Knights & Knaves Alehouse

geneweigel wrote:I've about had enough from this guy's baiting. In order to put this to bed, I'm going to say nothing more ever on it.

Dude, that's laughably sad!

Guy Fullerton wrote:

geneweigel wrote:I've about had enough from this guy's baiting. In order to put this to bed, I'm going to say nothing more ever on it.

Dude, that's laughably sad!

This isn't my website so keep it to yourself.

geneweigel wrote: I'm going to say nothing more ever on it.

Wow... what fun.

Ok, I guess I'll chime in here... Thanks for coming, Zotster... you've given a lot of info that many here (especially myself) didn't know, and we now get to sift it in with what we had heard before, stick it in the oven of our minds, and see what bakes up.

For most of my 47 years on this earth, I have seen that the truth of a situation nearly always lies somewhere between the various sides' descriptions.



Now for the gritty:

Gene, it seems to me most (if not all) of the "baiting" was performed by you, so no sympathy here. I've seen you do it before, and gritted my teeth then, as now.



Zotster... I do play 2E, but definitely prefer 1E, for several reasons. Among these are:
1. the impression I have that most of 2E was intentionally designed with the need for follow-on products to "complete" what was deliberately shorted from the first;
2. the ever-increasing drive to cajole and pressure DMs and players into conforming their game worlds to the official settings (which were designed to be increasingly divergent, thus difficult to "cross-pollinate ideas" with);
3. the increasing tendency to exaggerate the abilities and powers of new races, classes, items, spells, and "optional rules", leading to a more "superhero-like" game. Example: "knockdown"... until the players option books, this had been limited to superhero powers in superhero games and to fire-arms... suddenly every weapon and many spells had "knockdown", and skills could add or increase it as well.

I know you had little (if anything) to do with many of those decisions, but that is the basis for my personal un-liking (dislike would be too strong a word) for Cook's work and design leadership. It extends to his 1E work as well, as that material showed those same tendencies... albeit to a lesser degree.



Guy... I have played 1E since 12/82 (quite a lot through the 1980s), and I must confess I am one of those who completely fails to "get" just why "xp for gp is such a fundamental concept in old school play"

Could you possibly explain this to me and the others here in my situation? Thanks in advance.

m not going to go away, Gene. You don't have to go away either, despite your promise. I'd like you to admit that some things you just make up, but I don't know that you ever will. Truly, honestly, in all sincerity, Gene, Zeb wasn't a backstabbing bastard who conspired to get rid of Gary. He wasn't that sort of person and he didn't have anything approaching that power. Lorraine and the Blumes were all it took, Gene. I was there and while I wasn't in on any inner councils, I caught whiffs of what was going on and I knew the principals personally, at the time it was happening. And things just didn't happen the way you keep saying, Gene, not about Zeb's involvement in it. You don't like what he did with 2e, I understand, totally your right to have any opinion on that you want.

Gary's word will be taken over yours anyday despite your delusional version of a post-Gygax corporation of brotherly love that you're trying to make everyone believe.

I'm crazy? I'm on Gary's side on a supposed pro-Gary website. Go figure!

You're opinion of someone's innocence who you probably owe something to (money?) is pure crap.

Go tell it to the marines.

I've said all I can say, I don't have anymore information to share with this person and his 2e kind around here.

I must confess I am one of those who completely fails to "get" just why "xp for gp is such a fundamental concept in old school play"

I don't see the essence in financial value of portable material objects, although those in the context make eminently appropriate and convenient tokens.

The key is that you've got stocks of XP spread around the map in various amounts, associated (not always in direct proportion) with various difficulties of obtaining them via straightforward means ("killing things and taking their stuff" being the option least demanding of imagination, considering the game-mechanical means at the players' disposal). Different combinations of risk and reward are available.

Players can, with a bit of effort, identify at least approximately and probabilistically what is where. They can choose for themselves what to go after, and how. As the largest sum by far comes from accomplishing the goal, they are free to approach it in a wide variety of ways (including using brains instead of brawn).

