|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 15, 2019 9:37:44 GMT -6
I never understood the dislike of any particular edition of classic D&D. Sure I don't like or use race as class but it is trival to sub in OD&D (or AD&D's) take on race and allow Elves to be fighter, magic-users or fighter/magic-users.
To extend it further it is trivial to sub in broad subsystems from one classic edition to the other to get the exact flavor you want. Even selected elements from 3rd or 5th edition can be subbed in. Although swapping in whole subsystem will problematic with later editions.
On my 'to do' list for D&D rules project is an idea to make a build your own D&D product. Basically outline the choices and have broad sections of text formatted so they can be swapped in or out. Then the combination printed as your D&D.
To be clear I am not criticizing anybody's love or like of particular edition. But if the only things that stopping a person from using B/X is race as class. Then it is easily fixed by race and class rules from another classic edition.
|
|
tec97
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 157
|
Post by tec97 on Feb 15, 2019 10:33:41 GMT -6
I never understood the dislike of any particular edition of classic D&D. Sure I don't like or use race as class but it is trival to sub in OD&D (or AD&D's) take on race and allow Elves to be fighter, magic-users or fighter/magic-users. To be clear I am not criticizing anybody's love or like of particular edition. But if the only things that stopping a person from using B/X is race as class. Then it is easily fixed by race and class rules from another classic edition. It does seem a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to dispense with all the really cool stuff about B/X because you're tripping up over race-as-class.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 15, 2019 18:51:28 GMT -6
It's kind of weird that this thread on Rob's book has shifted to a conversation about Moldvay/Cook's D&D.
I find it interesting that answers are often found in that war game that Rob's book seeks to diminish as a significant influence. Maybe I'm taking it for granted that people on here are already aware that the treatment of elves in OD&D is greatly influenced by Chainmail, that the whole dual class option for such can be traced back to where Chainmail mentions Moorcock's Elric as a "Combination Figure". It was meant to be an exceptional character and was never intended to eliminate the other individual options. As a result, I would gather that some view race as class, as found in BX, to be a more restrictive interpretation and presentation (kinda counter to the whole open possibilities philosophy found in Rob's book).
Don't get me wrong, I like the organization and presentation of Moldvay/Cook even though I feel it was largely a marketing strategy for an expanding product line (again, kinda counter to the whole original designers intent as Rob represents it in his book).
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 15, 2019 20:51:29 GMT -6
Just thought I'd poke in long enough to mention that OD&D elves are NOT automatically both fighting-elves and magic-users. It is entirely possible to have an elf character that is only one or the other their entire life. Just because they CAN change class between adventures, doesn't mean they're required too
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 16, 2019 8:05:44 GMT -6
Yes, I already stated this in my previous post further up thread (almost exactly). It is part of my point above- this is not an option in BX (race as class) where it IS automatic
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Feb 16, 2019 18:36:55 GMT -6
I know the Gazeteers had an elf fighter option, where elves progressed solely as fighters. Perhaps that can also be done with the magic-user class.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 16, 2019 18:41:40 GMT -6
As a result, I would gather that some view race as class, as found in BX, to be a more restrictive interpretation and presentation (kinda counter to the whole open possibilities philosophy found in Rob's book). Race as a class is a setting conceit. Or more specific the implied fantasy setting that underlies B/X D&D. There nothing "wrong" with the idea if that how elves, dwarves, and halflings work in your setting. My view it is not any more less or open than any other arbitrary treatment of class and race. I don't like it because it doesn't align with my views on the subject or how my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands, works. (which is pick a race and a class). But I concede that for another referee and another setting it may work for example Adventurer, Conqueror, King and The Auran Empire. My view the open possibilities philosophy is best realized asa meta-game concept. An approach to how you create a campaign and it setting. Don't start with any particular set of rules. Instead figure out what setting and campaign you want to run first, and then assemble the rules that best reflect the campaign you want to run. Trying to weigh this set of rules as more open than another set of rules is a fool's errand in my opinion. If the referee has the attitude of running the campaign with rules as written. If a referee is committed to RAW then every rules either original or purchased is a closed rigid system. But the reverse attitude, the player can attempt anything as their character as long as it make sense in light of how the setting works and what been described about their character, leads to open play. Most of the time you will be using rules RAW because they are an aide that covers things that are attempted often like combat. However with this attitude the rule don't set the boundaries of what is possible. Only the setting and what is described about the character sets those limits.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Feb 16, 2019 19:08:48 GMT -6
