Knights & Knaves Alehouse

For the record, before someone else petitions the mods to "DELETE THEIR ACCOUNT!"

I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE HOW TO PLAY AD&D.
I mean, for fuck's sake. Sheesh.

I am stating opinions about how I play things these days, and what I SUGGEST people might want to consider, and these opinions are worth every single frackin' penny charged for them.

Edited my post to make it clearer who I was referring to.

It was not you, RP... your quote was just incidentally in the other post I quoted, and I forgot to remove it.


And no, I am not planning on leaving... I just wanted to bring JM's attention to how his statement came across.

BlackBat242 wrote:To say that, if I don't want level limits I need to bugger off to another game system and stop perverting the precious purity of 1E AD&D is, to me an absurd and offensive view... if you prefer to keep them in your games, fine... but to tell me I need to play something else if I don't want them is utter garbage.

Let me quote myself here from my original post:

James Maliszewski wrote:My attitude is that one feels D&D needs lots of changes to make it playable to one's satisfaction, a more fruitful approach might be to find another game closer to one's own preferences.

Take note of the bolded section.

In your own reply, you say the following:

BlackBat242 wrote:Except that, with a couple of minor exceptions, 1E AD&D IS the game system I want to play!

Again, take note of the bolded section.

I made no assertion that changing demihuman level limits or human multiclassing rules (or indeed any other specific rule in AD&D) meant you or anyone else should go find another game. Nor did I once make reference the "precious purity" of the game. You're reading an aggressiveness and an elitism into my post that is simply not there.

What I said was that I have never understood the desire to change large swaths of a game's rules in order to make it more palatable to one's sensibilities. By your own admission, the level limit/multiclassing rules are among a very small set of things you've changed, so I obviously wasn't referring to you. I'll grant that, in my experience, changing "little" things like level limits or alignment or hit points is usually the thin end of the wedge to more extensive changes that take the game far from its published version, but there's no necessity there. Even if there were, I passed no judgment on such changes; I simply noted that I don't understand why one would want to play AD&D at all if so much of it wasn't to one's liking.

As an aside, I specifically don't play AD&D at the moment, precisely because there are many aspects of it I would change to suit my tastes. That's why I'm playing an OD&D + Supplements "proto-AD&D" game. From my perspective, AD&D is a specific -- and demanding -- version of Dungeons & Dragons and I don't feel up to meeting those demands, so I play OD&D, which is more much forgiving of modification and house ruling.

BlackBat242 wrote:Except that, with a couple of minor exceptions, 1E AD&D IS the game system I want to play!

I have no desire to purchase another system, and learn how to play it, and try to find players for it, when NONE of them (and I did a lot of looking for a long time) are anywhere close to what I want. 1E AD&D is closest, and so I WILL play it, with the modifications I like!

To say that, if I don't want level limits I need to bugger off to another game system and stop perverting the precious purity of 1E AD&D is, to me an absurd and offensive view... if you prefer to keep them in your games, fine... but to tell me I need to play something else if I don't want them is utter garbage.

I think there's a huge excluded-middle here, though.

Houseruling a game to one's own specificities is part of the duties of a good referee. Running a game 100% by rules-as-written, all the time not only doesn't make any sense, it's destructive to the actual campaign!

If, however, you start piling up houserules before the game even begins, with more and more modifications to the core game experience, then at some point, sooner or later, you've got to seriously consider the question: "Is that really the game I want to play? Wouldn't I be happier with another game system out there?"

And then, there's the next step there, which is the discussions that happen online about these sorts of modifications, where there's a fine line between stating something like "level limits don't work out for me" and "level limits suck, and AD&D is broken!!ONE!" A fine line that is constantly crossed in internet debates, which will trigger the natural question "Then why don't you play something else?"

BlackBat242 wrote:And just why is there a "need to keep the game human centric"?

Emulation. AD&D emulates a vague, amorphous blend of Fantasy pulp fiction in which the protagonists often were humans (The Grey Mouser, Conan, etc etc, though not always, i.e. Elric), which portrayed humans as the Cosmos' centerpiece, the people with free will and the power to make the universe fall in whichever direction they chose, whereas non-humans would be tied to the world in some respect (Lord of the Rings with Elves and Dwarves tied to the world and in many ways weary of its ways, whereas the fate of humans after Death is unknown, with them as the main prize of the War of the Ring, Stormbringer and greater Eternal Champion series from Mike Moorcock, where Melnibonéans and other proto-humans are tied to Chaos, while the human race is both playing field and prize of the Conjunction of the Million Spheres).