In later designs, the emphasis shifts from the objective to the "how" -- especially to rewarding the "killing things" approach. When the scope goes back up to a higher level, it tends to become a matter of rewards determined after the fact by the DM, given to the players rather than taken by them as a consequence of informed choices.

I see the same attitude arise of "giving" players magic items, the assumption that it's up to the DM rather than to the players' initiative and chance.

"knockdown"... until the players option books, this had been limited to superhero powers in superhero games and to fire-arms

I am not familiar with the players option books. However ...

Chivalry & Sorcery (1977) had "bashes". RuneQuest second edition (1979) had "knock-back".

I'm pretty sure there was similar provision in The Fantasy Trip and other games. It was in my experience something D&D referees took into account as the situation seemed to dictate.

Dwayanu wrote:

In later designs, the emphasis shifts from the objective to the "how" -- especially to rewarding the "killing things" approach. When the scope goes back up to a higher level, it tends to become a matter of rewards determined after the fact by the DM, given to the players rather than taken by them as a consequence of informed choices.

Frankly whatever system of reward it will distort the game in someway. If killing monsters and award xp for gold works for your setting then great. However for my AD&D campaign it doesn't. I kept xp for killing things but
I ditched xp for gold in favor of a system that rewarded the players for roleplaying. With roleplaying defined as playing the alignment, background, and achieving the goals of the character. All of which is set by the players themselves not dictated by me. My role in this regard was to judge how well they did.


This is because in my games the adventures often involved poltics, intrigue, and other similar activities that didn't involve the grabbing of loot. I wanted players to do this rather than be focused on looting so I ditched the reward for the one behavior and instituted the reward for the other.

I realize that is inherently more fuzzy and subjective. My system wasn't a fine tooth comb saying you get 100xp for this and 200 xp for that. I instead awarded a factor from 1 to 5 that is multiplied by the base award multiplied by the character's levels. Typically the base was 100 xp the typical factor awarded was a 3. So a first level character that roleplayed as expected would get 3 x 100 = 300 xp. Some campaign I went as low as a base of 50 xp which resulted in a lot of sessions at each level.

BlackBat242 wrote:1. the impression I have that most of 2E was intentionally designed with the need for follow-on products to "complete" what was deliberately shorted from the first;

Before AD&D 2nd Edition there wasn't really a concept of "core rules." There was the game, and that was that. But TSR had the idea, promoted by some fans and by some contemporary games, that a more generic "core" set of rules could then be expanded in whatever direction the players chose, either with supplements or with imagination.

Yes, the executives undoubtedly saw that as a way to sell supplements, but the design decision is a sound one. (It has worked for GURPS since the mid-80s, and GURPS is known for its high-quality supplements.) If you didn't want a supplement, you didn't have to buy it; you wouldn't be "left behind."

2. the ever-increasing drive to cajole and pressure DMs and players into conforming their game worlds to the official settings (which were designed to be increasingly divergent, thus difficult to "cross-pollinate ideas" with);

I never experienced this pressure you speak of. TSR published way too many competing settings, sure (an error by the executives, not by the designers), but their divergence was due to an attempt to be original, not to force you to buy all of them.

3. the increasing tendency to exaggerate the abilities and powers of new races, classes, items, spells, and "optional rules", leading to a more "superhero-like" game. Example: "knockdown"... until the players option books, this had been limited to superhero powers in superhero games and to fire-arms... suddenly every weapon and many spells had "knockdown", and skills could add or increase it as well.

This tendency was part of D&D from the very beginning. Psionics? Method V? The cavalier? AD&D 2nd Edition simply continued that trend.

BlackBat242 wrote:Gene, it seems to me most (if not all) of the "baiting" was performed by you, so no sympathy here. I've seen you do it before, and gritted my teeth then, as now.

