Supplements: Too much like AD&D?

[Deleted]

I have often remarked on reading Supplements I, II & III that some portions seem awfully "AD&D" like. Classes such as the monk, druid and assassin, exceptional strength and intelligence bonuses, variable weapon damage and weapon vs. AC type, the new magic items (my favorite being the Deck of Many Things) and the monster attacks (just a few examples) are put in the AD&D rulebooks with relatively few changes. It could be said that AD&D is a better organized, more consistent, easier to follow and systematically structured revision of OD&D + the Supplements.

For those reasons and more, AD&D is the easier game to get into. When using the Supplements, I think I would find myself saying "I know where I can find that in the PHB/MM/DMG, but which of the six precious books do I need break open for reference for this rule?" Do you think that use of the Supplements eventually leads to games that lack the feel of OD&D? If so, how much use is too much?

[Finarvyn]

From my perspective, use of all of the supplements is only a step away from AD&D only less organized. I avoid this problem by picking and choosing only certain parts of the supplements for my OD&D games.

Supplement I Greyhawk: I like to use Thieves and Paladins. I sometimes use the expanded magic items charts and magic spell charts. I also like the revised attribute charts. I sometimes use the extra monsters. That's about it.

Supplement II Blackmoor: I sometimes use the Assassin. I have used the Temple of the Frog adventure, but you can only use one adventure so many times. I avoid most of the aquatic stuff and hit location charts.

Supplement III Eldritch Wizardry: I sometimes use the Druid class and occasionally demons. I pretty much never bother with Psionics or Artifacts.

Supplement IV Gods, Demigods & Heroes: I use the Greek/Roman, Elric, and Conan stuff often. Egyptian and Norse mythos occasionally. Most of the rest gets ignored.

In other words, I pick and choose a few key things I want and mostly stick to the boxed set. I don't usually find it hard to locate the rules I need because most of them are in the original three books.

Hope that helps.

[philotomy]

Apr 18, 2008 17:11:24 GMT -6 greathierophant said:

It could be said that AD&D is a better organized, more consistent, easier to follow and systematically structured revision of OD&D + the Supplements.

I agree; in fact, I usually recommend that anyone who plans on using much material from the supplements might be better off just going with AD&D.

Do you think that use of the Supplements eventually leads to games that lack the feel of OD&D?

Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way. An OD&D game + Supplements is still OD&D, it's just OD&D with a particular "look and feel" that is very much like AD&D (so much so that using AD&D might be a better approach). I think OD&D excels for a toolkit, make-the-game-your-own approach that isn't so close to AD&D, but I wouldn't characterize that as the only OD&D feel.

If so, how much use is too much?

That's up to personal taste. The only reason I'd recommend AD&D over OD&D + Supplements is because of the issue you already mentioned: organization. If you cherry-pick just a few items from the supplements, organization won't be a problem.

Personally, I hardly use any of the rules from the supplements (e.g. no additional classes, no expanded stat bonuses, no variable weapon damage, no Greyhawk XP, etc.) , but I'll cherry-pick spells, monsters, and magic items. I do use the weapon space required rules as a guideline.

[busman]

Apr 18, 2008 17:56:50 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way. An OD&D game + Supplements is still OD&D, it's just OD&D with a particular "look and feel" that is very much like AD&D (so much so that using AD&D might be a better approach). I think OD&D excels for a toolkit, make-the-game-your-own approach that isn't so close to AD&D, but I wouldn't characterize that as the only OD&D feel.

It could be because I started on White Box and moved to AD&D, but I never felt that AD&D was any more rigid than OD&D was. We were house ruling from day 0 on AD&D. Most of the stuff that we had houseruled into OD&D came over to AD&D.

I often see this complaint about AD&D, so I know that a lot of people had that experience, it just wasn't that way for me.

In fact, when I went looking for the famous quote from Gary: "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules," I first started looking for it in the PHB or DMG, because I could have sworn that's where I first read it.

I completely agree on the OD&D + all Sups = less organized AD&D. If you throw in the early SR, TD and Dragons, you've got AD&D almost to a tee.

[makofan]

Once you add Greyhawk you are one foot firmly in AD&D land. I prefer Holmes to OD&D+Greyhawk, but prefer 3BB to Holmes

[sham]

I have Greyhawk and Blackmoor, and I'll cherry pick monsters and treasure from those supplements eventually for my version of OD&D. At least I plan to, as of yet I'm doing nothing more than the LBB and home brew. Limiting yourself to the LBB almost forces you to home brew more than you would with all of the supplements.

