After delving into old school TSR-era D&D rule systems and dealing with some frustrations while playing sessions "by the book", I've come to realize that I prefer a synthesis of OD&D and AD&D for my games. By far the best supplement for OD&D is the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, which drowns the reader in rules that expand on and explain the ones introduced in the OD&D LBBs. The Players Handbook, on the other hand, basically replaces material from Men&Magic, by expanding class and race options and increasing the numerical inflation of all ability scores. It is specifically the numerical inflation of character abilities in the PHB that is my issue with the system, so instead of that book I will be relying on Men & Magic.
My personal canon of books would be the OD&D 3 books and Supplement I: Greyhawk, using all the options from all 4 books. That includes the Thief and the Paladin, Demihuman multiclass options, percentile strength charts, Magic-User chance to know spells, variable weapon damage, variable hit die, and monster XP determination. The Monster and Dungeon levels tables from Monsters & Treasure and Greyhawk will be used (really who needs more than 6 dungeon levels?), but just for kicks I might incorporate material from the Monster Manual because all of that content is directly compatible and was basically written for OD&D anyway.
Combat is probably the thorniest issue of Original and Advanced D&D. OD&D actually doesn't have a combat system, just a chart describing the use of a d20 to replace Chainmail's hit determination matrix, and for everything else it refers the reader back to Chainmail. Since the d20 has become the standard for D&D combat, I'm more inclined to use that system, and the one time I played with Chainmail's combat as written our group quickly abandoned it for being too complicated. I am a fan of the 2d6 system though, it seems more similar to hex-and-chit board wargames, so depending on what dice I have at hand I might use Chainmail's system. The default combat system in my games, however, will be AD&D's combat sequence with the to-hit matrices and weapon damage charts from OD&D. I have found a use for the weapon vs armor charts and plan to use them, but only if player characters start becoming unreasonably hard to hit, and only the weapon vs. armor from OD&D. There is no reason for the ridiculous list of polearms from AD&D or the negative Armor Classes.
So where at all possible, material from OD&D will be used, including the additions and changes included in Greyhawk, and the AD&D DMG and Monster Manual will be used to fill in options and provide extra material when necessary. This keeps the simple and easy to use systems from OD&D, except in the cases where they're not straightforward and easy to use, and then material from AD&D will be used to supplement it. I figure this creates a complete ecosystem in which to play which shores up the flaws that both games would have separately, and yet retains the spirit of something that is recognizably D&D.
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Issues with OD&D
So I sat down to play this game, and its amazing the issues that come up during play that you would not notice by simply reading the rules.
To start off, OD&D seems like a very simple game - There are three classes and four races. Every character gains 1d6 for health per level, every weapon does 1d6 for damage, and every monster gives 100xp per hit die when they die. But this simple system gets confounded by a lot of inconsistent rules.
First are the ability scores. They don't seem to do anything, except when they do. Constitution adds bonuses to health, and Dexterity increases the chance to hit of missile fire. Strength and Wisdom confer no bonuses, and Intelligence is only used to determine how many languages the character can speak. Until you crack open Supplement I: Greyhawk, and include the charts for Strength bonuses and Intelligence bonuses. Charisma seems to be the most important stat, and is given the longest explanation with a chart to explain its use in governing hirelings, but the actual use of hirelings is never explained.
Encumbrance and weight are mentioned as an important element of the game, but the details are sketchy. A list of items is provided to use, but only a few items have any weight attached. Whether the other items are weightless or if their weight is to be determined by the referee is not mentioned. Moldvay Basic attempted to address this issue by giving all "miscellaneous items" a combined weight of 80 coins regardless of actual amount carried, and Mentzer Basic includes a "simple encumbrance" system where only coins affect weight carried. As is evident, even the smallest difference in rules can affect how differently the game is played between tables.
Supplement I: Greyhawk really does try to flesh out the rules and complete some of the gaps, as well as providing more content to play with. It does this by throwing a bunch of charts and dice probabilities at everything. It does standardize the game a bit, which may turn off the people who don't like being bound by rules, but results in D&D somewhat approaching the standard of a game that can be played.
To the people who think D&D doesn't need to be constrained by rules: Do you really need D&D to roleplay? Thanks to the internet, there are countless RP and fanfiction servers where they play without any set of rules.
To start off, OD&D seems like a very simple game - There are three classes and four races. Every character gains 1d6 for health per level, every weapon does 1d6 for damage, and every monster gives 100xp per hit die when they die. But this simple system gets confounded by a lot of inconsistent rules.
