Swords & sorcery best describes what this game is all about, for those are
the two key fantasy ingredients. AD&D is
a fantasy game of role playing which relies upon the imagination of
participants, for it is certainly make-believe, yet it is so interesting, so
challenging, so mind-unleashing that it comes near reality.

As a role player,  become Falstaff the fighter. You know how strong,
intelligent, wise, healthy, dexterous and, relatively speaking, how
commanding a personality you have. Details as to your appearance, your
body proportions, and your history can be produced by you or the DM.
You act out the game as this character, staying  your "godgiven
abilities", and as molded by your philosophical and moral ethics
(called alignment). You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim
and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the
fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! The
DM will act the parts of "everyone else", and will present to you a
variety of new characters to talk with, drink with, gamble with, adventure
with, and often fight with! Each of you will become an artful thespian as
time goes by -- and you will acquire gold, magic items, and great renown
as you become Falstaff the Invincible!

This game lets all of your fantasies come true. This is a world where
monsters, dragons, good and evil high priests, fierce demons, and even
the gods themselves may enter your character's life. Enjoy, for this game is
what dreams are made of!!

The game is ideally for three or more adult players: one player must serve
as the DM, the shaper of the fantasy milieu, the "world" in
which all action will take place. The other participants become
adventurers by creating characters to explore the fantastic world and face
all of its challenges - monsters, magic, and unnamed menaces. As is
typical for most of us in real life, each character begins at the bottom of his
or her chosen class (or profession). By successfully meeting the challenges
posed, they gain xperience and move upwards in power, just as actual
playing experience really increases playing skill. Imagination,
intelligence, problem solving ability, and memory are all continually
exercised by participants in the game.

Although the masculine form of appellation is typically used when listing
the level titles of the various types of characters, these names can easily
be changed to the feminine if desired. This is fantasy -- what's in a name?
In all but a few cases sex makes no difference to ability!

As with most other RPGs, this one is not just a single experience
contest. It is an ongoing campaign, with each playing session
related to the next by results and participant characters who go from
episode to episode. As players build the experience level of their
characters and go forth seeking ever greater challenges, they must face
stronger monsters and more difficult problems of other sorts (and here the
DM must likewise increase his or her ability and
inventiveness). While initial adventuring usually takes place in an
underworld dungeon setting, play gradually expands to encompass other
such dungeons, town and city activities, wilderness explorations, and
journeys into other dimensions, planes, times, worlds, and so forth. Players
will add characters to their initial adventurer as the milieu expands so that
each might actually have several characters, each involved in some
separate and distinct adventure form, busily engaged in the game at the
same moment of "Game Time". This allows participation by many players
in games which are substantially different from game to game as
dungeon, metropolitan, and outdoor settings are rotated from playing to
playing. And perhaps a war between players will be going on (with battles
actually fought out on the tabletop with minature figures) one night, while
on the next, characters of these two contending players are helping each
other to survive somewhere in a wilderness.

Each individual campaign has its awn distinct properties and "flavor". A
good DM will most certainly make each game a surpassing
challenge for his or her players. Treasure and experience gained must be
taken at great risk or by means of utmost cleverness only. If the game is
not challenging, if advancement is too speedy, then it becomes staid and
boring. Conversely, a game can be too deadly and become just as boring,
for who enjoys endlessly developing new characters to march off into
oblivion in a single night of dungeon adventuring?!

Sometimes, however, because of close interaction (or whatever other
reason) two or more DMs will find that their games are
compatible to the extent that participants in these individual campaigns
can use the characters created in one to adventure in the others. In such
cases the DMs have created a very interesting "world"
indeed, for their milieux will offer interesting differences and subtle shifts
which will pose highly challenging problems to these players.

Ultimately, despite the fact that this is a game system created by someone
else, the game's viability rests principally with the referee.
The DM must design and map out the dungeon, town, city, and world maps.

He || she must populate the whole world, create its past history, and even
devise some rationale for what transpired (and will probably happen). As
players, you help immeasurably by participating, by letting the referee
know that you appreciate his or her efforts, and by playing well and in a
sportsmanly fashion. Good play inspires better creations to challenge that
play.

Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they are doing, i.e.
they have an objective. They co-operate -- particularly at lower levels or
at higher ones when they must face some particularly stiff challenge - in
order to gain their ends. Superior players will not fight everything they
meet, for they realize that wit is as good a weapon as the sword or the
spell. When weakened by wounds, or nearly out of spells and vital
equipment, a clever party will seek to leave the dungeons in order to rearm
themselves. (He who runs away lives to fight another day.) When
faced with a difficult situation, skilled players will not attempt endless
variations on the same theme; when they find the method of problem
solving fails to work, they begin to devise other possible solutions. Finally,
good players will refrain from pointless argument and needless
harassment of the DM when such bog the play of the game
down into useless talking. Mistakes are possible, but they are better
righted through reason and logic, usually at the finish of play for the day.

This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many
places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the
attraction of AD&D, and it is integral to the
game. Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to
the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter
entirely.
THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN.
Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher,
but they do have ultimate recourse - since the most effective protest is
withdrawal from the offending campaign. Each campaign is a specially
tailored affair. While it is drawn by the referee upon the outlines of the
three books which comprise AD&D, the
players add the color and details, so the campaign must ultimately please
all participants. It is their unique world. You, the reader, as a member of
the campaign community, do not belong if the game seems wrong in any
major aspect. Withdraw and begin your own campaign by creating a
milieu which suits you and the group which you must form to enjoy the
creation. (And perhaps you will find that preparation of your own milieu
creates a bit more sympathy for the efforts of the offending referee. . . )

One of the most important items you must have to play the game is a
character record. This can be a specially printed sheet done by TSR and
available in pads, or you can simply use a note pad and design your own
record sheet for your character if your DM is agreeable, far he
or she will usually retain at least a copy of all such records.

As information is developed for your character - his or her abilities, race,
class, alignment - it must be accurately recorded. All details of the
capabilities and possessions of the character must be noted. Where
equipment and weapons are carried must be listed. Spells known and
spells memorized for an adventure have to be kept track of. A running
total of experience points must be maintained. All of these subjects are
discussed herein. Ask your DM how records of your character should be
kept, read the rules and commentary, and record the data you develop
according to the rules (and your campaign referee's instructions) in a form
suitable to your DM.

All in all, this is a game for enjoyment. We are certain that it will provide <i>
endless hours of entertainment and excitement. That is the sole purpose
for its creation. So enjoy, and may the dice be good to you!

