by E. Gary Gygax
 

The Barbarian (Notes)	-	The Deva (Notes)	-	Other Topics
Dragon #67	-	1st Edition AD&D	-	Dragon magazine

A few individuals consistently voice
misconceptions about the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS® and the ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS™ games with
respect to the whole of the genre of fantasy
role playing in general and TSR in
particular. This matter would be of small
import indeed, were it not that some of
these few are also connected with commercial
ventures in the Adventure Gaming
industry in general and fantasy in
particular. Because of this basic misconception
and lack of knowledge, it is
sometimes difficult to communicate effectively.
In order to cast light on the
situation, please follow along as I draw a
couple of analogies. Although the parallels
aren’t exact, they do demonstrate
quite amply the points to be made.

In the wide range of card games there
is poker. It is a separate and distinct
game from all others played with cards.
There is a single recognized authority on
poker — Hoyle. Now the Hoyle rules relate
two distinct types of poker played.
One sort is pretty well free and includes
lots of house rules and hands such as the
skip-straight, straight round the corner,
blaze, and so on. The other form of the
game is that which is played according
to the rules set forth by Hoyle. If one
were to liken the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS® game system to
the former sort of poker, and the ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS™
game system to the latter, one wouldn’t
miss the mark by much as far as general
concept is concerned.

Now consider chess. The game name
actually is a generic for many national
and variant boardgames involving pieces
and pawns which probably evolved
from the Indian game, Chaturanga. Be
that as it may, consider the chess enthusiast
who discovers the fact that there
are, indeed, hundreds of different versions
of the game in addition to that
which the Western world calls chess.
Imagine this delighted fellow then busily
taking what he considers to be the best
features of Shogi (Japanese chess),
Timor’s Chess (a variant game), and a
few of his own ideas. These he uses to
create a new game — chess, of course.
Envision the reception he would receive
when presenting this new game at a
chess tournament sponsored by the US.
Chess Federation! (But all six of the guys
who played it with me loved it!)

If one thinks of the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS game structure
as a book which covers most of the
forms of chess, including variants, and
tells prospective players how to put together
a board and select which pieces
and pawns will be used in the creation,
the parallel is not far from the mark. This
is especially true if one then likens ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
gaming to Western chess. In the former,
the interested party constructs the design
by steps, beginning with a small
board and simple pieces and adding
space and more complex movement as
skill and DESIRE dictate. The latter case
dictates the size and power of all pieces
and pawns immediately, but the enthusiast
must then concentrate on the skill
required to play the game well.

One letter from a reader of DRAGON™
Magazine commenting on the barbarian
sub-class (issue #63) was critical because
the approach differed from the
other established classes. Using the
analogy to chess, I suggest that the objection
is similar to criticism of the move
of the knight because it can leap over
other men while none of the other pieces
or pawns can do so. That is an aside.
Allow me to return to the major point
which must predicate what follows.

Using the relationship of games, think
about this: Would any intelligent person
purchase a copy of the MONOPOLY®
game, add in some parts of THE MAD
MAGAZINE® game, imagine it to be
somehow “better” than either one alone,
and then announce to everyone far and
wide that the end product was not only
superior, but it was still a MONOPOLY
game?

As ludicrous as that sounds, that
is pretty much what happens when even
well-meaning players of TSR games try
to mix and match different systems. Now
consider the result when some overzealous
MONOPOLY game fan blends in
what he considers “improvements” from
the LIFE game and the CAREERS game,
claiming that the result is a MONOPOLY
game — an improved version, of course
— and playable by all other MONOPOLY
game enthusiasts everywhere. (After all,
he and his group of half a dozen friends
really like the “design”!) Sounds silly,
but that happens frequently to TSR’s
ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game.

Notice that TSR owns the ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game system.
Well, they own the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS game, too — just as Parker
Brothers owns MONOPOLY and THE
MAD MAGAZINE game. TSR holds the
copyrights to the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS and ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS games.
They own the Trade Marks. Use of either
must be by TSR or with its permission.
Neither game is public domain. No other
firm can make any commercial use
whatsoever of either game without permission
from TSR. Furthermore, house
rules are as different from place to place
as can be imagined, so that of the several
million DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS game players, the only recognized
basis for intra-group play are
the rules furnished by TSR. It is far more
tight a basis when ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS gaming is considered.
Of the two or so million players
of that game system, only about 5% even
get DRAGON Magazine and read the official
rules additions. Just as TSR sells
far more DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS games than are sold of all
other competing fantasy role-playing
products combined, DRAGON Magazine
has a circulation which is over twice that
of all of its competitors. To claim that any
other FRP game system has the acceptance
of DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS gaming is absolutely contraverted
by hard facts. When ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
gaming is included in the totals, there is
no contest — it is a laugher. Similarly,
DRAGON Magazine dominates the field,
but even with its relatively large circulation,
it reaches less than 25% of the total
DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS/ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game audience. Now we
have some perspective.

If one plays the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS game system, it is
possible that material from outside that
offered by TSR to be included in the
game. Such a game becomes “house
rules” poker, so to speak. One then either
announces the special rules, or drops
them, when players from outside the
core group participate in the game.
Hoyle has even begun to standardize
house rules, and this is similar to what
TSR will be doing in the next few years as
a special team of designers and editors
work on the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS game system — both to
finish it and to make a few needed
revisions.

The ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game system does not allow
the injection of extraneous material.
That is clearly stated in the rule books. It
is thus a simple matter: Either one plays
the ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, or one plays something
else, just as one either plays poker according
to Hoyle, or one plays (Western)
chess by tournament rules, or one does
not. Since the game is the sole property
of TSR and its designer, what is official
and what is not has meaning if one plays
the game. Serious players will only accept
official material, for they play the
game rather than playing at it, as do
those who enjoy “house rules” poker, or
who push pawns around the chess
board. No power on earth can dictate
that gamers not add spurious rules and
material to either the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS or ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
game systems, but likewise no claim to
playing either game can then be made.
Such games are not DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS or ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
games — they are something else, classifiable
only under the generic “FRPG”
catch-all. To be succinct, whether you
play either game or not is your business,
but in order to state that you play either,
it is obviously necessary to play them
with the official rules, as written. Thus,
when you get information in these pages
which bears the “official” stamp, that
means it can immediately be used in
game play.

Certainly, even those groups who adhere
strictly to the rules may develop
certain rule extensions or cases which
differ from what is written. These individuals
are notable, for in a tournament
they are heard inquiring about how certain
rules or situations will be handled.
They play DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS or ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS games and fully
understand what that means. I do hope
that all Good Readers are now as well
grounded in the facts of the matter.

Either you play TSR’s DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS and ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
games, or you play variants of them, or
you use a hodge-podge system, or else
you play one of the systems which have
grown up after TSR’s. Unless you play
the ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game system, you probably
won’t have much purpose in reading
what is official and what isn’t. In any
event, bear in mind that the mainstream
play both game systems as they appear.
Next time someone touts some magazine
or game as being useful for inclusion
in your campaign, consider the
foregoing. Adding non-official material
puts your game outside the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS or
ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game system. It becomes something
else at best.

Far too often, extraneous material tinkered
onto the existing DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS or ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
campaign will quickly bring it down to a
lower level at best, ruin it at worst. Fads
and “new, state-of-the-art” games come
and go, but the DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS and ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS games
keep on growing and improving. The
choice is yours.

Other topics
As an aside, one letter-writer asked if
magic-users were ever going to benefit
from intelligence at lower levels, suggesting
that they needed spell help in the
form of bonuses such as clerics gain.
Not so. Magic-users are strong enough
as they are. The benefit they gain from
intelligence is the capacity to know additional
spells and the more immediately
important chance of being able to comprehend
any given spell when first presented
with it. Adding to magic-user
strength is certainly a case of gilding
gold and painting lilies. It won’t be done
here! Adding some new, useful spells at
all levels is something else again. . . .

This same writer also asks: “Are the
characteristics for halflings still going to
be generated by the roll of 3d6 in all
cases?” As Method I for such generation
suggests that 4d6 be used, the question
seems rather pointless, shall we say?
The game rules hold as written, except in
the case of the barbarian sub-class.
However, because it is not a critical rule
in the game, and character ability generation
rolls are so frequently a matter for
lying and cheating (where players really
cheat themselves, much as if they cheated
at solitaire), methods of generation
which develop a reasonable spread and
do not exceed the 18 maximum dice total
are acceptable “house rules.” The credence
of a campaign using such variant
systems might be suspect, even with so
small a matter.

Simply put, variants of this nature too
often give undue advantage or penalty
with regard to the probability spread as
presented in the rules. Thus, how well
will a player used to such undue advantage,
or suffering from lack of experience
in some class or race because of
unfair restrictions, do in a tournament
where the correct systems are used? It
should not take a mathematical wizard to
determine that there is a radical difference
in the probability curves of the totals
of the highest 3 of 4d6 -1 compared
to the total of 4d4! Curves which improve
the character’s chances for high ability
scores are more acceptable — cheating
always takes place in beginners’ campaigns
anyway. They do penalize participants,
however, as they do not prepare
them for the “facts of life” in a real campaign
let alone a tournament situation.
Overall, the probability curves given
should be respected. They work exactly
as they should in relationship to the
whole game system.

Another aside pertained to height and
weight. The letter-writer held that height
should determine weight. Perhaps that
chap has never seen a short, fat person
or a tall, thin one. Somatyping could be
interesting, but why put it into a game
already fraught with many tables and
charts?

Speaking of tables and charts, I do
have one severe problem with my own
game system. I got talked into doing the
complicated and time-consuming series
for grappling, pummeling, and overbearing
in a weak moment. I have regretted
them ever since. I tend to use a very simple
system which we initially developed
for such close-quarters combat in about
1974. Being a glutton for punishment, I
am now asking all of you Gentle Players
to give me your comments on the matter.
Am I alone in disliking the rules and systems
for weaponless combat as presented?
Do you wish something different?
Should the whole matter be more precise?
Would you enjoy such combat
more if it was accomplished with greater
alacrity and simpler rules? Here is your
chance to influence the course of the
matter.

THE FORUM

I would like to compliment Arthur Collins on
his well written and very informative article in
issue #93 entitled "The making of a milieu." This
article and others like it in DRAGON Magazine
have helped me immensely in preparing my
world and campaign.

Although I have played the AD&D game on
and off since 1979, I have not started to DM
other than for a few ?trial runs? because I feel
that I am not quite ready. I have some questions I
would like to put forth as a means of starting
some discussions among the readers of
DRAGON Magazine.

The main question I have concerns many of
the rules and their implementation. In issue #67
of DRAGON Magazine, Gary Gygax wrote an
article entitled "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D
system," subtitled "The official word on what?s
official." In this article he wrote that ?The
AD&D game system does not allow the injection
of extraneous material. . . . Either one plays the
AD&D game, or one plays something else. . . .?
As far as adding ?spurious rules and material,?
he says that ?no claim to playing either game can
then be made. Such games are not D&D or
AD&D games.? In the next paragraph he writes,
?. . . Either you play TSR?s D&D or AD&D
games, or you play variants of them, or you use a
hodge-podge system . . . Next time someone
touts some magazine or game as being useful for
inclusion in your campaign, consider the following.
Adding non-official material puts your game
outside the D&D or AD&D game system.?

