sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Mar 31, 2008 11:30:14 GMT -6
Sometimes an apple is an apple, other times it's an orange, sometimes it's a pie, sometimes it's a turnover, sometimes it's a crisp or cobbler, and sometimes you can't tell if the mush is an apple, an orange, some of both, or something else entirely different (perhaps not even a fruit). Frank Hopefully, it all tastes good. If so, I won't complain about whether it is or isn't an apple. But at what point does it stop being an apple? Apples have stem, core, seeds and skin. Without those it simply isn't Original Apple (tm). ;D
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 31, 2008 23:27:03 GMT -6
I'd have no trouble considering a game that broke any (or even all) of those rules sacred cows to still be D&D so long as the people playing it considered it to be D&D. EPT certainly is only not-D&D IMO because TSR chose to label it that way; the same goes for Metamorphosis Alpha, which IMO would've made for a kick-ass D&D supplement. Heck, By the Book RuneQuest (1st edition at least) has enough similarities to D&D that if people playing by those rules chose to call their game D&D I wouldn't argue with them. The same for a group playing by the rules of Tunnels & Trolls.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Apr 1, 2008 9:28:56 GMT -6
I'd have no trouble considering a game that broke any (or even all) of those rules sacred cows to still be D&D so long as the people playing it considered it to be D&D. EPT certainly is only not-D&D IMO because TSR chose to label it that way; the same goes for Metamorphosis Alpha, which IMO would've made for a kick-ass D&D supplement. Heck, By the Book RuneQuest (1st edition at least) has enough similarities to D&D that if people playing by those rules chose to call their game D&D I wouldn't argue with them. The same for a group playing by the rules of Tunnels & Trolls. But then what meaning does "we play D&D" have? If someone invites me to their D&D campaign, can I expect to find D&D books in use or something else? At least with D&D, you do have to ask which edition, which should then bring out that they actually play RQ or whatever. Frank
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 1, 2008 11:22:10 GMT -6
But then what meaning does "we play D&D" have? If someone invites me to their D&D campaign, can I expect to find D&D books in use or something else? First off, I suppose I should clarify that when I mentioned those other games what I really meant was that sets of house-rules that resembled, or diverged from baseline D&D to a comparable extent to, EPT, MA, RQ, or T&T would still be D&D to me if the people playing them still considered them to be D&D. But if you're playing under a set of published rules with another name then you're definitely playing that game, not D&D. Which, I suppose, is my answer to the "beard" argument -- you have a beard when you're willing to declare that the hair on your face is a beard; your house-ruled game is no longer D&D as soon as you stop calling it D&D. As for what to reasonably expect when joining a D&D campaign, I'd say the only real baseline expectations are that there will be a referee figure responsible for defining challenges and adjudicating actions (though that role need not necessarily be confined to a single person or distinct from playing a character), that the focus will be on individual characters rather than groups (each player could have more than 1 character apiece but they'd still be defined as individuals), and that the setting will have some degree of the fantastic, weird, or unexplained (though beyond that it could be ancient, medieval, modern, far future, or another world/dimension entirely). My personal definition would add that the activity of the game should generally focus on exploration and heroic action/adventure with at least the threat of violence and death (a game in which, say, the characters stay in town working as shopkeepers that is focused entirely on simulating a fantastical-medieval economy, would IMO stretch the definition of "what is D&D?" moreso than something like MA or RQ1 even if it followed the rules and meta-setting of the OD&D booklets exactly) but I know that's not a universally-accepted norm (thus stories of D&D campaigns in which the characters never left town and never got into a single fight). Pretty much everything else is negotiable IMO. The way you find out specifics is by asking questions of the ref and other participants -- what's the setting like? what happens in a typical session? what character types are allowed? how is combat handled? how about non-combat tasks? should I bring along my own copies of the rules and if so what books? The theoretical appeal of AD&D is that most of those questioned are already answered and thus don't need to be asked, even if that's not how it actually worked out in practice. The Moldvay and Mentzer Classic D&D sets did the same for non-A