jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Aug 6, 2011 13:13:35 GMT -6
Even as large a group as they were the players in the Ryth campaign were still a cargo cult of sorts, they didn't have access to the decades of writing and the thousands of people that write about RPGs on a daily basis each of us can reach today via the internet. A small amount of confusion and a couple voices of dissent would have carried a lot of weight.
Most of the criticism about D&D in Ryth 10 are because of the ambiguities and weird spots in the rules those of us on this forum have had years, even decades more RPG experience and learned to ignore or deal with.
The only specific area of complaint noted is fighters don't improve in defensive capabilities with experience. This complaint fades instantly if hp are viewed as defensive in nature but the view of what HP are still is a point of debate to this day.
|
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Aug 6, 2011 13:24:45 GMT -6
Well, you'd have to admit that the OD&D booklets look rather hastily thrown-together. I too was startled by the letter's mention of a campaign with scores of participants. Hard to believe one community would have so many interested parties! I doubt there are 30 RPGers in this entire state (MO). If one in 10,000 people is an RPG player Missouri has almost 600 of them. I bet there are many more. I don't have trouble finding players I have trouble finding players with games I can get to on a regular basis myself. Where I live there has to be far more than 1 RPG player per 10,000 people or I've met over half of them. Last year I discovered there was an AD&D game being played in a house only a couple blocks away. One night club hopping and hanging out with lady friends (between marriages) I stumbled into a D&D game while sneaking into a pool room in the basement of an apartment building. There are D&D players all over the place, they don't all advertise, go to conventions, visit game shops much or talk about D&D on the internet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2011 11:52:33 GMT -6
I beg to differ on your claim that D&D inspired John's creativity - he's always been an amazingly creative guy. Ryth was just one project, which had its limitations (due in large part to the limitations in the original D&D rules.) Do note, that early improvements in TSR's system (Greyhawk, other booklets and eventually AD&D) grew in part out of John's own innovations. Your 'original' D&D owes some things to him (and the Ryth cargo cult.)
Len Scensny
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Aug 8, 2011 12:57:10 GMT -6
If one in 10,000 people is an RPG player Missouri has almost 600 of them. I bet there are many more. Where did you get the 1:10,000 ratio, if I may enquire? Let's stop for a moment and assume that relationship is correct. In that case, for example, of 10,000 RPGers in MO, hypothetically, 70% will be playing Pathfinder/3.x, 25% play D&D 4.0 and 5% play other (including the "Vampire" stuff, CoC, etc.), with less than 1/10th of that 5% who play anything older than the d20 system. Since most of the population is concentrated overwhelmingly in Saint Louis and Kansas City, that decreases any chance of finding OS D&D players anywhere else in the state. That has been my experience here for the past decade.   When I lived in MN throughout the 90s I, in Minneapolis, I knew not a single RPGer nor wargamer, whether on-campus or off. I saw two SCA-types once in 1990-1, but no RPGers. Am I to correctly understand that Mr. Scensny said that Mr. VanderGraaf is to be credited with certain mechanics/contents of later D&D materials? That appears to boldy challenge any assertion that EGG was the sole author of the D&D line. It shows that, in the early days, it was a collaborative enterprise with, perhaps, a great deal of cross-pollenisation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2011 13:13:35 GMT -6
It shows that, in the early days, it was a collaborative enterprise with, perhaps, a great deal of cross-pollenisation. This would be true, as best I understand it. For instance; the classes of ranger, thief, illusionist, (and the player-character version of the) druid were all fan-generated additions to the game. I'm sure there are other examples but those are off the top of my head. |
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Aug 8, 2011 14:12:37 GMT -6
Welcome Len! We'd love to hear any Ryth or other early gaming stories you'd care to share! |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 8, 2011 16:34:50 GMT -6
I beg to differ on your claim that D&D inspired John's creativity - he's always been an amazingly creative guy. Ryth was just one project, which had its limitations (due in large part to the limitations in the original D&D rules.) Do note, that early improvements in TSR's system (Greyhawk, other booklets and eventually AD&D) grew in part out of John's own innovations. Your 'original' D&D owes some things to him (and the Ryth cargo cult.) This seems to prove my point rather than refute it.  But, you’re new here (welcome!) so you may miss some of the subtleties we take for granted. I think one of the core tenets of OD&D fandom is that OD&D IS rough around the edges and incomplete, but that lack of polish spurred creative types to fill in the holes themselves, something unnecessary in a more polished game. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 8, 2011 18:40:43 GMT -6
Welcome, Len!