Yet in the same issue he also writes this, concerning
the AD&D game's official rules on grappling,
pummeling, and overbearing: "I have
regretted them ever since [their publication]. I
tend to use a very simple system which we initially
developed for such close-quarters combat in
about 1974."

In issue #83 Roger Moore offered what I think
is an excellent system for unarmed combat. Yet,
since it is not official, does that mean that when I
use it, I am not playing the real AD&D game? If
it does, then I guess Mr. Gygax isn't either, if he
continues to use a different system than the one
in the DMG. However, since Mr. Gygax did
invent the game, you might say that whatever
system he decides to use is official. Fine ? but
then why isn?t it published?
Overall, I agree with Mr. Gygax about the use
of non-official rules. I subscribe to DRAGON
Magazine mainly to keep track of official rule
changes. If I decide to use a new system, or pass
one on to my DM, I will only use ones published
in DRAGON Magazine since it is, for me, the
?official? AD&D game magazine. I hope that I
am correct in assuming that what Mr. Gygax
meant by ?extraneous material? would be, for
example, replacing the AD&D combat system
with that of another FRPG. Or making major
changes to the armor class system, ?making up?
your own character classes for PCs, etc. I have
seen so many people doing exactly that, and
when they do, as Gary said, they are no longer
playing the AD&D game.

However, the weaponless combat system in
issue #83 doesn't seem to be a major change. It
doesn?t replace a set of rules, rather, it simplified
the existing ones, and created a practical, usable
system. In issue #65, Lenard Lakofka wrote an
article entitled "Keep track of quality." He offered
a system by which a character could, for
example, buy a longsword not as good as a
magical +1 sword, but better than the standard
15 gp longsword listed in the PH.
In issue #92, the article "Let the horse buyer
beware" presented what I thought was an excellent
system for buying quality horses.

In my opinion, these systems and ones like
them do not seek to replace any rules. They don?t
make any drastic changes in the game. They are
tailored to the AD&D gaming system. If a person
playing the game has a DM who uses Lakofka?s
weapon quality system and later switches to a
DM who doesn?t, the most that can happen is
that the player gets a bit baked at having laid out
500 gp for a longsword that is now only just as
good as the longsword his partner paid 15 gp for.

Still, the bottom line is, if Gary hasn?t said it?s
official, then it isn?t. Again, I hope that what Mr.
Gygax meant when he referred to ?extraneous
material? was the ?major change? and ?other
game system? type of material I gave examples
of. Although this might seem like a moot point to
some, it is important to me, because I try to
adhere to the ?official? rules of the game.

Up to now I?ve discussed new rules. Now I?d
like to ask about the present ones: Mainly, does
anyone use them? From what I?ve seen, it doesn?t
look like it. (I have never been to a GEN CON
convention, AD&D tournament, etc., which may
be one reason why it seems this way.) I?ve never
played with a DM who took weapon speed factors
into consideration. If I had a gold piece for every
5?4? half-elf I?ve seen carrying a 4?6? bastard
sword, I could build myself a castle. If I had a
silver piece for every time someone used a bastard
sword in a crowded bar without hitting
anything or anyone except his opponent, I could
put a kidney-shaped moat around it. As for
encumbrance: I had a friend who wanted to give
the AD&D game a try. I introduced him to some
people who were going to play that night. After
the game, he showed me the list of monsters his
character had encountered, treasure and magic
items obtained, and told me about the adventure.
When I looked at the list of money alone, I
almost had a heart attack. By the rule of 10 gp =
1 pound, he was carrying about 2 tons of gold
and silver. The character was already 2nd level,
and he had magic items that I would expect to see
possessed only by characters of much higher
level. And on and on.

Do DMs ?out there? go through the process of
totaling the weight being carried by PCs prior to
an adventure and every so often during it? Do
they use that weight to determine movement rate,
and use the movement rate as a means of telling
how much time has passed in the dungeon? I?ve
never seen a DM do this yet, but I intend to
when I become one.

Another example: When an outdoor encounter
occurs, do DMs use the system given in the
DMG for determining the distance between the
parties, by rolling the appropriate dice and modifying
results based on the terrain? Or do you just
make an intelligent estimate? All the DMs I?ve
played with have done it the latter way.

I believe in making up a character history,
based on race, class, alignment, secondary skills if
any, social status, religion, and country or land of
origin. I feel that this history is a very useful tool
for a DM, when he or she has to decide whether
or not a character would have prior knowledge of
a particular person, place, or event. I feel it also
makes each character an individual. Yet, I have
seen many people play all the characters they
have exactly alike. The person who DM?s for our
group now doesn?t require a written history on
our characters (which I provided anyway), but he
does recognize the value of character history and
takes it into account.

Overall, it seems that the people who follow all
the ?nitty gritty? rules and consider things like
character history and world history in their
campaigns are in the minority. Although the rules
are official, I would like to know if DMs ?out
there? really take the time to use them. I?ve tried
DMing a few times using everything down to the
?nitty gritty? rules, and it can really be a pain.
Of course, there are going to be situations where
a given rule just doesn?t apply, or no rule exists at
all, and you must use common sense when you
make your decision. Overall, though, I feel that
the rules should be followed for the system to
work correctly, and to keep the game from degenerating
into a ?Monty Haul? scenario. So, before
I start to DM regularly, I would like to find out:
Do people really use the ?nitty gritty? rules, or
do they just ?guesstimate? a lot? I would really
like to know!

