|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 8, 2019 9:29:07 GMT -6
As for Dave Arneson's True Genius, I been working OD&D and other classic edition for a number of years and roleplaying and wargaming since the late 70s.
My "thing" back in the days when I was using Holmes, AD&D, Greyhawk, and the Wilderlands was being the referee who let players trash the setting of my campaign. Want to be king? No problem! But it won't be easy. My exposure to wargames and my interest in history allowed me to adjudicate things fairly when the players tried to tread the jeweled thrones of the world underneath their sandalled feet.
The problem is that despite my interest I was doing this with the knowledge and experience of a junior/senior high school student. So for the details I relied on the rules of AD&D, published modules, published supplements, and published setting. For example I used the Slaver's fort from A2 numerous times in different context with different NPCs.
Even with a few more years of experience, I felt more comfortable with a fleshed out RPG that was well designed like GURPS. However because "trashing the campaign" is pretty freeform, I got creative in manipulating the various system I used to come with rulings to handle whatever the players wanted to do as their characters.
A decade ago I got back into running classic editions of D&D and along with publishig for classic editions of D&D. One key thing was after I read Matt Finch's Old School Primer. His discussion is about ruling not rules allowed several pieces to come together in my mind about tabletop roleplaying.
What a character does is not defined by the rules but how the character is described within the setting of the campaign. The rules are just a concrete expression of a pretend reality. The implication of this that irregardless of what the rules cover, if it is consistent with the description of the character and how the setting works, the referee job's is to say yes, no, or to come up with a set of rolls to resolve the uncertainty.
So even if a character sheet doesn't have a explicit stealth ability,skill, attribute, one can use their knowledge of it takes to sneak around, look at the character sheet and make a call. Because anybody can try to sneak especially if it campaign uses a pseudo medieval fantasy setting.
With OD&D I have the character's class, level, dexterity, and intelligence score. All reasonable factor a referee may consider influencing a stealth attempt when the results are uncertain. Some may just use level, some just class, or just dexterity, or a combination of both. Irregardless of the particulars, the character can try to sneak around because this is something people can do.
So after this, and reading accounts of how people played back in the days thanks to Playing at the World, Hawk & Moor, this forums, etc. I realized that all RPG rules are just details. They are not the point nor what make RPG campaigns work.
The True Genius of Dave Arneson is figuring that via the simple process of describing a setting, describing a player's character, having that player tell you what they are doing as that character in that setting, then the referee describing what happens that it is possible to create a pen & paper virtual reality that is fun, and interesting to explore, and interact with. And that it is able to do be done within the time one has for a hobby. That it could be done wherever there some room to use pen, paper, and dice.
That the rules, the material that most hobbyist associate with being a tabletop roleplaying game, Are just a tool used by the referee and players to help make the campaign happen. Because of that rule don't matter as much as hobbyist think they do.
Now I have thoughts expanding on the previous paragraph that I would be happy to discuss here or in a different thread. But in regards to Dave Arneson he was the first to put this all together in a workable form.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 8, 2019 15:37:44 GMT -6
I haven't been running OD&D lately; I've been running 5e D&D, both using original material (my current campaign) and pre-written material (the campaign before this one). And I have to say; the attitude of Dave Arneson's True Genius, and of Mike's review of it, and of most of the posts here, are things I just don't agree with, despite having run OD&D and really loving it when I have.
From about September 2017 to December 2018, I ran Tomb of Annihilation, a huge 5e module with a jungle hexcrawl, a ruined city, and a huge dungeon. We had a lot of fun playing through it. It was a challenging and fascinating experience. Nothing about this was fundamentally a different activity from when I've run dungeons that I made up using OD&D as a guideline and Gary Gygax's Greyhawk as an inspiration. That is what I reject, completely, from Rob's thesis and from those who support it.
Absolutely nothing about 5e D&D changes the "you can do anything" nature of an RPG. There is literally no action that a player has wanted to take in my running 5e that is precluded by the rules. The players often did things that surprised me, and I frequently had to make shirt up because they are creative and clever and will do things like blast a mimic off a ledge or turn an adamantine shiv on a pole into a weapon. That is delightful. The only restrictions they faced were specific things in the scenario where the module made exceptions to rules that would have broken the dungeon, like using Stoneshape on the dungeon walls.