Also, I tend to agree that once you add Thieves, Monks, Assassins, Paladins, Druids, etc it starts to feel too much like AD&D for my taste.

[philotomy]

Apr 18, 2008 18:41:04 GMT -6 busman said:

It could be because I started on White Box and moved to AD&D, but I never felt that AD&D was any more rigid than OD&D was...I often see this complaint about AD&D, so I know that a lot of people had that experience, it just wasn't that way for me.

Well, in my case, it's not a complaint; I don't think AD&D is more rigid, in the sense of "these are the rules and you must follow them," it's just more defined. It's not that you can't house-rule AD&D and mold it into the form you want, it's that OD&D is better for that purpose (IMO, of course) because OD&D is less defined to begin with. Either system could work for a make-the-game-your-own approach, but I think that's really OD&D's strong suit, where it excels. AD&D, on the other hand, is the perfect system if you want that particular Gygaxian/Greyhawky feel (which many do).

[badger2305]

I think I see this completely differently. I don't see a "number line" leading from OD&D to AD&D. Rather, I see OD&D as leading to Arduin and AD&D and T&T (even by inspiration) and so on.

Just because a referee can add stuff from the supplements to their OD&D game doesn't adulterate it; rather, it shows what's possible - by the time a referee has added a lot of stuff from the official supplements, they may have done a considerable amount of house ruling - see the thread about my first campaign for an example of this.

As far as AD&D itself is concerned, well, I'm reminded of a comment from the Lord Darcy stories by Randall Garrett, "Black Magic is a matter of intent..." You could use all of the supplement material you wanted, but if your intent was to run an OD&D game, I suspect it would be a very OD&D kinda game. AD&D has a different feel to it, and it starts with the intent of the referee, long before they choose what rules to use, or so it seems to me.

[Finarvyn]

Apr 18, 2008 18:41:04 GMT -6 busman said:

We were house ruling from day 0 on AD&D. Most of the stuff that we had houseruled into OD&D came over to AD&D. I often see this complaint about AD&D, so I know that a lot of people had that experience, it just wasn't that way for me.

Apr 18, 2008 21:26:03 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

AD&D has a different feel to it, and it starts with the intent of the referee, long before they choose what rules to use, or so it seems to me.

My own experience has been more like Badger’s then Bussman’s. We had a couple of us who learned OD&D back in 1975 and our philosophy was mostly one of encouraging the DM to improvise rules “on the fly” but added several players a few years later after AD&D came out and their philosophy was very different rather than a continuation of the way we had learned it.

The AD&D players had a tendency to stop play to rules-hunt or to invite the rules discussion/argument/lawyer philosophy into their campaigns, whereas when we played in my OD&D campaign it was understood that the DM had all of the authority and we never stopped for such things. All I can think of is that the style of the rules somehow made them believe that AD&D “had” to be played differently.

Again, that’s just my own experience with an extremely limited data sample.

[coffee]

Apr 18, 2008 18:41:04 GMT -6 busman said:

In fact, when I went looking for the famous quote from Gary: "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules," I first started looking for it in the PHB or DMG, because I could have sworn that's where I first read it.

I'm curious, did you ever actually find this quote? I've heard of it, but I've never actually seen it properly attributed and sourced.

[busman]

Apr 19, 2008 17:53:09 GMT -6 coffee said:

Apr 18, 2008 18:41:04 GMT -6 busman said:

In fact, when I went looking for the famous quote from Gary: "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules," I first started looking for it in the PHB or DMG, because I could have sworn that's where I first read it.

I'm curious, did you ever actually find this quote? I've heard of it, but I've never actually seen it properly attributed and sourced.

Nope. But, I didn't comb over every book I had, though. I swear I remember reading in text back in the 70s or 80s, though. It may have been a Dragon? I'm not 100% sure, obviously.

[James Maliszewski]

Apr 18, 2008 21:26:03 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

As far as AD&D itself is concerned, well, I'm reminded of a comment from the Lord Darcy stories by Randall Garrett, "Black Magic is a matter of intent..." You could use all of the supplement material you wanted, but if your intent was to run an OD&D game, I suspect it would be a very OD&D kinda game. AD&D has a different feel to it, and it starts with the intent of the referee, long before they choose what rules to use, or so it seems to me.