Um, not even Gary ever claimed he was the sole author of the D&D line... Now, he did claim authorship of AD&D, but even then acknowledged the input of others.
It is pretty cool, though, to see how John's innovations had such an early effect, even altering stuff in Greyhawk.
And now that I'm back from North Dakota, I need to go read that letter Victor posted...
|
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Aug 10, 2011 17:49:27 GMT -6
If one in 10,000 people is an RPG player Missouri has almost 600 of them. I bet there are many more. Where did you get the 1:10,000 ratio, if I may enquire? I pulled it out of hat as a means to illustrate there are more than 30 RPG players in Missouri. Which is surprising as I have in fact stumbled across RPGers. There's a group of 20-50 year old's playing AD&D a couple blocks from me and I never met any of them. Methinks 70% of RPGers do not play Pathfinder only a noisy group on the internet do. I'm the only one in my close circle of RPG players that goes online and blogs and posts on forums about RPGs. We keep looking in the same spots for more players and don't find them and that is becasue the players are elsewhere. The Ryth newsletter is a great snapshot of a gaming past and shows there are many gamers out there, can't find a player now when there are tens of millions involved in fantasy gaming on a regular basis, imagine how tricky it was in 1976. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Aug 10, 2011 18:19:28 GMT -6
There are more than 30 of us in Big MO?  |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Aug 10, 2011 19:14:24 GMT -6
Well, pre-1979/80 the hobby was still in the brief but precious Pre-Stigma Epoch. Once you get to the Egbert Boundary (1979), it's all downhill after that. Finding recruits in the PSE would have been relatively easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Mar 20, 2017 22:10:03 GMT -6
I find it interesting the disdain he expresses towards OD&D, there. How common was it by 1977 to feel like D&D was wholly inadequate, and either the group should switch to something like C&S or else do a homebrew from the ground up? The irony is that OD&D spurred them to AMAZING creativity in the first place, not to mention incredibly successful campaigns (30 active players??). Perhaps it’s only in hindsight that we can appreciate OD&D’s shortcomings as actually being strengths. Many years later... I was part of the community that John & Laurie (and Len Scensey and Greg DeCesare, and etc.) operated in. We delved into any number of games such as Diplomacy, and wargames, and general games such as Rail Baron, 1829, Acquire, Junta, En Garde...) In regards to the quote by Falconer, by 1977, John, in particular, and the rest of us, felt that open-ended games, with no particular end-point were a waste of time. You would simply have higher quality characters, that would fight against higher quality "critter", ad infinitum - that there was no "game" there - no winner and such. Anyway... Cheers, State |
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Mar 20, 2017 23:04:20 GMT -6
Well, as he mentions, none of them came from a wargaming background nor, of course, had anyone ever heard of a role playing game before. I think the odds were stacked against them in terms of understanding the Chainmail fantasy combat system... That is not correct at all in terms of your inference... All of us game from a wargaming background, but as you say none of us had ever seen a rpg (nor had anyone else), which was quite a revelation.  Cheers, State |
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Mar 21, 2017 0:35:42 GMT -6
