Knights & Knaves Alehouse

genghisdon wrote: I must be missing the earlier conversation, because I know you understand that WS is no mere +1 bonus Matthew.

I couldn't agree more that players are incapable of seeing power inflation as anything but beneficial; indeed I'm sure I just posted that sentiment last night.

You surmise correctly, Don! We have been talking about a reduced version of weapon specialisation for the last few pages, where it is just +1 to hit, much like (and precedented by) the elf bonus with swords and bows.

Matt: "Actually, he was right. That is obvious in the sheer volume of players who love D20/3E and even in the old school who play with weapon specialisation. In other words, it was exactly what the majority of players wanted. Those of us who think this was a bad idea are in the minority."


Nahhh, the D&D brand killed itself catering to the uber geeks. Pre-UA there was a solid population of millions of players. Post UA the population started to go down (despite sales going up) but eventually it was so geeky and idiotic (2E period) the game went into the tank. It became social suicide to even know a 2E player. But around 83-85, I'd say the "average kid" with a girl friend played D&D right along with the geeks. Infact, 1E was probably the first time cool kids (captain of the football team with the hot GF) sat down and hung out and got to know super dorks he'd otherwise never have talked to. It was a great bridge between the social classes of our school. All that changed with the empowerment of the uber-geek.

Cut from General Thread:

Storm Giant wrote:

Some of the problem is also with the term Proficiency, if you changed it to Specialization and than told the player "OK these are the four weapons that you specialized with, any other weapons you fight as well as the common folk with."

Another option i could see is if you allowed the fighter to be proficient with all weapons and built specialization into a class (e.g. gladiators, archers, duelist, kensai, etc.) unto itself. If going this route I would allow the class to choose one weapon and maybe a backup (i.e. an archer might choose a hatchet, short sword, etc.; the duelist might take the dagger/main gauche, etc.) If going this route with a "new" class than this class would be the only ones I would allow to use two weapons simultaneously.

This is the best answer. 1. Your WP is your specialization. 2. Not good enough for the munchkin. Here choose a Specialist class (which leaves the fighter as is). Of course I'd make the specialist such a unique thing, no one would take it except those truely after some specific feel. That would take the pressure off the guy who wants to play a normal fighter but feels obligated to take +1 WS to his longsword because some other guy across the table just did.

AxeMental wrote: Nahhh, the D&D brand killed itself catering to the uber geeks. Pre-UA there was a solid population of millions of players. Post UA the population started to go down (despite sales going up) but eventually it was so geeky and idiotic (2E period) the game went into the tank. It became social suicide to even know a 2E player. But around 83-85, I'd say the "average kid" with a girl friend played D&D right along with the geeks. Infact, 1E was probably the first time cool kids (captain of the football team with the hot GF) sat down and hung out and got to know super dorks he'd otherwise never have talked to. It was a great bridge between the social classes of our school. All that changed with the empowerment of the uber-geek.

AD&D (and D&D in general) was a fad, and its hegemony was broken by 1985, which is partly why things were going bad. Where once D&D had been the only game in town, its competitors kept slicing up the pie (including video games). It is probably no coincidence that the decline of D&D coincided with the great video game crash of 1983. The astounding success of D20/3E testifies to the appetite of the audience, and it is certainly no longer social suicide to be a gamer (being a weirdo on the other hand ...). The truth is that the majority of D&D players have always been the uber-geeks. Even in the mid nineties there were guys I knew who were extremely popular athlete types at school, but who had sat down to play D&D with their geeky friends or had huge comic book collections. People are diverse. Gygax knew what he was doing in 1985 and he was giving the people what they wanted, he probably gave them too much of it too quickly, though, which is why there was a lash back with AD&D/2E.

AxeMental wrote: This is the best answer. 1. Your WP is your specialization. 2. Not good enough for the munchkin. Here choose a Specialist class (which leaves the fighter as is). Of course I'd make the specialist such a unique thing, no one would take it except those truely after some specific feel. That would take the pressure off the guy who wants to play a normal fighter but feels obligated to take +1 WS to his longsword because some other guy across the table just did.

I am pretty sure I have seen you argue this in years gone by, or at least somebody else in the same thread. Mind, I still have no idea why weapon proficiencies are acceptable to you, or why you think they are different in effect from weapon specialisation. The pressure is still there as well, player character fighters are always going to gravitate towards the best options. A rose by any other name and all that

Risk was at one time a fad, but it continued on. Same with most games.

The difference was, TSR was a one trick poney. All they had was 1E circa 85'. What everyone was waiting for wasn't rule changes but new classes that were good (not caviliers, circus clown thieves, and impossible to play in a party barbarians). They were also waiting for new games by TSR (there were millions of 1E AD&D players that would have eaten up a CoC or space game written by Gygax following the exact template of 1E. It was a HUGE opportunity missed.

Your correct about the stigma being gone "gaming" look at world of warcraft. A ton of those players are girls now. Alot of hooking up going on between gamers too, acts as a dating site.

genghisdon wrote:The UA stuff nearly all came out in dragon under Gary's pen.