People talk about 1974 OD&D like it didn't have rules, and was just a free Kriegsspiel. It wasn't. It had a lot of rules, and arcane ones that it turns out most people didn't use. Back in the day, Tunnels & Trolls was created as a simpler reaction to OD&D. The most popular retro-clone of OD&D, Swords & Wizardry, has almost nothing in common with OD&D (against any other old school D&D) other than the fact that it matches OD&D's lists of spells and magic items and monsters.
I love Dave Arneson's work. I think the man really was a genius. I love 1974 OD&D and Holmes Basic D&D, because they're easy to run and I can make up monsters while I'm writing them down. But in my experience players tend to like 5e because the mechanics support them making meaningful choices about their characters. And I like running 5e just fine.
I mean, look. We have all loved OD&D - some people here for longer I've been alive, some even longer than it's been in print. And it's a great game, it really is. OD&D made me realize things that made me much better as a DM when I went on to other RPGs. But what I don't like is the attitude of running down other games. The audience for 5e D&D is larger than ever, and it's more diverse than ever, and people are playing a game that really is at its heart a true descendant of the game we all love.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 8, 2019 15:53:19 GMT -6
Having read the book a few weeks after it was released I have several strong opinions about "Dave Arneson's True Genius" 1) That the main thesis is cluttered by the use jargon from General system theory. It doesn't make his point clear and requires anybody not familiar general system theory to spend a lot of time looking material up. Yeah, this bothered me as well, and is the main reason why I waited nearly a year to finally buy and read the thing. I've had a few chances to talk to Rob at GaryCon and I think he honestly thinks this way, but it's hard for me to process. 2) Yet Rob Kuntz does have a point that worth taking the time to understand. Very much so. 3) Outside of the use of jargon, his thesis is presented with considerable bias based on, his negative experience working at TSR, his opinion on the treatment of Dave Arneson and most of the people from the Twin Cities, and his later involvement in publishing his RPG writings. That's hard for me to judge. I agree that he has a bias, but the followup question would be if that bias affects his description of events. I can imagine having a natural bias yet giving an essentially unbiased account of things that he experienced. 4) However it does add a perspective to the early days of the hobby that gives a fuller picture of what was happening. It certainly does, and it makes me think. That's usually a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 8, 2019 19:58:34 GMT -6
I've talked to plenty of 3E gamers who are convinced that 3E is the best game ever created, and for them they might be right. Not a slam on them, but a byproduct of how they learned to play. Same with a lot of "story game" folks who are often bewildered by a more traditional D&D-style play, just as I am often bewildered by a story game. (Someday I will figure out FATE. Everyone says it's not hard, but it's possible that my gaming brain isn't wired that way. Same goes with Sorcerer, which seems like an awesome game but I just can't make it work in my brain.) I believe 5E is probably the best current form of D&D, especially in that it shouldn't take much work to have it emulate any previous edition (as cadriel pointed out above). However, having access to OD&D, why bother using something else to achieve the same thing? I think they are two entirely separate games with the same name: 3E to 5E represent a D&D that encourages building roles to play in a story already half-written. OD&D represents a chance at players creating a story from situations presented by an impartial referee. Both are perfectly valid D&D games, but wildly different in execution. Regarding Fate: I'm right there with you and own many Fate products in an effort to understand. If you're curious, seek out On Mighty Thews. It serves for me as kind of a bridge between OD&D and Fate. Maybe mastering it will provide you with an interesting perspective on gaming in general?
