|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q: Can the DM also play in a RPG?
A: DMs should not
be players in their own campaigns;
they are supposed to be
N
and disinterested people who control the action,
resolve conflicts fairly,
and try to make sure that
everyone has a good time.
The DM may control NPCs
who join a party and act like PCs,
but this is not the same
as playing.
When playing in someone
else's campaign, a DM is just another player;
he has no special rights
or privileges.
(126.14)
'Some good and...’
Dear Editor:
I’ve been subscribing to DRAGON magazine
for more than a year now, and in that time
several items relating to the gaming hobby
have accumulated about which I’d like to
comment. Like everything, there is some good
and some bad.
First of all, in relation to the RPG hobby in
general, I am sick and tired of all the bickering
about which game is best. Frankly, I couldn’t
care a kobold’s worth that Runequest is superior
to AD&D™, Tunnels & Trolls, or any of
the other FRP games; nor do I see much sense
in arguments for the opposite case. The fact is
that each game has certain advantages and
disadvantages and that each appeals to a
slightly different audience. AD&D™
appeals, I
believe, more to those who enjoy symbiotic
relations between specialized classes rather
than a game wherein all characters have very
similar abilities. The other games each offer
something else of value, but all, I believe, can
be equally enjoyed.
Turning to Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
™ itself, it is my favorite among the FRP
games for the reason I mentioned above: I like
the idea of cooperating specialists. The rule
books are thorough and generally well thought
out. At the same time, the framework they set
up is very flexible and allows for plenty of
creativity on the part of players and Dungeon
Masters. But, as always, there are problems.
The books, while thorough, are at the same
time carriers of confusion and glaring selfcontradiction.
Some examples:
First, regarding magic armor, page 28
of the
Dungeon Masters Guide states that magic
armor allows movement at the next higher
base rate and that weight is cut by 50%. On
page 164, we read that, for game purposes, <link>
<Weight of magic armor>
“all magical armor should be considered as
being virtually weightless — equal to normal
clothing. This gives characters a base movement
equal to an unarmored man.”
Another area of confusion lies in the combat
rules. The DMG on page 65, rule 2, states
that attacks against spell-casters occur on the
segment of the round indicated by the appropriate
initiative die. But nowhere in all the
AD&D volumes is there any mention of what
the correct die is!!! Very frustrating for the
DM.
Another problem is organization. Information
which should all be in one place is scattered
throughout the four volumes. If any
player wishes to know all about the abilities
and rules concerning his character race, he
must dig through both the Players Handbook
and the Monster Manual. This wouldn’t
be such
a galling problem if the index were accurate
and complete, but it isn’t.
There are many other examples of organizational
and clarity problems with the rule
books, but there is no need to go into them
now. what is truly needed is a major re-writing
of all the volumes (with a complete index!!!) in
order to eliminate all ambiguities, mistakes,
and contradictions. All information pertaining
to a particular subject should be written in
a single place, whether or not it appears elsewhere.
(After all, the information may be applicable
to several different cases.
The subject of the rule books leads to that
of the various AD&D modules. Generally, I
think that they are great. I often include them
in my campaign, whether as a whole or cannibalized
for ideas. The series modules are all
excellent and exciting. I buy them as soon as
they are issued. It’s like being hooked on a
soap-opera. However, there are again problems
with quality control. I have in mind specifically
the “A” series, which deals with an
assault against slavers. In A2, for
example, on
page 14, most of a sentence has been left out. <link,
fix>
While it is easy to interpolate what was meant,
such an error should not have occurred. A
close examination of the Tournament Char- <link,
fix>
acters list on page 38 will reveal many errors
and critical typos. There are errors on the
maps as well.
In any event, please understand that I enjoy
TSR products immensely. However, it pains
me to see such shoddy quality control. My
criticism is the kind given by a fan who wants
to see something great made even better.
I also enjoy DRAGON magazine immensely.
Almost all the articles are very enjoyable
and usually quite helpful. Sage Advice, Leomund’s
Tiny Hut, and the article
on Kzinti
(#50) immediately come to mind.