I'm usually very wary of "intent" arguments because they're so easily used to justify almost anything, but I do agree with this one. Having spent some time recently studying the contemporary goals behind the AD&D project as stated by Gygax and others, I think there's a world of difference between playing "full OD&D" (i.e. 3LBB + all supplements) and playing AD&D. That difference manifests in a number of ways, but the biggest (for me anyway) is the absence of a notion of the "right" way to resolve any given ambiguity.

Full OD&D games will still differ from one another, as one referee favors this solution or interpretation, while another referee will favor a different one. For OD&D, that's a feature, whereas for AD&D that's a bug. Of course, lots of people, myself included, used to play AD&D in an OD&D fashion and indeed I'd argue that the "OD&D way" (which is really the absence of a Way) is probably the default way most gamers play any game. However, as presented, AD&D is meant to have definitive solutions to most questions rather than the more freewheeling, "Here's a suggestion, but you may have your own ideas" approach that characterizes OD&D.

(I say this as a guy whose own OD&D preferences tend both toward the "full" end of the spectrum and who likes "universal" mechanics for action. While some no doubt would see these as anathema to the OD&D way, my own belief is that, so long as I don't universalize my own preferences, I'm playing in the spirit of OD&D. To me, that's the place where OD&D and later editions part company)

[badger2305]

Apr 20, 2008 9:12:54 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Full OD&D games will still differ from one another, as one referee favors this solution or interpretation, while another referee will favor a different one. For OD&D, that's a feature, whereas for AD&D that's a bug. Of course, lots of people, myself included, used to play AD&D in an OD&D fashion and indeed I'd argue that the "OD&D way" (which is really the absence of a Way) is probably the default way most gamers play any game. However, as presented, AD&D is meant to have definitive solutions to most questions rather than the more freewheeling, "Here's a suggestion, but you may have your own ideas" approach that characterizes OD&D.

(I say this as a guy whose own OD&D preferences tend both toward the "full" end of the spectrum and who likes "universal" mechanics for action. While some no doubt would see these as anathema to the OD&D way, my own belief is that, so long as I don't universalize my own preferences, I'm playing in the spirit of OD&D. To me, that's the place where OD&D and later editions part company)

Said it better than me. Have an exalt.

[redpriest]

Apr 20, 2008 9:12:54 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Full OD&D games will still differ from one another, as one referee favors this solution or interpretation, while another referee will favor a different one. For OD&D, that's a feature, whereas for AD&D that's a bug. Of course, lots of people, myself included, used to play AD&D in an OD&D fashion and indeed I'd argue that the "OD&D way" (which is really the absence of a Way) is probably the default way most gamers play any game. However, as presented, AD&D is meant to have definitive solutions to most questions rather than the more freewheeling, "Here's a suggestion, but you may have your own ideas" approach that characterizes OD&D.

I find this perspective puzzling. From 1980 onward, at no time have I ever been in an AD&D game, my own included, that ever used AD&D in a rigid fashion. We added and subtracted from the rules as we saw fit. I guess someone will jump in and proclaim, "Oh well, then you were really playing OD&D." I don't see that though, because the framework we started with was definitively AD&D books, not LBBs, regarding races, professions and the (nearly hopeless as written) combat initiative rules.

Of course, before I joined on-line forums, I'd never heard of a style difference between how people played OD&D and AD&D. It was never an issue, because it never even entered conscientiousness that there was a difference. "Oh, you start with those rules as a base? Well, we start off with these rules."

[James Maliszewski]

Apr 21, 2008 10:15:42 GMT -6 redpriest said:

I find this perspective puzzling. From 1980 onward, at no time have I ever been in an AD&D game, my own included, ever used AD&D in a rigid fashion. We added and subtracted from the rules as we saw fit. I guess someone will jump in and proclaim, "Oh well, then you were really playing OD&D." I don't see that though, because the framework we started with definitively AD&D, regarding races, professions and the (nearly hopeless as written) combat initiative rules.

The primary difference between OD&D and AD&D as written is that AD&D is self-avowedly a much more rigid system. You need only read, for example, Gygax's introduction to the DMG where he talks about the need for standards and the dangers of too mutable an interpretation of the rules to see this is the case.

But that's as written.