I beg to differ on your claim that D&D inspired John's creativity - he's always been an amazingly creative guy. Ryth was just one project, which had its limitations (due in large part to the limitations in the original D&D rules.) Do note, that early improvements in TSR's system (Greyhawk, other booklets and eventually AD&D) grew in part out of John's own innovations. Your 'original' D&D owes some things to him (and the Ryth cargo cult.) This seems to prove my point rather than refute it. But, you’re new here (welcome!) so you may miss some of the subtleties we take for granted. I think one of the core tenets of OD&D fandom is that OD&D IS rough around the edges and incomplete, but that lack of polish spurred creative types to fill in the holes themselves, something unnecessary in a more polished game. I'm not sure how to interpret this... Len (Scnensy responds that John Van de Graff is creative, in general). Len and John are pioneers in the early days of D&D (and that I am a sorry carry-on fellow with them). I imagine that your subtleties were not anticipated at the time... (circa mid-1970's) or depending... |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 21, 2017 8:22:11 GMT -6
Many years later... I was part of the community that John & Laurie (and Len Scensey and Greg DeCesare, and etc.) operated in. We delved into any number of games such as Diplomacy, and wargames, and general games such as Rail Baron, 1829, Acquire, Junta, En Garde...) In regards to the quote by Falconer, by 1977, John, in particular, and the rest of us, felt that open-ended games, with no particular end-point were a waste of time. You would simply have higher quality characters, that would fight against higher quality "critter", ad infinitum - that there was no "game" there - no winner and such. Anyway... Cheers, State Welcome to the forum, State, and thanks for commenting on this thread. I'd love to hear some stories about playing in the Ryth games. Do you remember your character(s)? Most memorable events/encounters in the campaign? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 10:39:49 GMT -6
They say they started with the 3LBBs, and that was "Original Edition", the fact that some may have had Chainmail and/or Outdoor Survival and/or other documents and later publications does not change what "Original Edition" was and is.
Not everyone accepts the agenda that claims OD&D has shortcomings, some of us have always viewed these alleged shortcomings as strengths. Particularity in light of the implicit and explicit statements in the text to go and make it your own.
I admit no such thing, nor have I ever viewed them that way.
The first year that we played in college, out of the two floors (72 students) in my dorm, we had in the beginning 12 players for the first game and consistently thereafter 16-18 players, up to 30 players out of a pool of 72 people. I do not find it surprising in the least.
The "ambiguities and weird spots in the rules" where what made the game truly magical and contrary to the "learned to ignore or deal with" crowd, some of us recognized that those are the things that are missing from other games and the things that makes OD&D the game I enjoy more than any other. These things should be embraced not ignored or dealt with. Decades of PRG experience sometimes lead people to fallacious conclusions.
These things (Greyhawk, other booklets and eventually AD&D) are not and should not be viewed as "improvements", they are not in any way improvements, they are other options. To call them improvements is a very offensive viewpoint. The game did not and does not need "improvements", these things (Greyhawk, other booklets and eventually AD&D) and the hoard of imitations are just one big tool box of options and alternative ways of doing things, take it or leave or tweak it and create something new for your own unique game.
I do not accept that as a "core" tenet. The so-called "more polished" games are dead, lifeless and lacking the sense of magic and wonder found in OD&D.