QUESTION: I have the D&D Collector’s Edition, the four supplements,
the DMG, the MM and the PH.
My friends say that they are all different games, the hardbacks and the paperbacks. <i>
Is this true?

ANSWER: Yes, it is. Everything that says AD&D is meant to be played together.
If it doesn’t say ADVANCED, then it can be played with the Collector’s Edition.
 

Q: Why are there so many contradictions between the Basic and
Expert D&D® sets and the Advanced D&D® books?

A: The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game and the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® game are two different products,
and are not meant to be meshed. The similarity in names is confusing,
but the game systems are very different from each other,
in the way that both are different from the Runequest® game system
or the Traveller® game system. DMs and players should
avoid mixing the D&D® and AD&D systems at all times.
(76.64)
 

Q: What good is the D&D "Expert
Set", and how does it fit into the game
system?

A: "Expert" is the second in the D&D
Basic series, and is NOT part of the
AD&D system. It does give many tips for
wilderness and campaign play, along
with map symbols and other details helpful
with both systems.
(Polyhedron #7)
 

Q: Is "Sage Advice" in DRAGON magazine
Official?

A: At this point, no. It gives good guidelines
to solving some problems, but does
not contain Official Answers to your
questions; this column [Dispel Confusion] is the only Official
source. (Another good reason for
being an RPGA Network member.)
(Polyhedron #8)
 

Q. Why are more questions in Dispel
Confusion about the Advanced D&D
game than about the Basic game?
A. We receive fewer questions about
the Basic game. However, this only
raises the question o fwhy this
should be so. In general the Basic
and Expert systems are designed to
be flexible and are deliberately not
comprehensive. As a result, the
answer to many questions is made
up on the spot by the DM.
    The Advanced game is far more
codified and extensive.  It is therefore
inevitable that there will be apparent
inconsistencies or deficiencies which
can be rectified in the Dispel
Confusion column.
(Imagine #4)

OUT ON A LIMB
Loose-leaf support

Dear Editor,
The major reason for this letter is to let you
know that I give my whole-hearted support to Mr.
Malone’s idea in TD #30 that the AD&D manuals <find & link>
be printed in loose-leaf form. Even though I already
own the three AD&D volumes, I would
purchase the loose-leaf form also for the ease of
use.

Earnest Rowland, Jr. —MO
(The Dragon #34)
 

As for the loose-leaf format for the AD&D
books, we’ve had a lot of positive responses to Mr.
Malone’s suggestion, but there are no plans for
such treatment in the near future. —Jake
 

A vote for binders

Dear Dragon publishers:
I would like to suggest that your company
make available to the subscribers of The Dragon
magazine binders for the preservation of your
wonderful magazine. The type I have in mind is
the hard-covered binder in which the magazines
are fastened to the binder by means of a wire
through the center fold of the magazine. Each
binder would contain a year’s supply of The
Dragon.
John Urata,
Honolulu, Hawaii
(The Dragon #39)
 

John’s suggestion is certainly a good one,
taken simply for what it is. The Dragon is not the
type of magazine which is meant to be looked at
once and thrown away. We may be prejudiced
(okay, we are prejudiced) but we can’t imagine
anyone discarding even a single issue. The storage
and preservation of back issues can be a
cause of some concern to readers who want their
copies of TD to remain in vintage condition.

But, from a business standpoint, we can’t
provide such a binder, at least not at the present
time. TD is a specialty magazine, with a relatively
small circulation compared to all other magazines,
and we can’t be sure that enough of our
readers would buy such a binder to make it feasible
for us to offer one.

When TD’s readership increases to the point
where we can be reasonably sure that binders
would be a popular item, we may decide to give
it a try, and you’ll be the first to know if we do.
Until that time, John and other readers who
share his concern can obtain binders themselves
from companies that sell such items on an individual
basis. Or, you could buy two copies of
each magazine, use one to thumb through, and
put the other one away for safekeeping. We
wouldn’t mind that a bit.

—Kim
(The Dragon #39)
 

Binders revisited

To the editor:
Regarding your editorial about SPELLBINDERS
in issue #59: Not only was Orisek
not the first company to think of easel-back
binders, they were not the first adventure
game company to do so. Flying Buffalo Inc.
was selling the same product for 6 or 8
months before Orisek came out with theirs.
Anyone can get them printed up by the binder
people if he is willing to buy at least 250.

But you are exactly right about the small
press run problems. We sell our binder for
$10, and we don’t make enough money on
them to keep them in print. We probably won’t
have them redone when the current batch is
sold out. (Ours are bigger than the ones Lauren
bought for $4, however.) And I’ll believe
that $4 price when I see it. I have seen such
binders advertised for $8, and the Michigan
Gaming Group sells theirs for $10, as we do.


Rick Loomis
Flying Buffalo Inc.
Scottsdale, Ariz.
(Dragon #61)

‘Misconceptions’

Dear Sirs,
Having played varying forms of D&D and
AD&D for the past two years, I would like to thank
you and your associates for doing such an excellent
job on the game and systems. However, I’ve
noticed that the average newcomer to the game
(and, of course, those not initiated at all into
fantasy role-playing) has a goodly number of misconceptions
about the game. These may lead to
just a minor inconvenience for some, but may become
a major stumbling block to others.

In my opinion, these difficulties arise from the
fact that the rules (and introduction to the game)
tend to assume a basic knowledge of the game.
Also, it is required (especially with AD&D) that the
new DM must spend a large amount of time
understanding the rules (and actually memorizing
enough of them to begin playing), or alternately,
find an experienced DM to teach one.

I am not unduly criticizing the game system, nor
Mr. Gygax. A great number of people teach themselves
the game with no real problems. But, as I
said, many people (perhaps because of the very
bulk of the rules) do have these problems.
Examples include “Monty Haul” campaigns and
“inflated level” games; since many beginners cannot
see (without having read in The Dragon, for
instance) why these campaigns are “wrong.”

TSR should seriously consider publishing a
D&D “primer,” or “introduction” to the game.
“D&D: The Basic Set” makes a good start, but isn’t
sufficient (since it doesn’t form a part of the DMG).
This would, in effect, be a brief explanation of the
game’s underlying concepts, without actually
quoting rules. If you prefer, this would be a
summary of the DMG.

This sort of D&D supplement could well be
printed up as a separate, loose-leaf book, or be included
in The Dragon. Such a work would be a
good way to sell the game, giving novices a
chance to read about it and decide whether they
wish to play (or decide which books and/or
supplies to purchase).