Joseph M. Dornbierer
CTT1 USN
NRRT Box 1364
Imperial Beach CA 92032
Dragon #96

*    *    *    *

I just read the Forum column of issue #96 and
am impressed with the thoughtful insights offered
by the author on the problems with "<O>fficial
rules." The publication of his letter clearly called
for further comment from readers, so here are my
thoughts on the subject.

It is absolutely true that several of the ?official
rules? are too unrealistic, unplayable, cumbersome,
or, worst of all, simply not fun. As mentioned
previously, the hand-to-hand combat rules
published in the DMG are a
good example of this.

There is no doubt that Mr. Gygax is a renown
authority on the game, and he deserves the title
"Sorcerer.? The game system that he put into
print is simply awesome, and the vast majority of
the rules are fine. The fact remains, however,
that he is one individual, who, like the rest of us
non-demi-humans, is prone to making mistakes
as well as building better mousetraps.

Another example of a mistake in the rules is a
portion of the ?specialist rules? for fighters,
which were published in an earlier ?Sorceror?s
Scroll? column. My group reviewed the ?official
? rules and dutifully incorporated them into a
new campaign starting at first level.

The campaign started with TSR module N1, <link>
The Cult of the Reptile God, which I have
DM'ed 3 times. That <mod> is <prolly> one
of the most challenging products ever published
by TSR, Inc., because it involves a variety of
adventures in a town, outdoors, and a dungeon,
and offers a terrific mystery. When we played it
with the specialist rules, however, combat was a
crashing bore. At the front of the party was an
elven bow specialist with a good strength and
dexterity; anything that he shot at was slaughtered
or maimed. The main villain of the module,
who is supposed to be tough, died on the 2nd
|or| third arrow. (I don?t recall which and it
doesn?t matter, because it was on the first round
of melee anyway.) In short, the group was not
challenged, because of the death-dealing elf who
nailed any monster before it closed to engage in
melee. It was simply an exercise of the elf shooting
arrows, the party mopping up what little was
left, and the looting afterwards.

As a result of this experience, we kept the
specialist rules for melee weapons only. These
rules are well thought out and Mr. Gygax should
be given credit for dramatically improving the
fighter class with a fun and playable rule change.
The ?official? bow specialist rules were discarded
because they destroyed game balance. We did
allow bow specialists, but under much different
rules (+2 to hit, in addition to racial and dexterity
bonuses, and +1 to damage per level of
experience). This made the bow specialist a good
character, but not so formidable a character as to
eliminate the challenge of a good adventure. We
sacrificed much of the realism of the ?official
rules,? but did so in order to have FUN.

Notably, I have not been to a convention where
an "official" bow specialist was one of the prerolled
characters, and I don?t think anyone will
ever see one in that setting. If you do, keep him
close to the head of the party with an arrow
nocked and a good line of fire, and you should
have few problems with monsters.

The point is this: My group is no different
from any other group. We are not so locked into
?official rules? as to discard them when they do
not work or when they detract from playing the
game with fun. So what if we do not use all of the
official rules? We are still playing the AD&D®
game, not something else.

For that matter, I have been to several conventions
and tournaments, and not once have all of
the ?official rules? been used in the conduct of a
tournament. Even at the GEN CON® XV convention,
when I participated in the "official"
AD&D tournament, the rules on weapon SPEED
were NOT used, even though there were several
opportunities to use them. In another tournament
at the same convention, the DMs used an initiative
system very different from that in the DMG.
Heresy, you say? The fact was that it made the
action more realistic without sacrificing playability,
and it gave further credit to the individual
character's DEX. We still use this system
today.

I do agree that The Game system should not be
changed in ways involving major rule changes. It
is a shame, however, that certain gaps and unworkable
situations in the rules are left to linger
for so long for those who want to play as ?pure?
as possible. Again, I do not know why excellent
ideas promulgated in DRAGON® Magazine are
not referred to Mr. Gygax (better yet, a committee;
two or more heads are better than one) for
the issuance of an official rule change.

This point is illustrated by the excellent article
by Katharine Kerr in issue #96 on creating
character histories. What an outstanding idea it
would be to require every player to maintain a
background history of his character, to include an
account of how each magic item was obtained,
plus certification by the DM that the story was
authentic. Not only would this tend to make
certain players more honest (you know who you
are), it would alert a DM on the experiences of a
new character to determine whether he/she fits
into the milieu. More importantly, it would tend
to encourage real role-playing, which is difficult
for many players, particularly some of the younger
players under 18. Best of all, such a rule
would probably further the educational development
of the younger players by encouraging them
to write and to write well. In short, nothing but
good could come of this.

The question here is why Ms. Kerr's article
was not presented in the context of an official rule
change requiring the writing of player histories,
even though she did not advocate this as a rule.
Specifically, why wasn?t there at least some consideration
given by someone to the thought of
making such an "<O>fficial" rule?

Some readers, I am sure, will disagree with the
requirement that they write a history for each of
their characters, but that is because I am one
person with one opinion. (Maybe Ms. Kerr will
make the count two.) The point is that as long as
only one person with one opinion continues to
have the final word on what is ?official? and
what is not, there will be flaws in the rules, and
sometimes these flaws will be major ones. There
must be some flexibility in adjusting to the improvement
of the game as it becomes more fa
Some readers, I am sure, will disagree with the
requirement that they write a history for each of
their characters, but that is because I am one
person with one opinion. (Maybe Ms. Kerr will
make the count two.) The point is that as long as
only one person with one opinion continues to
have the final word on what is ?official? and
what is not, there will be flaws in the rules, and
sometimes these flaws will be major ones. There
must be some flexibility in adjusting to the improvement
of the game as it becomes more famous.
TSR, Inc., should recognize that other
folks are capable of having good ideas, too, and
that these ideas should be considered for the
status of ?official rules.? In short, there can be no
monopoly on creativity; just review a few issues
of DRAGON Magazine and you will see what I
mean.

