Teasing AD&Ders

[murquhart72]

I couldn't resist posting to this thread over at Dragonsfoot (I start my ribbing at the 11th post down). It's odd to see how anxious they all get when you point something like that out. I made a couple other posts on the 2nd or 3rd pages, but I think I'm done now. I wasn't too mean to them was I?
www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28042&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Ain't I a stinkah!

[Zulgyan]

Honestly, I think that picking up fights with other gamers is not what we should do as an OD&D community.

And making up quarrel bewteen gygaxians (people who play games based on EGG's works) is also very unhealthy for the whole of old-school gamers.

Themattjon, you are a nice and cool guy. I love lot's of yours posts. But I think you were wrong here, and offended people with no valid reason. I don't see any good or fun in what you did.

Sincerely,

Z.

PD: I still find you a nice guy, but I did not liked what you did there.

[Deleted]

You might be a stinkah, but you raise a good point which seems to have been overlooked by the outraged masses on DF. (I didnt read the whole DFthread so maybe I missed it somewhere...)

My understanding was that Gary's vision of AD&D was to create a set of standardized tournament rules for convention play. A set of rules like MONOPOLY or CHESS that would be the same everywhere in everyones campaign. As such, his intent was to have everyone play AD&D BTB. In other words, no house rules any more than an NFL team might "house rule" something for a home game -- it's a rule or it isnt.

Which means that any house ruled game aint AD&D anymore.

You dont haveta rub their faces in it, however.

[casey777]

Going to another forum, stirring up a thread and then coming back here to publicly gloat over it bad form most any forum.

Your point is good to an extent but this thread isn't. Just as you also read and post at DF you can bet others on DF read and post here too.

But yes, there is that whole bit in the DMG about boundaries and making sure games are the same (within limits) and so forth. Certainly in the editorials. Just houseruling AD&D doesn't make it OD&D (there's mention of areas that aren't covered or are scant in AD&D for example) though.

[korgoth]

I think it is gravely mistaken to construe Gygax' comments in the 1e DMG as disallowing house rules. He himself in the very book allows for the combination of D&D with Boot Hill and Gamma World, among other things.

[Deleted]

I understand the point you were tyring to make over there, themattjon. When incorporating all the supplements, OD&D IS very much like AD&D1. I've always been of the mind that AD&D was more rigid in rule content to discourage house-ruling, & have a complete template for tournaments; whether that was the intent of Gary, I don't know.

Was stirring up trouble over at dragonsfoot OK? Honestly, I don't think you said anything offensive or questionable. You just stated your opinion. I actually thought a lot of posters on that thread (that weren't paying any attention to your post anyway, & were discussing something totally different) were much worse than you!

And if I read any more dialogue between "Sir" & "Esteemed Sir", I was gonna have to pull my boots on! ;D

[murquhart72]

Actually, I didn't go over to another forum, I just happen to be in there lookin' around and wanted to post. The first post was innocent enough (just trying to make an observation), but when they started taking my idle comment as some kind of attack, I just couldn't resist.
Nothing was mean-spirited or even meant to offend, I even tried explaining that although my post reflected the original intent of the games, everybody knows that's not how everybody actually does it. I thought of it as a kind of inside joke for those that read The Dragon or even a book's introduction, but it went over everyone's head.
So, after they all ignored my smileys, winkys, etc., I decided to bug out; Especially since I was no longer contributing anything productive. Still, I think my point was valid and dragged it over to this forum for us to go over. I thought the Philosophy section was perfect.
Poor, poor AD&Ders. I didn't realize folks could get so uptight over a game (Satanic Panic of the 80s not withstanding).

[jrients]

themattjon, I thought it was funny. But maybe the timing is all wrong. As Carson used to say "Comedy in a time of tragedy is a tricky business. Some days I think it's still too soon for Lincoln jokes."

[Finarvyn]

Let's not run themattjon out of town yet, boys.

It was funny, but let's save the "edition hatred" for those who deserve it (like WotC who left all of the older editions totally unsupported), not the poor 1E AD&D guys. They're as abandoned as we are which makes us allies, not enemies.

[foster1941]

I've got a lot of thoughts (many of which I've shared in the past) regarding what I feel to be the proper place of house rules in "AD&D" vs. "D&D" games. IMO if you're intending to play the former it behooves you to not change a lot of the material in the rulebooks -- you can ignore things, and you can add things, but you generally shouldn't change things. If you're intending to play the latter, pretty much anything goes. And yes, by this definition it's perfectly possible (and, in fact very common) to play a game that's actually "D&D" even though all the rulebooks say "AD&D" on the cover.

[redpriest]

themattjon said:

Poor, poor AD&Ders. I didn't realize folks could get so uptight over a game (Satanic Panic of the 80s not withstanding).