Geoff Hart
Baie d’Urfe, Quebec, Canada
(Dragon #43)
 

For me to adequately respond to all of Geoff’s
comments would take more time and space than
we have available — and wouldn’t be possible
anyway, since there are many points raised that
we can’t speak directly to. If anyone from the TSR
Hobbies Design/Development/Production
branch, or any knowledgeable person up to and
including Mr. Gygax, feels moved to elaborate, we
will gladly and promptly publish those words.

We do know this much: Work is proceeding on
a revised version of Basic D&D and something
called Expert D&D, both of which are tentatively
scheduled to be on sale around Christmas time,
barring any unavoidable delays in the production
process. We don’t know precisely what the new
Basic set will contain, and the same can be said for
the Expert version. Both projects, along with
others, were discussed at length by Mr. Gygax in
“From The Sorcerer’s Scroll” in Dragon #35.

The point was also made in that article that
there is no smooth transition at present between
Basic D&D and Advanced D&D To insure the
integrity and “learnability” of each game, they
need to be produced and approached as separate
and distinct games, with rules that do not always
overlap or dovetail. It is not a valid criticism to say
that Basic is not sufficient since “it doesn’t form a
part of the DMG,” to use Geoff’s words. It wasn’t
meant to do that in the first place.

At The Dragon, we refer to D&D and AD&D as
if they were different games — which they are. We
treat them differently when the situation warrants
that we do so (such as in the IDDC, where there
are different categories for Basic and Advanced),
and we encourage our readers to do the same.

—Kim
(Dragon #43)
 

'Rooting for you'

To the Editor:
Out here in New York I’m a sort of part-time
playtester/militia person down at SPI, and with
the recent publication of DragonQuest, a lot of
criticism has been directed at TSR and D&D in
general. I just thought you’d like to know that
there are a whole lot of people still rooting for you.

I’ve been playing D&D and AD&D for about
three years now, and despite everything that’s
been said about it, I and my friends have never
found anything as much fun to play. One of the
major problems with DragonQuest was the overly
complex combat system, which turned us off to
the game right away. Why bother with another
system when AD&D is so much more comfortable
to play with?

We’ve molded some of the rules to fit our own
tastes, but as a whole it remains pretty much the
same as the original game system. Through
AD&D we have found exactly what we wanted in
a role-playing game.

The game lends itself perfectly to story-telling as
well, and to date I have had published in the APADud
(a FRP fanzine) ten 8 + page episodes concerning
the continuing adventures of a group of
characters in my last campaign.

And so I just wrote to thank you for giving me a
pastime that I don’t think I’ll ever quite grow out
of. At age 14 I have slain dragons, fought side by
side with great warriors, and seen a raft-load of
goblins vanish into the maw of a creature that has
been extinct for 80 million years. It sure beats television.
 

Matthew T. Ruff
Queens, N.Y.
(Dragon #43)
 

‘Not cheap’

Dear editor:
I am 18 years old and have been playing
AD&D for two years, and during that time I
have had many great game-related thrills and
encounters. The fact, however, that it cost me
nearly $200 to do so suggests most certainly
that they were not “cheap thrills.”

When I was first introduced to D&D, I was
advised to buy the boxed special edition,
which cost about $10 and, in my opinion, was
not adequate for even a fledgling campaign. It
was at best skeletal, lacking even crucial tables
like weapon charts and damage tables.

I then confronted the friend who suggested
that I buy it. He told me to get Greyhawk, then
Blackmoor, then Eldritch Wizardry, then
Gods, Demigods & Heroes, then this, then
that...

Fortunately, the Monster Manual and Players
Handbook were already out, so I bought
them and discovered that just about all the
information contained within the earlier supplements
made up these two books. You can
bet your $5 dice-rolling cloth that I was glad I
hadn’t picked up those supplements.

At that time, modules and Judges Guild
products were rearing their expensive heads.
I bought these things by the rackload.

Then came a plethora of character sheet
types, crystal dice with absolutely no purpose
worthy of the price, metal miniatures of all
denominations, dice markers, dungeon floor
plans, and other utensils of questionable
worth.

After this, the monumental DMG appeared.
While worth the price, it did contain some
useless sections, such as the NPC personality
generation. In fact, I have a friend who actually
bought a SECOND copy because, it was
later printed with a few additional tables in the
back.

Now, the deity book is out. After about three
hundred warnings against the overuse of deities
in my game, I am supposed to buy a $12
book exclusively written for such use. Fortunately,
l didn’t buy it; I borrow a friend’s whenever
I need to look up some god.

Chris McGrane
Broomall, Pa.
(Dragon #50)
 
 

< As is tradition, 1eo gives Gary the last word. That said, i was pleasantly surprised to discover that most AD&D fans play a mix of 1e and 2e >
<i'd Love to write more, but because of Time, all i can say for Now is a big THANKS to Jimi Hendrix>
<Jimi has a couple of secret code names, "Tim Brian" is one of them ;) >

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia
Good Colonel,

I thought I should mention that my parents are still angry at you for writing the AD&D books and corrupting me at the tender age of 10 (already 24 years ago -- sheesh! <EEK!> ).

Seriously, I cannot express what a huge influence your work has had on my life. I know AD&D is just a game, but it compelled me to read quite a bit as a tender child (and learn to use a thesaurus!), use math skills, write detailed notes, develop problem-solving (and problem-creating!) skills, and exercise my imagination in coming up with new worlds and adventures for my friends. At the time it was all 'just fun', but in retrospect, I see that playing those games served a vital role in my intellectual development. Plato states in The Republic that the key to educating young people is to make the process of learning seem like 'a fun game' and not about 'dry, important information' (or something like that -- I don't have the book here  ), and AD&D certainly did that for me.

Your testimonial is most appreciated.
While the game was created and purveyed for fun and entertainment, i did realize it had beneficial effects in regards learning and creativity 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuzenbach
OK, I've got one. Please forgive me if this has been asked before, but I'm just too damned lazy to look through all the "Gary Gygax Q&A" threads.

Tomb Of Horrors: What were you thinking? Don't get me wrong, I love it. However, this module has got to be the antithesis of dungeons for all those D&Ders who insist upon "role-playing" as opposed to "roll-playing". I mean, you play this thing "in character" and you die. Period. Was it, therefore, your way of indirectly dictating *how* D&D was to be played? It's been suggested by others that TOH was just your way of "weeding out" the average, bad, and good players from the truly great players, if such a thing can even be defined. Well, what gives?