D&D is more flexible than a lot of folks think. It's relatively easy to adapt house rules or even rules from a different system. In one of my earliest stints as DM, my group mixed B/X with AD&D without a second thought. I didn't have a problem allowing an AD&D paladin in my B/X game. Another group I joined years later used the critical hit and fumble charts from MERP. Both those options worked out fine for my respective groups. So getting away from race as class in B/X or BECMI wouldn't break the system.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 16, 2019 20:47:59 GMT -6
Race as a class is a setting conceit. Or more specific the implied fantasy setting that underlies B/X D&D. There nothing "wrong" with the idea if that how elves, dwarves, and halflings work in your setting. My view the open possibilities philosophy is best realized as a meta-game concept. An approach to how you create a campaign and it setting. Don't start with any particular set of rules. Instead figure out what setting and campaign you want to run first, and then assemble the rules that best reflect the campaign you want to run. I've attempted to pull this conversation about Moldvay/Cook back into the context of this threads title. The thing about philosophies is that people aren't consistent. I find most philosophies end up being little more than slogans really. Rob's book points to the expansive codification of D&D and the publication of modules, supported by consumerism, as the death knell to open design. You're suggesting even more expansive rules publications- one to suit every flavor setting. If a referee is committed to RAW then every rules either original or purchased is a closed rigid system. That is exactly right. Once rules are written, the game increasingly becomes a closed design. Such things as level limits and race as class are contributors to a closed system. All these sorts of things can be justified to suit an individuals proclivities of course. Listen, I really am not against a person playing any edition they want. I just don't want a lot of smoke blown up my skirt that it's all the same because of, well, philosophy. It's not what I'm hearing in Rob's book.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 17, 2019 8:47:01 GMT -6
I've attempted to pull this conversation about Moldvay/Cook back into the context of this threads title. The thing about philosophies is that people aren't consistent. I find most philosophies end up being little more than slogans really. Rob's book points to the expansive codification of D&D and the publication of modules, supported by consumerism, as the death knell to open design. You're suggesting even more expansive rules publications- one to suit every flavor setting. I don't see how that follows from what I said. To be clear the two main points of my thesis are: 1) A referee should be begin by defining the campaign and its setting. Then assemble what they need to run it whether it is a original research, original materials, or using published material. 2) If the players attempts something that is not covered by the rules or aids then the referee should look to the how the character and setting are defined. I.e. how they are described in plain english. The rules I am referring too are a just a long list of procedures and definition used to quantify elements of the setting and campaign. For example to hit an unarmored man when a starting character you need a 10 or better or on a d20. If a referee is committed to RAW then every rules either original or purchased is a closed rigid system. That is exactly right. Once rules are written, the game increasingly becomes a closed design. Such things as level limits and race as class are contributors to a closed system. All these sorts of things can be justified to suit an individuals proclivities of course.[/quote] That was not what I was getting at. It is natural for people look at tabletop roleplaying as a game rather than it own thing. Because it viewed as a game, because most of us were taught from a young age that one plays by it rules or otherwise you are cheating, the result is many play RPGs RAW. The situation is not result of commercialism of RPG but a result of inadequate explanation of how tabeltop RPG are their own thing combined with the near universal attitude about how one ought to follow the rules of a game. Listen, I really am not against a person playing any edition they want. I just don't want a lot of smoke blown up my skirt that it's all the same because of, well, philosophy. It's not what I'm hearing in Rob's book. Sure but to be clear I don't agree with Rob's thesis as to the cause or solution of the issue. I am very skeptical of his conclusion because of the account he gives of his experience in the early days of D&D. My opinion is that the bias against commercialism has tainted his thesis and conclusions. I look at the same issue and see the problem as something altogether different. That until recently nobody adequately described the culture and techniques that were being used in the wargaming community of the late 60s and early 70s. What my conclusion is that based on the account and documentation given that because of the absence of any published game material, players had to do their own work in coming up with