Supplements: Too much like AD&D?

[James Maliszewski]

May 2, 2008 6:59:10 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

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."

I've thought about that too and often find myself wishing that they had done so I know that Gary felt at one time that D&D would eventually reach a "perfect" state and there'd be no need for further supplements or development. Indeed, I think he hoped it would eventually become a "classic" game on the model of Monopoly -- something generations of people could buy once and play forever. It's certainly a beautiful thought and, as I work on this OGC version of OD&D, I find the idea ever more attractive. I'm not 100% convinced that OD&D, at least as it was presented in 1974, is that "perfect" presentation of the game, but it's perhaps a good basis for one.

[badger2305]

May 2, 2008 7:42:20 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

I know that Gary felt at one time that D&D would eventually reach a "perfect" state and there'd be no need for further supplements or development. Indeed, I think he hoped it would eventually become a "classic" game on the model of Monopoly -- something generations of people could buy once and play forever. It's certainly a beautiful thought and, as I work on this OGC version of OD&D, I find the idea ever more attractive. I'm not 100% convinced that OD&D, at least as it was presented in 1974, is that "perfect" presentation of the game, but it's perhaps a good basis for one.

Except that I would argue (as I have elsewhere) that it is the incompleteness of the original rules that makes them special - it is the specific quality of allowing and encouraging further additions by the referee and players that makes the game what it is (and later editions have worked relatively hard to scrub this out of the game). If you can include this quality as part of the "classic game" then I would go along with that idea. But there is a creative tension there that should be recognized, or so it seems to me.

[James Maliszewski]

May 2, 2008 8:14:11 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

Except that I would argue (as I have elsewhere) that it is the incompleteness of the original rules that makes them special - it is the specific quality of allowing and encouraging further additions by the referee and players that makes the game what it is (and later editions have worked relatively hard to scrub this out of the game). If you can include this quality as part of the "classic game" then I would go along with that idea. But there is a creative tension there that should be recognized, or so it seems to me.

I don't think there's any question that, had Gygax succeeded in doing what he claimed to have wanted, the game would not have been OD&D. Gary regularly pointed out that OD&D was a "non-game" because it was so incomplete and open to wildly divergent interpretations. And I certainly plan to preserve that "non-game-ness" in my OGC version.

However, I think the mechanical simplicity of OD&D is best suited to be adapted to a "classic" version of D&D. That's a different but related project, I think. So, what we'd end up with is two games: a "standard" edition, which would be for pick-up and go play, and an "advanced" (ironic, no?) edition, which would be for hobbyists and tinkerers.

[badger2305]

May 2, 2008 8:23:07 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

I don't think there's any question that, had Gygax succeeded in doing what he claimed to have wanted, the game would not have been OD&D. Gary regularly pointed out that OD&D was a "non-game" because it was so incomplete and open to wildly divergent interpretations. And I certainly plan to preserve that "non-game-ness" in my OGC version.

However, I think the mechanical simplicity of OD&D is best suited to be adapted to a "classic" version of D&D. That's a different but related project, I think. So, what we'd end up with is two games: a "standard" edition, which would be for pick-up and go play, and an "advanced" (ironic, no?) edition, which would be for hobbyists and tinkerers.

I could be wrong about this, but in discussions I've had with Dave Arneson, he's suggested that Dave Megarry's Dungeon board game was intended to be something very much like what you are suggesting. (Which is why I want to pick up an older copy to play... ;D)

[James Maliszewski]

May 2, 2008 8:28:22 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

I could be wrong about this, but in discussions I've had with Dave Arneson, he's suggested that Dave Megarry's Dungeon board game was intended to be something very much like what you are suggesting. (Which is why I want to pick up an older copy to play... ;D)

Dungeon is a fun game and it was a gateway game for some of my younger friends, but it's not a RPG, so it's not quite what I have in mind (whether it's what Gary had in mind, I can't say).

[Stonegiant]

You know I like the use of the 3lbb's + supplements + Houserules but I have one hang-up (its a silly one), I miss the AD&D artwork. When I thumb through the AD&D books and I see the artwork I feel inspired and get a little of that feeling when I was 12 and buying the AD&D books for the first time. When I look at the OD&D artwork I honestly can't stand the Greg Bell artwork, I have tried to learn to appreciate it but I (no offense meant) can't find any redeeming features about it. YMMV. Yes I do find the artwork of a product to be especially important (part of the reason that I can't stand any of the later editions 2nd ed+), I have in the past bought products because I liked the artwork to only find that I can't stand the rules Someday I will sit down and edit together the OD&D rules that I like into one document (for my own use) and probably edit in some of my favorite artwork as well.

[James Maliszewski]

May 15, 2008 6:49:39 GMT -6 Stonegiant said:

You know I like the use of the 3lbb's + supplements + Houserules but I have one hang-up (its a silly one), I miss the AD&D artwork.

That's not silly at all -- or, if it is, it's a silliness I share. I mostly dislike OD&D's artwork as well (there are a few exceptions) and I know exactly what you mean about the power the AD&D artwork exercises over one's memory and imagination. I feel it too.

[philotomy]

I'll "me too" that, as well. The AD&D artwork holds magic, for me.

[Zulgyan]

I love both arts just the same. Each one has it's one "special thing you can't really describe".

[trollman]

I thought the artwork in the White Box set was awful. I was expecting it to be amateurish, but it is really bad. The artwork in the Blackmoor supplement is pretty good, though.

Is it just me, or does that Gnome look like a ninja? And Elves have beards?!

How does the art in the other supplements compare? Is it more like the White Box, or Blackmoor?

I really dig the 1E/BX artwork (until around 83 or so, when they changed artists and the formatting of modules).

[foster1941]

The art in Greyhawk is of the same quality as the white-box (it's all by Greg Bell, who was also one of the main artists of the original set); Eldritch Wizardry is about the same as Blackmoor, perhaps a little better (including a couple of good pieces by Sutherland); Gods Demi-gods & Heroes barely has any art at all (only the cover illo and a picture of Odin that looks to me like a piece of public domain clip-art); all of the art in Swords & Spells is by David Sutherland, and thus has nice continuity of style with the AD&D art (pig-faced orcs, etc.) but he pretty clearly threw all this stuff out in a hurry so it's sloppier and not as good as most of his other work.

For me, the best OD&D art is found in the Monster & Treasure Assortments from 1977-78, drawn by Sutherland, Trampier, and Tom Wham -- the same trio who illustrated the Holmes Basic Set and AD&D MM, PH, and early modules (G series, D series, B1, S1, T1). IMO this is the gold standard of TSR art and it was never better than at the hands of these three (with an honorable mention to Erol Otus, who joined TSR a year or so later, along with several other artists whose work I don't like nearly as much).

[dwayanu]

The "sketchiness" of the art in S&S is in line with other wargames rulesbooks of the period. So, maybe it was by intent.

Holmes Basic and B1 shaped my concept of classic D&D illustration. I also like the pieces in the Arduin Grimoires, and Liz Danforth's work for Tunnels & Trolls.

And William Church's cartography for RuneQuest! Stonegiant (IIRC) produces similarly marvelous maps today.

Adding the supplements might lead to an AD&D-like game, or it might be part of a process leading to an Arduin-like game.

[coffee]

I gotta say, I found art to like in both the original books and in AD&D. And I found art to dislike in both, as well.

But the artwork never once put me off playing either game.