Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Francisca:

If I'm running Greyhawk, or a similar setting, where BtB Vancian magic is prevalent and prominent, I feel like I'm stuck with ratcheting the fighter up, as I really can't pull the M-U down, without re-working much of the setting.

Okay. With the exception of possible numbers of player characters dwindling in the dungeon as the years pass (which seems a rather forced argument to alter the abstraction) I'm not sure I fully understand what is driving the alteration of the fighter. I certainly realize there has been a need to reflect the MTM and the Fantasy Combat Table in further iterations through AD&D, but what is different in the Gryhwk. campaign today (post U.A) that wasn't prevalent prior to its publication? This sounds like a distress call of sorts and maybe I am not hearing it.

sepulchre wrote: Okay. With the exception of possible numbers of player characters dwindling in the dungeon as the years pass (which seems a rather forced argument to alter the abstraction) I'm not sure I fully understand what is driving the alteration of the fighter. I certainly realize there has been a need to reflect the MTM and the Fantasy Combat Table in further iterations through AD&D,

I'm not making any of the above arguments, especially the MtM and Fantasy combat table.

Here is where I am at on this issue: If you look the evolution of D&D, fighters kept getting bumped up in power (bigger hit dice, weapon damage changes, exceptional STR, weapon specialization), and magic-users kept having impediments thrown in their way (smaller hit die, material components, casting times, magic resistance). This was done to mute the power of mid-upper level magic-users and keep the fighters from becoming bodyguards.

Now, whether you agree with it, or think it is necessary, well, I don't know. That can be, and has been, taken up elsewhere.

Regardless, I'm onboard with the idea of reducing the power of the m-u and ratcheting up the fighter, and support it fully, pretty much how Gary did it over time.

but what is different in the Gryhwk. campaign today (post U.A) that wasn't prevalent prior to its publication?

You suggested:

to achieve this one should just limit the nature of the sorcery. Use only tribal spell casters and cultists who must employ ritual spell casting with the spell book.

I maintain that is fine for something like lankhmar. In my opinion, greyhawk has too much "by the book" magic use interwoven in the setting to yank it out of there, or radically change spell casting options. It wouldn't be Greyhawk to me or the guys at my table.

Thats what I was addressing with the "not in greyhawk" comment. Does that help?

This sounds like a distress call of sorts and maybe I am not hearing it.

I'm not making one, and I really don't know what the hell that is even supposed to mean.

AxeMental wrote: You make that sound so easy.

Oh it is, it is.

Dwayanu wrote: If you really suppose this to be at all relevant to my observation that you quote there, then you are mistaken. I have written no claim that adjustments to the game, and in its spirit, are either unintended or discouraged. I have, very simply, not addressed that subject whatsoever.

Well, I may suppose that I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but I am not sure that is the case. Your observations seemed quite incidental to what you quoted, but I attempted to frame them in that context as best I could. When you suggest that variation (understood here as randomness) is not something that needs to be rectified when played in accordance with the original design for a campaign you are being misleading, or at least obscure, because the sort of randomness created by rolling up a character and then playing it was simply not intended. If that degree of randomness was unintended, it does need to be rectified. That is to say, exceptional strength and weapon specialisation are two sides of the same corrupt coin.

Dwayanu wrote: It will be hard to have a conversation with you if you insist on putting words in my mouth instead of letting me speak for myself. Please refrain from imputing to me things that I have not written, and thereby ignoring the plain meaning of what I actually have written.

As I note above, it is possible that I have misunderstood you, but you really need to be clearer and more concise if you intend to converse without misunderstandings.

Dwayanu wrote: Nor do I see where I have written anything to the contrary, or even to the point.

You must be responding to somebody else instead of paying attention to my posts.

The please do take the time to explain yourself, since we are apparently not in any disagreement at all.

AxeMental wrote: Well guess what, Gary Gygax and Co. thought about all of that when they created the game. How do I know that? Because I remember everyone in grade school and high school wanting to be "an archer", or "Conan expert with his two handed sword".

