Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Falconer wrote:Olivia Hussey.

Oh! The Last Days of Pompeii! I loved it and watched it over and over as a kid. I had a crush on her.

This thread has FINALLY taken a more productive turn.

And Lysette Athony.

Raquel Welch. Bababababababa!

rogatny wrote:This thread has FINALLY taken a more productive turn.

And Lysette Athony.

Hear! Hear!
Although I'd have trouble making a choice between her and Romeo & Juliette-era Olivia Hussey.

The situation will lead to who the most "powerful" character is.

1st level sleep is very powerful....but the caster is usually quite weak at low levels and after the sleep spell is casts the MU better have someone around to guard him.

UA specialization IMO was Gygax trying to generate material to sell more product. It was and is a bad idea. The AD&D strength table bonuses and the fighter hit matrix are all that are really needed.


Now the monk----man, at low levels they are quite weak by any damn standard. At higher levels though, I have found them to be on par with the other characters.

Ska wrote:UA specialization IMO was Gygax trying to generate material to sell more product. It was and is a bad idea.

UA specialization IMO, was Gary following a logical progression for 1e. It was a good idea.

Hey, I could get used to this "IMO" stuff. No facts required.

Well, IMO Gygax made the ultimate game when he created AD&D, but then he couldn't leave well enough alone. Sort of like Lucas with Star Wars.

- Wheggi

Wheggi wrote: Well, IMO Gygax made the ultimate game when he created AD&D, but then he couldn't leave well enough alone. Sort of like Lucas with Star Wars.

Good analogy, there were even some improvements to the original with the digital remastering, just mixed in too much bad.

Wheggi wrote:Well, IMO Gygax made the ultimate game when he created AD&D, but then he couldn't leave well enough alone. Sort of like Lucas with Star Wars.

- Wheggi

You see TRP that is the basic problem. 1E AD&D was perfect for the vast majority of players. Why go screw it up with something most rational players were going to hold their nose at (while the power gamers at the table would wet their seats to get to use). It seems the majority of WS supporters are somewhat Gygax apologists, "if it was his creation it had to be good" right?

And the whole "fighters are to weak" wine is just justification to tinker. So why tinker? To save everyone from a fatally designed 1E (do you pro WS guys really think fighters are too weak)? Or, is it possible.....just possible it was to make money. Thats right, as horrific as a concept as that might be, Gygax may have enjoyed becoming wealthy. Is changing a game thats perfect to make money "selling out"? It is and it isn't. I'd have rather seen Gygax create some new games using 1E rules but in different catagories (Star Wars setting with 1E rules, Horror/CoC with 1E rules, Conan the Barbarian with 1E rules, etc. etc.). The huge mistake TSR made was not adapting 1E rules millions of players were VERY familiar with to make a space game, a horror game etc. Even if it didn't work as well, they would have dominated the market with name brand and ease of use. What would the learning curve be to play "AD&D Star Battles" 30 minutes. Compare that to the games that never took off because they couldn't tap into that existing established 1E market. A lost opportunity seems like an understatement.

AxeMental wrote: You see TRP that is the basic problem. 1E AD&D was perfect for the vast majority of players. Why go screw it up with something half the players were going to hold their nose at like WS. And the whole "fighters are to weak" wine is just justification to tinker. So why tinker? To save everyone from a fatally designed 1E? Or, is it possible.....just possible it was to make money. Thats right, as horrific as a concept as that might be, Gygax may have enjoyed becoming wealthy.

Possible, but unlikely to be the primary motivation in context. Much more probable, given the evidence, is that Gygax enjoyed tinkering and was confident that he could improve on his AD&D design (itself an improvement on OD&D, perhaps).

Matthew, I might agree with that except for all the posts I've read by Gygax reminding people of how much money he made and the accomplishments he had in transforming a basement business into an empire. UA sold well and made TSR alot of money, WS was a big part of that success, as "must have" reason for DMs to buy it. The fact that after this we see more rules revisions over and over suggests this became the template: change rules so people have to buy new hard backs. Even todays Retro publishers say the same thing. Its much more profitable to sell rule books then just modules.

AxeMental wrote:You see TRP that is the basic problem. 1E AD&D was perfect for the vast majority of players. Why go screw it up with something half the players were going to hold their nose at like WS.

So, the half of us that are not holding our noses are playing incorrectly?

That's basically how this dialogue is playing out. SOME of those here that don't like weapon specialization are trying to convince those of that use it, that we shouldn't. Why? What evidence do you have that my game is somehow diminished through the use of this rule? I don't recall seeing you at my dining room table.

I'm not proselytizing that everyone should play with the rule, so what's with the hard-on to get me to change?

Believe it or not, I'm fine playing in games that don't use the rule.

I don't like the extra bookkeeping, it diminishes play time.

As far as I am concerned you are specialized in all the weapons your class is allowed.

TheRedPriest wrote:

AxeMental wrote:You see TRP that is the basic problem. 1E AD&D was perfect for the vast majority of players. Why go screw it up with something half the players were going to hold their nose at like WS.

So, the half of us that are not holding our noses are playing incorrectly?

That's basically how this dialogue is playing out. SOME of those here that don't like weapon specialization are trying to convince those of that use it, that we shouldn't. Why? What evidence do you have that my game is somehow diminished through the use of this rule? I don't recall seeing you at my dining room table.

I'm not proselytizing that everyone should play with the rule, so what's with the hard-on to get me change?

Believe it or not, I'm fine playing in games that don't use the rule.

actually, I'm saying the opposite, you are playing the most recent 1E AD&D, we are not. My point was that it didn't fix the game it broke it, at least for alot of people. And worse still, it managed to infect every table, because on the face it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. Its not until you use it for a few months that you see the problem. But by then its too late, half the players at the table love it the other half hate it. The half that hate it vote to get rid of it, and the table splits (or at least hard feelings develop). UA was the begining of the end of the "Golden Age" of 1E AD&D...and that can be traced back to Weapons Specialization.

AxeMental wrote:UA sold well and made TSR alot of money, WS was a big part of that success, as "must have" reason for DMs to buy it.

You're just shittin' me now. Right? "must have"? The main reason any of us bought UA was because it had weapon specialization as an optional rule? So, you never owned this book or pdf. Right?