The bottom-line is: AD&D tries to emulate the feel of these inspirations in that respect. You certainly don't *have* to abide by these rules, but they're there for a reason nonetheless.

James— I think you are over-thinking this. Maybe you have read too many early Dragon Magazine articles about how D&D can be whatever you want but AD&D has to be by-the-book or else it’s not AD&D. The fact of the matter is that most people here love Gygaxian AD&D 1e and consider it the quintessential incarnation of D&D of all time, yet everyone plays AD&D differently, whether they are trying to be strictly by-the-book or completely free-form or any shade in between. Who can judge whether they are “really” playing AD&D, or “should be” playing AD&D?

So, Level limits are ultimately a tool for the DM, essentially to help him to recreate a milieu that is true to the base literature. (Even in non-humanocentric Middle-earth, Hobbits never become great warriors.) If, for any reason, the DM doesn’t like the level limits how they are, he can magnanimously throw them out, find an in-game workaround (magic), let the character switch to Thief, whatever. The players will love him. I beg you retro-clone authors, do not put “level limits are optional” in your rulebook! Because then if the DM does want a humanocentric campaign, guess what, players resent a meanie DM who is more restrictive than the rulebook itself. Regards.

Wheggi wrote:

And NEVER had the latest edition of Stratego go though such a drastic rules overhaul as to make it unrecognizable.

- Wheggi

They changed the rules to Stratego, what next chess?

Back on topic, I have always used and continue to use the limits. (If anything some might be to high already)

I've been dropping words a lot lately. Not just letters: complete words. Have no idea why. I was starting to think that my machine was being glitchy, but now think its just me being a doofus and thinking ahead of my fingers.

- Wheggi

Falconer wrote:James— I think you are over-thinking this.

It wouldn't be the first time.

Maybe you have read too many early Dragon Magazine articles about how D&D can be whatever you want but AD&D has to be by-the-book or else it’s not AD&D.

Actually, I'm thinking more of Gary's own preface to the Dungeon Masters Guide, where he specifically warns against "the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole." Certainly we can debate whether changing level limits is an example of what Gary was talking about, but I do think it noteworthy that no version of Gygaxian D&D eliminates them entirely. I take that as significant.

Who can judge whether they are “really” playing AD&D, or “should be” playing AD&D?

I haven't seen any judgment passed on anyone's decisions. What I did, following on an earlier comment, was express a lack of understanding of why some gamers often feel compelled to take a game and change many of its distinctive elements rather than adopt a game that already incorporates the changes they wish to make. That's why, to cite a (possibly) less controversial example, I've never seen much point to adding skills to AD&D, whose archetype-based class system already includes an implicit way of adjudicating skills without the need for a detailed treatment of them. When I want a game that takes a different approach, I play a different game.

If this point of view is somehow offensive or beyond the pale, then please accept my apology; that was most certainly not my intention. I hope, however, that, on this board of all places, I can be forgiven for taking Gary at his word when he cautioned against making too many changes to AD&D.

stranger wrote:They changed the rules to Stratego, what next chess?

I've noticed that Hasbro has been issuing lots of new versions of classic boardgames, often with some fairly far-reaching changes in order to make the game "more fun," whatever that means. I recall Clue received such an overhaul in 2008 and, by all accounts, it's atrocious.

James Maliszewski wrote:I've noticed that Hasbro has been issuing lots of new versions of classic boardgames, often with some fairly far-reaching changes in order to make the game "more fun," whatever that means. I recall Clue received such an overhaul in 2008 and, by all accounts, it's atrocious.

Each time I'm seeing an ad for such a "newer, upgraded, better, FUNNER" version of a Classic board game, I can't help but cringe to myself. My wife too. Why are these games Classics, if not for the timeless fun they provide? That strikes me of marketing gimmickery at its worse. Just like a certain brand we've come to know very well around these parts...

James— no offense taken, just disagreeing. If AD&D is the most awesome game ever, then it should indeed the be the point of departure, no matter how foreign the changes may be!

At least with those board games, even when they change the mass market edition, you can still get the original version, via Target or Winning Moves or some other source.

Falconer wrote:At least with those board games, even when they change the mass market edition, you can still get the original version, via Target or Winning Moves or some other source.

This is true and I think Hasbro deserves some thanks for this, but the question is: when will the do the same with D&D?

James Maliszewski wrote:

Falconer wrote:At least with those board games, even when they change the mass market edition, you can still get the original version, via Target or Winning Moves or some other source.

This is true and I think Hasbro deserves some thanks for this, but the question is: when will the do the same with D&D?

When control of the brand is taken away from WotC and they finally stop pretending that "ze game remains ze same!"