I on the other hand view games that are not open-ended as a waste of time. IME OD&D has never been about "higher quality characters" fighting "higher quality "critters", fighting is not a focus or purpose of the game, it is only a small part of the game. The open-ended nature of the game provides a way for each character to grow in many ways besides fighting ability and many of those ways of growing lap over into real life in beneficial ways. As for no "particular end-point", for each character as for each real-life person the end-point of the game-life or real-life is death and what comes next. There are goals in the game, as many as the players choose for themselves. I could understand how people with no imagination could come to the nonsensical conclusion of "waste of time"; but I can not fathom how intelligent creative people (such as everyone reading this) could ever reach such an outrageous conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Mar 22, 2017 18:57:47 GMT -6
Many years later... I was part of the community that John & Laurie (and Len Scensey and Greg DeCesare, and etc.) operated in. We delved into any number of games such as Diplomacy, and wargames, and general games such as Rail Baron, 1829, Acquire, Junta, En Garde...) In regards to the quote by Falconer, by 1977, John, in particular, and the rest of us, felt that open-ended games, with no particular end-point were a waste of time. You would simply have higher quality characters, that would fight against higher quality "critter", ad infinitum - that there was no "game" there - no winner and such. Anyway... Cheers, State Welcome to the forum, State, and thanks for commenting on this thread. I'd love to hear some stories about playing in the Ryth games. Do you remember your character(s)? Most memorable events/encounters in the campaign? Glad to be here. Sadly, I basically missed most of the Ryth. I had gone off to university and was not involved directly other than a few times. I got the first one or two chronicle reports only. The way thinks worked is that John/Len/etc. would host an expedition. A few players would show up in person, and a full party would be put together from some of the players that were not there. There was a card or sheet that each player filled out giving conditional orders for their characters use on an expedition. My character, Zonker, had just a couple of things - 1) I'll go on any expedition, 2) resurrect me if I die. The 2nd option was because I had a good fighter character, so I was more than happy to keep him. Previously I had poor characters that sucked so I gave their instructions as - 1) go on any expedition, 2) behave suicidal, and 3) do not resurrect - so I could get a new character. We didn't do roll-overs during character generation - you got what you got. I'll relate a couple memories. There was one expedition where Barry Eynon's (I think) character was turned into a frog. This created all kinds of fun since he had to be carried by someone. So you had many silly instances of "you can't use your shield because your carrying Athelfrar. OK, he's in my backback, then. OK then you're more encumbered. He's just a frog, give me a break! ..." The other being the demise of my character - related in the chronicle in February 2776. I was the first of several low-level characters to make a wish at the pool of a nymph. I wished for a Rod of Lordly Power or some such, failed and vanished into non-existence. It was an enormously fun expedition held in Len's basement. I was more than happy to take a massive risk to gain a great item since I wasn't really invested in my character (since I was very rarely actually playing him), and I figured if he had the Rod my character would be selected for more expeditions, gain more levels, and become more important in the "community". Actually, one last memory. I visited John and Laurie after several years of not, and Gregg (DeCesare) came over. We were reminiscing and D&D came up and they started telling me all these cool stories from the Ryth campaign. Wow! Cheers, State |
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Mar 22, 2017 19:27:06 GMT -6
I on the other hand view games that are not open-ended as a waste of time. IME OD&D has never been about "higher quality characters" fighting "higher quality "critters", fighting is not a focus or purpose of the game, it is only a small part of the game. The open-ended nature of the game provides a way for each character to grow in many ways besides fighting ability and many of those ways of growing lap over into real life in beneficial ways. As for no "particular end-point", for each character as for each real-life person the end-point of the game-life or real-life is death and what comes next. There are goals in the game, as many as the players choose for themselves. I could understand how people with no imagination could come to the nonsensical conclusion of "waste of time"; but I can not fathom how intelligent creative people (such as everyone reading this) could ever reach such an outrageous conclusion. No worries... One of the greatest qualities of D&D when it came out was precisely that it was open-ended and players could do what they wanted with it. Many of the Ryth crowd continued to play D&D for years (and may well continue to this day). I should say that the Ryth crowd were the people in the Detroit wargaming community who took up D&D. Many of us played games in many genres. John and Len were principles in setting up our conventions. They co-published Yggdrasil Chronicle (YC) which was a PBM Diplomacy zine that branched off into all kinds of other games including two role playing games, En Garde and Knights of the Round Table. Many of us, including myself, were heavily involved in the conventions and game adjudications for YC. I don't know this to be correct, but I imagine the sheer workload and creativity required for all this started a mind-set of avoiding open-ended games since their workload would continue forever, and to sustain it properly would limit delving into other interesting projects. "waste of time" was unfortunate phrasing on my part... Cheers, State |
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Mar 22, 2017 20:53:54 GMT -6
Perhaps everyone knows this, but it's not really made clear in that blog post (or the Risus post) that John Van De Graaf is the co-author (along with Laurie Van De Graaf) of the TSR module O1 The Gem and the Staff (1983, for the D&D Expert Set), and the earlier tournament version Quest for the Fazzlewood (1978, which I presume was written for OD&D, so of particular interest to this board). "Quest for the Fazzlewood was published by Metro Detroit Gamers, who also published Lost Caverns of Tsojconth. It was used as a tournament module at Wintercon VII in 1978, and later publicly released (probably in very small quantities). The module was expanded (and many of the names inside were changed) into O1 Gem and the Staff by TSR in the mid-1980's." O1 at the AcaeumIt would be interesting to compare the Ryth Chronicles to the module, particular the Fazzlewood version (since many names were changed in the later version). Of course, Fazzlewood is extremely rare & expensive so it may be difficult to find someone willing to do this. Quest for the Fazzlewood was created by John and Laurie because there was a general unhappiness with D&D tournaments at game conventions. Dungeons used at tournaments, then, had parties of, say, 4-8 players, and were often ad hoc parties made up on the spot. The tournament would last 4 hours or so, and some party would win based on some vague point system (or something). Players complained how random it all was. Bad dice rolls, unfortunate party makeups (because of the ad hoc parties), no sense that the tournament result was based on the individual skill of any player, variability of DM decisions, etc. So, John & Laurie conceived of a tournament dungeon that was single-player and only lasted 30 minutes. This allowed the same number of people to play in the same amount of time allocated for the tournament, while providing a tournament ranking that was based on genuine player skill. Features: - solo player so the individual that ultimately wins is the one that performed the best. - every single action a player could take, for good or bad, had a positive or negative point assigned. - the DM's had no discretion. They simply followed the dungeon flow based on what the player did, and kept track of the points assigned. - all dice rolls were pre-rolled and applied in every moment in the same sequence for every player. That is, by example, 50 d20 rolls were on a sheet in sequence. Every time the player had to roll d20, the next d20 on the sheet was used. So, every player had the same "luck", albeit taking different paths through the dungeon would change the circumstance where any given d20 roll was used. As I recall, John & Laurie did the pre-rolls the morning of the tournament and mimeographed the die-roll sheets and inserted them into the DM packet. This is analogous to Duplicate Contract Bridge where every team of players plays the same cards through the course of 20 or so hands of bridge, eliminating the luck factor, at least in terms of the shuffle and deal of the cards. - players who had gone through the dungeon were sequestered from players who had not. I do not recall at all how this was done since I was DM'ing for four hours or so... Everyone in the tournament got to keep their Quest for the Fazzlewood module. DM's, as well. As I recall, the DM extras were sheets inserted into the base package, and obviously only available to the DM during the tournament, and given to the player afterwords. But I am hazy here. I last looked at my copy of Fazzlewood about seven years ago or so, and somehow misplaced it, and have subsequently moved, and it has vanished from the face of the earth... John & Laurie created it and Gregg DeCesare did the artwork. Several of us in the Detroit community did the initial play-test (Greg, myself, Barry Eynon (in town at the moment) - probably Dave Schulte, Ray Ulmann, Jim Fuqua). After our playtest, (where I think one of us succeeded, most of us failed at the same point, and one poor soul did not do well at all), adjustments were made and a 2nd playtest was held amongst a number of other Detroit D&D'ers. Probably a few more refinements made, and the con was held a couple of months later. I believe it was considered a success. Certainly, I remember as a DM, that it was pretty straight forward and well