PS: Congratulations on the creation of The Tomb Of Horrors. All dungeons should aspire to its scheming level of challenge and thought.

Forget the business about role-playing. It is as boring as rule-playing and roll-playing are when made the focus of the game. Notice that I stress game, as that's what is the main operative word in the description of the activity. The majority of persons engaged in RPG activity love to go on dungeon crawls, so the ToH was designed to challenge the best of that lot.

That's the gist of it <cool>

Cheers,
Gary

<bold added>
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by O Brasileiro

Hello my Master, my Lord.
I cannot resist to ask: which is your favorite system?
The original D&D, AD&D or the new D&D?
Thanks for the softball, O Brasileiro 
 

My favorite system is my newest one, the Lejendary Adventure RPG.
After three plus decades of play I have come to most enjoy a rules-light, skill-based system, and that's what the LA game is.
I find it inspires my creativity in play and in writing game material.
Rules-heavy systems smother my capacity to innovate.

As for D&D gaming, I very much enjoy playing either the first D&D system (three booklets) or else OAD&D.
The Castle Zagyg modules are being designed based on the upcoming Castles & Crusades rules being done by Troll Lord Games using the OGL and being as close to OAD&D as that license will allow.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally posted by davidschwartznz
Gary, you've mentioned elements of 3E that differ from your original vision. Is there anything in the new rules that you think improves on that vision?

A valid query, and one that I wish I could answer properly.
The fact is that as 3E is actually a different game from AD&D, both Original and 2E, there isn't any way to do so.
That is, new D&D is a game unto itself, and in such case the axiom about comparisons being odious seems to apply.

Gary
 

Quote:
Originally posted by davidschwartznz
From your perspective, what makes 3E a different game from AD&D?
Is it just the 'd20 system' or are there other elements?

You've suggested that d20 is rules heavy (perhaps it is).
But do you think it's more complicated than 2E?
My perspective aside, try playing an AD&D character using 3E rules.
All manner of differences, right?
The mnechanics and rules of new D&D are radically different from some of their counterparts in AD&D.

"Rules-heavy" means that there are definate mechanics prescribed tor handling virtually all situations and cases thereof likely to arise in game play.
3E is very much that way, and it is carefully designed so that each part of the game is linked to the others, a tight, regulated whole.

Yes indees, I know that 3E is more complicated that AD&D--I never played 2E, although I did play some OAD&D where parts of the 2E system were picked up and included.

Gary
 

To get to what I believe is the essence of the matter, as you state yourself, I've snipped all but one paragraph, Colonel

Quote:
Originally posted by ColonelHardisson
 

In essence, what I'm saying is that 3e can be played using those archetypes that were a main part of 1e. I also, see, though, that the use of these archetypes are not as strongly reinforced or encouraged in 3e. So, younger players will not be familiar with those archetypes, and will be less likely to use them (assuming they become familiar with them through some other medium, like reading fantasy fiction).

That is so. Indeed, much of 3E can be played differently than what the corre rules focus on.
As you note, participants new to D&D will not likely do that for lack of familarity.
However, even the veteran DM wil have some difficulty sticking to archetypes if the players are desirous of not so doing.
They are no longer a game base, an integral part of the system.

Ciao,
Gary

Comments
For Gary.
 

The strictures noted above are, IMO, valiant attempts to prevenr blatent power gaming.
However, tha actual game assumes something quite different, and that means there exists in the system mechanics that mitigate against long-term campaign play.

Gary
 

As a point of order, who says that PCs need be of heroic stamp? that's a matter for the players to determine, they and none other, most assuredly.
-Gary Gygax
 

Richard wrote:
Gary, for Elfdart's signature quote at the bottom of his posts, you really did write that players can decide how heroic their characters are in the world of ADandD 1st edition? That means I can say to my DM that my PC is fully heroic and fully fearless, and my henchman is fearless by chance and heroic by chance?
 

Saying something is meaningless.
It is how you play the character that matters.
The same is true for all the characters thay you play, henchmen included.
This matter is totally in a player's hands 

Cheers,
Gary
 

Darius wrote:
Col_Pladoh wrote:

Actually, I am not the one to ask about the Intellectual Property owned by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro.

I am all for supporting LA, but it is not as though you can ask WotC about this since they no longer support AD&D.
Instead we have a different game with the Dungeons and Dragons name on it.
It is like calling s**t a rose and expecting it to smell nice.
 

Well, I passed along my opinion even if WotC are too rude to be of service to gamers not wedded to new D&D...
and possibly not often to those consumers that are bit fans of that new game.

Cheers,
Gary
 

orgcandman wrote:
3) Why weren't any combat rules, saves, to-hit, etc.. included in the player's handbook?

-Aaron
 

3) Players should be concentrating on enacting the role of their in-game persona. not looking at charts and tables to study probabilities.
The game form is about that, not combat simulation 
Cheers,
Gary
 

deimos3428 wrote:
... and the strategic employment of mules.)
 

Death to all rule-players and rules lawyers 

Gary
 

Yorlum wrote:
LA enables players to design an avatar to spec, rather than relying upon the dice to determine stats, though there are die adders to add some random element to the chosen stat levels.

Skill bundles allow you to design your avatar to practically any degree. LA is the only game I know where you can create an avatar to emulate the Grey Mouser, say.

I love AD&D... I've played it for nearly 30 years. But.... LA is a more compact, playable, and easily taught system. I can understand why Gary says it is the better of the two.

I urge you to take a look at the guides, or to pop the cash out to at least buy the essentials... you won't regret it.
 

The only advantage of the O/AD&D game system over the LA one is the level-determined dungeon crawl campaign. One can not manage that with the LA game, while it is the best feature of the O/AD&D system. dungeon crawls are certainly part of the LA game, but progressive ones of campaign sort are quite difficult to devise, as there are no levels of characters and monsters.

Cheerio,
Gary
 
 

Originally posted by Anabstercorian
4) In 3e, there's one big goal - Become the hardest bastard you can (I.E., gain power and lots of it.) What were the big goals in OD&D? Wealth? Land? Nobility?
Pretty good oones too, I add
 

4) In OAD&D there was plenty of play aimed at power, just as there is in 3E.
Of course those that I knew as "good" players aimed first and foremost at having fun playing the game, regardless of rise in rabk and all the rest that goes with power gaming.
The challenge of each session was enjoyed more from a group perspective, likely.
As the team prospered, so too the enjoyment, cameraderie, and resulting stories.
Many a group downplayed combat, developed campaigns in which roleplay was the key.
Politics and economics?
Sure.
While OAD&D certainly focused on combat mechanics and rules, it did not hinder other sorts of play.
The XP system in 3E does that with a vengence.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally posted by RSKennan
Hi Gary,
I hope you feel better!