mechanics and data to run their game. If you want to run a Waterloo battle scenario you need to go into the military histories and survey and pull what you need to make a game used dice. That the early books, like Featherstone, were mostly about this process of figuring this out. As opposed to being just a set of rules. For example I have a civil war miniature game called Johnny Reb. Featherstone and contemporary books gave rules like those found in Johnny Reb but their focus was on how to make a game like Johnny Reb. Nothing like Featherstone was written for RPGs in the beginning. Beyond the wargaming community that spawned tabletop RPG all one had were rules. And the original DiY wargamming community was also swamped by the rise of Avalon Hill and SPI during the same time period. Going forward to the mid and late 70s, most hobbyist learned and treated RPGs (and wargames) as normal games. Games where you follow the rules or you are cheating. Not all was bleak in the world of RPGs or even wargames. Even as just rules, RPG are pretty flexible things so despite the lack of explicit explanations, many wound up doing their own thing anyway. As a result my view the solution is not that complex. Define the campaign and its setting, then assemble the elements you need to run it including the rules. If the rules don't cover something that player can do as their character, then make a ruling based on the details of the settings and the character. Keep in mind the genius of Dave Arneson is not just he created tabletop roleplaying, but he created tabletop roleplaying in a way one can have fun doing within the time one has for a hobby. His techniques made it straightforward and simple enough that once exposed most go, like Gygax, "Yeah I get it" and do it for themselves. Likewise it is simple to recapture the spirit of the early days of wargaming and tabletop roleplaying. Don't start with a set of rules start with what is it you want to do and proceed from there.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 17, 2019 10:21:32 GMT -6
Yes, I already stated this in my previous post further up thread (almost exactly). It is part of my point above- this is not an option in BX (race as class) where it IS automatic Milhouse: I thought you said you could speed read forum posts without missing any information? Bart: I assumed I could!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 17, 2019 11:09:48 GMT -6
That was not what I was getting at. It is natural for people look at tabletop roleplaying as a game rather than it own thing. Because it viewed as a game, because most of us were taught from a young age that one plays by it rules or otherwise you are cheating, the result is many play RPGs RAW. The situation is not result of commercialism of RPG but a result of inadequate explanation of how tabeltop RPG are their own thing combined with the near universal attitude about how one ought to follow the rules of a game. I'd like to put this in a different framework. I think wargamers understand settings perfectly well. No one needs to explain how to set up a campaign to them. The original players were wargamers. Yet, after Arneson and Megarry show Gygax and Kuntz how to play in Blackmoor Gygax is unable to replicate the experience. These are guys who know of roleplay in relation to games like Diplomacy. Instead he and Arneson would have to have ongoing conversations about the game and Arneson would have to give Gygax his notes before D&D could be published. Once it is published, Arneson is said to often complain that it wasn't quite right. We are also told that when Michael goes off to college, he requests a copy of the draft rules- now referred to as the Monard fragments. Why would any of this be needed if the rules as written are unnecessary? Why not just "Make some s**t up"? I mean he was a wargamer. I feel the discounting of the rules in D&D is over stated and has become a bit of a false mantra about the games history.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 17, 2019 13:15:08 GMT -6
Korns really doesn't play much different from FITS except for the hidden movement aspect using a referee. I don't think it's really fair to reduce the distinction between those games to hidden movement. If you look at Hendrick's 1974 review of OD&D, he describes how the game works as follows: "The referee is informed of each action, and after consulting the maps he has made, the basic tables and information in the booklets, and his own imagination, gives the player a response. Those who remember Korns's 'Modern War in Miniature' will see the parallel." If you substitute out Korns for FitS there, Hendrick's statement wouldn't make much sense. Korns is open-ended enough that I imagine you could have been in a group that played Korns like it was a board game. But FitS has a rulebook filled with actual rules, and has turns with movement and combat phases, and CRTs, and all that, and you would have to add all that to Korns to make it work like that. And in FitS there's no one you can tell, "I want to try to imitate smoke in my cockpit by opening this sack of flour" or something. You move by like pushing pieces on a board, not by putting into words your idea of what you want to try to do. That's the part that Hendrick thought was like D&D, and it has larger implications than just permitting hidden movement.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 17, 2019 14:22:22 GMT -6