As I said above, I think most people, myself included, played AD&D in an "OD&D fashion," which is to say, looser and full of house rules and variants. I'd still call these games AD&D because that's the rules set from which they were derived, but they are most definitely diverging from the intention behind AD&D, which was intended to be more uniform and with less room for individual variation than OD&D, which Gary even went so far as to call "a non-game" in one of his editorials promoting AD&D in The Dragon.

So the point isn't that you weren't really playing AD&D if you used house rules, etc. Neither am I surprised that you never encountered this attitude among your fellow AD&D players, because I suspect it was in fact pretty rare outside the halls of TSR, but the reality is that AD&D was created, at least in part, to be a definitive rules set that would put an end to the way a lot of people actually wound up playing it.

[busman]

Apr 21, 2008 10:27:11 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Apr 21, 2008 10:15:42 GMT -6 redpriest said:

I find this perspective puzzling. From 1980 onward, at no time have I ever been in an AD&D game, my own included, ever used AD&D in a rigid fashion. We added and subtracted from the rules as we saw fit. I guess someone will jump in and proclaim, "Oh well, then you were really playing OD&D." I don't see that though, because the framework we started with definitively AD&D, regarding races, professions and the (nearly hopeless as written) combat initiative rules.

The primary difference between OD&D and AD&D as written is that AD&D is self-avowedly a much more rigid system. You need only read, for example, Gygax's introduction to the DMG where he talks about the need for standards and the dangers of too mutable an interpretation of the rules to see this is the case.

But that's as written.

As I said above, I think most people, myself included, played AD&D in an "OD&D fashion," which is to say, looser and full of house rules and variants. I'd still call these games AD&D because that's the rules set from which they were derived, but they are most definitely diverging from the intention behind AD&D, which was intended to be more uniform and with less room for individual variation than OD&D, which Gary even went so far as to call "a non-game" in one of his editorials promoting AD&D in The Dragon.

So the point isn't that you weren't really playing AD&D if you used house rules, etc. Neither am I surprised that you never encountered this attitude among your fellow AD&D players, because I suspect it was in fact pretty rare outside the halls of TSR, but the reality is that AD&D was created, at least in part, to be a definitive rules set that would put an end to the way a lot of people actually wound up playing it.

I'll jump in onthe, I never saw anyone play AD&D btb, not one time. Like OD&D, I think there were just too many holes to be filled to play by the book that required that people house rule to fill the holes, and once you were house ruling that stuff, the entrepreneurial spirit sort of took off...

That's all hindsight, though.

[James Maliszewski]

Apr 21, 2008 13:32:59 GMT -6 busman said:

I'll jump in onthe, I never saw anyone play AD&D btb, not one time.

I'd never dispute that. Indeed, I think it very likely that comparatively few people ever played AD&D "straight," for a variety of reasons BUT -- and this is key -- AD&D was intended to be a definitive, "our way or the highway" kind of game, whereas OD&D, if one takes Tim Kask at his word in the intro to Supplement IV, has only guidelines, not rules. In my opinion, that's a huge difference in philosophy, even if very few people who played AD&D took it to heart (though I know people who did).

[coffee]

The group I started with, back in the day, had started with OD&D. But they were using the AD&D books by the time I joined up. They would also use information from any other source, Alarums and Excursions, the Dragon, Grimtooth's Traps, Jane's All the Worlds Monsters, etc.

We weren't playing AD&D strictly by the book.

We weren't playing OD&D.

We were playing D&D, and if you called it anything else, we'd look at you funny.

Sure, we had our share of rules lawyers. But we also had plenty of people who read Gary's little afterward to the DMG (I'm at work and don't have the text, but basically it said "the DM's in charge so shut up...")



All in all, I say use what you want. Whatever makes your game yours, and entertains your players, is the right thing.

[busman]

Apr 21, 2008 13:57:21 GMT -6 coffee said:

The group I started with, back in the day, had started with OD&D. But they were using the AD&D books by the time I joined up. They would also use information from any other source, Alarums and Excursions, the Dragon, Grimtooth's Traps, Jane's All the Worlds Monsters, etc.

We weren't playing AD&D strictly by the book.

We weren't playing OD&D.

We were playing D&D, and if you called it anything else, we'd look at you funny.


Sure, we had our share of rules lawyers. But we also had plenty of people who read Gary's little afterward to the DMG (I'm at work and don't have the text, but basically it said "the DM's in charge so shut up...")



All in all, I say use what you want. Whatever makes your game yours, and entertains your players, is the right thing.

Exalt for this. Especially the part I bolded (and underlined).