<correct the spelling error in the file name>
My final comments concern the people I’ve
met in my few years of active gaming. Almost
as a whole, the gamers I’ve met have been
friendly, helpful, and basically a lot of fun to
play with. This includes the hobby store
owners I’ve met as well. Several people I’ve
met through gaming have become good
friends of mine. This is one area where I don’t
have any complaints (oddly enough, I do
about everything else), and I owe AD&D and
TSR Hobbies, Inc., a debt that I can never fully
repay.
In the final analysis, then, I’m very happy
with this hobby and with the company I have
chosen to patronize. I only hope that all gamers
will remember that our hobby is first and
foremost meant to be FUN, and that all the
games around are supposed to be enjoyed for
themselves, not to be promoted like political
candidates.
Anthony Ragan
Los Angeles, Calif.
(Dragon #55)
The other side
Dear Dragon:
We have recently finished reading issue #50
of DRAGON and thought it superb, aside
from the first letter in the Out on a Limb column
written by Steve Meyer. Steve’s first expostulation <link>
was the fact that not all of the
articles in a certain issue were useful. Perhaps
somebody else found them useful . . . we did.
Mr. Meyer’s next assault was on the Temple
of Poseidon (issue #46).
He states that “It
probably won’t be used in a campaign.” I,
however, enjoyed it greatly and can wait patiently
until characters advance to the levels
best suited for it.
Mr. Meyer seems quite upset that DRAGON
does not publish wilderness and town adventures
for his own personal benefit. Steve, if
you would like such adventures, why don’t
you create one or tell a local DM to create
one? It shouldn’t prove too difficult for a good
DM to produce a wilderness or town adventure
that has a purpose and is still worthwhile
for the players.
It appears that Mr. Meyer (as well as many
other writers to Out on a Limb) should be
reminded of those little words printed above
“Dragon” on every cover of the magazine
which read “Monthly adventure role-playing
aid.” Such publications as DMG, PH,
and, of
course, DRAGON only make up a skeleton in
the immensity of role-playing games. It is entirely
up to the DM to knit together the flesh
and muscle of the system.
We have purchased every issue of DRAGON
that we could get our hands on, well
aware of the fact that not everything was written
with our personal tastes in mind. This
would be impossible as well as absurd.
We have yet to use TOP SECRET information
but continue to bear with it as someone
else does find it useful; therefore, such articles
continue to appear.
In closing, we would like to thank DRAGON,
TSR, and all responsible for creating the
intensity of AD&D. We remain hopeful
that
AD&D will continue to live throughout these
people and, of course, all DMs and players.
Keep up the good work.
Jarome G. Wilson
J. Cory Dyer
Chino, Calif.
(Dragon #55)
‘Incomplete’
Dear Dragon:
AD&D is an interesting game, but there
is
one problem with it: it is incomplete.
Yes, you have said many times that your
DRAGON articles are only optional additions
to the rule books; you even say in the rule
books that the books were compiled so that
gamers needn’t search through millions of
magazines for this rule or that rule.
I am one of those people, however, who
needs books of hard and fast rules: I need all
those options. I would order all of your back
issues if I could. I want and need all those
articles. But that’s impossible (and expensive).
There are articles you have published which
excellently elaborated upon rules which were
left to the DM’s discretion. I’m not saying you
should make dictatorial rules; just that those
books should include some of these elaborations:
for example, “These are the breaks”
(DRAGON™ issue #54) was an excellent
extension
to combat. Your more recent articles
on demi-humans should be in the books, too.
Dragon’s Bestiary has included some awesome <Monsteers>
additions suitable for the Monster Manual,
Fiend Folio, and Deities
& Demigods.
I’m certain you can look back after answering
some questions in Sage Advice and see
some of the points in the books that need
clarifying. Sad to say, it seems some of the
best articles in DRAGON appear after rule
books are published.