D&D, establishing a solid baseline so it was no longer necessary to ask a bunch of preliminary questions (which is why that version is so good for casual and beginner play and has been dubbed the "sit your butt down and start playing" edition). There's appeal in that approach, but there's danger too (since you think you know what you're getting into you don't bother to ask questions and only find out later that the game isn't matching your expectations) and more potential for boring sameness (the creative rut that AD&D was in from ~1984 on). I prefer the wide-open potential of D&D as originally envisaged, when the rules in the books were inspirational examples and starting points, not limits and boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 1, 2008 11:37:12 GMT -6
I prefer the wide-open potential of D&D as originally envisaged, when the rules in the books were inspirational examples and starting points, not limits and boundaries. I hear a lot of people say this and I know history certainly supports the notion that there was a wide diversity in " D&D" campaigns before the advent of AD&D. Indeed, Gary was very upfront about the fact that he considered the flexibility and openness of OD&D to be less than desirable in many cases and a driving concern behind the whole AD&D project. That said, I simply can't believe that there mere facts that OD&D is frequently unclear or open to interpretation and that, to deal with these realities, many early referees and players had to come up with their own solutions to such problems as arose, it was the authors' intention that "anything goes." I agree that OD&D has a much more permeable "boundary" than do most other editions of D&D but there is still a boundary and it's not purely a "philosophical" one. There are in fact mechanical non-negotiables in D&D. To cite a fairly uncontroversial one, I think "classless D&D" is an oxymoron and I'm sure, with some effort, we could come up with other similar things. D&D, including OD&D, is not just a "state of mind." That's as true now as it was in 1974, I feel, although I rather expect some disagreement on this contention almost immediately. So be it.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Apr 1, 2008 18:51:59 GMT -6
I think what's interesting here is how much we're confusing setting with the game. In terms of setting, D&D is pretty wide open (as we've been debating on another thread). But in terms of game rules, D&D does have elements that are pretty much non-negotiable: - Classes. There need to be character classes.
- Levels of advancement, with experience points. How those are implemented is open, but the concept of starting off as a relatively untried novice, and then working towards becoming a hero - that's fixed.
- A combat system that is actually relatively abstract, rather than being a direct simulation (we'll leave that to RQ or RoleMaster).
- Monsters guarding treasure. Inasmuch as a LOT of fantasy suggests this concept, in D&D the rules directly connect the two. Risk and reward, paired up.
- The conceptual use of exploration as the focus of adventure.
I'm probably missing a bunch and then some. But this is a start (and matches with what some other folks have suggested).
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 2, 2008 7:29:07 GMT -6
But in terms of game rules, D&D does have elements that are pretty much non-negotiable: - Classes. There need to be character classes.
- Levels of advancement, with experience points. How those are implemented is open, but the concept of starting off as a relatively untried novice, and then working towards becoming a hero - that's fixed.
- A combat system that is actually relatively abstract, rather than being a direct simulation (we'll leave that to RQ or RoleMaster).
- Monsters guarding treasure. Inasmuch as a LOT of fantasy suggests this concept, in D&D the rules directly connect the two. Risk and reward, paired up.
- The conceptual use of exploration as the focus of adventure.
I think this is a pretty good list. I'd personally be even more specific than this. For example, I think the abstract nature of combat demands hit points and non-ablative armor, but I'll readily concede that I probably have one of the more narrow definitions of what constitutes D&D around here.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 2, 2008 8:53:22 GMT -6
But in terms of game rules, D&D does have elements that are pretty much non-negotiable: - Classes. There need to be character classes.
- Levels of advancement, with experience points. How those are implemented is open, but the concept of starting off as a relatively untried novice, and then working towards becoming a hero - that's fixed.
- A combat system that is actually relatively abstract, rather than being a direct simulation (we'll leave that to RQ or RoleMaster).
- Monsters guarding treasure. Inasmuch as a LOT of fantasy suggests this concept, in D&D the rules directly connect the two. Risk and reward, paired up.