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 8, 2019 20:08:45 GMT -6
So even if a character sheet doesn't have a explicit stealth ability,skill, attribute, one can use their knowledge of it takes to sneak around, look at the character sheet and make a call. Because anybody can try to sneak especially if it campaign uses a pseudo medieval fantasy setting. I'm pretty certain this was the intent behind the original six requisites or "abilities" of D&D characters; they are mainly there to help the referee judge what the characters could do (or what might happen to them). I use them as the "first line" of guidelines when it comes to such rulings myself.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 9, 2019 6:37:08 GMT -6
Absolutely nothing about 5e D&D changes the "you can do anything" nature of an RPG. There is literally no action that a player has wanted to take in my running 5e that is precluded by the rules. Agreed. It's a philosophy issue, not a rules issue. I've talked to plenty of 3E gamers who are convinced that 3E is the best game ever created, and for them they might be right. Not a slam on them, but a byproduct of how they learned to play. Same with a lot of "story game" folks who are often bewildered by a more traditional D&D-style play, just as I am often bewildered by a story game. (Someday I will figure out FATE. Everyone says it's not hard, but it's possible that my gaming brain isn't wired that way. Same goes with Sorcerer, which seems like an awesome game but I just can't make it work in my brain.) I believe 5E is probably the best current form of D&D, especially in that it shouldn't take much work to have it emulate any previous edition (as cadriel pointed out above). However, having access to OD&D, why bother using something else to achieve the same thing? I think they are two entirely separate games with the same name: 3E to 5E represent a D&D that encourages building roles to play in a story already half-written. OD&D represents a chance at players creating a story from situations presented by an impartial referee. Both are perfectly valid D&D games, but wildly different in execution. And I'm not interested in getting into "edition wars" territory, in spite of Cadriel's post. I think that each edition has fans and those fans believe that their favorite best fits their style of play. Who am I to judge whether or not they are having fun, right? My point is mostly that folks who like one style (or edition) tend to have a harder time getting the philosophy behind the others. Think about John Carter. He arrives on Barsoom and has these strange adventures, then tries to explain to Tars Tarkas what Jasoom (Earth) is like. Tars hears the words and has a general feel for what JC is saying, but can't truly "get it" because he's never been there. That isn't Tars Tarkas' fault, and it doesn't make him less of a warrior on Barsoom. It doesn't mean that Earth is better than Barsoom or Barsoom is better than Earth.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 11, 2019 2:22:21 GMT -6
I've never played the 4th edition, but OD&D, AD&D, 3.5 (only for a short time, I have to admit) and now 5e. They are pretty different game systems but they can all achieve the same effect: Having a great time telling a story together. Now, what I believe is the main difference is just the rules-side character options, the "build" if you want to use that word.
The older editions tend to be much more open and not present many pre-defined character options to choose from when you gain experience. That put a lot of creativity at the table, but I'd say it wasn't always easy for inexperienced GMs.
3.5 became a rules monster (and I stopped playing early because of that), with so many addon books only the "fanatics" in my group could keep track of, thereby getting a "build" advantage over the rest. The fun of it - at least how I experienced it from the group I played in - was building a perfect character from the myriads of options. Not my cup of tea in p&p games, but a lot of people like it. (As a side note, many of our DSA 4.1/The Dark Eye group like that, and DSA supports this a lot. I manage to keep track of my relatively basic character and still have fun.)
5e hits the middle ground between the older editions and that works well with those who don't want many options (just increase your stats and don't take feats) and those who still like a more complex progression through feats. Plus, it's simple enough to add in your own homebrew options, so it's preserving/reinstating the open and flexible play style of the old editions. (As another side note, I'm running a megadungeon dungeon crawl with 5e and it works well. Not needing to rest for a week after each fight speeds the game up, which we like because we can't meet regularly. Character death is more unlikely in 5e than in, say, OD&D because of higher HP and more healing, but the monsters are still deadly enough to make the brighter players think twice before attacking.)
TL;DR: There is no "right" edition. It's just about your game system complexity preferences, I think. You can have fun and tell the same stories with all editions.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Feb 12, 2019 5:59:27 GMT -6