Hi themattjon,

No uptight panic here, just academic curiosity. What is the reference for disallowing house rules in AD&D? I mean every single DM I know has done this, myself included, and I never had anyone point out that this was theoretically disallowed in AD&D. I just wanna know the siting to sate my own curiosity. Ya never know, it may come up in a trivia contest some time.

Thanks in advance.

FWIW, my own progression was Holmes to AD&D and then OD&D was the last flavor I had the opportunity to play regularly (Katrina killed that campaign ). I DM'd an AD&D compatible module a few months ago, but that was just a one-off game.

[James Maliszewski]

redpriest said:

What is the reference for disallowing house rules in AD&D?

This is a controversial topic, so there are a lot of differing opinions on the matter, but many people read the AD&D DMG this way, particularly its Preface, where Gygax talks a lot about the necessity for uniformity of rules from campaign to campaign. This interpretation has some support from contemporary articles Gygax wrote in his column in The Dragon. One noteworthy one (from June 1979), which holds particular relevance to these boards and this sub-forum, says (and my apologies for the length of the quote):

ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a different game. Readers please take note! It is neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game, it is a new game. A number of letters have come to me, the writers expressing their surprise at or voicing their disapproval of this fact. John Mansfield, in SIGNAL, cautions his readers to be aware that an ongoing D&D campaign cannot be switched to AD&D without major work or actual scrapping of the old game and beginning a fresh effort. To prevent any further misunderstandings, it is necessary that all adventure gaming fans be absolutely aware that there is no similarity (perhaps even less) between D&D and AD&D than there is between D&D and its various imitators produced by competing publishers.

Just as D&D was the instrument which made adventure gaming what it is today, it is envisioned that AD&D will shape the future of fantasy adventure gaming. Where D&D is a very loose, open framework around which highly imaginative Dungeon Masters can construct what amounts to a set of rules and game of their own choosing, AD&D is a much tighter and more structured game system. The target audience to which we thought D&D would appeal was principally the same as that of historical wargames in general and military miniatures in particular. D&D was hurriedly compiled, assuming that readers would be familiar with medieval and ancient history, wargaming, military miniatures, etc. It was aimed at males. Within a few months it became apparent to us that our basic assumptions might be a bit off target In another year it became abundantly clear to us that we were so far off as to be laughable. At least we had the right subject material and the right general approach, so two out of three and all that. . .

Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules wre incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Without destroying the imagination and individual creativity which go into a campaign, AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of D&D. There are few grey areas in AD&D, and there will be no question in the mind of participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to AD&D, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else.

Gygax then goes on to discuss the necessity of "conformity of rules" if AD&D is to survive and flourish and have any coherence. Bear in mind that some of what is driving this move is the growth of D&D tournament play, which Brian Blume (as I understand it -- correct me if I'm wrong) saw as being important to the future of the game. Indeed, Blume was a major driving force in the development of AD&D from behind the scenes, but Gygax signed on to the project enthusiastically.

As I said, it's a complicated issue and a controversial topic, but I think it's fair to say that, in intention, AD&D was supposed to put an end to house rules and variants and establish a common baseline for play. That the house rules and variants continued to proliferate, even in the pages of TSR's own magazine, is evidence that you can't put the djinni back in the bottle and so most people continued to play AD&D the way they did OD&D, even if it probably is contrary to the spirit in which the new edition was written.

Anyway, enough rambling.

[murquhart72]

Thaaannnk yoouuu! I was about ready to start dragging out books, magazines and a magnifying glass until I read the previous post. That's all I was getting at

Things I love:
OD&D
Holmes D&D
Moldvay D&D
Mentzer D&D
Advanced D&D
People Who Love the Above

You'll find no negativity in this boy, just elbow-nudging and pig-tail pulling

[foster1941]

Another key essay from Gygax on the difference in intended approach between AD&D (official rules conformity) and D&D (anything goes) is in Dragon #67 (Nov. 1982): "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D Game." One of the big problems with this essay was that by this point "D&D" had become conflated with the kiddie/intro/mass-market version (i.e. "Classic D&D") and the freeform/toolbox/tinkerer's version (i.e. OD&D) was no longer on the market (as, indeed, it never was again until the pdf was finally released last fall) so the hardcore hobbyists who wanted to customize the game naturally tended to AD&D, and were then resentful when Gygax told them they shouldn't be doing that to his game (a resentment that carried through unabated for decades -- people were still angrily citing this essay on ENWorld as proof that Gygax was a dictator who wanted to tell everyone how they should be playing the game as recently as a year or two ago (and very well may still be doing so except that I have all of tose people on my Ignore List so I no longer see it )).

[dwayanu]

I remember that column from Dragon, and I think there are similar words somewhere in the AD&D books (though I can't give a citation offhand).