It was good enough for Dragon.

genghisdon wrote:One of the few things I DON'T hate in that book (although I don't love them) are Moore's demi human pantheons (also in dragon).

genghisdon wrote:I'd need to look at the 84-85 line up to compare

Alright, here’s a half-assed list. Just modules. I think the later Mentzer sets were coming out at this time.

1984

X7 War Rafts of Kron
X6 Quagmire!
N2 Forest Oracle
B6 Veiled Society
B8 Journey to the Rock
C4 To Find a King
C3 Lost Island of Castanamir
UK3 The Gauntlet
WG5 Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure
XL1 Quest for the Heartstone
CM1 Test of the Warlords
CM2 Death’s Ride
CM3 Sabre River
UK4 When a Star Falls
CB1 Conan Unchained
CB2 Conan Against Darkness
UK6 All that Glitters
X8 Drums on Fire Mountain
DL1 Dragons of Despair
DL2 Dragons of Flame
DL3 Dragons of Hope
DL4 Dragons of Desolation

1985

C5 Bane of Llywelyn
CM4 Earthshaker
X9 Savage Coast
DL6 Dragons of Ice
DL7 Dragons of Light
DL8 Dragons of War
DL9 Dragons of Deceit
DL10 Dragons of Dreams
B9 Castle Caldwell & Beyond
T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil
CA1 Swords of the Undercity
UK7 Dark Clouds Gather
I7 Baltron’s Beacon
WG6 Isle of the Ape
CM5 Mystery of the Snow Pearls
CM6 Where Chaos Reigns
M1 Into the Maelstrom
X10 Red Arrow, Black Shield

genghisdon wrote:Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure is far more a Rob Kuntz work, he DMed Gary through that adventure.

So it’s just coincidence that the best module of 1984 has Gary Gygax as co-author?

genghisdon wrote:The Temple of Elemental Evil was done by Frank Mentzer with advice from Gary.

So it’s just coincidence that the best module of 1985 has Gary Gygax as co-author?

Thanks for the list Falconer. Theres some decent stuff in there.

I can't see the image, for whatever reason, what is it?

It's no co-incidence Gygax is co-author of MFA, but it WAS Kuntz's adventure. There is a fair bit of information about where it comes from available from both Kuntz & Gygax themselves.

Gary REALLY deserves co-author with TOEE, because, well, he was. He wrote the first section years before (and it's golden) & the rest was done by Frank with Gary's notes/input. Again, there is a fair bit of info on this, from the mouths of both men themselves. I don't think I'd rate it best of '85 either, but YMMV. In fact, looking at the list, I'm not at all sure I'd rate MFA as best of '84 either.

Isle of the Ape IS a Gygax work in that time frame, although what you think of it I do not know. I don't love it, but it's fine IMHO.

Matthew could perhaps direct you to various comments on the adventures in question answered by Gygax, Kuntz & Mentzer on dragonsfoot

Anyway, don't let my take on later Gygax works in the 80's lead you to think I'm not a fan of Gygax overall. He did some amazing stuff & I love lots of it to bits.

Matthew wrote: Gygax said fighters lacked and needed to be fixed in the Dragon article in which weapon specialisation first appeared. To him it was not just a perception, it was a fact that people were not choosing fighters, but instead rangers and paladins. It may well be that this speaks to the toxic environment that AD&D found itself released into when there were thousands upon thousands of players, the most committed of whom were trying to "game the system".

He didn't even have to say it. There is a demonstrable pattern of raising the power of the Fighter while lowering the power of the magic-user throughout Gygax's stewardship of D&D.

Look at Supp I: you get bigger hit dice for fighters, exceptional strength, and variable weapon damage.
AD&D came along and the HD get even bigger, and you get multiple attacks per round at higher levels. Oh, and this little thing called magic resistance which limits the power of M-Us at higher levels. Plus, segments and casting time could be viewed as a means of limiting the power of the M-U class, buy providing better opportunity to disrupt spell casting. And finally, weapon specialisation.

Personally, that is an approach I like in my fantasy gaming, and I endorse Gary's changes to the game over the decade of 1974-1984. To me, the game should be about SWORDS and sorcery, not uber-powerful wizards and their bodyguards.

I still don't think it brought the stock fighter up to parity with the Ranger, though. Gygax was right to limit the number of Rangers in a party.

Falconer wrote:
1984

B6 Veiled Society

WG5 Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure

1985


T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil
CA1 Swords of the Undercity

X10 Red Arrow, Black Shield

IMO, that's the good stuff from that list, and even this stuff doesn't compare to some of the early works, in my mind. I don't care for Isle of the Ape for some reason.

B6 makes this list only because it's "mineable" for ideas, and done well for what it is, even though it isn't my cup of tea. I dug X10 for the geopolitical aspects, which again..while not my cup of tea, I felt was done pretty well.

francisca wrote:

Matthew wrote: Gygax said fighters lacked and needed to be fixed in the Dragon article in which weapon specialisation first appeared. To him it was not just a perception, it was a fact that people were not choosing fighters, but instead rangers and paladins. It may well be that this speaks to the toxic environment that AD&D found itself released into when there were thousands upon thousands of players, the most committed of whom were trying to "game the system".