In the meantime, all players and DMs will do
what they have always done: "Official" rules that
are poor will not be used no matter how official
they are, and other rules will be used in their
place to allow for a more enjoyable time at the
gaming table. "Official" rules that are well
thought out, playable, and, above all, fun will
always be used. Having FUN, after all, is what the
AD&D Game is all about.

Paul F. Culotta
Snohomish, Wash.
Dragon #98.

* * * *

I would like to reply to Joseph Dombierer's
letter to the Forum in issue #96, concerning <link>
rules, approximations, and the AD&D Game
system in general.

In his letter, after presenting an astounding
string of past experiences, Mr. Dornbierer concludes
his treatise with the question: ?Do people
really USE the ?nitty gritty? rules, or do they just
?guesstimate? a lot?? Well, since he so kindly
asked the readers. . . .

In all my years of role-playing, one thing has
become very clear to me concerning Dungeon
Masters. A very good one runs a game with a
complete knowledge of the rules, yet tempers play
through intelligent estimations that allow events
to retain their inertia.

Assuming that everyone participating in The Game is honestly trying to prove their playing
skills, a campaign of any merit will be very
complex. It will have individual character histories,
idiosyncrasies, and interactions. There will
be detailed maps, intriguing current events, and
important missions for the players to perform.
So, if such a game is being run, how can one
person, responsible for all this and keeping the
players interested, active, and assertive, manage
this without making any estimations? The answer
is: He could not. No one is a perfect computer for
whom such a plethora of statistics, numbers, and
events would be child?s play to monitor and
compute. Even if arranged on charts for easy
reference, this would be no easy task; basic
combat alone requires a chart for each character
class, so imagine the tower of paper required to
run an entire game exactly by the rules! And
what about the time involved?

For this reason, I think approximations and
estimations are imperative, and common sense is
more than essential. All too often, I have been in
games where either the rules are strictly obeyed,
almost totally disregarded, or where approximations
were over-used. Imagine a DM roughly
estimating your favorite paladin's ?to hit? versus
an evil lich, and getting things so incorrect that
the situation becomes laughable!

The obvious answer to this dilemma, albeit a
difficult one to achieve, is an equitable use of
both rules and estimations. I use approximations
and common sense to solve rule disputes, game
discrepancies, and to expedite play. I use the rules
to keep estimations within the confines of the
game system. I use both to present an extremely
interesting, exciting, and constantly moving
Game.

It has taken me over eight years to get to the
point where I can estimate logically, without a
significant loss in the AD&D game structure. Yet
even I am not perfect, and still have a long way
to go. For those who wish to start on the path to
this lofty goal, I recommend conservative play,
where the DM thinks carefully before relating the
consequences of the players? actions, using logic
and estimation if logic and rules are not applicable.
Accept player criticism, and use it to help
your common sense solve game-related problems.
I guarantee that your games will be more fascinating
and consistent if the DM and players
strive to use rules and estimations in a logical
manner.

Richard W. Emerich
New Canaan, Conn.

*    *    *    *    *

I would like to offer an answer to Joe Dornbierer
?s letter to the Forum in #96. While I?m
sure there are a number of people who will agree
with me, there are probably the same number
who won?t.

From my experience in playing the D&D®and
AD&D®games (approximately 9 years), I have
found, in my opinion, that adherence to all of the
guidelines as published is the most accepted and
best method of play.

Granted, all the additions and changes do
make things a trifle hard to keep up with, and
one is tempted to change things a bit to make it
easier, but I think I have some very good reasons
not to do so.

1) Differences in DMs: When you have more
than one DM in a playing group, there are
always going to be some differences in opinion
and interpretation. But the situation worsens
when, for example, DM #1 plays by the accepted
guidelines, DM #2 utilizes double damage rolls
for hits, and DM #3 uses a critical hit table either
made up or taken from another fantasy game.
When a situation like this occurs, DMs #1 and #2
(when acting as players under DM #3) will, in
most cases, be at odds during game play and
detract from the overall enjoyment of the other
players. While different interpretations will and
do exist, these add an enjoyable amount of flavor
to each different campaign, if made with moderation
and overall Game balance in mind.

I have found that if one or more DMs play in a
group that uses the guidelines as printed, there
seems to be more cooperation. Unless hidden
circumstances prevent it, the players help the
current game master when combat or some other
type of action gets particularly heavy. I once
played in a group like this in which there were 2
DMs and 5 players. While one DM ran the
scenario, the other was keeping track of Time,
thus relieving the game master of one tremendous
burden. Players that fully understand the combat
system outlined in the DMG also prove invaluable
to smooth game play.

2) Player's point of view: In careers such as
Joe's and mine, long-term settlement is out of the
question, as the military requires us to move
once, on the average, every 3 years. When we
relocate, in most cases, a character brought from
one campaign to another is not allowed to continue
play. I quite understand not allowing a
32nd-level paladin join a party of 2nd-level
adventurers, but that isn?t the only reason used in
a lot of cases.

I am more concerned with players who are
afraid of using their characters in a new campaign
because of critical hit tables or some other
such nonsense that they are not expecting. If
you've been playing an official AD&D game in
one locale, then move and watch your character
die in the first melee because of a critical hit, your
reaction will probably be to walk out -- mine
would be.

If everyone used the official ?guidelines,?
exclusive of any mutations, relocating would not
be a terror but an opportunity to experience
different campaigns and playing styles, without
worrying about that 32nd-level ninja/cleric/
magic-user dusting off your character.