Bat, I guess I'm sort of with you on this one. Mike has asked several times for Gene's qualifications and/or background in order to be an expert and Gene comes back with comments that never actually address Mike's questions but instead belittle Mike for even asking. Gene is revered here but I'll be honest that I don't know his background, either. At least Mike can post a large list of gaming products that he's worked on (and many of which I own) and can show that he's been in the industry for years.

Overall, I find it kind of sad that Knights & Knaves Alehouse has been somewhat dormant for months (I check occasionally and not much seems to happen here) and then threads like this explode and posts fly almost faster than I can read them. Honestly, I had no idea that there was so much gamer-hatred here. I always hear about those evil morons at ENWorld and places like that, but I didn't expect to see so much of it here.

Is this supposed to be a "pro-Gary" site? I always thought it was an "old school gaming" site with focus on OD&D and 1E AD&D (which are my favorite editions, by the way) and knew that there was a lot of 3E hatred, but I always assumed that the 1E-2E guys stuck together.

Has the 2E hatred been a part of the K&K manifesto from the start? How could I miss that?

Finarvyn wrote:... Overall, I find it kind of sad that Knights & Knaves Alehouse has been somewhat dormant for months (I check occasionally and not much seems to happen here) and then threads like this explode and posts fly almost faster than I can read them. Honestly, I had no idea that there was so much gamer-hatred here. I always hear about those evil morons at ENWorld and places like that, but I didn't expect to see so much of it here.

Is this supposed to be a "pro-Gary" site? I always thought it was an "old school gaming" site with focus on OD&D and 1E AD&D (which are my favorite editions, by the way) and knew that there was a lot of 3E hatred, but I always assumed that the 1E-2E guys stuck together.

Has the 2E hatred been a part of the K&K manifesto from the start? How could I miss that?

Hey Finarvyn,
I'm thinking there's a ton of us who are watching this thread and enjoying (I think that's the best word ) the information exchange. As a mainly 1E player who had a looooong hiatus from the game, I didn't know a lot of this information... I think this thread is not indicative. And some of the folks who are answering, or requesting clarification, from Mike may appear to be more aggressive than they mean. I could be completely off base too, but as a happy lurker here, it's been a pretty open place before, yes?

BlackBat242 wrote:For most of my 47 years on this earth, I have seen that the truth of a situation nearly always lies somewhere between the various sides' descriptions.

I agree. I've just been trying to present things from a perspective maybe not seen too much here.

BlackBat242 wrote: Zotster... I do play 2E, but definitely prefer 1E, for several reasons. Among these are:
1. the impression I have that most of 2E was intentionally designed with the need for follow-on products to "complete" what was deliberately shorted from the first;
2. the ever-increasing drive to cajole and pressure DMs and players into conforming their game worlds to the official settings (which were designed to be increasingly divergent, thus difficult to "cross-pollinate ideas" with);
3. the increasing tendency to exaggerate the abilities and powers of new races, classes, items, spells, and "optional rules", leading to a more "superhero-like" game. Example: "knockdown"... until the players option books, this had been limited to superhero powers in superhero games and to fire-arms... suddenly every weapon and many spells had "knockdown", and skills could add or increase it as well.

I agree strongly with #1 and #2 but for #3 I just think there was a drive for increasing complexity. It's one of the ways you can be seen to be keeping within established mechanics while attempting to evolve them -- you just add layers of complexity. There are quite a few times working on projects when I wondered who was buying all this stuff, but buy it they did. The increasing complexity and increasing difficulty of new players wrapping their minds around the game bothered me. I think just hearing there were 100s and 100s of pages of rules probably scared off a large number of potential players.

geneweigel wrote: Gary's word will be taken over yours anyday despite your delusional version of a post-Gygax corporation of brotherly love that you're trying to make everyone believe.