I wonder where B/X fits in to all this? Would it be considered a continuation/sequel of OD&D, a parallel codification alongside AD&D, or something completely different? Well, my feeling is that B/X is sort of parallel to AD&D. Both came from the same source material (OD&D) but evolved in slightly different directions. B/X isn't as "encyclopedic" in nature, but I think that it's philosophy is sort of similar in that they are after the "make it up as you go" layer but before the "here is a giganto pile of rules" layer. I imagine that where each person puts B/X would depend upon their own experiences and how they view the layers of the game. Here's my thought, just created off the top of my head as I type.... Layer Zero = Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign, currently kept alive by Jerry Berry and Bob Meyer and a couple of others. Layer One = Gary's original Greyhawk campaign, which I assume was rooted in OD&D as Gary structured it. This would (I would think) be the era of the LBB and the supplements. Layer Two = Evolution of the game into AD&D (eventually 2E) and later Holmes Basic (eventually B/X and BECMI and RC). The game continues to grow in bulk Layer Three = Evolution of the game into 3E/4E. Much standardization, heavy emphasis on rules mastery. Layer Four = Restructure of the game into 5E. Attempt to streamline to somewhere comparable to Layer Two. So, my thinking is that going back to Layer Zero is really hard for most folks to conceptualize. I started in Layer One and feel like I have a general intuitive feel on how Layer Zero might have been, but I cannot be certain as I wasn't there. I can only experience Layer Zero through stories of the older guys, and I hope someday to experience it first-hand at GaryCon or some other similar venue. (The closest I've come was to play Metamorphosis Alpha with Jim Ward, and it was an amazing experience. My character actually lived, and Jim autographed the character sheet for me.) I assume that most posters here began in Layer One or maybe Layer Two, which would be the "old school" vibe that most of us can relate to, but it's possible that some posters came into gaming in Layer Three or Layer Four and they have the same challenge that I have in going back a layer when they try to conceptualize OD&D. The good thing is that there are a lot more folks who have played in Layer One, so there are quite a few more resources to help one pick up on the philosophy. I actually did a blog on the evolution of "Basic" D&D, where I contend that while AD&D is an evolution of the OD&D rules, Basic (and B/X in particular) is more of a "true" second edition of OD&D. I may go back and edit it, because my actual stance (which isn't clear in the blog) is that AD&D evolved from OD&D and all five supplements (I include Swords & Spells as it's mentioned in the DMG), Basic D&D is a second edition that moves forward from the 3LBBs and elements of Supplement I (the addition of thieves). If you look very closely, the intended play style and rules systems of basic D&D are very similar to tha assumptions found in OD&D; it's just more clearly stated and better organized (which has led people to accuse it of being designed for children; an assertion with which I vehemently disagree--certainly it's more accessible to younger players, but not designed for them). The biggest push-back I've gotten against my argument is that OD&D didn't have race-as-class, but I'd posit that in fact, it did: Dwarves and halfliings could only be fighting-men. Elves were all a combination of fighting-men and magic-users. It was phrased differently, but if you were a demihuman, that's what you were. Now thieves in OD&D changed that, with everyone able to be a thief to any level, and that was dropped in Basic, but before the supplements, that was very much the case. I've also had push back on my statement that Holmes was intended to re-present OD&D with a specific sight on driving people to AD&D. The argument is, that isn't what Holmes intended, and the AD&D stuff was only added later. I won't argue that, but in the end, the intent of Holmes doesn't matter; the final version of Holmes Basic was, in fact, built specifically to drive people to AD&D, whether it was Holmes, Gygax, or other TSR forces in play that made it that way. Anyway, here's the blog, and this is a hill I'll die on. wastedlandsfantasy.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-evolution-of-basic-d.html
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 12, 2019 12:08:08 GMT -6
The whole race-as-class thing in B/X is a bit funky, but fundamentally I agree with you that the essence is really a part of OD&D because of OD&D's limited choices.
|
|
tec97
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 157
|
Post by tec97 on Feb 12, 2019 13:13:41 GMT -6
...fundamentally I agree with you that the essence is really a part of OD&D because of OD&D's limited choices. I concur. You know, I've ALWAYS thought that this was the case - in fact, it didn't even occur to me that folks would try to argue otherwise. I base this largely comparative rules-lightness of B/X, but also because B/X is properly titled "Dungeons & Dragons", just like OD&D, whereas AD&D is properly titled "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" On an unrelated note, I received my copy of Rob's book yesterday and am looking forward to reading it.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Feb 12, 2019 16:00:58 GMT -6
...fundamentally I agree with you that the essence is really a part of OD&D because of OD&D's limited choices. I concur. You know, I've ALWAYS thought that this was the case - in fact, it didn't even occur to me that folks would try to argue otherwise. I base this largely comparative rules-lightness of B/X, but also because B/X is properly titled "Dungeons & Dragons", just like OD&D, whereas AD&D is properly titled "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" On an unrelated note, I received my copy of Rob's book yesterday and am looking forward to reading it. You'd be AMAZED at how many OD&D and AD&D fans violently despise B/X and consider it "D&D for children." And you'd be stunned at how DESPERATELY AD&D fans want to be the "true" evolution of OD&D. Those of us who like OD&D, B/X, AND AD&D seem to be few and far between.