3) Tournament play: I have been to only 4
fantasy role-playing tournaments featuring
AD&D games. If you come from a group that
plays AD&D games without other additives,
you?re not going to feel "inhibited" by the rules
that are enforced by the better judges. I have
noticed that the people whose only experience is
from mutated games sometimes have a hard time
adjusting to certain things, like a saving throw of
1 always being a miss no matter what the adjustments.

So, in a rather large nutshell, here is one
answer your question. I encourage your efforts
to play official AD&D games and would like to
see feedback from other people on this issue.

Dennis E. Jones, Jr.
Loring AFB, Me.

*    *    *    *

In the Forum of issue #96, Joseph Dornbierer
wanted to know if the majority of the people who
play the AD&D game use the ?nitty gritty? rules
or if they just ?guesstimate.? In response to this,
I would like to make a few comments.

Through the course of playing AD&D games, I
have lived in three different states and had exposure
to many different gamers and styles. A few
of them were ?nitty gritty? players and some of
them were ?guesstimaters,? but the majority of
the players were a combination of both. They
played by the book but also included things such
as Mr. Moore?s weaponless combat system (issue
#83), which was simple and helped the game
move along smoothly.

These DMs were not concerned about following
every single rule in the book. They followed
the majority of the rules, but they ?forgot? about
the rules which had a tendency to slow the game
down. A game that is played using all the ?nitty
gritty? rules would be an official game, but by
including an extra table or ability of some sort,
such as Mr. Routley?s "The handy art of forgery"
-- (issue #96), you add more flavor to the
game.

You must not forget that Mr. Gygax had the
rules published in 1979. Since then, the game has
had thousands of hours of more game time,
which helps make the game better by discovering
which rules detract from the game and finding
out what could be added to improve the game.
DRAGON Magazine seems to be accomplishing
this quite well, by printing things that are meant
to add to the game as a whole.

Todd Breneiser
Rochester Hills, Mich.
Dragon #98

*    *    *    *

I would like to comment on Mr. Dornbierer's
letter in the Forum of issue #96. He asked if DMs
really use the "nitty gritty" rules of AD&D
games. Well, speaking from experience, the best
answer I can give is "no."

I have never encountered a DM (including
myself) who ever used a Weapon Speed Factor
table. The first character I ever started out with
was an elf well under 5' who carried a 6' two-handed
sword! I know of other, greater infractions
of the rules as well.

One reason so many DMs allow impossible
characters is to get the players interested in
gaming. Then, little by little, the DM might
apply more rules. I don?t think that any DM ever
makes good use of all of the rules.

There may be DMs who use all or nearly all of
the rules, but the AD&D game is so complicated
that it would take literally years of practice to
master them. I myself have never been to a
convention; perhaps they use those rules there. In
general, I allow anything that is not obviously
wrong, and most of the DMs I have met do the
same. You may wish to be more strict, but using
all of the rules can take away from the enjoyment
of the game by making it lengthy and boring.
Each DM must decide for himself.

Chip Myers
Outlook, Wash.
Dragon #98.

*    *    *    *

In regard to the current debate over the importance
of the "official" rules, I offer the following
words of Mr. Frank Mentzer, TSR's Creative
Aide to the President, from POLYHEDRON
Newszine #9:

"An emphasis on role playing comes closer to
the original concept of the game than does an
obsession with details. Gary [Gygax] doesn?t run
a straight AD&D® campaign; he?s too creative to
feel comfortable in that rigid system. You say you
are, too? How many games, modules, and articles
have you written lately? Have you given the
system, as published, a chance? Have you tried
the D&D® game, a flexible and adaptable framework,
instead of the far more complex and regimented
AD&D system?"

The letters in the Forum in DRAGON issue
#98 all extol either a ?nitty-gritty? rules fixation,
a more flexible interpretation of the word "official,"
or a combination of the two. Unfortunately,
none of the correspondents mention gaming
experience or creativity, two factors which I feel
cannot be ignored in this discussion. I use my
own experiences to illustrate this point.

I started my first D&D game eight years ago,
having no experience with the rules or even
RPGs in general. Back then, all we had were the
classic "blue book" and D&D module B1, In
Search of the Unknown. Beyond that, we made
our own dungeons, in which yellow mold lined
the only passage into an orc?s chamber and
nobody said anything. How did the orc get its
food? Nobody wondered and nobody cared.

Since then, I have almost doubled my age and
have grown in all respects. I am not the same
person I was then, and I don?t play the same
game. Today I play a highly modified form of the
AD&D game which is nonviolent. Very few parts
of the game are unchanged from their published
form, yet enough has been salvaged so that the
game is at least recognizable as an AD&D game.

Eight years ago, I would have laughed at
anyone who suggested that I play a nonviolent
game. We played the D&D game for its wonderful
combat system, and giving that up would be
like removing your left arm, if not your heart.
But even if I had the inclination to create a
nonviolent game, I still could not have pulled it
off. I simply did not have the knowledge or skill
to manage a game like the one I play now.

One of the most important steps in the creation
of my present campaign was the switch to AD&D
gaming in one $50 swoop. The game was somewhat
overwhelming in its scope, but we played it
exactly as published for some time. As we progressed
through our campaign, we began to
notice flaws in the game and started to create
ways to change the game to our own ends. The
eventual outcome was our current campaign. The
campaign will end soon, and the game will
change further.