- The conceptual use of exploration as the focus of adventure.
I think this is a pretty good list. I'd personally be even more specific than this. For example, I think the abstract nature of combat demands hit points and non-ablative armor, but I'll readily concede that I probably have one of the more narrow definitions of what constitutes D&D around here. James, I agree with you there, especially about the armor. In fact, the AC system is the thing I have the hardest time reconciling when I try to use D&D for any other type of game (i.e.; science fiction).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 2, 2008 13:09:59 GMT -6
One might argue that to be D&D you need to have both dungeons and dragons. If, for example, you replaced "dungeons" with "catacombs" then you'd have C&D, which clearly isn't D&D anymore. Or, maybe I missed something in the discussion....
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Apr 2, 2008 13:43:57 GMT -6
One might argue that to be D&D you need to have both dungeons and dragons. That might be a good point to make in the "setting & system" thread... :-) Frank
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Apr 2, 2008 13:53:13 GMT -6
I think another important point in this discussion is what you are trying to communicate. Words, labels, and titles only have meaning when used to communicate (either to yourself, or to others).
If your friends understand "OD&D" to mean your set of house rules that eliminate character classes, levels, and hit points, then fine. If you're just trying to convey to me that you role play, calling your game D&D is probably ok. If you expect me to understand your game, and especially if you expect me to play in it, or give you advice on the rules, then you'd better be more clear. If you ask me "hey, why do my players who have greatsword level 10 and cast fireball level 10 dominate my OD&D game" I'll go "Huh?" If someone who has a different set of house rules asks me why no one ever plays magic users, but forgets to tell me about his spell fumble tables that give a 12th level magic user at best a 5% chance to cast a fireball successfully, well, I'm not going to be able to help him. And if he does tell me about his spell fumble rules, I might start by asking him why he isn't playing by the book, what did he hope to accomplish by making it almost impossible to cast spells.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by settembrini on Apr 22, 2008 5:07:41 GMT -6
Gygaxian Spells, Items and Monsters are what make D&D D&D.
|
|
edsan
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
MUTANT LORD
Posts: 309
|
Post by edsan on Apr 22, 2008 6:09:52 GMT -6
One thing that I know Gary discussed on occasion but I don't see listed above is this: In D&D, you give experience for treasure. Seems like a simple point, but whenever I turn around, someone's taking that out of the game. I guess this is because GM's are partial to the idea of a low-to-mid level character rising a level automatically just because they're lucky enough to find a jewel worth several thousands (or tens of thousands) gold pieces. In my EPT campaign, where the rulebook states in good D&D-esque Old School fashion, that you earn 1 XP per GP I found a way around this issue. I have ruled GP does indeed get you XP on a 1:1 basis, however you only get this experience if you literally waste the money. Allow me to be more specific. The PCs in my campaign are all members of a foreign tribe living in the Empire. As the only bread-winners it is their responsibility to provide for over 50 people. Whenever they get their hands in some cash it is their decision how much to donate (and effectively loose) to the tribe and how much to keep. The process of "throwing money away" can only be used during downtime back in civilization. On OD&D, this system can be used even for lone-wolf characters. If the group wishes to precise exactly where the money is going to a little imagination can provide color to the campaign and the personalities of the PCs. e.g. After returning from the adventure laden with loot, the Fighting-Man goes on a partying orgy of ale and...er...doxies, and takes a few lessons with the weapon-master that just happens to be in town. The Magic-User buys a bunch of rather interesting (but useless gaming-wise) historical bric-a-brac items and donates a couple thousands to the local (mundane) college library, becoming a very grata person in the eyes of the Provost ("Oh! Archmage Pilamatrius! Good to see you again Sir."). The Cleric, as he should, donates a hefty portion of his moneys to his temple and "gifts" other smaller portions to certain high-placed persons in the ecclesiastical hierarchy to easy the way into his next promotion. There are no direct benefits of this spending other than XP gain. The FM won't learn any cool moves from the weapon-master and the library the MU has donated to is assumed to have no books of use to the campaign, just interesting ones from a scholastic point of view.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 22, 2008 9:02:38 GMT -6
Edsan, that sounds kind of like the Hobbies rule from Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign. Only yours is more integrated into the campaign, more dependent on who the characters actually are. Nice.