Right, but in the end he decided actually that there was room for mechanically representing such specialisation. Maybe it was a case of just acceding to the brow beatings of Len Lakofka and others of similar mind, but it seems to me that Gygax went into on his own terms, especially when one looks at the classes he was designing alongside such "innovations". I am no fan of weapon specialisation, but it definitely is just part of the evolving game.

I have no evidence of this of course, but ever since I discovered the dire straights TSR was in pre-UA, I think this was a do or die publication. Thus, I suspect WS was purposely included in UA to make it a core rule book rather then simply an optional spells and classes. With WS and a few other rules, UA was a "must have" for those DMs wanting to try to be up to date (thus selling alot more books). Plus, this rule was so very attractive to some players it really pressured the DMs on the fence to pick it up and at least "try it out" (and every table had one of these guys at least). Once you gave out such goodies it was difficult to take it back (and I remember some tables breaking over this).

As for Gygax "seeing the light" and embrassing WS....I don't believe it went down like that exactly. It seems whenever he worked for someone EGG was more then happy to twist his style (publically at least) to meet their bottom line (which is actually an admirable quality in an employee receiving a salary...even one that founded the company). Case in point TLG. So, yeah, I never thought WS meshed well with 1E (even before we actually used it, I can remember talking about it back then) thus I think Gygax probably had the same reservations but didn't think it was worth making a fuss over (espl. when he was on a pay role). All just my opinion.

AxeMental wrote: I have no evidence of this of course, but ever since I discovered the dire straights TSR was in pre-UA, I think this was a do or die publication. Thus, I suspect WS was purposely included in UA to make it a core rule book rather then simply an optional spells and classes. With WS and a few other rules, UA was a "must have" for those DMs wanting to try to be up to date (thus selling alot more books). Plus, this rule was so very attractive to some players it really pressured the DMs on the fence to pick it up and at least "try it out" (and every table had one of these guys at least). Once you gave out such goodies it was difficult to take it back (and I remember some tables breaking over this).

As for Gygax "seeing the light" and embrassing WS....I don't believe it went down like that exactly. It seems whenever he worked for someone EGG was more then happy to twist his style (publically at least) to meet their bottom line (which is actually an admirable quality in an employee receiving a salary...even one that founded the company). Case in point TLG. So, yeah, I never thought WS meshed well with 1E (even before we actually used it, I can remember talking about it back then) thus I think Gygax probably had the same reservations but didn't think it was worth making a fuss over (espl. when he was on a pay role). All just my opinion.

Heh, heh. Well, that would make sense if Weapon Specialisation had not been written up several years earlier and had been part of his campaign for months before that. The original Dragon it turns up in presents it as an "official rule" for AD&D, as I recall; it is definitely influenced by discussions and input from other people, but it definitely also has nothing to do with cash flow concerns, as they were non-existent at the time.

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: I have no evidence of this of course, but ever since I discovered the dire straights TSR was in pre-UA, I think this was a do or die publication. Thus, I suspect WS was purposely included in UA to make it a core rule book rather then simply an optional spells and classes. With WS and a few other rules, UA was a "must have" for those DMs wanting to try to be up to date (thus selling alot more books). Plus, this rule was so very attractive to some players it really pressured the DMs on the fence to pick it up and at least "try it out" (and every table had one of these guys at least). Once you gave out such goodies it was difficult to take it back (and I remember some tables breaking over this).

As for Gygax "seeing the light" and embrassing WS....I don't believe it went down like that exactly. It seems whenever he worked for someone EGG was more then happy to twist his style (publically at least) to meet their bottom line (which is actually an admirable quality in an employee receiving a salary...even one that founded the company). Case in point TLG. So, yeah, I never thought WS meshed well with 1E (even before we actually used it, I can remember talking about it back then) thus I think Gygax probably had the same reservations but didn't think it was worth making a fuss over (espl. when he was on a pay role). All just my opinion.

Heh, heh. Well, that would make sense if Weapon Specialisation had not been written up several years earlier and had been part of his campaign for months before that. The original Dragon it turns up in presents it as an "official rule" for AD&D, as I recall; it is definitely influenced by discussions and input from other people, but it definitely also has nothing to do with cash flow concerns, as they were non-existent at the time.