|
|
tec97
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 157
|
Post by tec97 on Feb 12, 2019 16:19:10 GMT -6
You'd be AMAZED at how many OD&D and AD&D fans violently despise B/X and consider it "D&D for children." And you'd be stunned at how DESPERATELY AD&D fans want to be the "true" evolution of OD&D. Those of us who like OD&D, B/X, AND AD&D seem to be few and far between. Huh... Well, in that case, color me both amazed and stunned!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 16:49:40 GMT -6
'jerry berry', eh? If I may offer a somewhat dissenting opinion, based on what I saw, played, and ran, I think the influence of what we used to call 'campaign gaming' has gotten lost and/or shunted aside in all of the very learned and recondite discussions of the evolution of sets of rules and game systems. In my experience, we tended to be a lot more concerned about how the world-setting worked then how the rules worked. Currently, my 'Dragon and the Flame' campaign is running that same way, and the various players seem to have no issues with the supposed 'inaccessibility' of Phil's Tekumel. Of course, I could just be doing it all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Feb 12, 2019 17:03:22 GMT -6
'jerry berry', eh? If I may offer a somewhat dissenting opinion, based on what I saw, played, and ran, I think the influence of what we used to call 'campaign gaming' has gotten lost and/or shunted aside in all of the very learned and recondite discussions of the evolution of sets of rules and game systems. In my experience, we tended to be a lot more concerned about how the word-setting worked then how the rules worked. Currently, my 'Dragon and the Flame' campaign is running that same way, and the various players seem to have no issues with the supposed 'inaccessibility' of Phil's Tekumel. Of course, I could just be doing it all wrong. Clearly if you're having a good time and solving problems as they arise without issue...you're doing it all wrong .
|
|
monk
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 237
|
Post by monk on Feb 12, 2019 21:01:59 GMT -6
I actually did a blog on the evolution of "Basic" D&D, where I contend that while AD&D is an evolution of the OD&D rules, Basic (and B/X in particular) is more of a "true" second edition of OD&D. I may go back and edit it, because my actual stance (which isn't clear in the blog) is that AD&D evolved from OD&D and all five supplements (I include Swords & Spells as it's mentioned in the DMG), Basic D&D is a second edition that moves forward from the 3LBBs and elements of Supplement I (the addition of thieves). If you look very closely, the intended play style and rules systems of basic D&D are very similar to tha assumptions found in OD&D; it's just more clearly stated and better organized (which has led people to accuse it of being designed for children; an assertion with which I vehemently disagree--certainly it's more accessible to younger players, but not designed for them). The biggest push-back I've gotten against my argument is that OD&D didn't have race-as-class, but I'd posit that in fact, it did: Dwarves and halfliings could only be fighting-men. Elves were all a combination of fighting-men and magic-users. It was phrased differently, but if you were a demihuman, that's what you were. Now thieves in OD&D changed that, with everyone able to be a thief to any level, and that was dropped in Basic, but before the supplements, that was very much the case. I've also had push back on my statement that Holmes was intended to re-present OD&D with a specific sight on driving people to AD&D. The argument is, that isn't what Holmes intended, and the AD&D stuff was only added later. I won't argue that, but in the end, the intent of Holmes doesn't matter; the final version of Holmes Basic was, in fact, built specifically to drive people to AD&D, whether it was Holmes, Gygax, or other TSR forces in play that made it that way. Anyway, here's the blog, and this is a hill I'll die on. wastedlandsfantasy.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-evolution-of-basic-d.html Thanks for writing this! I wanted to say something similar, but I'm both 1. bad at explaining such things, and 2. moderately intoxicated. I started with B/X, so I tend to base my perception of it on my own unique experience, but I've always thought that B/X "felt" like the OD&D that I've played. When we were kids, we really liked the clarity of the rules in B/X, but also took to heart the comment right there in the Introduction: "Anything in this booklet should be thought of as changeable." There are also a lot of places throughout (wandering monster tables, DM information section, etc.) where the idea of a DMs personal Campaign/World being unique both in setting and in rules seems to be implicit . As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think my gaming group in particular might've had this "OD&Dish" view of D&D because we didn't really own any modules. All we had was the rulebook. Anyway...rambling...intoxicatd...thanks for your clear exposition Grey Elf.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 12, 2019 22:52:39 GMT -6