Although, I do have to question your statement:
That's just something GM's have to remember when they're placing treasure, that's all. Giving more or less treasure is the best way to control the rate of advancement in your game, and it always has been.
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Apr 22, 2008 10:06:21 GMT -6
Jamesm,
I understand what you are saying, and in very large part agree with it. If D&D is "anything goes" then D&D isn't really anything.
That being said, to play devil's advocate-
I don't see how someone can take one clearly defined rule in the game (how armor works for example) and say it is indespensible, while another clearly defined rule (1GP=1XP, for example) is something that DMs can take,leave, or modify however they see fit while still playing D&D. The rules themselves do not say one rule is more important than the other. Certainly both are critical, but if push came to shove I'd be forced to say how experience is earned is more important- it's the whole objective for the players.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 22, 2008 10:19:49 GMT -6
I don't see how someone can take one clearly defined rule in the game (how armor works for example) and say it is indespensible, while another clearly defined rule (1GP=1XP, for example) is something that DMs can take,leave, or modify however they see fit while still playing D&D. The rules themselves do not say one rule is more important than the other. Certainly both are critical, but if push came to shove I'd be forced to say how experience is earned is more important- it's the whole objective for the players. I don't disagree with this, but then I actually play D&D pretty "straight." When I do make changes, I recognize what I'm playing is a variant and not " D&D" except in an equivocal sense. For me, that's the primary point: D&D, even OD&D, isn't just a state of mind. It's a set of rules, many of which are quite clear and explicit. To remove them or modify them in ways contrary to what the text states is to remove one's game by degrees away from anything that can reasonably be called " D&D." None of this, of course, is to suggest it's wrong to do this. As I said, I do this all the time myself. I simply think it's important to understand that there are in fact sine qua non rules to OD&D, the removal or augmentation of which makes one's game no longer OD&D.
|
|
edsan
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
MUTANT LORD
Posts: 309
|
Post by edsan on Apr 22, 2008 11:10:56 GMT -6
Edsan, that sounds kind of like the Hobbies rule from Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign. Only yours is more integrated into the campaign, more dependent on who the characters actually are. Nice. Although, I do have to question your statement: That's just something GM's have to remember when they're placing treasure, that's all. Giving more or less treasure is the best way to control the rate of advancement in your game, and it always has been. Of course, it depends on how much control the GM wants to have over the loot to be found. Some GMs account for every last gp placed in a dungeon, others just roll on the random treasure tables. It's not hard to see, with these differing methods and every variant in between, that some GMs might not be to comfortable with the gp = xp rule.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Apr 22, 2008 11:12:18 GMT -6
We gave XP for gold in our first campaign way back when we first started. We then realized how quickly characters would rise levels, even when being very sparse with treasure, and dropped it. We continued to play D&D for many years after that point. In fact, I only ever played in one group that awarded XP for GP, and it felt very bizarre. I, personally, would definitely not call this essential to playing D&D.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Apr 22, 2008 13:22:48 GMT -6
Wulfgar raises a good point that any change in rules makes the game different. I totally agree with this.
On the other hand, clearly people in reality don't draw such a strict line. Heck, we even allow for some flexibility in the rules in games like Monopoly, and there's lots of debate as to how to make Scrabble an objective game (it's usually played subjectively, with word acceptability up to the individual play group).
Busman raises a point that I think is interesting. I think individual play experience colors what is considered crossing the line. His group quickly discarded xp for gold (so did mine), so that isn't considered critical to the D&D experience. I could imagine other groups feeling that xp for gold IS critical to the D&D experience.