First are the ability scores. They don't seem to do anything, except when they do. Constitution adds bonuses to health, and Dexterity increases the chance to hit of missile fire. Strength and Wisdom confer no bonuses, and Intelligence is only used to determine how many languages the character can speak. Until you crack open Supplement I: Greyhawk, and include the charts for Strength bonuses and Intelligence bonuses. Charisma seems to be the most important stat, and is given the longest explanation with a chart to explain its use in governing hirelings, but the actual use of hirelings is never explained.
Encumbrance and weight are mentioned as an important element of the game, but the details are sketchy. A list of items is provided to use, but only a few items have any weight attached. Whether the other items are weightless or if their weight is to be determined by the referee is not mentioned. Moldvay Basic attempted to address this issue by giving all "miscellaneous items" a combined weight of 80 coins regardless of actual amount carried, and Mentzer Basic includes a "simple encumbrance" system where only coins affect weight carried. As is evident, even the smallest difference in rules can affect how differently the game is played between tables.
Supplement I: Greyhawk really does try to flesh out the rules and complete some of the gaps, as well as providing more content to play with. It does this by throwing a bunch of charts and dice probabilities at everything. It does standardize the game a bit, which may turn off the people who don't like being bound by rules, but results in D&D somewhat approaching the standard of a game that can be played.
To the people who think D&D doesn't need to be constrained by rules: Do you really need D&D to roleplay? Thanks to the internet, there are countless RP and fanfiction servers where they play without any set of rules.
Thursday, May 14, 2020
Nitpicking the differences between B/X and BECMI
First read my original post here:
https://farooqsgaming.blogspot.com/2019/03/an-actual-review-of-bx-and-becmi-d.html
Here are some more thoughts around the differences between the Mentzer and Moldvay/Cook/Marsh rules:
Moldvay has better organization. Mentzer has better rules (fite me bitches)
The OSR community has crystallized around Moldvay/Marsh/Cook B/X because it ends at level 14. The lack of content is the main appeal.
Frank Mentzer did not want to revise the rules of Basic when he wrote them, only to reorganize them into a format more friendly to absolute newbies (hence, "kiddie D&D"). Mentzer Basic/Expert is identical to Moldvay/Marsh/Cook except where it incorporates errata into the rules, such as encumbrance and weight limits, wizard and cleric spell progression, and the wordings of some spells and certain rules. The major flaw of Mentzer's errata is the Thief skill progression which got spread out to 36 levels in the later printings.
Mentzer basic is split up into a Player's Book and a DM's book, which sucks. There is no need for this and it splits certain rules over two books, which is where the complaints about organization come from. Mentzer basic also includes tutorial scenarios at the front of each book. Moldvay basic came with one rulebook and a copy of the module B2, which cleanly divides the rulebook and the adventure from each other.
These are nitpicks, and by and large both books are the same. Frank Mentzer had no desire to revise the rules created by Moldvay, since 1) he was told that they had to be absolutely compatible for customers that had already purchased Moldvay's books and 2) He didn't play Basic D&D and preferred AD&D anyway. The only reason he wrote them the way he did was because his friend and boss Gary Gygax wanted to cleanly separate D&D from AD&D as he was going through a lawsuit with Dave Arneson at the time over the rights to both games, and wanted D&D to be legally distinct from AD&D. In Mentzer's own words, D&D encourages roleplaying while AD&D with its strict, tournament style rules encourages wargaming.
Also the main difference between 0e OD&D and B/X/BECMI are the character options. OD&D had more race and class options especially if you incorporate the multiclassed options from Supplement I: Greyhawk. B/X uses more streamlined classes, and the spread of ability points is simpler as well. In B/X, ability scores grant modifiers in a range from -3 to +3 uniformly for all ability scores, while OD&D has unique bonuses for every score individually. B/X is the streamlined version of OD&D, with all the connotations that would imply, meaning it is easier to understand and run, but loses some of the unique quirks and breadth of options.
https://farooqsgaming.blogspot.com/2019/03/an-actual-review-of-bx-and-becmi-d.html
Here are some more thoughts around the differences between the Mentzer and Moldvay/Cook/Marsh rules:
Moldvay has better organization. Mentzer has better rules (fite me bitches)
The OSR community has crystallized around Moldvay/Marsh/Cook B/X because it ends at level 14. The lack of content is the main appeal.