Those of us who like OD&D, B/X, AND AD&D seem to be few and far between. Then I'm one of the few, the proud. The single thing about B/X that has always seemed the least OD&D to me is its monster roster. There are quite a few monsters in B/X that simply aren't in OD&D (or in AD&D, for that matter).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 23:07:06 GMT -6
'jerry berry', eh? If I may offer a somewhat dissenting opinion, based on what I saw, played, and ran, I think the influence of what we used to call 'campaign gaming' has gotten lost and/or shunted aside in all of the very learned and recondite discussions of the evolution of sets of rules and game systems. In my experience, we tended to be a lot more concerned about how the word-setting worked then how the rules worked. Currently, my 'Dragon and the Flame' campaign is running that same way, and the various players seem to have no issues with the supposed 'inaccessibility' of Phil's Tekumel. Of course, I could just be doing it all wrong. Clearly if you're having a good time and solving problems as they arise without issue...you're doing it all wrong . Agreed; I've been told so, in as many words. I'm finding it quite fascinating that players used to a current style of game - where rules drive campaign - are taking like ducks to water to Ye Olden Style of game - where campaign drives rules.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Feb 12, 2019 23:33:50 GMT -6
I can get on board with very much/most of thegreyelf's argument above. Moldvay and Cook had a very deep understanding of the OD&D system, and really made great editorial choices over and over again, from what I see. I'm almost always delighted by what I find when I turn to B/X. The small quibbles: I believe it's the other way around; Swords & Spells isn't referenced in the AD&D DMG, but is in B/X (page X25, under "Mass Land Combat"). I do consider race-as-class as probably the biggest, uncharacteristic blemish on B/X. In particular, the elf case is hard to ignore. In B/X, "elf" is the name of a class and in OD&D it's not. If sticking solely to non-supplement OD&D, then you don't have the mandatory XP split yet, so fighter and magic-user levels can arguably vary by choice of the player ("freely switch class whenever they choose"; and also in the elf monster description), which is not possible in B/X. Putting on my math/computing hat for a second, there's a world of difference between a one-to-one relation and a one-to-many relation.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 13, 2019 5:34:29 GMT -6
In particular, the elf case is hard to ignore. In B/X, "elf" is the name of a class and in OD&D it's not. If sticking solely to non-supplement OD&D, then you don't have the mandatory XP split yet, so fighter and magic-user levels can arguably vary by choice of the player ("freely switch class whenever they choose"; and also in the elf monster description), which is not possible in B/X. Putting on my math/computing hat for a second, there's a world of difference between a one-to-one relation and a one-to-many relation. Nice post, delta. I think that for me the difference is "by the book" versus "the way we did it." I never really played B/X, but I know that my group wasn't a fan of the way OD&D did elves so we house-ruled something whereby elven characters multi-classed as fighter-MUs instead of having to pick one or the other each adventure. As such, reading the "elf as class" rules in B/X didn't seem like a problem. On the other hand, I can see where a group used to playing OD&D elves as written might look at B/X and ask what the heck this newfangled rulebook was trying to push on them. This is probably the subject of a new thread, but I'm curious as to how folks played elves in their OD&D campaigns back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Feb 13, 2019 5:58:58 GMT -6
I can get on board with very much/most of thegreyelf's argument above. Moldvay and Cook had a very deep understanding of the OD&D system, and really made great editorial choices over and over again, from what I see. I'm almost always delighted by what I find when I turn to B/X. The small quibbles: I believe it's the other way around; Swords & Spells isn't referenced in the AD&D DMG, but is in B/X (page X25, under "Mass Land Combat"). DMG, p. 66: Movement Rate Outdoors: Movement bonus for charging in normal outdoor settings is 33 1/3 of base speed for bipedal creatures, 50% for quadrupeds (Cf. TSR's SWORDS & SPELLS). The reference you cite from B/X is simply a directive to look at Swords & Spells if you want miniatures rules. It isn't actually referenced in the context of rules as written. But yes, I'll concede that it's in B/X as well as AD&D (something I have always overlooked). You're splitting hairs based on terminology and deliberately ignoring "second edition" vs. "reprint." I know you take a "math only" approach to game design and it's something with which I vehemently disagree (you and I went 'round about it years ago, in fact). Still, in this case, the one-to-many vs. one-to-one comparison is unimportant. B/X is a second edition. It's not a reprint. The core idea of race-as-class exists in OD&D, pre-Supplement I (pre-Thief). This is not even arguable. All elves in OD&D are fighter/magic-user combos. All dwarves and halflings are fighters. Period. There's exactly nothing uncharactaristic about it. Because it was simplified by making both classes apply at all times rather than keeping the complexity of "today I'm a fighter and tomorrow I'm a mage," is completely moot. That's how new editions work. In addition, there's no "mandatory XP split" in B/X. Elves have a single experience progression, as do dwarves and halflings. The elf's progression is not even the combination of Fighter and Magic User (it's 4,000 to get to level 2, as opposed to 4,500 if the two classes were combined). The elf actually gets a discount. Sure, it's slower than a dwarf or halfling, but in context that simply makes sense. It's not some unforgiveable uncharacteristic blemish. It's the same kind of mechanical cleanup that occurs in any new edition of a game. You can argue mechanics and semantics all you like. You can not like it if you want. That's all moot. Conceptually, race-as-class exists in OD&D, regardless of the terminology, statistics, and mechanics used to express it.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Feb 13, 2019 6:19:34 GMT -6
In particular, the elf case is hard to ignore. In B/X, "elf" is the name of a class and in OD&D it's not. If sticking solely to non-supplement OD&D, then you don't have the mandatory XP split yet, so fighter and magic-user levels can arguably vary by choice of the player ("freely switch class whenever they choose"; and also in the elf monster description), which is not possible in B/X. Putting on my math/computing hat for a second, there's a world of difference between a one-to-one relation and a one-to-many relation. Nice post, delta. I think that for me the difference is "by the book" versus "the way we did it." I never really played B/X, but I know that my group wasn't a fan of the way OD&D did elves so we house-ruled something whereby elven characters multi-classed as fighter-MUs instead of having to pick one or the other each adventure. As such, reading the "elf as class" rules in B/X didn't seem like a problem. On the other hand, I can see where a group used to playing OD&D elves as written might look at B/X and ask what the heck this newfangled rulebook was trying to push on them. This is probably the subject of a new thread, but I'm curious as to how folks played elves in their OD&D campaigns back in the day. Labyrinth Lord, in fact, takes an interesting approach to this. If you have both the Advanced Edition Companion (or the new Advanced LL rulebook) and the Original Edition Characters booklet, you can actually run OD&D, AD&D, and B/X elves all right at the same table, and it works seamlessly. Pick your poison and go! Dan has done a phenomenal job making the dispirate mechanics work side-by-side. That's one reason why I tout LL as the best of the retroclones.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 13, 2019 6:32:13 GMT -6
This is not even arguable. All elves in OD&D are fighter/magic-user combos. I take your point about Basic being similar to and making editorial choices based on OD&D. And honestly I think Basic gets the "kiddy" tag because that's how TSR marketed it. All that aside, the above statement, as delta pointed out, is arguable. OD&D does not present the Elf as a dual class. It offers the dual class as an option. There is no first level spell at character generation should you choose to be a fighter. Many players may never choose the Magic User progression for their Elf. Of course, beyond the inclusion of the Thief, Basic chose to incorporate variable HD and damage as well. Editorial choices, semantics, different game, splitting hairs- eh.
|
|
|
Post by magremore on Feb 13, 2019 6:36:19 GMT -6
I was too young for OD&D, but I remember mixing BX and AD&D w/out issue in the 80s, to the extent that when I came back to D&D years (and years) later, I was shocked that Moldvay only had a three-point alignment system (which now seems preferable to me), and I earnestly poured through Basic trying to find where Thieves Cant was mentioned. I actually don't think I knew anyone who owned an Expert set and my own sense was something like there was Basic and there was Advanced, two sides of the same coin—not saying I was the brightest bulb in the building!
|
|
|
Post by delta on Feb 13, 2019 19:31:28 GMT -6
Having read the book a few weeks after it was released I have several strong opinions about "Dave Arneson's True Genius" 1) That the main thesis is cluttered by the use jargon from General system theory. It doesn't make his point clear and requires anybody not familiar general system theory to spend a lot of time looking material up. When you say "General system theory", is there some site or source that you would recommend that clarifies/defines that jargon? I don't think I've ever heard that phrase before.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Feb 13, 2019 21:15:10 GMT -6
general systems theory - (hook) The information content of a "piece of information" is proportional to the amount of information that can be inferred from the information (A. Kuhn., 1974).