I'm the guy who started the "goofiness in games" thread in your Yahoo group a while back. I've played since first edition, and one thing I've noticed is a loss of inherent flavor in the rules as subsequent generations are born. In it's current incarnation the onus to inject flavor seems to rest squarely on the DM and the group. I understand that Necromancer Games prides itself on a 1st edition flavor, but what advice would you give groups who want to play in the 1st edition spirit using 3e rules? Is such a thing possible in your opinion?

Thank you for some of the best years of my life.
 

IMO a good session needs some drama, the feeling that danger and death are ever-present, and usually a good measure of humor.

As for 3E capturing the feel of OAD&D, I don't think so--too rules-heavy and too focused on power, A whole different game, a completely different spirit.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jasper
1st edition feel. Don't worry about following the rules to the letter.
Ex. Mr. Fred from the speaker in dreams module is invading my pcs dreams. I give them a save to keep from letting information slip and opposed roll to wake up.
Or just create a new monster cat call DM Special which does not have to follow the rules. Ex. I had 2ed snowman which threw snow balls. 1 per hit dice. Plus some could cast Otto dance with a little less power.
by the rules I can't do that with any of the current creature types But I am going to.

Yes, those are some valid observations. OAD&D encouraged and in some instances facilitated innovation and had flexible rules that did not require an explanation for everything.

Quote:
Do worry about following the rules to exact letter. Have a fun campaign. I just waiting on my players to convert their old characters to 3rd so I can show them how mean a green dragon and vampire team up can be.

That is certainly blasphemy to many 3E players

Quote:
1st edition feel. Never give dumb players a break. Or as KODT says WHAT you want to know if you lived after taking a face full of dragon breath, taking a 300 foot swan dive into a pool of boiling hot lava.

Well, perhaps not quite that harsh, but as in chess, if you expect to win, know how to play the game...

Cheers,
Gary
 
 

Well, Colonel...

What can I say? Aside from the fact that the rules ommissions in OAD&D were generally done on purpose, so as to not shackle DMs and those writing for the system, and to definately have a game where everything was not quantified or explained, What you norte is valid IMO. A game is indeed just that. Its merits exist in the eyes of the players, little else.

Cheers,
Gary
 

The Thread that Will Not Die
 

Clangador,

How right you are. In my group of fve active players, nary a one has an interest in such things, but thay do buy a fair amount of gaming products.

Bigdndfan,

"Gary" is fine if yoou like, and noppers. I haven't seen the RttToEE, so I can't comment.

Over some decades of gaming, the creation of some number of RPG systems, I have come to the point where I prefer a rules-light system, one that is skill-bundle based. I do not like to rule-play, and as a GM I find long lists of stats and the like tedious. Such things tend to get in the way for my style of play, including as a PC. While I do enjoy plenty of roll-playing (after all I am a military miniatures player too), centering the game on combat seems fatuotous to me. I want a game that facilitates all of the elements of the RPG. So you are correct in assuming that the 3E system is not my cup of tea. As I've stated before, I don't ming playing a PC in a game using the system; indeed I have a good time. It is simply that I enjoy other systems much more--any yes, that includes OAD&D. I have no axe to grind in this matter, though. If lots of people are having a great time playing 3E, that's fine If my adventure material adds to that enjoyment, so much the better, as I din't feel alienated from fellows who play different system than I do, but to feel unconstrained in writing it, I work in a different system, and thus the dual-system module, THE HERMIT, and one massive one in the works, HALL OF MANY PANES.

Bones_mccoy,

Got me! <frown> That piece was written back in 1985, and I've no idea any longer what the weapon was I'd neglected to detail. As is no secret, all of my notes, books,games, etc. stored in my office at TSR were siezed in 1985 and never returned to me, so likely the notes on it were in that material.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

It doesn't actually matter what changes I would have made in AD&D, does it?
Suffice to say that I had hoped to broaden the system to allow its play in genres other that fantasy. Goint into details of how I would have altered the game is really a futile exercise 

<*UA*, no worries - prespos>
 

Quote:
Originally posted by tieranwyl
 

You still have fans that play 1E AD&D, many of whom hang out at the dragonsfoot site. After all these years, some people have not been willing to move on to newer editions of D&D or other FRPG's. Partly they love the game because you wrote it, and mostly they just love Old AD&D. I think many of the "old schoolers" are hanging on to the hope that Old AD&D will make a come-back, that you would be in the creative lead of it and that their favorite classed-based game can be experienced by new gamers. There is still a lot of resentment by them toward the non-Gygax versions of the game. I could be wrong, but I don't think the old schoolers would accept a multi-genre D&D. Just an observation.
 

When 2E was released TSR lost about hald of its audience. That's according to inside information from someone then at the company. I suspect there was a much resentment about unnecessary changes and the cost of acquiring brand new core books as there was resistance to playing a game I didn't write...

My take on the matter is that those who hold fast to OAD&D do so because they like the system as it is, do not want any major revisions that alter its spirit and soul--other than those they have done for themselves to suit their group. Seeing as how I am quite unable to create a new edition because of legal reasons, speculating about it is indeed a fruitless exercise.

As for adding genres, that was generally directed in the ODMG, and what alterations I made in the rules would simply have made such facilitation easier.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elodan
Hello Gary,

Based on this I was curious if you've tried HackMaster which is based on 1E/2E.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I've only just discovered these threads. I'm also looking forward to the Troll Lord project.
 

Tom
Actually, I have only read through the player's handbook for the system. After doing that I posted on the www.Dragonsfoot.org boards that the system was worth a look, because it had material usable by DMs with OAD&D campaigns. Frankly, I'd much rather play OAD&D than get into what started out as a parody of the game, then developed into a somewhat more serious RPG. To my taste the HM system isn't an improvement over OAD&D, so there's no incentive to invest in all the books now required to play it, learn the system changes necessary to properly GM and play it.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Originally Posted by Joe123
Hi Gary,

I understand that you are the author of the rulebooks for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1st edition). I am curious as to why you renamed the game from Dungeons and Dragons to AD&D?

thanks,
Joe123.