I'd like to put this in a different framework. I think wargamers understand settings perfectly well. No one needs to explain how to set up a campaign to them. I disagree, the problem in the beginning was how to translate military history and accounts into something interesting and fun to game This why Featherstone and his comtemporires were important as they were among the first to figure this out and teach others their techniques. Dave Arneson did this for tabletop role playing as well as Gary Gygax IYet, after Arneson and Megarry show Gygax and Kuntz how to play in Blackmoor Gygax is unable to replicate the experience. These are guys who know of roleplay in relation to games like Diplomacy. Instead he and Arneson would have to have ongoing conversations about the game and Arneson would have to give Gygax his notes before D&D could be published. Once it is published, Arneson is said to often complain that it wasn't quite right. We are going disagree about the role of Arneson and Gygax in the development of tabletop role playing. I am in the camp that the hobby and industry would not exist without both of their contributions. As for it not being right of course Dave would say that. D&D was written by Gygax and largely reflect his style of refereeing. Which was not the same as Dave's. A difference supported by numerous anecdotes. We are also told that when Michael goes off to college, he requests a copy of the draft rules- now referred to as the Monard fragments. Why would any of this be needed if the rules as written are unnecessary? Why not just "Make some s**t up"? I mean he was a wargamer. Convenience, familiarity, and/or maybe he just like using them? Again you are not paying attention to my points. I am arguing campaign first, rules to run the campaign second. If happens that GURPS, OD&D, or Runequest work best for your campaign great! If your own original rules work better then great! Or if you are a stellar communicator, have a good command of the setting, and have the trust of your players, then there may be no formal rules with every described in natural English. The means by which the campaign is run is not the issue here. Again my thesis is that if one is to play like they did back into the day. Define what it is you want to run and then design,or obtain the elements needed to make it happen. As opposed to picking a set of rules and letting that define your campaign for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 15:12:50 GMT -6
Convenience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2019 13:39:39 GMT -6
Such things as level limits and race as class are contributors to a closed system. B/X includes the four traditional classes as well as three examples of how classes can be modified. One adds power while taking power away in another area (hobbit's hit points), another adds some minor power at a cost of 20% XP (a penalty that appears in an earlier OD&D draft IIRC), and a third example of a class that combines the power of two classes while doubling the XP cost per level. Having character concepts include both race and class at the same time eliminates the concern for balance: making sure each new race works with existing classes, and each new class works with existing races. This allows a designer (or DM) much greater freedom to add exotic character types to the game with less concern that they will upset the game balance. Which is why you see wider variety of classes in B/X than you do in AD&D. IOW, race-as-class expands the game's design space significantly.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Feb 18, 2019 20:47:20 GMT -6
This is going to sound like "grognard" boundary policing but please take it just as a confession of my own experience - the idea that pre-2000 is "old school" seems way late to me. By the mid-eighties new D&D players generally did not understand "old school" styles of play - if they had just done B/X they could learn it pretty quickly (and might have figured it out themselves), but if they had come up on late 1e, 2e, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms (though this could be closer), etc. they were already in a different symbolic cosmology and a more explicitly defined set of play procedures. It's much easier to learn "old school" style play now with the internet and the social networks we've built up than it was at the average hobby store in 1996.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 19, 2019 18:58:19 GMT -6
We are going disagree about the role of Arneson and Gygax in the development of tabletop role playing. I don't think we have to disagree here. I'm not actually speaking to the role they each played in the games development. I'm simply stating facts that imply that the rules are a necessary part of understanding and running the game. That the game is not casually passed on through osmosis. This doesn't mean they have to be the focus of the game. It also does not imply that someone could not play in a game without knowing the rules. It means the game cannot be run without knowing them. Again my thesis is that if one is to play like they did back into the day. Define what it is you want to run and then design,or obtain the elements needed to make it happen. As opposed to picking a set of rules and letting that define your campaign for you. How do the rules define your campaign? This seems totally counter to the "old school" premise. OD&D has always been billed as open to any setting- it's been done time and again. Rob, I think I get what you're saying otherwise. Having character concepts include both race and class at the same time eliminates the concern for balance: making sure each new race works with existing classes, and each new class works with existing races. This allows a designer (or