received. To your question about Ryth vs Fazzlewood. There is a direct correspondence in terms of rules, though it is probable that TSR had put out more rule changes/clarifications that were incorporated into Fazzlewood, since for tournament purposes, the dungeon had to match the "generally accepted" version of D&D rather than any special Detroit conventions. And... the naming of characters and places were all Detroit gamer inside-jokes. Fazzlewood = Paul Wood's character Fazzlefart in Ryth. I think Luho and Chefoo (I've botched both of those, but I'm too lazy to go find and open the box that has all the YC's that describe the "chronicles" of the game Imperialism (no resemblance to the computer game, circa 2000) which were made-up province names in this game. There are probably other little bits like that. Cheers, State edit: oops, I forgot a very cool thing. My memory is very hazy here, and I'm not speaking for John & Laurie, but the basic plot of Fazzlewood is the same as one of the stories in Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" novel, which is credited (the novel) to be the basis, or strong contributor, to the underlying magic system of D&D... |
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Apr 3, 2017 9:45:03 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 10:33:50 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the read. I will also say surely he is joking when he says, "...which accounts for such oddities as "hit dice" by which a character grows larger as he gains experience...". Since the concept of the characters growing larger is nowhere to be found in the rules, not is there any basis for inferring such a thing. It makes it very difficult to take it serious when he complains of "major deficiencies" in the rules, when he has such a conceptual misunderstanding of the rules. The ambiguities he complains about are one of the best things about the rules, and as for the errors he is talking about I would hope he is referring to the many typos the document has. Lets be clear, TSR did not correct or improve anything with "an entirely new set of rules", they only provided a new and different game and a new and different play experience compared to OD&D. I am really glad he had "untold hours of enjoyment", but I am sorry he so badly misunderstood the fabric of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Apr 4, 2017 0:23:39 GMT -6
I must disagree... I understand where you come from, but you must also understand where John, et al (including myself), came from. OD&D was just another game, albeit revolutionary because RPG was not in any wargamer's lexicon at the time. OD&D was not our gaming nirvana, but did have two-three years'ish as our favorite game - which is evidenced by the great quantity and creativity of the Ryth Chronicles. But, we played any number of other wargames and social games, as well, during that period - and John was creating, and later published a rather sophisticated computer-resolved game, Feudal Lords. To particulars... The Ryth Chronicles showed gameplay that was based on the first edition of D&D (I'm dropping "OD&D" in favour of what it was at time - "D&D"). I mean to say that the original rule-set was not particularly coherent. This is evident from any and all searches in Google about D&D. Folk, like our Detroit group, modified the rules to suit our purposes as did any number of other groups, frankly, to make the game playable. There is documentary evidence in the Ryth Chronicle, and retrospective blogs, about interactions between John and Gary Gygax about this or that to determine what might or might not be the "rules". Legend, supported by Google searches, is that D&D was not a canonical game. Further, in fact, Gygax created AD&D to create a canonical game. Google search results show lot of motivation behind this - to create a static game where there was no variation to create an RPG version of Chess, as it were. Frankly, I wan't to convey the notion that in August of 1974 I was introduced to D&D. A large number of the Detroit wargame community went to Gen-Con and bought the first edition of D&D (brown box, 3 little booklets, that I idiotically threw away 10 years ago when I was moving (who would be interested?, I said to myself...) D&D was an enormous challenge since it did not have specific, procedural rules to resolve every possible circumstance - instead, it was a broad, vague handbook for playing fantasy adventures. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no particular D&D (OD&D). Sure there are published books, but they have endless room for interpretation. To your point, of "when he has such a conceptual misunderstanding of the rules" viewpoint... Well... I'll just disagree - I don't have a problem with viewpoints like yours that the D&D rules can be canonical, but I think it is a stretch... Cheers, State |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 7:02:57 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the read. I will also say surely he is joking when he says, "...which accounts for such oddities as "hit dice" by which a character grows larger as he gains experience...". Since the concept of the characters growing larger is nowhere to be found in the rules, not is there any basis for inferring such a thing. It makes it very difficult to take it serious when he complains of "major deficiencies" in the rules, when he has such a conceptual misunderstanding of the rules. Now it all makes sense . . . Characters build fortresses etc. around name level because they are no longer able to fit into buildings built for smaller men. Demi-human level limits exist because: dwarves have grown so much by a certain point that they are no longer recognizably dwarven; halflings, who only grow in width but not height, can no longer fit through standard dungeon doors; and elves must journey to their lunar homeland, where the reduced gravity helps their slender frames bear their increased weight better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 7:31:48 GMT -6