I think we will never find a universally accepted definition of D&D vs. not D&D, which makes me return to the fact that when talking about our games we need to communicate the essential aspects. If we're asking a question about the rules, we'd better be upfront about our house rules that have an impact on the question at hand. Unfortunately, due to the way D&D is played and taught, we may not even be aware of all our house rules. Thus we also need to be generous when the answer to a question or the reaction to that answer causes confusion.
But I think we also have to be honest and try and find the tightest definition of D&D for ourselves, and if our game is outside that definition, don't claim we are "playing D&D" but be honest and say we are playing a game based on or inspired by D&D or whatever. We used to call the game I played in college CD&D with the C being Christiansen because the rules set was his. The game bore little resemblance to D&D but had derived from D&D, but at least we all knew what was being talked about, and a newcomer didn't automatically expect to be able to use his OD&D or AD&D rule books in the game.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 22, 2008 13:45:31 GMT -6
But I think we also have to be honest and try and find the tightest definition of D&D for ourselves, and if our game is outside that definition, don't claim we are "playing D&D" but be honest and say we are playing a game based on or inspired by D&D or whatever. We used to call the game I played in college CD&D with the C being Christiansen because the rules set was his. The game bore little resemblance to D&D but had derived from D&D, but at least we all knew what was being talked about, and a newcomer didn't automatically expect to be able to use his OD&D or AD&D rule books in the game. I think this is a good way of looking at it and one I can get behind.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 22, 2008 13:46:15 GMT -6
Frank, I think that pretty much sums it up.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Apr 22, 2008 14:26:44 GMT -6
Good points, Frank.
As far as I've been thinking about it, there are no rules that ARE D&D and rules that are NOT D&D. I think it's a all shades of grey with only btb being true 100% D&D.
I'd say we were probably 99% faithful to btb, overall. We dumped XP for GP; increased demi-human limits a little, but retained them; used the alternate combat chart; never expanded to any of the supplements; but otherwise left everything else by the book.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 24, 2008 16:57:16 GMT -6
See, I have to disagree with this. I honestly don't think you can play ODD literally btb; there is simply too much ambiguity. You need to houserule, if only on the fly, to make it work. This leads to the need for clarity that Frank is talking about, and seems to be supported by statements even on this board by some of those who back at the Beginning were playing it off a sheaf of mimeographed notes, that ODD was never played btb; you could almost argue that the 3lbb are merely a snapshot of a particular bunch of notes, and are no more "official" than anything else.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Apr 24, 2008 23:07:32 GMT -6
See, I have to disagree with this. I honestly don't think you can play ODD literally btb; there is simply too much ambiguity. You need to houserule, if only on the fly, to make it work. This leads to the need for clarity that Frank is talking about, and seems to be supported by statements even on this board by some of those who back at the Beginning were playing it off a sheaf of mimeographed notes, that ODD was never played btb; you could almost argue that the 3lbb are merely a snapshot of a particular bunch of notes, and are no more "official" than anything else. I originally played 3LBB btb when we first started. I've seen this claim before and I'm not sure where the idea that it's unplayable comes from. What is missing? Races, Classes, Advancement, Combat, Monsters, XP, etc. It's all in there. We played everyday, never felt like anything was missing. We had fun. Our characters got more powerful, we got gold, we built forts. We house-ruled XP for GP and demi-human advancement caps, but that was a flavor change, not to fill any holes. Otherwise we played by the book, without supplements. I never had even seen the content of any of the supplements until about 3 years ago, I wouldn't have even been able to tell you when we were first starting that there WERE supplements. I think this notion of 3LBB being unplayable is a looking back on it from new editions or with the supplements and saying it's "missing" things. This just wasn't my experience, it played fine for me for nearly two years before we moved to AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 25, 2008 5:37:20 GMT -6
I think this notion of 3LBB being unplayable is a looking back on it from new editions or with the supplements and saying it's "missing" things. This just wasn't my experience, it played fine for me for nearly two years before we moved to AD&D. I think this is exactly right. Now, I know there were people, even at the time, who felt that OD&D was "missing" this or that, I can't think of a single thing that it was supposedly missing that made the 3LBB unplayable as is. Most of what people added were genuine additions rather than corrections or clarifications, at least in my experience. That also appears to be the case if you look at the earliest published articles in The Strategic Review and The Dragon.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Apr 25, 2008 9:58:44 GMT -6
There are some definite ambiguities in the 3 LBB. How do elves really work? We can make educated guesses, and even argue for a "best" interpretation, but the rules are definitely incomplete.