Frank Mentzer did not want to revise the rules of Basic when he wrote them, only to reorganize them into a format more friendly to absolute newbies (hence, "kiddie D&D"). Mentzer Basic/Expert is identical to Moldvay/Marsh/Cook except where it incorporates errata into the rules, such as encumbrance and weight limits, wizard and cleric spell progression, and the wordings of some spells and certain rules. The major flaw of Mentzer's errata is the Thief skill progression which got spread out to 36 levels in the later printings.
Mentzer basic is split up into a Player's Book and a DM's book, which sucks. There is no need for this and it splits certain rules over two books, which is where the complaints about organization come from. Mentzer basic also includes tutorial scenarios at the front of each book. Moldvay basic came with one rulebook and a copy of the module B2, which cleanly divides the rulebook and the adventure from each other.
These are nitpicks, and by and large both books are the same. Frank Mentzer had no desire to revise the rules created by Moldvay, since 1) he was told that they had to be absolutely compatible for customers that had already purchased Moldvay's books and 2) He didn't play Basic D&D and preferred AD&D anyway. The only reason he wrote them the way he did was because his friend and boss Gary Gygax wanted to cleanly separate D&D from AD&D as he was going through a lawsuit with Dave Arneson at the time over the rights to both games, and wanted D&D to be legally distinct from AD&D. In Mentzer's own words, D&D encourages roleplaying while AD&D with its strict, tournament style rules encourages wargaming.
Also the main difference between 0e OD&D and B/X/BECMI are the character options. OD&D had more race and class options especially if you incorporate the multiclassed options from Supplement I: Greyhawk. B/X uses more streamlined classes, and the spread of ability points is simpler as well. In B/X, ability scores grant modifiers in a range from -3 to +3 uniformly for all ability scores, while OD&D has unique bonuses for every score individually. B/X is the streamlined version of OD&D, with all the connotations that would imply, meaning it is easier to understand and run, but loses some of the unique quirks and breadth of options.
Friday, May 8, 2020
Converting 5e players to OSR and AD&D
AD&D is a much better system to convert 5e players to OS D&D than Basic is. B/X is a very minimalist system in which player options are few and advancement is limited, while AD&D shares the same conceits as 5e, 3.5, and Pathfinder, such as the separation of races and classes, unique class features, and a profusion of modifiers to the die rolls of every action. The "power curve" of AD&D characters is also greater than B/X/BECMI, and characters are expected to start out strong and remain strong in order to survive, which is a more natural fit to modern players.
To play AD&D effectively you must create a powerful character at the outset. Race and class are separate so players can create unique character combinations. Races give statistical bonuses to ability scores, so players can choose to optimize for a certain style, and classes grant special abilities and gain extra features as they rise in level (in fact I think every class gains new features upon level advancement except the humble fighter). Multiclassing is an option for nonhuman races, so players can combine them to create their own unique builds. In AD&D 2e there are no racial class limits, so players can choose to play whatever they want. And if you play AD&D 2e, you get even more customization options in the form of Class Kits and Non-weapon proficiencies, which are the same as skills.
AD&D is a more lethal game than 5e and there is a greater emphasis on the management of resources such as time, money, weight and inventory, more detailed mathematical calculations for performing and resolving actions, and more pressing consequences for player choices. Because almost every action has some dice mechanic and a series of modifiers attached, AD&D rewards system mastery.
If, as a DM, you are attracted to OS D&D because of the lure of heavier consequences and lethality, but want to maintain the number crunchiness and wide array of options from modern RPGs, then AD&D is a better fit for your table. If however, you want a more minimal game where those options don't exist, and players are all better off playing standard Fighting Men and scrapping through a dungeon by the skin of their teeth and their wits alone, then OD&D or B/X/BECMI is a better option.
To play AD&D effectively you must create a powerful character at the outset. Race and class are separate so players can create unique character combinations. Races give statistical bonuses to ability scores, so players can choose to optimize for a certain style, and classes grant special abilities and gain extra features as they rise in level (in fact I think every class gains new features upon level advancement except the humble fighter). Multiclassing is an option for nonhuman races, so players can combine them to create their own unique builds. In AD&D 2e there are no racial class limits, so players can choose to play whatever they want. And if you play AD&D 2e, you get even more customization options in the form of Class Kits and Non-weapon proficiencies, which are the same as skills.
AD&D is a more lethal game than 5e and there is a greater emphasis on the management of resources such as time, money, weight and inventory, more detailed mathematical calculations for performing and resolving actions, and more pressing consequences for player choices. Because almost every action has some dice mechanic and a series of modifiers attached, AD&D rewards system mastery.