There is no question that the AD&D game, as
published, is both ?complex and regimented.?
But it must be fully comprehended to be altered.
Otherwise, the results of change will never be
noticed. The only way to understand the game is
to play it, at least for a short amount of time, as it
is written. After some experience with the game,
you may feel your creative impulses suggest
changes in the system. You may wish to borrow
from other games, from other gamers, and from
other sources of literature. By all means, do it.
But at least know what it?s like to play without
the changes you and your players wish to install
in the game. It will make the changes that much
more rewarding.

One note: If the AD&D game does seem too
?rigid? to you, try the D&D game. It is a good
system in itself which allows a more freeform style
of gaming. It is designed to be added to by individual
DMs in a manner that cannot be done
with the AD&D game.

Michael D. Selinker
Seattle, Wash.
Dragon #100.
 

*    *    *    *

In issue #96, a letter by Mr. Joseph Dornbierer
was printed in the Forum section of your magazine.
Since then, several people have given their
answer to his question: "Do people really use the
"nitty gritty" rules, or do they just ?guesstimate? a
lot?" In answer to Mr. Dornbierer?s question, let
me say the following. Every DM I?ve ever
known, myself included, has changed something
in the ?official? AD&D rules to meet with his
particular tastes.

I agree with Mr. Paul F. Culotta (we are not
related, to my knowledge) when he said in his
letter to the Forum (issue #98), "It is absolutely
true that several of the "official rules" are too
unrealistic, unplayable, cumbersome, or, worst of
all, not fun." Such "rules" as weapon speed
factors and weapons' AC adjustments just slow
down and complicate a game that should be
relatively fast-paced. No DM I've ever known
has used these in his campaign, and I seriously
doubt that most do.

On the other hand, some very ?reasonable?
rules are often ignored. Such things as encumbrance
and weapons restrictions for short characters
add a touch of realism to the AD&D game. (I
know many feel that realism has no place in a
fantasy game, but I feel that it does.) For example,
I took part in a campaign in which a halfling
thief was armed with a large trident. Sure, I?ll
change a few things here and there, if I feel it?s a
must, but that is going overboard! Needless to
say, I was slightly annoyed at the ?breaking? of
what seems to be a perfectly logical ?rule,? but
because I was not the Dungeon Master, I said
nothing about it.

Many articles in DRAGON Magazine are
great for AD&D play, and it seems idiotic to me
that someone couldn't use one because one man
hasn't declared it an "official rule." Some of these
articles include the Creature Catalogs and Treasure
Troves, as well as the "Pages from the <Magic Items> <links>
Mages" and "Ecology" series. These, along with <Monsters> <links>
many other articles, have been priceless in aiding
my campaign.

Many new character classes have been added
to the AD&D game. On occasion, I have heard of
a player who could not belong to one of these new
classes because his DM didn?t believe in using
?unofficial? material. I myself have used classes
from the pages of DRAGON Magazine (though
altered slightly to fit into my campaign), and my
players think they're great, even though they
weren't official.

To be sure, I?m not saying that I disagree with
everything Mr. Gygax says is official. He is
indeed the "founding force? of the AD&D game,
and without him we would most likely not have
it. Yet, he is still a man, and no one man has
ALL the great ideas. I don?t wish to sound insulting,
and I hope I?m not, because I have great
respect for Mr. Gygax. I?m only trying to make a
point: Something doesn?t have to be official to be
fun.

Chad P. Culotta
Shreveport, La.
Dragon #100.
 

*    *    *    *
 

I am writing in reference to a letter I saw in
issue #96. I wish to commend Mr. Dornbierer for
some excellent and thought-provoking material.

First of all, yes, there are some judges who use
weapon speed factors and ?to hit? adjustments.
Encumbrance, too.

This is my fifth or sixth campaign. I can say
that, with more experience, as you go along, they
all get easier to do. And, for the most part, more
realistic and more enjoyable, too.

No, I don’t believe in going by the book and I
think Mr. Gygax may have sent out that article
he wrote too hastily. Instead, maybe he should
have let it sit overnight and re-read it the next
morning. It’s more than likely he wrote it when
something was irritating him, and thus, he should
be forgiven. The Dungeon Masters Guide clearly
tells us that it is to be used as guidelines to aid the
referee.

There are plenty of dungeon masters who can
carry out a legitimate campaign. What’s legitimate?
Anything is legitimate. Some people like
going up four levels in a one-hour session. That’s
fine for them. Don’t spoil their fun by telling
them that they aren’t adhering to the “true
spirit” or the “right way” of gaming. Not that I
endorse this type of gaming. My guys have been
playing in my current campaign for six months
and they’re only about third level and they love
it. Believe it or not, Monty Haul campaigns are
legitimate as long as the players like it. It is not
fair to use the word “degenerate” in reference to
someone’s Monty Haul campaign when the
players are loving every minute of it.

When players don’t like it, that is another
story. I really feel sorry for those players afflicted
with the sadistic dungeon master syndrome. If
you’ve got one of those dungeon masters around,
tell them to go fly a lurker above. Then go find a
decent one. It’s people like that who give the
game a bad name. I once almost clobbered a
clerk when I went to buy a module. I placed the
module, along with my $5.50, on the counter. He
proceeded to tell me what a great dungeon it was
and how he’d already killed three parties in only
two weeks. Needless to say, I told him what kind
of dungeon master he must be, watched his
incredulous expression, and left.

All you dungeon masters guilty of this sort of
thing: Stop. You don’t have to kill your players’
characters to prove how good you are. Any Tom,
Dick, or Harry can kill a character. You have to
show your players a good time and help them
enjoy playing with you. Don’t have them throwing
dice, screaming, yelling, arguing, and stomping
out your back door in fits of rage. If you show
them a good time you won’t have to get them to
play. Instead you’ll be fending them off for lack of
adventures.