I must disagree... I understand where you come from, but you must also understand where John, et al (including myself), came from. OD&D was just another game, albeit revolutionary because RPG was not in any wargamer's lexicon at the time. OD&D was not our gaming nirvana, but did have two-three years'ish as our favorite game - which is evidenced by the great quantity and creativity of the Ryth Chronicles. But, we played any number of other wargames and social games, as well, during that period - and John was creating, and later published a rather sophisticated computer-resolved game, Feudal Lords. To particulars... The Ryth Chronicles showed gameplay that was based on the first edition of D&D (I'm dropping "OD&D" in favour of what it was at time - "D&D"). I mean to say that the original rule-set was not particularly coherent. This is evident from any and all searches in Google about D&D. Folk, like our Detroit group, modified the rules to suit our purposes as did any number of other groups, frankly, to make the game playable. There is documentary evidence in the Ryth Chronicle, and retrospective blogs, about interactions between John and Gary Gygax about this or that to determine what might or might not be the "rules". Legend, supported by Google searches, is that D&D was not a canonical game. Further, in fact, Gygax created AD&D to create a canonical game. Google search results show lot of motivation behind this - to create a static game where there was no variation to create an RPG version of Chess, as it were. Frankly, I want to convey the notion that in August of 1974 I was introduced to D&D. A large number of the Detroit wargame community went to Gen-Con and bought the first edition of D&D (brown box, 3 little booklets, that I idiotically threw away 10 years ago when I was moving (who would be interested?, I said to myself...) D&D was an enormous challenge since it did not have specific, procedural rules to resolve every possible circumstance - instead, it was a broad, vague handbook for playing fantasy adventures. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no particular D&D (OD&D). Sure there are published books, but they have endless room for interpretation. To your point, of "when he has such a conceptual misunderstanding of the rules" viewpoint... Well... I'll just disagree - I don't have a problem with viewpoints like yours that the D&D rules can be canonical, but I think it is a stretch... Cheers, State I played other games too, there are a number of board games that I love to play as only one example. Playing other games is not at issue in anything I have said. I disagree that the original rule-set "was not particularly coherent". I did and do house rule OD&D, that "IS", canonical to the game both implicitly and explicitly in the rule books, house ruling things is built into the rules as a deliberate design feature. But house rules are not to make the game playable, it is to make the game playable your way and my way. To say that there was no canonical OD&D is complete nonsense IMO. The 3LBBs, printings 1-5, are canonical OD&D, canonical guidelines not rules. Everything else is house rules regardless of the source. (The supplements and everything else that you may or may not use in the game are not canonical, they are sources of house rules and that is all they are.) Creating AD&D, "motivation behind this - to create a static game where there was no variation to create an RPG version of Chess, as it were." Static game means fewer choices and not making the game your own, solid move to modules and premade items because DMs were no longer encouraged to be creative and do something unique to their game. AD&D could be played like OD&D, but most players came from other limited dead tired static games to a limited static game and never discovered the freedom to take things to a much higher level and make the game your own as in OD&D. Growing up at home and in college we house-ruled everything we played. Most people these days don't even know that you can do that. If you house rule those limited dead tired static games, they are no longer limited, dead, tired, and static. OD&D was designed to enhance and enliven game play. It is a living game, not limited, not dead, not tired and not static, it is unique. No other game was ever specifically designed for that purpose. That is the genie in the bottle that the OSR and the "retro-clones, etc" are trying to capture to varying degrees of success, even though many of those