Gygax used all sorts of stuff in his home game, but it wasn't all included in UA. Plus, Dragon Mag was filled with good and bad (mostly bad) and "official" in Dragon didn't mean squat to most DMs if they didn't like it (I'm not talking about you guys, I'm talking about the majority). Stick "official" in a hardback thats a different story completely. Anyhow, like I said it was just a vibe. I can't be the only one that got this impression.

Francisca wrote:

If you look the evolution of D&D, fighters kept getting bumped up in power (bigger hit dice, weapon damage changes, exceptional STR, weapon specialization),

All of this I interpret as a final translation of Chainmail's MTM and Fantasy Supplement. Specialization, however, appears to me to cast this transformation into the likes of power-gaming. All the rest of the modifications you mention seems to follow, although I am not sure 'exceptional' strength was particularly needed, but there are strong arguments 'for' and 'against'.

and magic-users kept having impediments thrown in their way (smaller hit die, material components, casting times, magic resistance).

I guess I always observed this granularity to be in parity with that of the other classes, including the fighter class. Smaller hit die, I think this is more about the fighter translating into the alternate combat system. I realize casting times in many cases (as has been observed in previous threads) put the magic user at mortal risk when facing a fighter. In an open melee I believe that to be rather reasonable. Material components again, point towards granularity. Magic resistance, I confess my ignorance on the subject, I am not sure why a saving throw would not have sufficed.

This was done to mute the power of mid-upper level magic-users

If so to what end? And what makes you certain of this?

and keep the fighters from becoming bodyguards

Are you saying that serving a magic user was all that could have been hoped for prior to these installments. Again, I don't see it, the fighter had been standing on his own prior to specialization against mid-level magic users long before exceptional strength and specialization came along.

In my opinion, greyhawk has too much "by the book" magic use interwoven in the setting to yank it out of there, or radically change spell casting options. It wouldn't be Greyhawk to me or the guys at my table.

I believe you could make Greyhawk a low-magic setting, but you might also have to alter the average level of fighters to achieve a parity. I can certainly appreciate that such a setting would not be the same to you or anyone else engaged in the campaign.

...and I really don't know what the hell that is even supposed to mean

I think I was just responding to a general sense in the thread itself, and that appeared to also be born out in your post, that the fighter, was not adequate to stand tall without the aid of specialization and the like in a world of magic users.

sepulchre wrote: Magic resistance, I confess my ignorance on the subject, I am not sure why a saving throw would not have sufficed.

Wait....what? Have you never read the AD&D monster manual?

If so to what end? And what makes you certain of this?

To balance out the fighter vs magic-user? I don't think I can say it any clearer.

and keep the fighters from becoming bodyguards

Are you saying that serving a magic user was all that could have been hoped for prior to these installments. Again, I don't see it, the fighter had been standing on his own prior to specialization against mid-level magic users long before exceptional strength and specialization came along.

Well, we just disagree. It happens.

Francisca wrote:

Wait....what? Have you never read the AD&D monster manual?

My point is magic resistance seems to be just another dice roll I am not aware of its necessity in the game itself, a strong saving throw for magical creatures suffices. As for it limiting magic users, well sure, but that I think is more of a reflection on the designer's view of magical creatures. How magic resistance offsets the power-sharing between fighters and magic users is a secondary considersation if it was at all.

To balance out the fighter vs magic-user? I don't think I can say it any clearer.

I imagined your desire for 'more sword/less sorcery' to be that of a personal preference, not necessarily that of a perceived imbalance in the game itself. My reason for noting the changes from Chainmail to the alternate combat system was to imply a fairly balanced translation of fantasy combat involving heroes, wizards and fantastic creatures. The Greyhawk campaign does not appear to me to particularly alter that translation.

Matthew wrote:the sort of randomness created by rolling up a character and then playing it was simply not intended.

This statement puzzles me. When I read the handbooks, it seemed very plain to me that rolling up a character and then playing it was indeed intended. That has also been the consensus among D&D players in all my experience.