If you wiped out this inconsistency from the
rule books, do you think it would improve the
game? You say in the books that we should
add to and delete from the rules as is needed
to extend enjoyment; I know I would enjoy it if
these rules were offered from the people who
put the game together, who know what they
are doing. The common ground of the books
should be extended, and by professionals in
gaming as you have at TSR; edited as they see
fit, to provide us hard-core AD&D
fans with
more of the options we would wish to see.
I suppose it would be a lengthy and expensive
process, but, if you try, couldn’t you reestablish
and publish revised rulebooks for
AD&D? Or at least find a way to make all of
DRAGON’s articles, past and present, concerning
AD&D rules available?
I will leave the other problems seen in the
game up to the others who see them to write
about (for instance, putting the right rules in
the right books); and I now encourage every
other hard-core AD&D gamer to write letters
like this one, and maybe we’ll get great results.
Tim Henke
Plymouth, Mich
(Dragon #64)
‘Just a game’
Dear Editor:
I have been playing D&D and AD&D
for
three and a half years. I have found it very
enjoyable and interesting, and also quite
harmless.
Yet I am constantly reading articles by people
who claim that D&D gets kids into demonics,
lowers their respect for life, and is anti-religious.
Some of these people claim to have
played D&D. One man said he was going to
raise money through donations and “buy as
many copies of the game as I can and then
burn them.” In some schools D&D has been
prohibited.
Why is it that people can’t see that D&D is
just a game, and one of the best games
around?
Nels Bruckner
Jasper, Ore.
(Dragon #65)
Nels’ letter is one of many on this subject
that we’ve received over the past year or so,
and it asks the same question we’ve asked:
Why, indeed, can’t these people see that the
D&D® and AD&D™ games
are just games?
Games that are meant as diversions, games
that are meant to be fun, but games. Nothing
more — and nothing less. What’s wrong with
playing a game?
We’re sure you’ve all seen the stories in
newspapers and magazines and on television.
(Our critics are good at getting attention in
the media, and this issue makes for sensational
headlines.) Basically, those who criticize
our games say they somehow promote
violence and evil, devil-worship and the occult,
that they’re so popular that many people
spend lots of time playing them.
Well, that last accusation may be true: many
thousands of people do spend a lot of time
playing the D&D and AD&D games. Just as
many other people spend a lot of time playing
baseball or golf or tennis or watching television.
Any hobby presumably carries the potential
for being too absorbing and timeconsuming.
But that doesn’t mean all hobbies
should be banned, does it?
As for the other observations made by certain
self-appointed critics.
“The D&D game encourages violence and
glamorizes evil” — Nothing could be further
from the truth. Sure, there are evil monsters
and characters; otherwise there wouldn’t be
anything for the forces of good to defeat. Any
Dungeon Master who uses the game rules in
the manner they were intended to be used
— and any player in that DM’s campaign —
will get the message loud and clear: It pays to
be good. The most successful and longest-lived
characters are those who disdain evil
and work together, cooperating to defeat
mutual foes. And, as we’ve said many times in
these pages, the most interesting campaigns
are those that challenge players to use their
wits to conquer their foes. “Hack ’n’ slash”
campaigns exist, but neither this magazine
nor this company encourage such behavior.
“The D&D game promotes devil-worship
and the occult” — Only someone who takes
the game materials totally out of context
could make this statement (and sadly, that’s
exactly what some of our critics do). Sure,
demons and devils can be found in the games
— along with many other monsters and creatures,
all on paper, as numbers and statistics,
for one purpose and one purpose alone: to
give the players something to battle against.
They add flavor to the game, which, our critics
fail to remember, takes place in a fictional
world of heroic fantasy.
In this world, as in the many worlds described
in the great works of fantasy literature,
there are “gods” that can play a role in
the lives of the mortals who make up the
world. In this world, magic exists. But anyone
who attempts to make more of it than that, has
simply not bothered to read the rule books.
The D&D and AD&D games don’t encourage
evil, etc., any more than the MONOPOLY
game causes its players to become ruthless
real-estate barons who evict widows and orphans.