DM) much greater freedom to add exotic character types to the game with less concern that they will upset the game balance. Which is why you see wider variety of classes in B/X than you do in AD&D. IOW, race-as-class expands the game's design space significantly. Not sure that I really agree with your conclusion considering the Elf already had three potential paths in OD&D compared to one in BX. I don't play AD&D either so I'm not that interested in arguing the point. This has to do with whether or not Rob's theories of rules expansion increasingly caused D&D to move to a more closed system. You can agree with that premise or not. Besides, you really don't have to sell me on your favorite version because I'm okay with people playing whatever they want. Your comments about "balance" are interesting. Seems to be more of Gygax's thing. I'd be interested to hear Rob's take on balance and how it's achieved in an open design or if it even matters. I'm thinking it involves more of the GM's role than the rules though.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 20, 2019 9:18:17 GMT -6
I don't think we have to disagree here. I'm not actually speaking to the role they each played in the games development. I'm simply stating facts that imply that the rules are a necessary part of understanding and running the game. That the game is not casually passed on through osmosis. This doesn't mean they have to be the focus of the game. It also does not imply that someone could not play in a game without knowing the rules. It means the game cannot be run without knowing them. OD&D and tabletop roleplaying games have a human referee. Because of that the only absolute requirements are: 1) The setting of the campaign is explained 2) Players are given a description of their character. 3) That players are told they will be describing a situation, and the players are to describe what they do as if they were there as their character. That based on what they want to do, either they will succeed, fail, or be asked to make a dice roll. And that the situation and in the long run the campaign will develop from there. As for the referees, a general description of the above is generally enough to get them going. Provided they are already have some experience with dealing with probabilities and the idea of translating real world information into a form suitable for a game. Like many of those involved in the miniature wargaming community of the early 70s. If a referee doesn't have that experience then something like OD&D is invaluable for not only explaining the above. But giving specifics on how Gary Gygax handled these things in his Greyhawk campaign. For example using the alternative combat matrix and cross-indexing the character's level with the armor class of the target to see whether the character hit with a weapon or not. The difference is that, especially in the Upper Midwest, there was a DiY attitude among hobbyists in coming up with ideas for scenarios, games, and campaigns. It wasn't obvious that something like tabletop roleplaying could work, but once Dave Arneson figured it out, I am sure there was a lot of hobbyist going "Oh I can do this." Even though they didn't have access to Dave's notebook of rules. None of this was "magically" imparted to hobbyist. What was key that given the lack of published resource hobbyists were forced to do original research to come up with rules for the games they wanted to play. And the most dedicated and most successful (i.e. fun) ended up explaining to other hobbyist how they figured out things. "Oh yeah there 19th century book by Totten that is really good to read". Or "there some good books written by Featherstone and Bath." The above is what key about the era, not the rules they came up with. So if one wants to experience what was like to play back then, then come up with with an idea for a game, scenario, or campaign, then do the research to come up with the rules to play that out. Otherwise a hobbyist is doing the same thing as many other hobbyists have been doing since the early 70s. Obtaining a set of rules first and then running a campaign, scenario, or game based on those rules. How do the rules define your campaign? This seems totally counter to the "old school" premise. OD&D has always been billed as open to any setting- it's been done time and again. OD&D take on fantasy has been proven to be flexible, and popular. However it is not exhaustive and despite the lightness of the mechanics compared to later RPGs has several specifics. Magic is defined as remembering spells from a spell book. That they can be cast only once a day after which must be remembered again. Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings have brief but specific description. The listings of monsters, spells, and magic items reflects Ggygax and Arneson take on early 70s fantasy and horror. This same take is reflected in the choice of classes, cleric, fighting man, and magic user. Another referee with a different take on fantasy would come up with different rules for example M.A.R. Barker in Empire of the Petal Throne. Instead of remembering spells, spells are treated as skills with characters learning more of them as they level. For a more recent example look at my Majestic Wilderlands supplement. If Barker and myself have stuck with the rules and stuff of OD&D the nuances of our respective setting would not been reflected in our campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 23, 2019 21:25:31 GMT -6