Howdy Joe 

The AD&D game was suibstantially different from the D&D game being revised at the same time AD&D was written, so to distinguish the one sysyem from the other it was determined that "Advanced" should be included in the title, dor AD&D ahead of D&D in new concepts and details. The two systems played quite differently, but came from the same base.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote, Jayaint:
[/QUOTE]and 2. What do you think about stroytelling based games, like interactive fiction, or Rpg's with less number crunching and dice rolling? With your background, I have no idea whether those kinds of games interest you at all.

Thanks for the great thread and the info.[/QUOTE]

"Storytelling" games are not RPGs.
Neither are "diceless" games.

An RPG creates a story, does not follow a script.
That's a play, possibly improv theater.
In a real RPG the GM develops a backstory and plot, sets the scenes, and then the PCs interact with those and by their actions create the actual tale, the events and conclusion of which are indeterminate until that occurs.

As in real life, chance and random occurrances must be a part of an RPG adventure.
As a matter of fact you and I do not know what will happen in the next minute.
As is oft quoted, "There's many a slip between cup and lip." to ignore random events, not allow chance into play, is to consign the game to predestination.
For example, the best golfer might be stung by a bee at the moment he is about to make an easy putt, thus miss it.
Who knows when a tire will blow out?
Can anyone predict with certainty that a sudden gust of wind won't blow an obstructing object onto a windshield?
throw off the course of a missile?

Nuff said 

Anyway, I am a gamer who will happily play just about any sort of game given time and opportunity.
I run a regular RPG campaign, play cards, board, and table games now and then, but shun computer games as too bloody addictive to me, for I am one who needs to be writing creatively most of each day.

Welcome!
Gary

Quote, Sluggo the Sleazebag:
First off, what do you think are the primary distinctions between low-level play and the higher-level stuff? Do you prefer one over another? Also, how can high-level campaigns be tailored to instill a sense of dread when the characters have already acheived so much and are rarely challenged at higher levels?

The OAD&D game was written to challenge PCs from 1st through about 16th level.
Above 16th there were few challenges--other than some combinations of potent monsters or high-level NPCs, or else very difficult problem solving with extreme penalties for failure.

The typical adventure quest is a matter of scale, low-level monsters, problems that suit the capacity of the party.
Up through around 16th evel the management of the adventure is simply a matter of scaling up the challenges the PCs must overcome.
When the PCs are about 16th to 18th level, then some very special preparations must be made by the DM to present interesting material that is logical and will stretch the capacities of the high-leve; characters in their pursuit of their goals.

The G series of modules were aimed at testing PCs of mid level, and the D series were for higher level characters.
The Drow city of Erelhicindlu was meant to be a scary place for 16th - 18th level PCs.

<bold added>
 
 

Quote:
And finally, in the years you have had to look back upon 1st Edition, are there any specific things that you would have changed about the system if you had the opportunity to revise it ?

Thanks again Gary!
Water  the bridge is long gone, and there's little benefit in analyzing the distant flow.
For my current thinking in regards to FRPG system excellence, I refer you to the Lejendary Adventure game <cool>

Cheers,
Gary
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Loincloth

Second, was there anything you REALLY wanted to do for AD&D but never got the chance?

No, there wasn't anything critical that was missed by me...other than a proper revision of the AD&D system.
Don't ask about what i would have done in that regard.
The effort of explaining is not worth it, as such is meaningless.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOZ
it might be meaningful to someone who wanted to spend the time revising the 1e AD&D system the way you would have done it - preferring that to the 2e AD&D that TSR did - but this would require a lot of explanation on your part for not too much reward beyond "Thanks!" 

me though, eh, i never had a real problem with 2e. some things seemed silly and to make not much sense, but i had a lot of fun and was introduced to the game with that system.
 

Hi Boz,

Right you are about reward for effort. Especially nowadays, that just ain't going to happen as time and energy are limited resources.

Surely you have no problems with 2E, as it was your fisrt FRPG It did lose about half the AD&D audience for TSR, though, and that's a fact.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOZ
that it did, true. i have to confess though, i never really understood why people had such a problem with it. maybe that's because i was not part of the transition? the rules didn't seem to change in any great capacity, mostly cosmetic changes it seems to me - it certainly wasn't the day and night difference between AD&D and 3E D&D. maybe the animosity of people was because you had no personal involvement in the change (and didn't want to), or maybe it was the people who spearheaded the change and/or the dubious activities that caused you to not be with the company anymore... i just really don't see that big of a difference between the two editions of AD&D. forgive my ignorance. 
 

Your guess is as good as mine, but the old saw about if it ain't broken don't fix it likely applies.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Foster
Hi Gary, I've got a couple more for you. This time moving forward a bit, from 1974 all the way to 1977 :

I was looking through the J. Eric Holmes-edited D&D Basic rulebook last night (still my favorite of the various 'introductory' D&D sets) and got to wondering about a couple things:

While most of the rules in that book come straight from OD&D, there are several spots that anticipate AD&D (some spells, full treasure types table from the MM, etc. -- not to mention that the book consistently refers readers to AD&D, rather than OD&D, for further info) as well as a few rules that don't seem to match either edition (10 second instead of 1 minute combat rounds, initiative determined by Dex score with a die-roll used only to break ties, use of the magic-users' "% to know spells" table, etc.). Were these (the latter case) rulings decisions made by Dr. Holmes on his own (interpreting the sometimes ambiguous wordings in OD&D) or did they reflect actual thought and practices at TSR at the time (ideas that were subsequently rejected by the time AD&D saw print)?

Thoughts and practices at TSR? Heh! As it happened, I reviewed Eric/s ms. and put in the material I was creating for the new AD&D system, thus making a transition from D&D to AD&D easier for those who wished to do so.

In short, I was 99% of the creative force in regards to the D&D/AD&D game until I put Frank Mentzer in charge of the D&D line.

Quote:
And also I wonder why, since the book bills itself as an introduction to AD&D, once the full extent of the rule changes between OD&D and AD&D (such as starting the AC table at 10 instead of 9, upping fighters' clerics' and thieves' hit dice, granting spells to clerics starting at 1st level, etc.) were known that the Basic rulebook wasn't updated/revised to incorporate more of those changes and remain consistent (especially since the book was revised after the publication of the AD&D Monster Manual -- adding several creature listings (such as giant rats and troglodytes) that were present in the MM but not in the OD&D rules)? Was it simply not considered worth the effort, or had it already been decided by that point (1978-79) to keep "Basic D&D" closer to OD&D than to AD&D (i.e. the same thought process that eventually led to the 1981 revision of the Basic Set and introduction of the Expert Set as a replacement of sorts for the OD&D white-box)?