Nobody who wins a MONOPOLY game
is deluded into thinking they can go out and
spend all that lovely play money, are they?
Certainly, in our democracy, our critics are
entitled to their views. But so are we. And if
you know someone who has received an incorrect
impression of our hobby, you don't
have to let that misconception continue.. Invite
that person to roll up a character and see
what the games are all about. We think that's
the best argument anyone could make for the
hobby.
And, try to remember how the games are
intended to be played. We can’t keep anyone
from playing the game in an improper fashion,
but we hope your characters and campaigns
will always live up to the standards we
try to maintain.
— KM
(Dragon #65)
Howdy John,
Indeed, the best advice I can give is design to please yourself and your trusty gaming comrades so as to maximize the enjoyment generated by playing the campaign.
I do indeed get a bit fed
up with disputes about which game is "best," for it is a matter or personal/group
taste.
The same with niggling over
mechanics and rules.
The RPG is a bloody GAME,
after all is said and done. <>
As random events occur all
the time in actual life, I am a firm believer in having the same thing
happen in the role-playing game.
Whether the probabilities
for various random things are relatively equal as with a linear curve,
or wildly disparate, as a bell curve with multiple dice delivers, no matter...
aslong as the resulting
event is approproate to the likelihood of it occuring when compred to the
class of other such events in which it appears.
I do prefer the 100 possibilities of the d% roll to most others, and one can have additional rolls if needed to reflect decrasing probability of the indicated result.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentlegamer
Since in the discussions
you remember you and others pointed out how much you didn't like "old"
D&D and had left the game and only "returned" for "3e," I can't help
but point out (by way of clarification) that "3e" and "3.5e" are not D&D,
but part of the d20 System rules set. I don't understand why it upsets
you so much.
Quite so!
New D&D is a different game than were D&D and AD&D in their various editions.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Llaurenela
Gary,
Thank you kindly good sir!!
...
And another thanks to you
for the account of the OD&D
game campign.
I suppose you know that
I had been playing pretty much the same sort of campaign as a break from
the LA and C&C game systems...
but we are now back to the
LA game, playing in the C&C-designed Castle Zagyg, Yggsburgh setting.
Anyway, the OD&D
rules are meant to have house additions, because they are sketchy, and
the DM is there to be the judge and referee, write statutes as needed for
the group
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
With all due respect, Col.,
I suspect that has more to do with the campaigns than the system.
I remember back before I
was cured of Munchkinism (1979-81), PCs in our campaigns would gain 2-3
levels a session.
Soon, the very gods trembled
at our footsteps...
In fact, I just ran a 3Ed
campaign where the first magic weapon wasn't awarded until 3rd level...and
it was the only magic item the party had until 5th level.
And this wasn't a low magic
campaign.
(Lets just say it had things
in common with the Slave Lords modules.)
Of course poor DMing can
account for many anomalies.
that said, it is the game
rules that tell. If one follows them, then progress in AD&D
is slow, in new D&D rapid.
the team spirit of AD&D
is gone, as the emphasis is on individual progress in the new game. Experience
is aimed at seek and destroy power gaming.
Of course, AD&D wasn't
much better in that regard, but a revision shuld have corrected that flaw
Anyway, a debate of this sort is profitless, and hereafter i shall refrain from further comments in regards such matters.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper
What ( most some few none
all) {select the one you like} forget is D&D in any form is a GAME.
All games have rules. And
all rules don't have to make sense. The game is not the story. The story
is what happen during the game.
Just like the time me and
my brother got my parents, my uncle and aunt to play Life with us and my
Aunt won while Daddy when to the poor house with 1 kid and Jr went to poor
house with 4 girls and 3 boys.
all games and hobbies give
you stories to tell. They are only interesting if they are told in a interesting
fashion and to some one who shares your interest.
Hoi Jasper,
Not much case for disputation
in what you state
However, "told" isn't a
necessary part of most games.