OD&D take on fantasy has been proven to be flexible, and popular. However it is not exhaustive and despite the lightness of the mechanics compared to later RPGs has several specifics. Magic is defined as remembering spells from a spell book. That they can be cast only once a day after which must be remembered again. Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings have brief but specific description. The listings of monsters, spells, and magic items reflects Ggygax and Arneson take on early 70s fantasy and horror. This same take is reflected in the choice of classes, cleric, fighting man, and magic user. Another referee with a different take on fantasy would come up with different rules for example M.A.R. Barker in Empire of the Petal Throne. Instead of remembering spells, spells are treated as skills with characters learning more of them as they level. For a more recent example look at my Majestic Wilderlands supplement. If Barker and myself have stuck with the rules and stuff of OD&D the nuances of our respective setting would not been reflected in our campaigns. The ultimate question is, "What makes D&D D&D?" Rob has presented in his book what he refers to as the "architecture", really the core of Arneson's concept. This is what he says is the same in all RPG's. This is what makes it an open design and presents the idea that a player can be anything, try anything, go anywhere. Here is where we say the rules don't matter (neither does the setting or the idea of a campaign). It is the rules that create the parameters, as you have pointed out above. It is also the rules that define the game you are playing. This why we have conversations like, "I play OD&D", or "I play BX", or "I play RuneQuest", or "I play a homebrewed version of x-y-z". Any one of these systems can share settings. It's really more a matter of what rules you enjoy using. So, I tend to disagree with Rob's conclusion that the advent of AD&D started to create an environment for the closing of the design. I feel it was already introduced with OD&D. The game will always lend itself to adding closed elements to the basic architecture.
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Feb 24, 2019 6:14:50 GMT -6
I'm a definite neophyte to this discussion however it appears Dave's "D&D" (and I use quotes because he called it Blackmoor) was less about defining the experience with rules and more about defining the experience with the imagination, his and his players. Rob's book is illumination, way over my feeble level of comprehension, but illumination none-the-less!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 24, 2019 8:11:48 GMT -6
That's because Blackmoor (the RPG) has never really been defined with published rules unless you equate Blackmoor Supplement II as official. We do see pieces of Arneson's methods within the FFC, for the most part this document is devoid of key rules on combat and character generation/progression. We could just look to OD&D, but both the supplement and OD&D are said to not quite be to Arneson's taste and we know there was some heavy editing and reinterpretations of Arneson's notes in both these documents.
I'd suggest that if we ever receive a document that is purported to be the official Blackmoor rules you would be looking at a closed design and not Arneson's original intent. It would really need to be a template (guidelines) empty of examples otherwise.
*As an observation, because Blackmoor lacks official rules, it is part of the reason some associate the game with the setting first.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 24, 2019 9:00:14 GMT -6
I'd suggest that if we ever receive a document that is purported to be the official Blackmoor rules you would be looking at a closed design and not Arneson's original intent. It would really need to be a template (guidelines) empty of examples otherwise. In my mind I see such a "rules set" as actually just a notebook full of precedent and not limitation, where the way things have worked would be written down without specification that those things would HAVE to work that way forever. It might imply a closed design in that the past has already happened, but also an open design in that things could change as the campaign evolves. I was running a 5E game for my group the other day. They happened to be adventuring on the old Judges Guild map for the Blackmoor area, but that is coincidental to this particular story. Even though it's a 5E game, I like to play very OD&D-like so when I rolled an encounter of 20 brigands I decided to go back to my old "hit kill" system from the 1970's for fighting mooks. (Basically, if a given hit is 4 hp or more, the brigand is dead and remove the mini. Less than 4 damage and we keep him on the board. I don't bother to track accumulated HP for these guys.) So when these 20 brigands popped out the party started to get really nervous because they were thinking of 5E guys with 10-20 HP each, but I told them that these guys didn't look too tough so they decided to shelve the fireballs and try a little combat. They loved it. It didn't follow the 5E rules and they didn't care. Our paladin was practically giddy as he was mowing through the bad guys, much like in the old days when I ran some combats with Chainmail's mass combat charts and used the Fighting Capability for multiple attacks. Also, in 5E the fire bolt cantrip is usually 1d10 damage but this changes to 2d20 at 5th level, so I told the wizard that she could have TWO cantrip attacks (one for each d10) instead of the usual one to account for the fact that her cantrip was better. Not remotely by the rulebook, but it worked because the group really enjoyed the session and the encounter wasn't just one similar combat after another. My point is that if I had rolled 6 brigands I would have thrown 5E guys at them but by rolling 20 I decided to change the combat style on the fly to make the encounter fun and different. I like to think that this is what Dave's games were like. Not that one would say "there are no rules" or "he just made everything up" because that seems to imply a degree of randomness or GM fiat where "he let us win" or whatever. No, I picked a challenge and then picked a style that fit the challenge and was willing to change that style to reflect the way the game was going at the time. I guess to put it into "OD&D perspective" it would be a matter of whether the brigands had 1 HD or 1+1 HD.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 24, 2019 10:42:54 GMT -6