involved may not realize what the "genie" is. D&D was an enormous opportunity since it was not severely handicapped by specific, (limited, dead, tired, static) procedural rules to resolve every possible circumstance - instead, it was a broad, vague handbook for playing fantasy adventures, which is what it was and is specifically designed to do and for that matter is the whole reason that one small extremely tiny niche of the hobby to which some of us belong, for that complete freedom to " Make It Yourself". Part of our disagreement is that we understand the word "canonical" differently. The 3LBBs as published are "canonical" and they have the intentional design feature of having "endless room for interpretation". That is not a flaw or error or problem, that is perfection. The rules both explicitly and implicitly tell you (the ref) to interpret them. |
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Apr 4, 2017 10:17:09 GMT -6
Part of our disagreement is that we understand the word "canonical" differently. The 3LBBs as published are "canonical" and they have the intentional design feature of having "endless room for interpretation". That is not a flaw or error or problem, that is perfection. The rules both explicitly and implicitly tell you (the ref) to interpret them. I'll concede your point on canonical completely. To respond only to your point about not taking him seriously because he used the phrase "character grows larger" in regards to hit points, in his example, is extreme. It is a valid game design criticism that happens to be expressed rhetorically. I'll take your "perfect" and use it literally in regards to the "design concept", but John is saying that the "design execution" left something to be desired, and that he felt a total rework of the rules would be desirable. I'm not John's proxy here, and don't have any interest in arguing about any qualities or defects OD&D might have. I was part of the Ryth campaign, and have greatly enjoyed discovering this thread, and am happy to contribute anything I might know about it, and the general Detroit game scene at the time. Cheers, State |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 14:41:10 GMT -6
but John is saying that the "design execution" left something to be desired, and that he felt a total rework of the rules would be desirable. I would agree that a rewrite without changing anything other than updating the layout to modern layouts and adding the materials that were needed to facilitate play would have been a good thing for most people that did not have a wargaming background and also lacked a background in the relevant fantasy fiction, fairy tales, myth and legends the rules presuppose you are familiar with. My group back in the day did not have the wargaming background, but we were well grounded in the literature and had no problem using it straight out of the box. Few these days even know what a fairy tale is. I recall on one occasion telling a half dozen fairy tales to 7 or 8 25-30 years olds who had never heard or read a fairy tale. I will also concede that saying I could not take him seriously was a bit of hyperbole. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 23, 2017 23:49:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Oct 24, 2017 9:35:27 GMT -6
Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the read. I will also say surely he is joking when he says, "...which accounts for such oddities as "hit dice" by which a character grows larger as he gains experience...". Since the concept of the characters growing larger is nowhere to be found in the rules, not is there any basis for inferring such a thing. It makes it very difficult to take it serious when he complains of "major deficiencies" in the rules, when he has such a conceptual misunderstanding of the rules. Now it all makes sense . . . Characters build fortresses etc. around name level because they are no longer able to fit into buildings built for smaller men. Demi-human level limits exist because: dwarves have grown so much by a certain point that they are no longer recognizably dwarven; halflings, who only grow in width but not height, can no longer fit through standard dungeon doors; and elves must journey to their lunar homeland, where the reduced gravity helps their slender frames bear their increased weight better. ROTFL. Thanks. I needed a good chuckle this morning. Stimulating thread. I appreciate the input from the folks who were there in the early days. Very cool, gents! |
|
|
|
Post by scalydemon on Oct 24, 2017 21:26:32 GMT -6
Cool stuff. I am originally from MI. Jon's blog post was excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Oct 25, 2017 11:20:02 GMT -6
Warning: there's nothing but malware now at the original poster's link.
|
|
When I lived in MN throughout the 90s I, in Minneapolis, I knew not a single RPGer nor wargamer, whether on-campus or off. I saw two SCA-types once in 1990-1, but no RPGers.
But, you’re new here (welcome!) so you may miss some of the subtleties we take for granted. I think one of the core tenets of OD&D fandom is that OD&D IS rough around the edges and incomplete, but that lack of polish spurred creative types to fill in the holes themselves, something unnecessary in a more polished game.