The critical factors are
entertainment and enjoyment arising from play.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krieg
As opposed to Gary's personal
house rules? lol
Just FYI, the best of those
are called D&D and AD&D...
Heh,
Gary
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>
deimos3428 wrote:
... and the strategic employment
of mules.)
Death to all rule-players
and rules lawyers 
Gary
Virel wrote:
Gary,
When you decide to make a House Rule for say OD&D, OAD&D, Lejendary Adventures, or Castles & Crusades how do you go about implementing it?
By telling the assembles
players the new facts of campaign life;) even though many of such house
rules becme stone by being put into print in a game, that doesn't mean
i always use them...
Quote:
Use the Mark One eyeball
just "know" what will work and won't work due to experience with the game
system in question?
That's the way i do it nowadays.
House rule writing began
for me back in the 1960s when my opponent and I would argue about wargame
rules.
Eventually we would agree
on a new rule and write it down.
My original Gettysburg game
has about four pages of added rules written on regular lined paper.
Quote:
Do you play test it from
the DM's point of view by letting the NPC's & monsters test against
the party before turning it over for general use etc?
Include the rule then if it doesn't work over rule it etc?
I will certainly play-test
a rule that I am uncertain about, and if it is flawed I will amend it so
as to work better.
then the players' characters
get a break...one way or another...as something that happened in their
adventure didn't actually happen that way at all;)
Quote:
Wondering about your methodology
for this sort of thing for various game systems. I would appreciate any
tips about the "good ways to do this". I tend to tinker with my games a
little bit.
Thank You
Virel
if you have designed the
system or are intimately familiar with because of long and intense play,
you should be able to create rules changes by the proverbial seat-of-the-pants
method.
Try it on minor things initially,
and if the changes work as you assumed, keep on going.
Remember also that there
can be rule changes for special situations that do not affect general play.
When you make them, just
tell the players why the new rule is in effect, how it came about, and
what it is.
Those changes can be forgotten,
and only a player with a great memory will ever plague you if you don't
bother to record them;)
Cheers,
Gary
Gandalf Istari wrote:
Mr. Gygax, another question
if I may...
I would prefer it if you
addressed
me as Gary 8)
Quote:
Actually, a question in
two parts. Its obvious that your life-long love of games had an influence
on you when it came to inspiration and the perspiration of creating the
(A)D&D game. Would you say that different bits and peices of the game
came to you over time as you worked through various board games, card games,
war games, etc. before roleplaying in the D&D sense was invented, or
was it like a "Eureka" moment where you saw the potential for a great game
wherein people mathematically represented a character in a fantasy world?
In other words, was it a gradual process of thought that slowly over time
lead you into creating a role playing game, or was it a flash of insight
that brought together alot of stuff that had been floating around in your
subconcious?
the material for the initial
D&D game's content came from over 30 years of game playing, more than
20 years of intense reading of imaginative literature,
nearly as many years of
studying history and military history, and a decade of active game development
and design work.
The specifics for the D&D
game sort of fell into place automatically after the Chainmail "Man-to-Man"
and "Fantasy Supplement" material was published and Dave Arneson related
that his college group were playing the system on a pure player-for-hero
(or wizard) basis, with mercenaries for hire to add to the force.
Gandalf Istari wrote:
...
So if I'm reading that right, you thought (A)D&D would take off among people who wargammed and among readers of various fantasy genres, but you didn't expect the game to expand much beyond those specific customer groups? If I am reading that right, then you must have been quite surprised when (A)D&D caught on as well as it did outside of the demographic groups you had in mind for the game.
30 years later and gaming is going strong. :)
No, by the time I was writing
the AD&D game I was well aware that the audience for the game
was much larger than I had thpought in 1972-5, and virtually world wide
in scope.
My initial assessment was
based on the D&D game and changed only after we had published it for
two years.
By the end of 1975 I was
very much aware of the broad appeal of the game.
The appeal was to almost
anyone with an active imagination, as the theme
of the game is the heroic quest one of mankind's folklore
and legend.
