"The Wargamer's Favorite"

This post from Frank Mentzer on his facebook page:
"PLAYERS need rules, sure. At my table, pick from Arnesonian (OD&D thru BECMI) or Gygaxian (1e/2e, the wargamer's fav)... or use method A or G, or fine-tune it further."

This post fucked me up. I asked him what he meant by it, and he said something to the effect of OD&D/'Arnesonian' games being more about imagination and invention and AD&D/'Gygaxian' being about rules dedication and the technical, tactical aspects of the game.

And so I put it to the test - which one did I like? The freewheeling nature of OD&D (a sentiment echoed by other old school members of TSR like Tim Kask) or the more concrete, brass tacks nature of AD&D. In particular, I started using AD&D rules that most people ignore, such as flanking and facing attacks, and the weapon vs armor class charts. And though I didn't like those rules in particular, I much preferred the style of play they encouraged, and it drew me into regular historical wargaming as a result. I think there is a fairness to it that's missing in most "OSR" type games, in which your experience is otherwise at the total mercy of the GM and whether he feels like killing your character or not.

The modern day OSR community believes in running players through puzzle dungeons in which death is a nigh certainty, where combat is a fail state, traps are almost instantly lethal, and the result of a reaction roll or hidden check can seal your fate. I do not like puzzle dungeons, gonzo funhouses, or the mythic underworld and at some level I think I just don't 'grok' them. I do, however, understand castle seiges and fortified defenses. I learned this lesson from B2 - The Keep on the Borderlands and now I run every dungeon, every one, as a series of defensive fortifications built by the inhabitants that the players are now invading. Such defenses can include civilians and noncombatants, such as the civilian orc and goblin families in the Caves of Chaos, so nothing is lost and there is always the potential for social interaction even during a dungeon invasion.

Similarly, I never quite 'grokked' hex crawls. Why hexes in the first place? Instead I find it far more natural to consider overland travel as foot march movement over natural terrain. Its far easier, and more immersive, to simply ask players for an azimuth and distance they wish to travel, and then to convey to them what they see along the way, rather than to count hexes and roll dice to randomly determine what they find. It also explains hunting and foraging in an understandable way - The player characters are geared for a tactical march, not hunting and camping in the woods, so instead of playing a game of tracking herds and waiting in the bushes, they have to find and encounter the beasts they want to hunt as if they were wandering monsters.

One thing that's bothered me about combat was how to meaningfully differentiate it from video game combat. I think the Final Fantasy games were definitely inspired by AD&D and its very obvious that the actions available in combat mimic the combat rules of D&D, and I didn't want to fall into the trap of presenting my players with Final Fantasy-esque combat on the tabletop. The graphics would be worse and the calculations would take too long to process. Theater of the mind combat should encourage players to use their imagination more in combat, but in practice I found they usually just boil it down to "I move" and "I attack". Instead, by using the tactical options presented in AD&D - flanking, rear attacks, the unarmed combat charts including pummeling, grappling and overbearing, cover and concealment bonuses, etc., really opened up players options AND encouraged roleplaying by giving them incentive to think of how to use those techniques to their advantage in combat.

When it comes to gaming I have a bit of a Kobayashi Maru issue in that I don't believe that situations should be unwinnable. The "wargamer's favorite" branches of D&D allow players the options to turn the tides in their favor, while "OSR" style games assume that it is impossible unless you solve the puzzle. I think modern editions of D&D went the wrong way in focusing on player abilities that gave numerical bonuses in combat rather than physical, tactical options. I think O/AD&D are very compatible with wargaming style gameplay, and I actually prefer to play my games through that perspective.

UPDATE: Frank Mentzer on Facebook
“ Greyhawk was a map with booklets of wargame details, leaving all the personalization to the users. The published Greyhawk adventures were mostly excercises in tactics and combat, and roles were incidental, often optional.

That was the way of D&D in the 1970s. By the 1980s the public demanded less Do-It-Yourself, more detail, and far greater emphasis on roles.

Greyhawk is an anachronism, a glimpse of a time long past.”

“ To those who falsely proclaim Gary Gyax as the Inventor of roleplaying...

Do you realize that in module B2 Keep on the Borderlands, the residents don't even have NAMES, let alone personalities or roles?

Gary was a wargamer and publisher. Dave Wesely and Dave Arneson were the inventors, who first codified methods of playing roles as a form of hobby gaming.”

GARY WAS RIGHT