[John Stark]

Apr 21, 2008 13:57:21 GMT -6 coffee said:

We were playing D&D, and if you called it anything else, we'd look at you funny.

This was always my experience as well. Whether the DM cracked open the Holmes set, Moldvay, AD&D, etc., we were still playing D&D, and no one would have thought to question the use of any specific "edition," nor can I recall anyone every saying anything except "let's play some D&D!" I never heard anyone ever say, "Lets play Holmes Basic," or "Break out the three little books..."

Heck, even the 3e players simply think they are playing D&D.

It'd be interesting to figure out where this notion of completely separate and distinct editions came about. I'm guessing 2nd edition, and the post-EGG TSR days, would probably be the dividing line. I think when EGG was at the helm of TSR, writing Sage Advice in Dragon, etc., most folks had the perception that "the game" was on the right track and it was all good regardless of edition or version.

As to OD&D plus Supplements equaling a less organized and looser AD&D, I'd have to agree. I spent a good amount of time the past month or so pouring over OD&D and the Supplements, and concluded that I'd rather stick with AD&D, since all of the option I want to horse around with are contained in fewer books (plus AD&D has more Gygax material!).

In terms of AD&D being a stricter or tighter ruleset, I guess that's true. However, I think pointing at the foreward written by EGG as proof of a different "spirit" to the game is a little silly. I reread the DMG recently, and there is a lot left to the adjudication of the DM even with the better organized and tighter ruleset. Further, there are places where it is stated that the DM should just wing it.

I think there are few things that get overlooked when it comes to AD&D being intended to be a tighter or stricter ruleset. First, there was/is obviously a need to have a "core" game that offers some continuity from table to table so that folks could move from one game to the next and still know how to play the game. Second, I think the desire to comepletely break away from Arneson as co-designer of the game came into play as well in terms of the newer Basic and Advanced lines. Third, I don't think that the importance of tournament play can be overlooked. Role Playing was really hitting its stride in terms of profitability and interest as a hobby, and tournament and cons were a big thing. A standard set of rules was needed for this, just as would be needed for a wargaming convention, a board game convention, chess, card games, etc. Finally, I think the desire on the part of EGG (and others) was to simply better organize and clarify the game, so that it wasn't spread across 3 main books and all of the Supplements. The move towards textbook quality hard cover books I think indicated the sense at TSR that the game was meant to be around for awhile; i.e., that EGG foresaw/intended TSR and D&D to be a household name like Monopoly or Scrabble, and he desired to build long term consumer confidence in his products. Standard rules more tightly organized was needed for that.

Thus, overall, I think the whole "Official" line about the rules was more about business strategy, continuity for tournaments and regular game play, quality control, etc., than about forcing people to play the "One True Game." Business realities necessitated a core game that everyone could access and play with minimum expense and time.

But its still Rock-n-Roll to me.

[hackman]

Hey guys I just joined the board today and posted my intro in that section. Thanks for setting this place up.

Reading over this thread brings to mind a couple of things for me that folks here have already touched on. One, I don't ever remember edition wars etc. until the advent of 3rd and really the growth of online communities. Of course, I lived in a fairly small town, went to one Gen Con in 93 and dropped away from playing at all around the same time. People I knew and played with were really playing Moldvay or another OD&D when it to combat, hell even level advancement, no training or any of that. I DM'd for a long time as a teenager using the three hardback AD&D books, and I'd say that I read 10% of the DM's guide and skimmed the spells as needed from the players handbook. I went back and read the the DM recently and thought wow, there's all sorts of stuff in here I never knew about.

Greyhawk and all the supplements really do bring things closer to AD&D, but I think that there are some caveats that would still set them apart. I don't think the AD&D players handbook gives no bonus for strength to non-fighters, just exceptional I believe and all get dex bonuses versus just fighters as an example.

I'm really into the original 3 LLB's right now and would use the supplements just for spell ideas and magic items. I've thought of saying that elves have druidic magic instead, to differentiate them for example.

[kesher]

Welcome, hackman!

I've thought of saying that elves have druidic magic instead, to differentiate them for example.

You know, that's a really, really good idea...

[hackman]

Thanks Kesher. I just was thinking about it and I was like why bring in Druids like always if it's not going to be AD&D or C & C? If elves are woodsy types why not have druid spells with them and then maybe eventually a few humans in the campaign? Or it could be an option taken at the start by an elf? I also thought of mixing spell lists for elves.