Jim Ayotte
Southwick, Mass.
Dragon #101.

OUT ON A LIMB

‘Official AD&D’

Dear Editor:
Two points which I must bring up regarding
material in DRAGON #35 (March).
In her “Sage Advice” column, Jean Wells
states that a magic-user can cast spells while one
of his or her hands is engaged in holding an
object such as a dagger, wand, staff, or the like.
This broad affirmative must be modified. The
magic-user can cast spells with one hand provided
the spell has no material component(s)! It
is also true if the spell has no somatic component,
of course. However, any spell with V, S,
and M components requires the caster to have both
hands free. (This is official AD&D).

<SLINGS>
There are a few clarifications and comments
I wish to make regarding “Forsooth, Fantasysmith!”
too. Slings outranged many ancient
bows, (presumably the simple types, the recurved
cane bows, and so forth) and had penetrating
power, when slinging lead bullets,
greater than most bows. Simple bows are fairly
easy to make, the exception being a truly fine
simple longbow. Compound bows are far more
difficult to make, and when compound recurved
reflex bows such as the Mongols fashioned are
considered, the mind boggles at the time and
labor expended in the manufacturing process
for weapons sufficient to equip a tuman or two.
Slings are very simple to make, easier than a
simple bow by far. The ammunition for slings,
even metal pellets, is likewise easier to find or
make than arrows are to fabricate. Slings were
never as popular as bows, and disappeared from
the military scene for a very simple reason. It is
very hard to employ a sling with accuracy.
Slingers have to grow up with the weapon and
continue practicing constantly. Also of importance
is the fact that slingers must skirmish in
relatively open order, while bowmen can form
and volley in close order. The same frontage of
bowmen will generate many more missiles than
slingers can.

<BOWS>
The bow never dominated Europe. The English/
Welsh longbowmen certainly influenced
English, French, and Scottish history, but the
crossbow played a far more important role in the
history of the entire Continent. Longbowmen
had to be trained from boyhood, fed exceptionally
well as compared to other foot troops so that
their strength would be up for pulling their weapons,
and the bows were hard to make. The
slower-firing heavy crossbow could, in fact, outrange
the longbow in any event, and eventually
masses of easily trained crossbowmen, with
easily manufactured weapons, were pretty well
standard in all European armies. . .the English
certainly used them also. Light crossbows were
employed by horsemen, it is worth noting. Asia
was, on the other hand, pretty well dominated
by the bow until the advent of the musket. If
medieval Europeans had trouble with Asiatic
archers, so did ancient ones—consider the
Romans versus the Parthians. Alexander didn’t
seem to have such problems with the Persian
host-which gives one pause until it is remembered
that generalship and troops are key factors
to date in the history of warfare. Anyway,
“field plate” for Europeans circa 1239 wasn’t
much compared to their armor a century or two
later when Mongol-type bows for employment
on horseback couldn’t pierce it. Longbow shafts
could, so could heavy crossbow bolts, so could
balls from arquebuses.

<SLINGS>
Aztecs and Incas didn’t employ the bow in
warfare—they used slings to propel egg-sized
stones at the Spanish. These missiles were
known to crack steel breastplates. A single hit
would fell a horse in its tracks. These slingers
were good, but such heavy stones meant short
range, and the Spanish crossbows and firearms
easily outranged them.

Whatever the weapon use. I am more and
more convinced that the morale of the troops
was usually the deciding factor in battle. Numbers,
position, leadership, and logistics are also
crucial, of course. Now if the English could have
fielded a few regiments of longbowmen during
the Napoleonic Wars, we’d have historical proof
of just how much better that weapon was than
the musket which had displaced it. Lack of
archers, bows, and training were all that prevented
such an occurrence . . . .

Gary Gygax
—Lake Geneva, WI
(The Dragon #38)

-
What's official?
--
Dear Editor:
I have read in "Out on a Limb" in issue #80
that ". . . . anything you use from an article or
feature is not a rule change that would be recognized
in any official tournament or competition
. . ." But I also read (in a place which I cannot
recall) that submissions by Gary Gygax are to be
considered official changes. Which is correct?
 

Christopher Gray
Naperville, Ill.
(Dragon #88)
 

I can't blame you, Chris, for being confused by
the use of the word “official.” The difference, as
it applies in these two cases, is this:

We call Mr. Gygax's articles official because
(by their very nature) they have been sanctioned
by him. In other words, the creator of the
AD&D® game has contributed additional material
which, although it's not part of the actual
rules, is compatible with what has already been
published in the hardbound rule books or certain
AD&D game supplements, such as the WORLD
OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting. On rare
occasions, material written by other people has
been given this official status after its original
“unofficial” publication. Two examples that come
to mind are the faerie dragon in Monster Manual
II and the weather system in the new WORLD
OF GREYHAWK package, both of which first
appeared in the magazine.

However, when Mr. Gygax writes an official
article, that still doesn’t mean that the information
is to be considered part of the actual rules.
And, as such, these articles cannot fairly be used
in official (there’s that word again) AD&D game
tournaments. In a large, structured competition
such as the AD&D Open Tournament that’s
conducted at the GEN CON® Convention, it
would be inappropriate — and, indeed, illegal —
to use (for instance) information about the cavalier
character class that Mr. Gygax has created,
because not everyone can be expected or required
to possess the issue of the magazine in which the
cavalier was introduced. An official tournament
relies only on what’s in the actual rule books, and
does not penalize participants for a lack of knowledge
they may not be able to do anything about.
An official article may someday become part of
the rules, but unless and until it does, it’s not fair
game for tournament play I sure hope that
explains the difference, because I just ran out of
space.

— KM
(Dragon #88)