The problem addressed was and is a big factor in the historical-wargames hobby. Even before considering detailed rules, there's the issue of how one's models are based (e.g., frontage per figure) and organized into units. The WRG rules are no longer "the standard" for the ancient era, but the basing scheme is widely used -- as is Empire's for "horse and musket."

Wargamers' delight in devising their own rules gave rise to D&D, and it's ongoing. Every club has its own rules-sets, and some individuals have several of their own creation used seldom if ever except when they GM or host games at home.

It's been a long time since I last saw a historical wargame as popular as the current WW2 offering Flames of War, and the standardization (right down to model sets matching game-standard TO&E) is I think part of that.

It's not only in tournaments that standardization is helpful. It allows gamers anywhere to get right down to playing without having to worry about learning (or settling upon) the rules all over again. In AD&D, it means that characters can easily transfer from campaign to campaign.

That adds appeal for folks who approach the hobby with a more casual attitude. A home-brewed variant of Risk, practically a new game, may be just the thing for the players who jointly created it. For the general public, it's nice to have a common understanding of what's meant by, "Let's play Risk."

A game without "experience levels" -- e.g., Metamorphosis Alpha -- has to my mind another advantage in that regard, but that's a real departure from D&D.

If I advertise a game as "AD&D 1st. Ed.," I'll make sure that differences from the books boil down to not using certain elements (and I'll choose carefully). To add or alter rules (beyond those areas left undefined in the first place) makes the game to me "D&D" regardless of which books are used.

[redpriest]

Thanks for the replies. For the longest, I've never looked much beyond the books for insights into D&D. Sure, I had the subscription to Dragon, but never paid that much attention to the editorials.

[James Maliszewski]

redpriest said:

Thanks for the replies. For the longest, I've never looked much beyond the books for insights into D&D. Sure, I had the subscription to Dragon, but never paid that much attention to the editorials.

The old issues of The Dragon (as it was called then) are very useful, if you're interested in gaming "archeology." The issues that coincide with the releases of the various AD&D books are particularly intriguing, since you can read Gygax and other TSR luminaries trying to make the case for a game that I get the sense many gamers were skeptical about. It's obvious that AD&D eventually overcame that skepticism and reduced its gaming forebear to the status of "kid brother," but that wasn't an inevitable outcome and, in some parallel world, the skepticism might have won the day.

Don't get me wrong: I love AD&D and played a lot of it when I was a kid (I never played OD&D till I was much older), but its appearance really does spell the end of the freewheeling days of the hobby. Its success was an early harbinger of what we're seeing today, albeit on a much smaller scale. AD&D was the canary in the coal mine of the eventual corporatization of the hobby.

[casey777]

jamesm said:

redpriest said:

What is the reference for disallowing house rules in AD&D?

This is a controversial topic, so there are a lot of differing opinions on the matter, but many people read the AD&D DMG this way, particularly its Preface, where Gygax talks a lot about the necessity for uniformity of rules from campaign to campaign. This interpretation has some support from contemporary articles Gygax wrote in his column in The Dragon.

Whatever Gygax's intent at the time was, such has been read by many as a "PLAY THIS WAY" browbeating. The DMG often looks schizophrenic at times to many and it's one stated inspiration for the current thoughts on the "DM as enemy", "Just say yes" and so forth.

Evidently it was a factor in some really bad DM'ing back in the day.

[casey777]

Yeah my first message was a bit strong. I chalk it up to a long week capped off with shoveling snow, Gygax's passing and not wanting to see any sort of intra-forum invasions happening. Both forums are good, no need to make bad blood between folks who IMO have plenty in common.

I'm one of those who played AD&D, mainly because it was what others had, it had lots of stuff, and looked great. But I started with Holmes Basic & Cook Expert and we never used most of the rules in AD&D (esp. as is and esp. not the combat rules). Chalk me up as one of those who played AD&D lite or OD&D+.

[James Maliszewski]

casey777 said:

The DMG often looks schizophrenic at times to many and it's one stated inspiration for the current thoughts on the "DM as enemy", "Just say yes" and so forth.

The DMG is schizophrenic, in part, I think, because, while "Gary the President of TSR" saw a necessity for a standardized, uniform approach to rules and rules interpretations, "Gary the Gamer" was still there and understood both that there was no way anyone could standardize roleplaying and that there was no point in doing so. I won't say that AD&D was purely a cynical move on TSR's part, because I think much of its impetus was rationally grounded, but I think it's telling that Gygax never really played AD&D himself and, especially in later years, he returned to a slightly modified OD&D when he wished to play D&D.

[Finarvyn]

And while OD&D is my favorite RPG, AD&D is really up there on the list IMO. My den is totally full of RPG stuff and I continually consider getting rid of most of it, but no matter what I'm keeping all of my OD&D and AD&D (1E) books. Even though the two systems appear to be totally opposite in philosophy (freeform versus encyclopedic) they both have a special place in my heart and I love them both significantly more than any edition published later on. Most of my favorite game products were published in the 1974-83 decade or so...