If, as a DM, you are attracted to OS D&D because of the lure of heavier consequences and lethality, but want to maintain the number crunchiness and wide array of options from modern RPGs, then AD&D is a better fit for your table. If however, you want a more minimal game where those options don't exist, and players are all better off playing standard Fighting Men and scrapping through a dungeon by the skin of their teeth and their wits alone, then OD&D or B/X/BECMI is a better option.
Monday, May 4, 2020
Frank Mentzer quote from facebook, again
His original post:
Jayson
tagged me for the "10 RPGs that most influenced me over the years."
I'll just list them here. Hard to trim down to 10, but here's the
results, in chronological order.
OD&D (1974, & Holmes expansion 1977, & my BECMI 1983-86)
Tunnels & Trolls (1975, and Monsters! Monsters!, part of the family)
Traveller (1977)
Advanced D&D (1e only, 1977-79)
Runequest (1978)
Morrow Project (1980)
Champions (1981, & Hero system)
Call of Cthulhu (1981)
Paranoia (1984)
World of Darkness system (1991, Vampire etc.)
OD&D (1974, & Holmes expansion 1977, & my BECMI 1983-86)
Tunnels & Trolls (1975, and Monsters! Monsters!, part of the family)
Traveller (1977)
Advanced D&D (1e only, 1977-79)
Runequest (1978)
Morrow Project (1980)
Champions (1981, & Hero system)
Call of Cthulhu (1981)
Paranoia (1984)
World of Darkness system (1991, Vampire etc.)
Frank Mentzer: Original
D&D is a serious wargame with miniatures, roleplaying entirely
optional. Played it that way for a year or so. (Edit: Memory glitch;
reflecting, I realize we only played that for a few months, until Holmes
D&D showed up.)
Me: "Hi Frank, I hope you don't mind if I bug you for more details about this? Does that mean that you played OD&D as if it were just Chainmail Fantasy set in an underground dungeon?"
" exactly. That's what it was (the front of the box says so). I learned years later that Dave had at least SOME awareness of the potential for group interaction via close-knit group, but I saw none of that from Gary's wargame version; his 'roles' were rules governing the interaction of the individuals. Wargames were Gary's roots, where his head was at. It was kinda cool, instead of outdoor army units, you played individuals (personal 'units') and ran individual battles in a very tight environment. Really different from my usual miniatures games, very personal and dynamic. But roleplaying was an 'add-on', entirely unnecessary."
Saturday, May 2, 2020
The Three Pillars of Adventure solo
The gameplay elements of 5th edition D&D are broken down into the "Three Pillars of Adventure". These are:
1. Combat
2. Exploration
3. Social Interaction
To have an enjoyable solitaire gaming experience, it is important to adapt these elements into a solitaire framework
Combat
Combat is the easiest pillar to perform solo.
D&D combat contains little to no hidden surprises and the dice system introduces a high degree of randomness, making this a perfect system to perform solo. The player only has to play both sides intelligently, and let the dice fall where they may (or not, you're playing solo, nobody cares if you fudge results). Any "surprise" variables such as monster special attacks or reinforcements can just be introduced through dice mechanics.
But D&D is more than just a skirmish level wargame, and if the game was only combat then it would get boring very quickly. To contextualize the combat there is dungeons and exploration.
Exploration
Exploration is possible to play solo with random generation of layouts and terrain and random encounter creation. A simple table of encounters and any number of procedural generators can be used to accomplish this task. But there are hidden elements in dungeon and wilderness exploration that need special consideration to not ruin the fun of surprise.
Trap placements, secret doors and hidden treasures all exist as knowledge meant only for the DM, to be revealed to the players only through clever play and after taking the proper precautions. It is possible to emulate these elements through solo play, and with a little work it can feel almost as natural as learning about them from a DM.
The AD&D DMG has a great list of traps in Appendix A Table VII that are eminently usable solo, and OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk devotes an entire chapter to them. The D&D board games use face-down trap tokens as hazards to PCs. Their placement is known but the effect is not, and generally they are placed at the edge of a tile, halting player progress. The player is then faced with a single chance to disarm them, or otherwise pass over them and suffer the damage. Random event and encounter cards can also simulate the unpredictability of a dungeon crawl. Similar random events and hidden hazards can be adapted for wilderness play, making overland exploration a fun part of solo play as well.