AxeMental wrote: Gygax used all sorts of stuff in his home game, but it wasn't all included in UA. Plus, Dragon Mag was filled with good and bad (mostly bad) and "official" in Dragon didn't mean squat to most DMs if they didn't like it (I'm not talking about you guys, I'm talking about the majority). Stick "official" in a hardback that's a different story completely. Anyhow, like I said it was just a vibe. I can't be the only one that got this impression.

Sure, if we are talking about reception, then Unearthed Arcana absolutely made those rule changes more accessible and more acceptable to the readership in general, but Gygax was absolutely clear and certain in Dragon that he (and only he) had the authority to change AD&D and that he was exercising that authority in those pages. So, whilst weapon specialisation might have been unwelcome to you and me its invention and inclusion in the official AD&D game was almost certainly not a reaction to the cash flow issues of a few years later.

Dwayanu wrote: This statement puzzles me. When I read the handbooks, it seemed very plain to me that rolling up a character and then playing it was indeed intended. That has also been the consensus among D&D players in all my experience.

That is certainly the impression one gets from reading the handbooks, but as I say in actual play in Lake Geneva characters were generated randomly, but many times over and the best "random" character selected for play. Since this was not the general reception or even preference of the audience, there was a gap between what was understood to be intended, as gleaned from what was written, and what was actually intended.

Matthew wrote:That is certainly the impression one gets from reading the handbooks, but as I say in actual play in Lake Geneva characters were generated randomly, but many times over and the best "random" character selected for play.

Yes, I've seen quotes from someone, probably Rob Kuntz, that support this. The Lake Geneva crew seems to have used an open-ended variation on the DMG's Method IV for generating their characters' ability scores. I can certainly believe it, considering both the greater attention given to high ability scores in Supplement I and the scores possessed by many Greyhawk characters (as revealed in sources like The Rogues Gallery, etc.).

Matthew wrote:.. in actual play in Lake Geneva characters were generated randomly, but many times over and the best "random" character selected for play.

Cool, because this is usually what happened in my group BITD.

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: Gygax used all sorts of stuff in his home game, but it wasn't all included in UA. Plus, Dragon Mag was filled with good and bad (mostly bad) and "official" in Dragon didn't mean squat to most DMs if they didn't like it (I'm not talking about you guys, I'm talking about the majority). Stick "official" in a hardback that's a different story completely. Anyhow, like I said it was just a vibe. I can't be the only one that got this impression.

Sure, if we are talking about reception, then Unearthed Arcana absolutely made those rule changes more accessible and more acceptable to the readership in general, but Gygax was absolutely clear and certain in Dragon that he (and only he) had the authority to change AD&D and that he was exercising that authority in those pages. So, whilst weapon specialisation might have been unwelcome to you and me its invention and inclusion in the official AD&D game was almost certainly not a reaction to the cash flow issues of a few years later.

From my understanding, TSR was already heading into trouble by that point (actually in business your always trying to increase your profit and market share regardless). And you can't seriously be suggesting profit motive for the Blooms wasn't at issue. Did UA sell better by adding new core rules? Yes. Was that Gary's motivation in including it? Who knows, my guess is yes. And my guess is that Gary would have given his stamp of approval to any crap thrown into it. At that point he was "team player" Gary. Don't let his "I'm the only voice that counts" PR statements fool you. He knew better. He wasn't the only captain of the ship, and to sail forward some compromise was inevitable. Also don't forget, these clowns eventually pushed Gary out completely. Regardless of where you come down on it, Weapons Specialization is clearly a monkey wrench thrown into a system that already worked fine (for the reasons I've already mentioned). And its candy players would gobble up, because it gives them an edge over everyone else (and that edge is not in dispute, as its the reason so many of you girly boys claim you like to use it...too small party sizes and such). I suggest you read the qoute below written by Wheggie. Then you should apply it to your gaming...and your life.

Just for the record, the stats in The Rogues Gallery for Mordenkainen/Robilar/Tenser/Erac’s Cousin/Bigby/Serten were made up by Blume—they weren’t the “real” characters.