"As complete as possible"

[Finarvyn]

To steal a quote from the Introduction to Men & Magic:

These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity — your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination — the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned. New details can be added and old “laws” altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.

A somewhat egotistical thought that three little brown books of 36+40+36 pages (56 sheets of paper) could do it all, but they do an amazing job. To me, part of the “old school” flavor which is OD&D comes down to that minimalist philosophy where a writer had to cram everything critical into a tiny space and leave out the flowery extras.

For example, I remember when my father first bought a TRS-80 computer back in 1980. The memory on that thing was near zero. Even going back a couple of decades, computer memory was somewhat precious so programmers had to be frugal. Today, computer memory is so cheap that programmers can waste space and who really cares?

I imagine the early days of TSR, with a handful of people sitting around in a basement or a garage wondering “Now, how can we scrape together a few thousand bucks to print this thing we have made?”, and they know that each sheet of paper added to the booklet will add out-of-pocket cost which would never be regained if the game doesn’t sell any copies. They would have to be minimalist in the way things were put together.

For today’s game designers things are different. Crank out a bunch of pages and PDF the whole thing. I remember many of the later TSR products with huge borders on every page. Size was more impressive than content.

Re-read the little brown books and think about the content per page. Amazing!

[crimhthanthegreat]

It is amazing! If you have read the Kask comments in his new Q&A thread at DF, it is even more amazing. IMO it is a very cohesive and organic whole that covers all the territory that needs to be covered. I question whether it would have caught on like it did if it had answered too many questions and did not leave alot of room for the Ref to tinker and create. If the first time out of the gate as it had run to several hundred pages it would probably have died right there. It was indeed as complete as possible and thank goodness there was a space limitation. For all that many people (especially those who are into rules heavy games) like to disparage it for being incomplete, that was a major strength it had. I know it made me want to tinker and create and experiment. I often wrote things in in pencil and erased them the next day.

[Finarvyn]

crimhthanthegreat said:

If you have read the Kask comments in his new Q&A thread at DF...

As a total aside here, I find the Q&A threads on DF quite intimidating. The reason is because they seem to explode into 50 pages or so almost overnight and it takes forever to wade through that stuff. I used to read some of them, but pretty much gave it up long ago.

Your other point about the game catching on because they didn't say too much is an interesting one, considering that RPGs marketed in today's industry work from exactly the opposite viewpoint.

In the old days, we sat around a table with rulebooks in hand and wonder "hmmm, what do you think this means?" and then come up with an interpretation that makes sense to us. If we didn't like the rule, we adjusted it or threw it out altogether. My friend loved the hit location rules in Supplement II Blackmoor and I hated them so we each ran our games the way we liked and didn't try to convert each other over to the "correct" way to play. I knew that when he ran his world, that's the way the game would be played.

Nowadays, RPG books seem to start out with "here's how to play" and spend a chapter on what role-playing means and that d12 means "that funky 12 sided die" or whatever. Many games have a section where they remind players to bring snacks so that one person doesn't always do it, and to pick up when you leave so that everyone shares the burden. I'm not saying that these things aren't important (a few of my players should read this post and take a hint) but who ever came up with the idea that this stuff should fill up a rulebook?

[crimhthanthegreat]

Exactly, those of my friends that ref all have different house rules than I do, some are the same and some are a lot different. That helps keep the game fresh and alive, it is great to play in someone else's game and you know he is going to throw a whole different paradigm at you.

As for the game reminding players to be good guests and share the burden of hosting, that is a fetchin up thing. You didn't have to tell that to me and my friends. And for my group at least, you don't have to tell that to our kids and fortunately not to our grandkids either, and we are hopeful that it will be passed on to our great grandkids. The family culture can pass on good things or bad things from generation to generation. We set firm boundaries and expectations of what is and is not acceptable behaviour and we refuse to water it down or overlook bad behaviour. Consequences to bad decisions are as much a part of real life in our families as it is in our D&D campaign.

[tgamemaster1975]

The game is complete enough, that leaves all of us room to do our own thing. Although I also play OAD&D sometimes, I am not sure that I would have been as enthused back in the day if that was where we had started.

[dwayanu]

I think Holmes Basic helped bring in a lot of new players by clarifying things. The LBBs on their own could be off-putting (especially to folks without miniature-wargame experience). I'm not sure I would have known quite what to make of them had I not been introduced to the concepts through actual play.

That need not lead to huge rulesbooks; even EPT and RuneQuest were not much more than 100 pages.

Metamorphosis Alpha packed a lot into 32 pages.

Traveller Books 1-3 were similar to D&D in brevity and semi-generic, rules-light approach.

The standard of "completeness" back then seems to have been providing enough basic tools and inspiration to get the referee started, to spur the imagination.

It was perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive: Here are some examples of what you can do! The T&T rulesbook is especially explicit in that way.

[thorswulf]

Ah yes, small boxed games with small booklets... for under $15.00. Man I miss those prices! Of course I never had enough money either, so maybe my hindsight is getting mucked up by rose colored glasses! Then again with $30.00+ single rulebooks that are only a part of the game system....

[coffee]

I think the attitude was "as complete as possible without totally stifling your own creativity."

Especially if you have someone who already knows the game to teach you how to play.

And that's the way it ought to be.

[dwayanu]

Funny thing regarding prices:

My original Traveller LBBs (along with most of my game collection) were casualties of misfortune more than a decade ago. I think the Books 1-8 reprint volume cost me less (even if I'd paid in 1970s dollars) than the originals had.

It's not the same as having the LBBs, but ...