[Falconer]

I <3 OD&D
I <3 Holmes
I <3 AD&D 1e

I have run all three and loved every minute of it. I have never run any of them exactly by-the-book, especially not AD&D. I’m pleased to learn that this makes it not “Advanced” anymore. Seriously, that word “Advanced” in this context has always been hilariously funny to me and to all of my friends.

I think a lot of the negative responses to this thread initially are due to the title of the thread. Snobbish adherents of any particular game will turn other people off of the game by their snobbishness. I love the general atmosphere here, of delight and excitement and revelry in our discovery of such an awesome game. But let us not forget that we are, indeed, a small “weird enclave” in a larger world of 1e, 3e, HM, C&C, and 4e lovers. We must TRANSFORM their EXISTING love into OD&D love, rather than try to CONVERT them AWAY from their games. Regards.

[sham]

I always considered myself an ardent AD&D player until earlier this year, when I discovered DF, K&K and this great site. In the process I finally took the plunge and actually read the LBB for the first time.

I had an epiphany of sorts. It was then that I realized I've actually ALWAYS been playing D&D by Gygax and Arneson. I just never knew it.

In that regard, I tend to agree with themattjon's message, although the delivery may have been a somewhat ill advised.

~Sham

[casey777]

jamesm said:

The DMG is schizophrenic, in part, I think, because, while "Gary the President of TSR" saw a necessity for a standardized, uniform approach to rules and rules interpretations, "Gary the Gamer" was still there and understood both that there was no way anyone could standardize roleplaying and that there was no point in doing so.

I think the Museum of Roleplaying Games does a pretty good job of presenting OD&D and how AD&D was both a step forward and a miss at the same time.

D&D
AD&D

[redpriest]

Following themattjon's breadcrumb trail to here led me also to an epiphany. It wasn't anything themattjon said, or didn't say, that turned on the lightbulb; it was just that coming to this OD&D-dedicated site got me to thinking about the game.

The epiphany? Well, old, tired hat to just about everyone here (and elsewhere maybe), but it's a new perspective for me. OD&D is the game, and everything else, AD&D 1e included, are special case situations. Put another way, OD&D is the game, and everything else is reference material.

Oops.. just noticed the time and have to book for now, but I have more say on this. I'll just have to add it later, but the above is more or less the meat of the issue, and the rest of what I have to say is how I got there.

[coffee]

redpriest said:

OD&D is the game, and everything else, AD&D 1e included, are special case situations. Put another way, OD&D is the game, and everything else is reference material.

Absolutely!

Congratulations on your epiphany; I still have a warm glow from when I made that leap in awareness. And welcome to our cheerful little forum.

[Rhuvein]

casey777 said:

Going to another forum, stirring up a thread and then coming back here to publicly gloat over it bad form most any forum.

Your point is good to an extent but this thread isn't. Just as you also read and post at DF you can bet others on DF read and post here too.

Agreeing with this and adding ~ some of us are mods over there - looking at "oldschooler"!!



J/K, we should always try to keep it fun and lively, but being the internet and not being able to converse face to face, we need to exercise some restraint as so many others may not get the tone/humor of one's post or posting style.

;D

;D

[murquhart72]

Yeah, yeah... Just a reminder: I didn't go over to that other forum. I was already there, posting as normal. When the reactions started coming, I came over to this forum to point out how touchy things had gotten and maybe continue the discussion here.
In other words: I realized I was over-stepping certain sissy-bounds at Dragonsfoot and thought I'd repeat the posting here (abandoning the DF thread), thinking I'd have more folks here on a similar wave-length who might know what it was I was trying to get across.
Thanks to jamesm I think my point has been made enough to inspire thought and discussion at this, my favorite OD&D forum ;D

Thanks, and may your dice always come up Box Cars!

[calithena]

Good discussion in this thread despite the rocky start.

Next time any of you feel like teasing an AD&Der, write something for Fight On! instead!

[redpriest]

themattjon said:

Yeah, yeah... Just a reminder: I didn't go over to that other forum. I was already there, posting as normal. When the reactions started coming, I came over to this forum to point out how touchy things had gotten and maybe continue the discussion here.
In other words: I realized I was over-stepping certain sissy-bounds at Dragonsfoot and thought I'd repeat the posting here (abandoning the DF thread), thinking I'd have more folks here on a similar wave-length who might know what it was I was trying to get across.
Thanks to jamesm I think my point has been made enough to inspire thought and discussion at this, my favorite OD&D forum ;D

Thanks, and may your dice always come up Box Cars!

Cut the @#$%, you came back here to gloat. But hey, that's okay from my perspective, because of you, I now have some meaningful stuff to work on.

Like my own OD&D house rules.

So, as Will said, "All's well that ends well."