and for the same reason: the rules for just about anything in that game beyond attacking and searching for treasure had to be invented from scratch. The way the players engage with the rules was very, very different from when we played, say, MeRP, even though house rules were always a staple feature of any game we played.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2015 22:23:28 GMT -6
I also think, with much respect to geoff, that "disorganization" is not the best term for the White edition: It doesn't read like a textbook, and leaves a lot of time for people's own ideas. Granted, the later variations by Mentzer & co. are more directly usable - but for somebody who already knows the game, it's more a matter of personal preference, than a real measure of quality which basic version of the rules he or she prefers. As to the advanced(long-term-play) use, I tend to look at them anymway, to quote a certain famous pirate, more like guidelines. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Feb 19, 2015 21:05:07 GMT -6
The more I think about this, the less I think about the three LBBs as disorganized. They seem pretty well organized IMO. The several rules are laid out in order of importance to the original players. Modern organization has different priorities and the advantage of several decades of experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Feb 20, 2015 3:51:16 GMT -6
I agree wholeheartedly. As with any historical document, if you attempt to view the LBBs through the eyes of modern interpretation, it comes across as primitive and disorganized, but if you read them under the assumption that they serve exactly the purpose they were intended to serve in the eyes of the writers and users, then they seem much more thoughtfully organized.
Our current priorities usually align more to the RC, where the game is organized by related mechanical systems and when they are expected to come up in a session (e.g., character creation first, because you do that first). Previously Basic was organized according to the Holmes/Advanced progression, where everything was organized by when it was expected to be introduced into a larger campaign (such as BECMI introducing outdoor rules in the later booklets). AD&D was organized largely on the precedent of the LBBs, that is, each book is separated by genre of information, further organized into something like 1) material used all the time, 2) material used in special circumstances, 3) appendices and lists.
|
|