Cheers,
Gary
- Silver Bold Added
Hi Richard,
As a practical matter the DM has control over everything, including the rules that govern play of the game. - Gary
GutboyBarrelhouse wrote:
Col_Pladoh wrote:
...the DM can do whatever
he wishes, assuming that his player group generally agree and do not abandon
the campaign because of such alterations.
Behold: The Concise Dungeon
Masters Guide!
:: runs and hides ::
No, take a bow!
That is indeed what every
able GM should have firmly in mind.
He is there to provide fun
and entertainment to his player group, and himself as well, not to adhere
slavishly to some game system that at times interferes with the group's
enjoyment.
Cheers,
Gary
Dammadon wrote:
Quote:
That's rather telling, to
me. I would've thought most anything AD&D is convertable. But then
I wasn't thinking in terms of 'campaign' either...
Regards,
Jerry
It is indeed tha campaign
aspects and the level progression involved, and only those considerations,
that makes a conversion to the LA system unpalatable to me.
Cheers,
Gary
Originally posted by johnsemlak
Questions:
2. In your own words, how
would you summarize the difference between AD&D and Basic/Expert/etc.
D&D?
2. I am not going to try
to do critical comparative anayyses here or in any chat. That's a task
that demands much careful thinking and effort. The only thing I can say
about the matter is this: Play the two and judge for yourself. I think
that AD&D is a "tighter" game than D&D was, more directed, less
free-form. However, that applies mainly to those DMs who followed the book,
if you will, as AD&D could be played in the same style as D&D.
Quote:
Originally posted by
ColonelHardisson
Actually, I don't want you
to do a qualitative comparison between games. I'm not a raving d20 fanboy
(well, not that way, at least) that sees no value in anything printed prior
to the turn of the millennium (or close to it). I played AD&D 1t edition
for well over a decade. I'm actually interested in what you feel the spirit
of older editions was. It doesn't have to entail anything about other games.
One could surmise a certain mood or feel for the game based upon the fiction
you gave as recommended reading in the DMG. However, older editions/versions
of the game seemed to have a different feel from the later AD&D. Can
you articulate what that was?
Being close to the matter,
it is difficult to write with clear objectivity.
About all I can say is the
enthusiasm and the love of the game were possibly conveyed to the reader
by the style in which I wrote the material.
Also, some of the rules
and mechanics that were included in the original, removed later on, were
actually critical to the "feel" and the "spirit" of the whole work.
That's about all I can relate,
Colonel.
Quote:
Originally posted by
Clay_More
[snip]
... As the ogres begin looking around, trying to find out why all their entertainment vanished, the Dwarf looks at the Wizard and asks; "Is this good or bad?"
Anyways, thanks for the game
Gary. And I hold you personally responsible for the fact that half of my
childhood memories contains orcs...
Heh! Gotta love that dwarf!
And Clay_More, you should
be happy that those memories are of orcs, not orgre, right?
When my son Luke was about seven years old two of his older sisters made him DM (OAD&D, of course) for them, and they dictated what treasure was found when opponents were defeated. Finally he came to me, and I invested him with the "DM's Crown," thus putting an end to that abuse. Young players do many odd things to an RPG, but all in fun <eek>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm
Raven
No, it's noting that the
progression of the game tends to work in a particular way, until it is
arbitrarily stopped because of an odd game mechanic.
As if all game rules weren't
arbitrary, eh? Heh, and so much for you, mister smarty pants... <stick
out tongue>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by oldschooler
I've
always been curious as to how much material Gary uses in his D&D games
(both original and Advanced). Would he stick with the original stuff, like
the lil' brown/white box and Greyhawk supplement for OD&D and just
the first few hardcovers for AD&D; or does he go all out and use the
Rules Cyclopedia and stuff from Unearthed Arcana (some or all?) or the
Wilderness/Duneoneer's
Survival Guides?