Pregenerated dungeons can be used to play solo effectively, with a bit of work. For this method its ideal to have a Player's version of the dungeon map that only shows the basic layout, and a DM version that has all the traps and secret doors and treasures listed. It really depends on how well the dungeon keys are written, the kind that are best for solo play keep the player information in the top two paragraphs and the DM only or secret information below them. Modules that use a lot of boxed text are great for this method. To play through this method, first move through a dungeon room and make a note of everything you would do as a player - where you check for traps or treasure, what you decide to look for, how you decide to exit the room or listen for monsters. After making all your player decisions, then read the DM information in the room key and flip over to the DM map and note if any characters triggered a trap or found secret objects, and adjudicate victory or loss appropriately.
Social Interaction
Social interaction is the pillar least adaptable to solitaire play. NPCs generally only do a few player-facing tasks: provide an opportunity for shopping, combat, help or hinder PCs, become followers, and provide rumors or push the story forward.
You can approximate NPC interactions by using reaction rolls and morale checks, but an important part of social interaction is learning rumors, finding out new information and hearing the story of the characters and the game world. All this information is meant to be the sole purview of the DM and can't easily be randomly generated.
The Mythic Game Master Emulator uses event focus and event meaning tables to generate story content, and a worksheet of scenes and NPCs to determine the outcome of a story. Rory's Story Cubes or other methods of creative writing also fulfill this experience. The 5e DMG devotes an entire chapter to creating story quests and progressing through NPC motivations and plot twists, and fills it with tables for the explicit purpose of random generation.
Personally, I don't write out huge dialogue exchanges between PCs and NPCs. I generally determine the disposition of the NPCs, any applicable persuasion attempts by the PCs, and the results. If the PCs fail, then no new rumors are gained or resolved. But if you want to flex your creative writing muscles, this is the place to fill in the dialogue.
Using a premade adventure module can help fill out the story aspect of the game, but adventure modules are written entirely for a DM and generally don't separate the player facing information from DM-only information. Going across the wilderness travel or dungeon exploration part of an adventure module is definitely doable using the above mentioned procedures, but when it comes to the actual story you basically have to read it beforehand and are "on rails" throughout the entire experience. Personally, I find reading an adventure module to be catatonically dull, and I use solitaire procedures to work my way through a module in order to prep it for a live game.
Ironically, the more experience you have playing D&D with a live group, the better your solo play experience will be. D&D, the nerdiest game ever made, requires you to socialize.
more hex BS
>There shouldn't be even one feature per hex, not only because it's an
insurmountable amount of work but because nobody will ever get anywhere.
Most hexes should be movement fodder; spacing. Their content is the
potential for random encounters.
Alright fine, I'll add your blog because your discussion of hex crawls is the only one that I can use directly: https://osrsimulacrum.blogspot.com/2020/05/making-wilderness-play-meaningful-system.html
Delta really shits on AD&D's overland movement chart here: https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/02/damn-you-gygax-part-3.html
He's right about OD&D, the OD&D system is so immediately playable that the AD&D abstraction seems pretty worthless. But I did some calculations of my own and AD&D is not unplayable. The movement rate charts actually assume 5 mile hexes, with heavy burden over rough terrain actually taking 3 turns to pass. With a scale of 1 hex = 5 miles, the AD&D chart is pretty useful for overland travel. Just don't use the given maps of Greyhawk, Karameikos or Faerun, as they don't use a compatible scale at all. But it does snag when traveling over multiple types of terrain, as you have to do out of game calculations and prorate your travel budget based on the type of hex you enter, so Delta is spot on, on that point. B/X and BECMI's wilderness exploration system actually has the same issue. It seems the only really useful, workable system for traveling over a hex map only exists in OD&D.
Alright fine, I'll add your blog because your discussion of hex crawls is the only one that I can use directly: https://osrsimulacrum.blogspot.com/2020/05/making-wilderness-play-meaningful-system.html
Delta really shits on AD&D's overland movement chart here: https://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/02/damn-you-gygax-part-3.html
He's right about OD&D, the OD&D system is so immediately playable that the AD&D abstraction seems pretty worthless. But I did some calculations of my own and AD&D is not unplayable. The movement rate charts actually assume 5 mile hexes, with heavy burden over rough terrain actually taking 3 turns to pass. With a scale of 1 hex = 5 miles, the AD&D chart is pretty useful for overland travel. Just don't use the given maps of Greyhawk, Karameikos or Faerun, as they don't use a compatible scale at all. But it does snag when traveling over multiple types of terrain, as you have to do out of game calculations and prorate your travel budget based on the type of hex you enter, so Delta is spot on, on that point. B/X and BECMI's wilderness exploration system actually has the same issue. It seems the only really useful, workable system for traveling over a hex map only exists in OD&D.
"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
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)