Now looking back, I do think that it is possible to read the 3 LBB into a coherent game, but I feel that each reader has the potential to read that slightly differently.
Of course it's notable that many games have such ambiguities.
Frank
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Apr 25, 2008 11:54:50 GMT -6
There are some definite ambiguities in the 3 LBB. How do elves really work? A fine example. The text states: This seems perfectly clear and open to little interpretation, other than what constitutes an adventure. DM's call when they can switch. Doesn't feel like this qualifies as a house rule so much as an on the spot ruling to me. The only opening for question I've seen is can they do both at all times (the way we read it), but I understand that some people limit it to the class the Elf is playing that adventure. Again, I don't see this as needing to create some rules. A straight read seems to imply both at all times. Opening: non-magic armor and act as MUs? The text doesn't state this, but I can see someone reading this. But, again, a straight read seems to say must be magical to get this effect, otherwise why include the use of the word "magic". (I always remember our elves desperate to find that first magic armor) Seems open and shut. Very much open to house ruling, not locked tight. But, iirc, this turned into +1 for elves in our group. I remember looking at a dice roll to see if the party noticed a secret door and being 1 off and then noting there was an elf in the group and saying that the elf noticed the door, but the other's didn't. We ignored this, as we didn't have CHAINMAIL. Seems open and shut. All in all, seems fairly clear and concise to me. Playing BTB doesn't mean that there aren't calls to be made, there are, that's what BTB means for OD&D (as opposed to later editions), the DM makes the rulings. A perfect example from above. What's it take for people to note secret doors, let alone elves? It doesn't say. We had different chances based on different doors. Sometimes it was 1 in 6, sometimes it was 1 in 12, sometimes it was 3 in 8. It all depended upon how hard the DM decided a given door was to decide. This isn't changing the rules, what I call house-ruling, it's using DM imagination to create the adventure and fun. Maybe it's the definition of house-ruling that isn't clear for everyone. For me a house-rule is something that changes the rules as stated. Rolling 4d6 take the best 3 is a house-rule. An elf notices this secret door on a 3 in 6 instead of a 1 in 6 doesn't seem like a house rule to me, it's a ruling. OD&D was all about DM rulings.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 25, 2008 12:04:40 GMT -6
Very much open to house ruling, not locked tight. But, iirc, this turned into +1 for elves in our group. I remember looking at a dice roll to see if the party noticed a secret door and being 1 off and then noting there was an elf in the group and saying that the elf noticed the door, but the other's didn't. ... A perfect example from above. What's it take for people to note secret doors, let alone elves? It doesn't say. We had different chances based on different doors. Sometimes it was 1 in 6, sometimes it was 1 in 12, sometimes it was 3 in 8. It all depended upon how hard the DM decided a given door was to decide. FWIW this is addressed in Vol. III (top of p. 9):
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Apr 25, 2008 12:07:45 GMT -6
Very much open to house ruling, not locked tight. But, iirc, this turned into +1 for elves in our group. I remember looking at a dice roll to see if the party noticed a secret door and being 1 off and then noting there was an elf in the group and saying that the elf noticed the door, but the other's didn't. ... A perfect example from above. What's it take for people to note secret doors, let alone elves? It doesn't say. We had different chances based on different doors. Sometimes it was 1 in 6, sometimes it was 1 in 12, sometimes it was 3 in 8. It all depended upon how hard the DM decided a given door was to decide. FWIW this is addressed in Vol. III (top of p. 9): You're right! It's been too long since I've DMed some OD&D. Sounds like we must have house ruled some secret/concealed doors in our group then. I certainly remember having harder and easier hidden doors.
|
|