He didn't even have to say it. There is a demonstrable pattern of raising the power of the Fighter while lowering the power of the magic-user throughout Gygax's stewardship of D&D.

Look at Supp I: you get bigger hit dice for fighters, exceptional strength, and variable weapon damage.
AD&D came along and the HD get even bigger, and you get multiple attacks per round at higher levels. Oh, and this little thing called magic resistance which limits the power of M-Us at higher levels. Plus, segments and casting time could be viewed as a means of limiting the power of the M-U class, buy providing better opportunity to disrupt spell casting. And finally, weapon specialisation.

Personally, that is an approach I like in my fantasy gaming, and I endorse Gary's changes to the game over the decade of 1974-1984. To me, the game should be about SWORDS and sorcery, not uber-powerful wizards and their bodyguards.

I still don't think it brought the stock fighter up to parity with the Ranger, though. Gygax was right to limit the number of Rangers in a party.

The only time of experianced this sort of thing is when a MU gets hold of a fully charged powerful wand (imagine a wand of lightning in the hands of the Yellow Wizard for instance...insane). Otherwise, the MU may kick ass, but he's holding back on his spells (once your out your out). So, the fighters keep busy doing everything up in the front (along with the thief basically scouting) while the MU and clerics hang in the back twiddling their thumbs. Of course this is fun for some players (or they wouldn't choose this class). One way to limit the uber-powerful MU is to make rest times a nightmare with random encounters...to the point its not worth attempting. That will make your most powerful wizard hold back on his spells and throw daggers at all but the most powerful badies (keeping the fighters the stars of the show).

AxeMental wrote: Risk was at one time a fad, but it continued on. Same with most games.

The difference was, TSR was a one trick poney. All they had was 1E circa 85'. What everyone was waiting for wasn't rule changes but new classes that were good (not caviliers, circus clown thieves, and impossible to play in a party barbarians). They were also waiting for new games by TSR (there were millions of 1E AD&D players that would have eaten up a CoC or space game written by Gygax following the exact template of 1E. It was a HUGE opportunity missed.

Your correct about the stigma being gone "gaming" look at world of warcraft. A ton of those players are girls now. Alot of hooking up going on between gamers too, acts as a dating site.

Right, but Risk never hit it big like D&D did, which is both its blessing and its curse. I agree with you about diversifying, they absolutely should have diversified, pursued miniature war gaming like Games Workshop and miniature production, preferably without only making totally different games, if you see what I mean. The people running TSR just basically did not have have the business acumen to capitalise on their initial success.

francisca wrote: He didn't even have to say it. There is a demonstrable pattern of raising the power of the Fighter while lowering the power of the magic-user throughout Gygax's stewardship of D&D.

Look at Supp I: you get bigger hit dice for fighters, exceptional strength, and variable weapon damage.
AD&D came along and the HD get even bigger, and you get multiple attacks per round at higher levels. Oh, and this little thing called magic resistance which limits the power of M-Us at higher levels. Plus, segments and casting time could be viewed as a means of limiting the power of the M-U class, buy providing better opportunity to disrupt spell casting. And finally, weapon specialisation.

Personally, that is an approach I like in my fantasy gaming, and I endorse Gary's changes to the game over the decade of 1974-1984. To me, the game should be about SWORDS and sorcery, not uber-powerful wizards and their bodyguards.

I still don't think it brought the stock fighter up to parity with the Ranger, though. Gygax was right to limit the number of Rangers in a party.

What is interesting about that is Gygax's decision to roll fighter THAC0 back to 20 between D&D and AD&D, as well as his weakening of the strength table published in Greyhawk (two things I have chosen to give back to the fighter); the broadening of the dexterity defensive bonus to all classes also impinged on the fighter. It is true, though, that in general Gygax wisely tried to undo the power of magicians relative to fighters.

Matthew wrote: What is interesting about that is Gygax's decision to roll fighter THAC0 back to 20 between D&D and AD&D, as well as his weakening of the strength table published in Greyhawk (two things I have chosen to give back to the fighter); the broadening of the dexterity defensive bonus to all classes also impinged on the fighter. It is true, though, that in general Gygax wisely tried to undo the power of magicians relative to fighters.

Just another data point for the discussion: AD&D CON bonus, only fighters got the +3/+4 per HD.

And fighters had all they possibly needed by the time of 1e. WS & the UA was pushing the pendulum too far the other way (Which basicly always happens).

No one mentions it, but UA brings a return to magic items like wands for ANYONE (ie fighters). Who cares if your sword specialist can only use a mace as alternate when you can blast things at range with a wand of fireballs, lightning bolts or ice storms?

well equiped fighters (and rangers et all) could take down the rest of the also well equiped party single handed in 1.5e

genghisdon wrote: well equiped fighters (and rangers et all) could take down the rest of the also well equiped party single handed in 1.5e

Why should magic-users have a monopoly on that ability?

because they could only do it once, while the fighter could repeat the feat ad nauseum