Regards,

The Basic Set was not meant to be AD&D, or an introduction to it despite what someone at TSR put into the work. There was never any intention of melding the two games. that should be obvious from the continuation of the D&D game product line, its direction being different from AD&D's.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Foster
Another one I just thought of as I was typing the last question(s):

Back in 1988 I played with you at a convention game (Glathricon in Evansville, Indiana), exploring the Tomb of Rahotep under AD&D rules. One of the 'house rules' you used in that game (as well as the 'BUC' system for currency/treasure) was to give the characters 'joss factors,' as later seen in Dangerous Journeys. Were you simply playtesting ideas for your new system-in-progress, was this a special one-time-only consideration because of the difficulty of the particular module (which was plenty difficult, though I did manage to survive intact -- barely  ), or was this an idea you thought appropriate for addition to AD&D games in general? And if so, do you still think it's a good idea?

Just something that's been floating around the back of my mind for the past, oh, 17 or so years...

Easy

As is pretty usual for me I was outting into play-test my ideas for the upcoming Mythus game. I thought joss Factors were very necessary for the ToR scenario, of course

That's the long and short of it.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mistere29
Well

...

Normally i wouldn't post this for fear of starting and edition war, but Boz did bring it up first. I firmly belive that "old timer" complaints are legimtate and not just nostalgia, as people commonly beleive.
Hail1

Edition wars are the height of foolishness. Who can argue with someone's personal taste in entertainment of any sort? Disputing which game or variation thereof is superior is much the same as arguing about what food tastes best or what color is the most pleasing, is it not?

Over and above that, in general gamers have more in common with each other than do non-game buffs, so why fight amongst ourselves about games.
Now politics are a different story alrogether <devious>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alleynbard
Most of the questions I would have asked have been answered. I eagerly await the arrival of Castle Zagyg and I want to express my thanks as well. I discovered D&D and AD&D when I was 8. It turned a frustrated and bored child into an imaginative individual. It taught me a great many things and gave me a place to express thoughts that had no previous outlet. The whole while my mother was leery, she believed much of the hideous propganda of the 80's, but I know I would never have become the socially adept individual I am today if I had not been introduced to the game. I lanquished in school out of sheer boredom but through skills that I learned while playing D&D I became more focused. Today I am a writer as well as a Public Relations manager for an educational theatre company in Columbus, OH. I now have an opportunity to help kids like myself become greater than they first appear. And I account my early exposure to such a satisfying hobby as one of the foundations this is built upon.

Ack... I ramble. Just wanted to say thanks for all that you have done.

Your good words regarding the benefit of RPG activity are apreciated! It does seem that a goodly number of participants are benefited considerably by the game form, that it brings forth their potential in this or that field <cool>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anabstercorian
What ABOUT OAD&D? I've never even heard of it until this moment. o.O

Really? You've never heard of Original AD&D before this? I think you're pulling my leg <laughing>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdvn1
Yeah, no. I'm relatively new to the hobby. When I have an opportunity, I read older books so I can get a feel for what D&D used to be like, but that's about it. I play with older players, but I'm more into the game than they are. I try to capture the D&D 'feel' when I GM, they just want to roll dice and level. I've started to get them to get more in the D&D 'spirit' but it's a slow process...

It'd be more useful if I got paid to do this. We don't all have that luxury, though. 

There is surely a very dfferent spirit in new D&D than in the original games, D&D and AD&D.

As for getting paid to DM, what real gamer wouldn't love that? only a few manage the feat though 

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virel
In my current 1st ed AD&D group, one player insisted her two children join and play (ages 11 & 13) because she felt it would help them in school and stimulate learning. The youngest one is quiet a problem solver for her age and the older one asked for his mom to buy him a Monster Manuel so he could read about the creatures. He hates to read and this was the very first time he'd ever asked someone to buy something for him to read. She was estastic.

I would really like to keep the momentum going with the two youngest players...but it's a little hard to tailor puzzles etc to them sometimes etc.

Excellent 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooler
Of the original game (the cute lil' digest-sized box) and the Advanced game (with it's plethora of hardcovers), did you ever have a favorite? Do you concider one version better, over all, than the other?

The short answer is no. they are sufficiently different in approach so as to be treated as separate entities, each enjoyable to play.
 

[2005]
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooler
What RPGs do you play most nowadays (including out of print games)? I'm assuming Lejendary Adventures is one of them, maybe Castles & Crusades and old-tyme D&D as well?

You have it, omitting only OAD&D which I DM now and then. I'd love to play more Metamorphosis Alpha, but I haven't time to create a new campain setting and run it.

Other designers are working on genre expansions of the La game system, so i hope to be play-testing fantastical science, science fiction, and wild west versions soon, with a horror game not far behind. If things work out, the first of those new offerings will hit the market sometime in 2006.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
So wait, if one of us buys the rights to D&D (or perhaps just Greyhawk) and gives you full creative control, you might be conned into fixing it for us? Cool. Now all we have to do is get rich! 

Most likely so...assuming that there's a decent royalty attached to that 

As a matter of fact, if that happened I'd wager Len Lakofka would return.

My main problem would be finding someone to translate AD&D into the new system, whatever its number would be then <confused>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooler

In looking at your spots in old issues of The Dragon (c. '75+), you've always held that there should be two D&Ds: the newer "Law Schick" AD&D rules for tornament and comparitive play, and the original game as a toy for the "inner game designer" in all of us to tinker with.

I have no quarrel with that at all!

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooler
Lately however, I've read you saying AD&D should replace OD&D, in such that the original rules should always give way to the newer Advanced rules by matter of fact (seeing your above conciderations on Magic Missile and Holy Vorpal Swords).
You've also stated before that both games are completely different from each other and maybe can't be compared anyway.

Actually, I was speaking only for myself, not urging anything on others. When I play OD&D I lay the oldest version with only a few house rulkes changes to make the new PCs more viable.

When I play OAD&D, I use those rules, and no mix of D&D in them.

They are different games, play differently, and only adventures from each can be compared IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooler
[QUOTE]Today's difficult question: How do you currently see the roles of the original Dungeons & Dragons game along side the original Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game? [QUOTE]

I see then as separate games to amuse and entertain those persons who most enjoy them as vehicles for RPG fun. I do not view either as "superior" or "inferior," and now and then play both as noted, although I really prefer the Lejendary Adventure system to Gm and to play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschooler
Bonus question: When playing either of these games these days, does one see more play than the other?