It is also the rules that define the game you are playing. This why we have conversations like, "I play OD&D", or "I play BX", or "I play RuneQuest", or "I play a homebrewed version of x-y-z". Any one of these systems can share settings. This is the crux of our disagreement. Rules don't define what tabletop RPGs are about. Rules are just one of the tools to make a campaign happen and to make it interesting as a hobby. It's really more a matter of what rules you enjoy using. One can build a building with Black & Decker, Craftsmen, or Channellock tools. However individuals prefer to build a building using a particular brand of tool. The ultimate question is, "What makes D&D D&D?" Rob has presented in his book what he refers to as the "architecture", really the core of Arneson's concept. This is what he says is the same in all RPG's. This is what makes it an open design and presents the idea that a player can be anything, try anything, go anywhere. Here is where we say the rules don't matter (neither does the setting or the idea of a campaign). The state only exists prior to a referee creating an idea for a campaign. Once the setting is defined, players can only do what character can do within that setting. It can be expansive if we are talking about campaign with magic or super powers. However in absence of a supernatural or extraordinary explanation the exception the setting will operate as our universe does. Hence a character can't flap their arms and fly if the setting of the campaign is based on world like Europe during the medieval era. It is the rules that create the parameters, as you have pointed out above. That not what I said. The rules encompasses procedures that handles or define some element of the setting. What I didn't get into is that may be elements of the setting that don't have rules. For example Basket weaving. Basket weaving may never get any type of definition or procedure due to the players never doing anything involving basket weaving. However if basket weaving came up, then I would define a procedure to handle (which may be as a simple as "You successfully weave a basket, what you do with it?") or extrapolate a procedure based on the rules I already been using. So, I tend to disagree with Rob's conclusion that the advent of AD&D started to create an environment for the closing of the design. I feel it was already introduced with OD&D. The game will always lend itself to adding closed elements to the basic architecture. I realize this is a harsh criticism of your argument, but you are missing point of it all by making the same mistake that most make in talking about this stuff. You think that RPGs are just another type of game. Everybody been taught from the cradle that games have rules, that you follow the rules of the game or you are cheating, that rules define what the games is about. Especially if involves something that been formally published. While the consensus that you can do more with RPGs, there always lurking in the background that little voice going "It a game with rules, rules define what a games is about, don't break the rules or you are cheating". RPGs are not games as traditionally understood. Instead RPGs are a technique allow people to enter a pen & paper virtual reality and do fun and interesting things as a character or even themselves in some campaigns. One of the tools that makes this fun and interesting is using the rules of a wargame to resolve things with the result is uncertain like exploration, combat or merchant trading. However it is the technique that Arneson developed that defines RPGs not the rules. Once more so you are clear what I mean by this technique. It is 1) A referee is designated (Dave Arneson) 2) A setting is created. (Blackmoor) 3) A campaign is defined. (You will be adventurers exploring Blackmoor) 4) Character are created for each player (Charles is strong, can wear heavy armor, and swing a two handed sword well) 5) A situation is described (You see on the shores of a bay a town wrapped around a prominence with a castle on it. The town is called Blackmoor) 6) The players describe what they do as their character (After talking among ourselves we decide as a group to go to the nearest gate) 7) The referee then returns to step #5 and this loop is repeated until the conclusion of the campaign. (You see two guards, one looks bored, the other look angry at something and clearly giving people entering the town a hard time) You ask what make D&D, D&D? It is an activity where players interact with a setting as their character with a human referee adjudicating the results of their action. Often by using their experience, knowledge of the setting, dice, and the rules of a game. Often handled over multiple interconnected session called a campaign. The result is something else, not a game as it was traditionally understood.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 24, 2019 10:51:46 GMT -6