Short
answer: I am not now, not have i ever been, a rules lawyer. Rule-playing
is distasteful to me. The rules I use in any play session depend on underlying
game, the player group, and the demands of the scenario. As the GM I pick
and choose what I think will best suit the situation.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by oldschooler
...
Having said that, Gary: Is there any part of AD&D that you wrote (i.e. in the original Monster Manual, Players Handbook or Dungeon Masters Guide) but would'nt actually use in a game run by yourself?
I know from previous posts that you don't use Weapon Speed, Weapon vs. Armor Class and Psionics. But what about stuff like age affecting abilities, or whatever? Do you even play Advanced D&D nowadays? I'd like to know where your current gaming preference lies; As well as what games you plan to use most in the future, and to what extent (house rules, "by the book", etc..)?
Hopfully, this will be a catch-all question to cover many that tend to come up over and over, and allow you to tend to more important matters (like family, Castle Zagyg, LA, etc.)!
Generally
speaking, when I DM AD&D, which OI do now and again, the areas you
note above are the only rules I don't use. As I am not running an ongoing
campaign, there's no need to worry about age, save when creating NPCs.
I never did create house rules, but I seldom open a book either. I create much material and referee on the fly as the players have their characters interact with the game environment.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by oldschooler
Gary,
is this still the way you prefer to play original D&D?
Bonus question: Do you have such house rules for original Advanced D&D or Legendary Adventures?
When
I am in the mood I love to fly by the seat of my pants as the Dm for OD&D...or
AD&D.
Having house rules would rather spoil thewhole idea of winging it <EEK!>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by Orius
At
least on the bright side, there've been a number of good computer games
over the years that have been based on D&D and AD&D.
Perhaps
not as good, but it's proven to be a good license, even if occasional bombs
came out of it.
According
to experts,. most of the computer games of fnatasy and like sort borrow
at least something from the A/D&D game.
That's
is why I am mentioned as being so influential in computer gaming
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by haakon1
Luckily,
you are the only gamer with that problem.
I think "never role-play alone" is up there with "never drink alone", for avoiding addictions.
Bah!
I see
my son Alex wasting far too many hours to believe that initial statement,
and refer you to the game known as "Evercrack."
Actually,
my wife threatened to leave me because I would sneak out of bed to play
a computer game at 3 AM, was doing no productive work at all...
When
I get a special boardgame I might blow a week, but a computer game can
eat up months <EEK!>
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally
Posted by airwalker
Oh
obviously. I find AD&D an incredibly well-designed and well-thought
out system. I am not trying to tell you that you could have done a better
job or anything. I am just seeking to make some adjustments to coincide
with my tastes and the tastes of my group and was trying to be circumspect
about the consequences of "changing the rules."
I
appreciate the lauds 
Rest
asured that I don't that the OAD&D rules
are perfect, can't be improved upon by change, addition, or excision.
As
a matter of fact, I did that frequently as I DMed 
Quote:
Originally Posted by genshou
This is a good answer. I
especially like the last sentence. Elegant is not the term I chose, but
rather that of the OP in that thread. I didn't think it was a good word
either, but to some people role-playing is an art. They would not enjoy
the same games I do.
Anyone that claims playing
a "Let's Pretend" game formalized by rules, no matter what it is called,
is an art form is deluded, or else attempting to delude theaudience.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by riprock
...
Colonel, your responses generally
focus on entertainment, imaginative fun, and so on.
Do you have any advice for
folks using make-believe for business simulations, military training, etc.?
A most intersting application
of an interest in the RPG, amigo!
While games can educate and instruct, they must be first and foremnost fun and entertaining, or else the audience will not participate in the play for any meaningful period.
What you are speaking of are simulatioons. I well recall the internation simulations that were vogue in the late 1960. They were interesting, challenging, and entertaining if one had the proper mindset.
Those participating in a simulation must be engaged in the subject, motivated by a desire to further their knowledge and understanding of what is being simulated, and the "play" is more similar to competitive sports/games than that of the RPG. The rewards for excellence in a simulation must be set forth clearly, as they are not likely to be obvious and immediate.