[coffee]

Apr 27, 2008 11:05:07 GMT -6 hackman said:

Thanks Kesher. I just was thinking about it and I was like why bring in Druids like always if it's not going to be AD&D or C & C? If elves are woodsy types why not have druid spells with them and then maybe eventually a few humans in the campaign? Or it could be an option taken at the start by an elf? I also thought of mixing spell lists for elves.

I like the idea of Elves having druid type spells.

The problem I had when I ran OD&D at a convention was that nobody would play a Magic-User; they all went for the Elf because they could wear armor (I didn't quibble about it being magic armor) and fight when their spell was used.

I'd rather have real Magic Users, as well as Elves.

Anyway, on this same subject, someone posted somewhere a druid inspired Elf spell list. Dang, now I'll have to go look for that...

[philotomy]

Apr 27, 2008 15:52:06 GMT -6 coffee said:

The problem I had when I ran OD&D at a convention was that nobody would play a Magic-User; they all went for the Elf because they could wear armor (I didn't quibble about it being magic armor) and fight when their spell was used.

For a one-shot, I can see why they did that. The game drawbacks of the Elf aren't significant at all in a one-shot situation (especially if you allowed non-magic armor and spell use). I haven't really considered that, before; I think that I'd probably introduce some incentive to play MUs in a one-shot situation.

[Stormcrow]

Apr 27, 2008 17:09:27 GMT -6 philotomy said:

The game drawbacks of the Elf aren't significant at all in a one-shot situation (especially if you allowed non-magic armor and spell use). I haven't really considered that, before; I think that I'd probably introduce some incentive to play MUs in a one-shot situation.

If you're using pre-generated characters, give the magic-user sleep and give the elf read magic. By all means, place some scrolls in the dungeon, but expect the players to be less inclined to take the elf.

[coffee]

Apr 27, 2008 20:18:44 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

If you're using pre-generated characters, give the magic-user sleep and give the elf read magic. By all means, place some scrolls in the dungeon, but expect the players to be less inclined to take the elf.

I didn't bother using pregenerated characters, since it's so quick to create your own. And I just let them pick a spell from the list.

But next time, I think I'm going to use the experience table from JRients in Under Xylarthen's Tower, so it might make a difference. We'll see.

[badger2305]

Some miscellaneous comments:

The reason why I don't think of OD&D and its supplements adding up to AD&D is that I think of AD&D as a very particular set of house rules. Since I don't play by those "house rules", I prefer to play OD&D, even if many of the components I'm using look similar.

So, put in the form of equations:

• OD&D+supplements != AD&D (remember "!=" means "does not equal")
  
• AD&D = TSR House Rules
  
• My game = OD&D+supplements+my own house rules
  
• Your game = your preferred version of D&D+your house rules
  

...and if we all are having fun, then everything is fine.

Different note: I really like the idea of elves having druid spells (especially since in my next campaign, I don't think I'm using Druids as a character class).

[James Maliszewski]

May 1, 2008 18:05:26 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

So, put in the form of equations:

• OD&D+supplements != AD&D (remember "!=" means "does not equal")
  
• AD&D = TSR House Rules
  
• My game = OD&D+supplements+my own house rules
  
• Your game = your preferred version of D&D+your house rules
  

...and if we all are having fun, then everything is fine.

I think this is mostly correct. My one quibble would be on the subject of equating AD&D with TSR's house rules. I'm still unclear on precisely who ever used all the house rules that became branded as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Even if Gary signed off on everything in its pages and indeed even if he were the originator of all the rules (which I'm still not certain he was), by his own admission he never actually played the game straight? With hindsight, AD&D seems ever more to me like a "corporate" product (in all senses of the word) -- what TSR, as a company, felt should be the definitive published version of the game.

Maybe that was your point, though, in which case ignore the foregoing

[badger2305]

Yep, that was pretty much my point.

Maybe what I should have said was: AD&D = TSR Corporate "House" rules - but that doesn't quite capture it, either. And I have such a distaste for the word "official" in this context, I don't want to use it, either. No, really - AD&D = TSR "house" rules - no wonder even the TSR people themselves didn't really play that way.

It would have been interesting to see if TSR had consciously kept a sense of rules variants being acceptable, rather than pushing for a strict standard. By this I'm wondering - what would things have looked like if they had said: "well, here is our tournament standard, but we fully expect that you will continue playing things differently. So here are some variants worth looking at."