That's because Blackmoor (the RPG) has never really been defined with published rules unless you equate Blackmoor Supplement II as official. We do see pieces of Arneson's methods within the FFC, for the most part this document is devoid of key rules on combat and character generation/progression. We could just look to OD&D, but both the supplement and OD&D are said to not quite be to Arneson's taste and we know there was some heavy editing and reinterpretations of Arneson's notes in both these documents. I'd suggest that if we ever receive a document that is purported to be the official Blackmoor rules you would be looking at a closed design and not Arneson's original intent. It would really need to be a template (guidelines) empty of examples otherwise. *As an observation, because Blackmoor lacks official rules, it is part of the reason some associate the game with the setting first. You are ignoring the commentary and documentation that Blackmoor rules were continually evolving. Yet there as a pattern to this, that Dave relied on his knowledge of medieval history, folkloore, and fantasy in general to decide what the Blackmoor is or what it was about. Then came up with ruling to reflect that. That both the setting itself changed over time as he added or omitted elements. And that how to best adjudicate various elements changed over time. Something that I also experienced with the development of my own campaign setting the Majestic Wilderlands. The Majestic Wilderlands of 1985 was not the same as the Majestic Wilderlands of 1995 or 2018. Nor did how I thought things like combat and magic ought to be handled remained static even when I stuck to the same rules system for long periods of time. How magic worked using GURPS in 1988 was not the same as how magic worked using GURPS in 2008. The heart of the decision process, was and remains, how do I want the Majestic Wilderlands to work in my campaigns. Everything I read about Dave lead me to conclude that was the heart of his decisions regarding Blackmoor.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Feb 24, 2019 11:34:56 GMT -6
Does a campaign mature like wine? Who is considering that question? The GM likely struggles with overarching coherency concerns, which the players never confront.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 24, 2019 11:39:58 GMT -6
In my mind I see such a "rules set" as actually just a notebook full of precedent and not limitation, where the way things have worked would be written down without specification that those things would HAVE to work that way forever. It might imply a closed design in that the past has already happened, but also an open design in that things could change as the campaign evolves. There are two maxims that can be applied to pretty much any game. In my own words they are: 1. If the rules do not explicitly permit it, it's forbidden. 2. If the rules do not explicitly forbid it, it's permissible. The first represents a completely closed design. The second allows for variants, house rules, and addendums. Neither is unique to RPG's alone.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 24, 2019 14:59:04 GMT -6
In my mind I see such a "rules set" as actually just a notebook full of precedent and not limitation, where the way things have worked would be written down without specification that those things would HAVE to work that way forever. It might imply a closed design in that the past has already happened, but also an open design in that things could change as the campaign evolves. There are two maxims that can be applied to pretty much any game. In my own words they are: 1. If the rules do not explicitly permit it, it's forbidden. 2. If the rules do not explicitly forbid it, it's permissible. The first represents a completely closed design. The second allows for variants, house rules, and addendums. Neither is unique to RPG's alone. You ignoring the fact that there is a human referee in the equation. One referee can interpret a given set of rules as #1 and another use the same of rules and interpret as #2. The only way #1 hold true for any RPG if the referee asquices to that premise. The corollary of Gronan's sig "Rules can't fix stupid" is that rules can't prevent a smart referee from running things as they see fit. The whole dichotomy of closed versus open design of a system of rules is a non-issue. Whether a campaign is open or close is a result of the choice of the human referee in how they adjudicate.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 24, 2019 16:41:11 GMT -6
You ignoring the fact that there is a human referee in the equation. Not really important to my point. There are games that existed well before the advent of RPG's that either maxim might apply to and used referees. Making a ruling is not somehow unique to RPG's alone.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Feb 24, 2019 17:36:55 GMT -6
You ignoring the fact that there is a human referee in the equation. Not really important to my point. There are games that existed well before the advent of RPG's that either maxim might apply to and used referees. Making a ruling is not somehow unique to RPG's alone. We are talking about RPGs not other games or activities that use referee. RPG campaigns use referee as a result how a referee conducts an RPG campaign is part of the discussion. The issue of open or closed can't be determined through the examination of the rules, only by examination of the behavior of the referee.
|
|