That's about all I have to
offer off the top of my head...short of a real study on my part and a scholarly
essay thereafter based on that research 
Cheers,
Gary
Hi Storm Raven,
No quibble with what you
state,
but I do believe the number
of persons tha played OAD&D was greated
than the number playing the new game despite "unfriendly" rules.
Perhaps that was because
those rules were explicit in alloting to the Dm the role of ultimate arbiter
with free reign to excise and alter whatever was desired.
Cheers,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranes
Continued from http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=71486
You... you... so what are your feelings on 'metagaming'?
Depends on the subject matter
and the character.
Who can say what a PC knws
and doesn't know aboit the world he lives in?
if it's something that could
be known, then there's no metagaming involved.
Also, coming up with new ideas not common to the assumed society should not be labeled as metagaming is the PC is reasonably inteligent.
Getting to the case of the
wind
walker, the PC I was playing had faced one before, also associated
with a broad range of knowledgeable, high-level characters.
Thus he (I) should have
remembered how to attack the critter.
It was a case player NUMBRAINING,
NOT A HINT OF METAGAMING THERE
Cheers,
GAry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jemal
Hmmm.. So, does that mean
you've completely given up on any new D&D stuff that wizards puts out,
or are you hopeful about the possible 4th edition that everybody (at least
around here) has been obsessesing over?
Maybe hopeful is going too
far.. How about will you give it a chance, or a pass?
Here are the RPGs I am or
will soon GM:
Lejendary Adventure
Lejendary AsteRogues
(coming out late this year, I hope)
OD&D
OAD&D
I will happily play:
The above RPGs
Metamorphisis Alpha
Any nin-rules-heavy RPG
that someone else is willing to run for the group.
That answer your question?
Cheerio,
Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc_Souark
Hiya Mr. G 
Was there anything that you wished you had done in DnD that was excluded or toned down ?
Well, if i were writing
the D&D or AD&D game today, the results would be quite different
systems; but in answer to your question, no nothing I wanted in the games
I authored was expurgated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcas
My guess is that Mr. Fisher
is referring to C&C. 
Ah well, I treat that the
same as AD&D 
Cheers,
Gary
It is soooo easy to assume
that C&C is AD&D 
It is also very easy for
my original material to be expressed in terms of the C&C game system...especially
when someone edits the material to make it conform 
Ciao,
Gary
I will occassionally DM
OAD&D...and
although not AD&D, the C&C game as well.
Gryphon: When did you realize that Dungeons and Dragons would need the massive rewrite/redesign which would become Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?
Gygax: We knew you could
play Dungeons and Dragons if you were very bright or very imaginative or
had some game experience. But we knew initially, probably in early 1975,
that we had to do a more clearly done introductory piece. We began looking
at it. Dr. Holmes was kind enough to volunteer. I got talking with him
and Eric and I arrived at a very happy agreement and he took that over.
I
was not satisfied with Dungeons and Dragons in that it did not allow continuity
of play from group to group and from region to region. The game
had too many open ends and not enough structure and at that point I decided
that we better have a new game with the same role playing principles and
so forth, but one a little more tightly controlled.
Gryphon: Why do you want this continuity form place to place?
Gygax: So that people are
playing the same game and have some uniformity of interest? It's very frustrating
for someone to go from one place to another and sit in on a game that he
or she doesn't recognize and it's called Dungeons and Dragons. There were
some very good games that didn't resemble Dungeons and Dragons and there
were some incredibly wretched ones. I did get a letter and I don't know
if I still have it or not from a "43rd level Balrog" complaining that he
didn't enjoy the game anymore -- it was too boring. Too many things were
being done going from the sublime to the ridiculous that were virtually
killing the game. Now, of course, there is a choice. You can play Dungeons
and Dragons which is an open ended, freeform, lightly structured type of
a game or you can play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which is a different
game.
- Interview with Gary Gygax,
1980 (citation: Grognardia)