|
|
tec97
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 157
|
Post by tec97 on Feb 14, 2019 9:38:26 GMT -6
Having read the book a few weeks after it was released I have several strong opinions about "Dave Arneson's True Genius" 1) That the main thesis is cluttered by the use jargon from General system theory. It doesn't make his point clear and requires anybody not familiar general system theory to spend a lot of time looking material up. 2) Yet Rob Kuntz does have a point that worth taking the time to understand. 3) Outside of the use of jargon, his thesis is presented with considerable bias based on, his negative experience working at TSR, his opinion on the treatment of Dave Arneson and most of the people from the Twin Cities, and his later involvement in publishing his RPG writings. 4) However it does add a perspective to the early days of the hobby that gives a fuller picture of what was happening. I just finished my initial read-through of Rob's book. I agree with your first point, but when you consider that this book and I would assume his upcoming book, are aimed not at the casual reader or even the fan of OD&D, but rather at an academic audience, his style and use of jargon makes much more sense. Within a sentence or two, I realized (flashbacks to grad school) that I was reading something that was aimed at an audience numbering most likely in the dozens or generously hundreds - not the casual fan of RPGs, or even the fairly dedicated fan with a strong interest in their history. Taken in this respect, the whole style and structure makes much more sense. That said, I do think this book could have benefited from a much stronger editorial hand (if there was one at all). Regarding your third, I agree with your point, but I'm not sure that the innate bias (which I think any author brings to anything they write) negates or degrades his conclusions. Setting aside Rob's own biases, I think the important thing here is to interact with his argument (admittedly not the easiest thing in some instances) - first do his premises support his conclusions? At that point, are his premises supportable/correct? If so, the biases are irrelevant. I also want to echo Marv's thanks to Michael/Gronan for offering his review of this book and spurring me into ordering/reading it. This has definitely made me have to shake some of the plaque off some parts of my brain that haven't been used in a long time. I will also say that this is a book that I will have to read through another couple of times to fully digest.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 14, 2019 19:18:26 GMT -6
Having read the book a few weeks after it was released I have several strong opinions about "Dave Arneson's True Genius" 1) That the main thesis is cluttered by the use jargon from General system theory. It doesn't make his point clear and requires anybody not familiar general system theory to spend a lot of time looking material up. When you say "General system theory", is there some site or source that you would recommend that clarifies/defines that jargon? I don't think I've ever heard that phrase before. This wikipedia article is a starting point. Then google various topics to get a sense of what it is about. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theoryMy college courses in computer science touched on this briefly and in a way specific to software engineering. Just enough so that 30 years later to be aware of the concepts and where to go for more info.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 14, 2019 19:31:48 GMT -6
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I just finished my initial read-through of Rob's book. I agree with your first point, but when you consider that this book and I would assume his upcoming book, are aimed not at the casual reader or even the fan of OD&D, but rather at an academic audience, his style and use of jargon makes much more sense. Within a sentence or two, I realized (flashbacks to grad school) that I was reading something that was aimed at an audience numbering most likely in the dozens or generously hundreds - not the casual fan of RPGs, or even the fairly dedicated fan with a strong interest in their history. Taken in this respect, the whole style and structure makes much more sense. That said, I do think this book could have benefited from a much stronger editorial hand (if there was one at all). Another reason I am critical in regards to this point and remained critical is that the thesis in part was to explain the True Genius of Dave Arneson. What good is it if it only be understood by a small slice of the population of the US let along the hobbyists of tabletop roleplaying. How a guy invented an activity meant to be undertaken in the time one has for a hobby. Frankly I think that the true genius of both Arneson and Gygax that in turn and together they developed this novel form of play that has great depth but can be done by young and old within the time one has for a hobby. It been my experience in software development that the hardest things to develop are often the simplest things. Regarding your third, I agree with your point, but I'm not sure that the innate bias (which I think any author brings to anything they write) negates or degrades his conclusions. Setting aside Rob's own biases, I think the important thing here is to interact with his argument (admittedly not the easiest thing in some instances) - first do his premises support his conclusions? At that point, are his premises supportable/correct? If so, the biases are irrelevant. First of it been a few months since I last read the books so I may have some details jumbled up and conflated with followup discussion. Where the bias distorts the conclusion in the assessment of the utility of commercial publications versus original work. To me there is no difference. It all stuff building up on one another. The only problem if one thing think they are beholden to the source material. Which is just as much as an issue with Homer and Tolkien, as it with Gygax, or Greenwood.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Feb 14, 2019 21:45:01 GMT -6
When you say "General system theory", is there some site or source that you would recommend that clarifies/defines that jargon? I don't think I've ever heard that phrase before. This wikipedia article is a starting point. Then google various topics to get a sense of what it is about. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theoryMy college courses in computer science touched on this briefly and in a way specific to software engineering. Just enough so that 30 years later to be aware of the concepts and where to go for more info. Thanks to you and doublejig2 for the links.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Feb 15, 2019 2:43:38 GMT -6
I concur. You know, I've ALWAYS thought that this was the case - in fact, it didn't even occur to me that folks would try to argue otherwise. I base this largely comparative rules-lightness of B/X, but also because B/X is properly titled "Dungeons & Dragons", just like OD&D, whereas AD&D is properly titled "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" On an unrelated note, I received my copy of Rob's book yesterday and am looking forward to reading it. You'd be AMAZED at how many OD&D and AD&D fans violently despise B/X and consider it "D&D for children." And you'd be stunned at how DESPERATELY AD&D fans want to be the "true" evolution of OD&D. Those of us who like OD&D, B/X, AND AD&D seem to be few and far between. I know a few of those folks. They especially hate race as class. Pity, because I love B/X and AD&D, and I'd happily run a game with either system.
|
|