Gene, Gene, Gene. As Hans (or was it Franz?) would say, "Hear me now and listen to me later!" I'm not saying there was any brotherly love after Gary left TSR. Heck, the place was run by Lorraine, and I don't know anyone who liked her. Sure Gary's word will be taken over mine any day, but do you have any published quotes from Gary where he said Zeb was part of a conspiracy that ousted him from TSR? Not Lorraine now, but Zeb? If you can't cite any quotes of such from Gary, then please stop claiming that Gary said that. I can see Gary saying he wasn't happy with 2e or OA and I can see you and others taking him at his word, while I would wonder if it was mostly that he was unhappy he wasn't involved more with them. But I'll need to see quotes from Gary saying Zeb booted him out of TSR before I actually believe he said that.

geneweigel wrote: I'm crazy? I'm on Gary's side on a supposed pro-Gary website. Go figure!

Did I call you crazy? I don't recall it but sorry if I did. I do recall asking for some sort of proof of all your claims and asking for you to stop making them if you can't back them up. Is that the same as calling someone crazy?

geneweigel wrote: You're opinion of someone's innocence who you probably owe something to (money?) is pure crap.

Now how does this gibe with your opinions about Zeb? If he was as evil as you're claiming he is, do you think I'd still owe him money after 25 years? No, he would have had some of his large band of thugs come and break my legs after only a week or two. I don't owe Zeb anything but the loyalty I owe any friend or former friend. I haven't seen him since about 1992, when I last saw him at a GenCon. And he wouldn't have been a friend of mine if he was really the monster you make him out to be.

geneweigel wrote: Go tell it to the marines.

They're all in Iraq and Afghanistan, unfortunately. Is there someone else I can tell?

geneweigel wrote: I've said all I can say, I don't have anymore information to share with this person and his 2e kind around here.

Promises, promises.

Zotster wrote:I agree strongly with #1 and #2 but for #3 I just think there was a drive for increasing complexity. It's one of the ways you can be seen to be keeping within established mechanics while attempting to evolve them -- you just add layers of complexity. There are quite a few times working on projects when I wondered who was buying all this stuff, but buy it they did. The increasing complexity and increasing difficulty of new players wrapping their minds around the game bothered me. I think just hearing there were 100s and 100s of pages of rules probably scared off a large number of potential players.

Human intelligence is all about seeing patterns. We're so totally geared to it that without any input our minds will create patterns - hence religion, astrology etc. What some people put down as Asperger's symptoms in gamers is actually just this coming out in another form. Gamers are driven to create mechanics that allow them to grow patterns, just as astronomers once created complex maps of then canals on Mars and theologists create complex rules of how gods work. Or Hamlet's "methinks tis like a weasel". It's just the sign of a mind "ticking over".

Then every so often, a movement starts based on the cry of "this stuff is just crud!" and we get a reformation back to the ground state, where everyone tries to find any actual content that's not just complexity for the sake of it. Then for a while you have a vibrant "old school" movement until people start doing what they always do: adding bits on again. And away we go. It is the nature of our intelligence and I often wonder, should we ever meet any intelligent aliens, would we actually be able to relate to a form of intelligence which was not based on seeing and creating patterns.

Finarvyn wrote: Gene is revered here ...

Really? I personally enjoy his postings .. well, usually but "revered" is pretty strong.

Finarvyn wrote:Is this supposed to be a "pro-Gary" site? I always thought it was an "old school gaming" site with focus on OD&D and 1E AD&D (which are my favorite editions, by the way) and knew that there was a lot of 3E hatred, but I always assumed that the 1E-2E guys stuck together.

I wouldn't say "pro-Gary" in the school girl crush kinda way, but definitely "pro-Gary" in that he created one of the most kickass games of all time, and he gets significant respect for that. Also, some regulars around here knew Gary personally, and liked him alot. So, you can imagine...

Finarvyn wrote:Has the 2E hatred been a part of the K&K manifesto from the start? How could I miss that?

I don't know. 2e is as much off-topic here as 3e & 4e. Have you ever noticed a 2e thread here?

This thread flies, probably, because it's about TSR and not 2e itself.