For a quick dungeon crawl I like to use OD&D. For something more detailed go to OAD&D, and more recently the C&C game.

When I am really up for gaming, though, I break out my LA system material...or beg Jim Ward to GM his Metamorphosis Alpha game <big grin>

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treebore
Well OSRIC may not have Gary's official stamp on it, but it is a "door" for new 1E rules based stuff to be done again, if it holds up to legal scrutiny and WOTC doesn't decide to tie it up in years of court battles. So since it is essentailly 1E in the d20 OGL world it by default has Gary's stamp on it.

That sounds a good deal similar to the C&C game 

BTW, I did my best to talk Peter into keeping AD&D alive even as the new D&D game was beind released.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdvn1
Was this too open-ended a question? 

Heh, ot was one O noted to get back to but skipped because in my heart I was against writing an essay here 

In a nutshell:

The original games of D&D and AD&D were about imagination, choosing an archetype to use as a vehicle for role-playing adventure, innovative play and PC group cooperation. The sole arbiter of such play was the DM, and rules lawyers were anethma in well-regulated grpups 

Cheers,
Gary
 

"We" do have some pretty good information regarding sales of OAD&D compared to 3E, although WotC is not trumpeting it, and the former were considerably higher than than the latter from what insiders and purveyors of RPGs ahve told me.
 

Storm Raven,

As it happens I was not only a director and officer of TSR back through 1985, but I also received royalty reports for AD&D sales, so there is no problem in me varifying them.
Also, I have no reason to doubt what i have been told regarding sales of 3E--and 3.5E for that matter.
Indeed distribution has changed since I was CEO of TSR.
It is far worse today, and RPG sales are way down.
There is great concern amongst many game publishers in this tegard.
That said, I do not believe any further discussion of this matter will be fruitful, so I am dropping the topic.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
Do you remember when D&D "peaked". I'm not sure what precisely I'm asking (I guess number of people playing more than revenue), but I think the answer is somewhere about 1984 or so? I remember Newsweek having an article about it, which seemed even more a bag of being a culture phenomenon than having a dumb TV movie or a good cartoon show.
 

Right you are.
The peak of A/D&D was 1983-4.
TSR's best marketing estimate of the audience in North America at that time was c. 5.5 million players, with a worldwide audience of over 8 million.
Thus the many foreign language translations.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossik
oh, dexter, realy?

...can u say where? 

There were a number of AD&Dgame references on various episodes of the program, and IIRR Decter said he was playing a Gygax class character oe some similar reference.
I was informed that a number of persons of young age that watched the program regularly and know me got a real kick out of that.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of Happiness
It's the episode "D & Dee Dee." You could find it on YouTube.

Thanks so very much!

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey
I think that's something that hurts D&D in the long run: Not having a single boxed set that is essentially unchanged from decade to decade (just like Monopoly). Having such a set, of course, would not preclude all kinds of additional D&D products for hard-core gamers. But only a small fraction of people want to essentially game full-time. But lots of people are amenable to an occasional 2-hour D&D game. That sort of casual gaming would be best served by a static boxed set with a short rulebook (say, 64 pages) that stays the same except to fix typos. That way people would always know how to play rather than having to digest 1,000-page "core" rules that change all the time.

Just so!

I urged Peter Adkison to reprint the D&D line, revise OAD&D a bit, and then produce a super new D&D line. Ah well...

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon1
Two of the guys I game with were in Desert Storm. The ranger was a tank commander (now a Finance guy) and the wizard was a medical technician (now a pharmacist).

That's the good thing about the 30-something generation (I think we used to be called Gen X when we were 20-something) . . . a lot of us have AD&D hard coded to our brains, so we don't need no stinking rules to play it. Well, I haven't played it in 10 years, due to player demand for the latest version, but I figure it's still in there somewhere.

A longsword costs 15 gp, does 1-8, plate mail with a shield is AC 2, etc.

Quite so...

Even after designing two different FRPG systems and playing them extensively now and then I find myself inadvertantly thinking in AD&D terms--or even way back in OD&D ones.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragboy
I came out of the OD&D/AD&D set. We played 2nd, 3.0 and 3.5, but as a group, we've always ended up back at AD&D. My kids and I just started an OD&D game, and I just 'discovered' OSRIC.

Any thoughts on it and C&C bringing more gamers (new and old) back into the AD&D/OD&D fold?
The only effective means of actually bringing significant numbers of new participants to the RPG hobby is by an extensive campaign of advertising a simple starter RPG at a reasonable price.

Anything else is basically fighting over existing perticipants, and old-timers teaching their children to game.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gideon_thorne
This one always seemed, to me, to be the best reason to be involved in a table top rpg.
I've met a diverse and interesting crowd of folks through rpgs, and not regretted a moment of it.
Not even with some of the dead weird folk. ^_^
 

Quite so!

This is perhaps the leading thing that gamers writing to me in praise of AD&D note.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Hi RFisher,

As a player the DM is omnipotent.
You might try to plead your case,
especially one of rule interpretation and altering actionbecause of the difference,
but if he doesn't want to listen,
you loose,
Buckwheat!
Zip your lip and accept with stoic grace.

Should this spoil your gaming enjoyment, thell your DM exactly what is bothering you.
If an accommodation can be reached, fine.
If not,
leave the group and find a DM that is more acceptable to your concept of how one should be.
In such case I am sure the DM won't miss you nor you him

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland55
True, true.

I still had enormous fun playing your games in those days. For that, I and many others, thank you. 

No question about it! There are still large and active audiences for OD&D and AD&D.

The C&C RPG system is gaining considerable following because it is akin to OAD&D and a vital game.

And rest assured i had a lot of fun creating and playing games of mine and others back then too...as I still do nowadays 

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagora

Getting back to Gary:

Gary,
I'm thinking about running an AD&D game for a pair of bright not-quite-12-year-olds (twins).
Did you or TSR ever think about releasing scenarios/modules aimed specifically at pre-teens?
Do you think it's something that would be useful? Is there any advice you would have?
I know you've run a few games for young players.
 

It was never contemplated to offer any lower level of module especially for younger players.
As the core rules are not written for children, offering special modules for them would be rather pointless.

The adventures for novice PCs were meant to supply the DM with material for a younger player audience.
Otherwise the able DM is capable of modifying or creating special adventures for very young players.

I believe the above answers all of questions.

Cheerio,
Gary
 

When I DM or play D&D rather then the LA game, it is always OD&D or OAD&D.