Knights & Knaves Alehouse

AxeMental wrote:I think a far better solution would have been for new classes that fit those archetypes rather then ruining the "fighter" (aka the well rounded bad ass who can do whatever the hell he likes).

You've got a point, and that point's name is Mythus.

James Maliszewski wrote:To that I can only say, "I guess I'm not as much of a Gygaxian as I used to think I was," and I'm OK with that.

It's cool. What I think for myself is that the word "Gygaxian" is a red herring in and of itself. Gary's works were constantly evolving, and what the vast majority of people believe Gygax thought at any particuler point in time is usually wrong. So in the end, the word "Gygaxian" as it is used by the vast majority of people out there is either a counter-sense, nonsensical, or a completely artificial construct born out of assumptions that are, in many cases, simply incorrect. I prefer to look at Gygax's work as particular instances with their own particular context and meaning, and want to resist the urge to just define some "Gygaxian" characteristics that Gary himself would have disagreed with at any different point in time. That makes the term pretty much useless, I think, beyond the simple meaning of "penned by EGG."

AxeMental wrote:To clarify you believe a 1st level PC gets to feel like a hero wasting 3 orcs as much as a 10th level fighter does killing some dragon, right?

If what you're asking is whether I take as much pride in a 1st-level fighter's ability to take on 1 HD monsters as I am in a high-level fighter's ability to do the same with a dragon, then yes. A big part of the appeal for D&D for me is the sense of progression it provides through its experience system. I like watching a "chump" fighter, if played well and to whom the dice are kind, grow into a potent character over time. I personally like the odds to be a little stacked against a 1st-level PC, since it makes success, should it come, all the sweeter. For me, weapon specialization tilts the balance a little more toward success than I like, but that's just me.

Odhanan wrote:I prefer to look at Gygax's work as particular instances with their own particular context and meaning, and want to resist the urge to just define some "Gygaxian" characteristics that Gary himself would have disagreed with at any different point in time. That makes the term pretty much useless, I think, beyond the simple meaning of "penned by EGG."

I'm inclined to agree, but, given the way that "Gygaxian" gets used round these parts, I'm not sure many others would. I don't personally care one way or another, to be honest. If disagreeing that 1st-level characters are necessarily heroes in the making puts me at odds with "Gygaxian D&D," so be it. I know what I like and what I like is a game where 1st-level PCs stand only slightly above the average man and reaching 2nd level is a real struggle.

James Maliszewski wrote:I'm inclined to agree, but, given the way that "Gygaxian" gets used round these parts, I'm not sure many others would. I don't personally care one way or another, to be honest. If disagreeing that 1st-level characters are necessarily heroes in the making puts me at odds with "Gygaxian D&D," so be it. I know what I like and what I like is a game where 1st-level PCs stand only slightly above the average man and reaching 2nd level is a real struggle.

I have no issue with any of these points, mate.

James Maliszewski wrote: I'm inclined to agree, but, given the way that "Gygaxian" gets used round these parts, I'm not sure many others would. I don't personally care one way or another, to be honest. If disagreeing that 1st-level characters are necessarily heroes in the making puts me at odds with "Gygaxian D&D," so be it. I know what I like and what I like is a game where 1st-level PCs stand only slightly above the average man and reaching 2nd level is a real struggle.

<shrug>

It would be nice to run [A,O]D&D as "Gary Intended". But in the end, I'm more concerned about the way the guys at my table enjoy playing it. Reading the forwards and afterwords in several of his writings, I think that is the way he intended, IMO, anyway.

francisca wrote:But in the end, I'm more concerned about the way the guys at my table enjoy playing it. Reading the forwards and afterwords in several of his writings, I think that is the way he intended, IMO, anyway.

I'm almost certain you're right, but then what would we talk about?

James Maliszewski wrote:I'm almost certain you're right, but then what would we talk about?

Alcohol and heavy metal?

francisca wrote:

James Maliszewski wrote: I'm inclined to agree, but, given the way that "Gygaxian" gets used round these parts, I'm not sure many others would. I don't personally care one way or another, to be honest. If disagreeing that 1st-level characters are necessarily heroes in the making puts me at odds with "Gygaxian D&D," so be it. I know what I like and what I like is a game where 1st-level PCs stand only slightly above the average man and reaching 2nd level is a real struggle.

<shrug>

It would be nice to run [A,O]D&D as "Gary Intended". But in the end, I'm more concerned about the way the guys at my table enjoy playing it. Reading the forwards and afterwords in several of his writings, I think that is the way he intended, IMO, anyway.

An outstanding point - and how I and my players enjoy playing AD&D is 99 percent "by the book" - meaning the books we have and use regularly; which most definitely includes UA.

including:

the option for single class fighters to have weapon specialization
the expanded thief weapons tables
the option for assassins to eventually become neutral (or even - eventually; good;)
among others...

but definitely excluding method V character generation.

So we play "AD&D using the books authored by Gary"...

NOT "PHB only" AD&D

or "AD&D plus a laundry list of inclusions from UA, minus the following list of whats in UA, plus a generous helping of my own house rules... (that likely gimp your character that would have otherwise proven viable and fun to play - just like it was 28 years ago when UA was released full exciting and new (and official additions to the game.)

Playing AD&D "pure PHB style" is great too, dont get me wrong... and if thats your preferred version to play - good for you.

But I and my fellow gamers here paid good money for our UA books.
We LIKE (almost all) the UA additions (yep -weapon spec - and even double weapon spec for first level fighters)
and we consider ourselves BTB players too.

Authored by Gary+published by TSR = AS "OFFICIAL" and "BtB" as it gets.

yep -up to and including Druid/Rangers (as listed as a legal in the Dragon Magazine Official UA errata - and further explained by both Gary and Frank in Dragon #96 and #100, respectively)

francisca wrote:

James Maliszewski wrote: I'm inclined to agree, but, given the way that "Gygaxian" gets used round these parts, I'm not sure many others would. I don't personally care one way or another, to be honest. If disagreeing that 1st-level characters are necessarily heroes in the making puts me at odds with "Gygaxian D&D," so be it. I know what I like and what I like is a game where 1st-level PCs stand only slightly above the average man and reaching 2nd level is a real struggle.

<shrug>

It would be nice to run [A,O]D&D as "Gary Intended". But in the end, I'm more concerned about the way the guys at my table enjoy playing it. Reading the forwards and afterwords in several of his writings, I think that is the way he intended, IMO, anyway.

What Gygax intended and what was produced and sold as 1E AD&D are likely two different things (to some degree). Even if we did discover that Gygax intended x while 1E AD&D turned out y, it wouldn't matter. 1E AD&D clearly was designed (by someone(s)) to produce a sensation of advancement from novice to expert or what have you.

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

James Maliszewski wrote:I'm almost certain you're right, but then what would we talk about?

Alcohol and heavy metal?

Dude. Man Crush.

achijusan wrote:Authored by Gary+published by TSR = AS "OFFICIAL" and "BtB" as it gets.

This may be fodder for a new thread, I don't know, but I'd say that one of the main reasons I don't play AD&D and instead opt for OD&D + bits from the various Supplements and Strategic Review is the question of what's official and what's not. A good portion of the AD&D players I've known in real life (as opposed to online) are of the mindset that "if it's in the books, it's allowed." Now, maybe such people are a small minority of a small minority, but they seem to be common enough in my experience that I no longer try to go against the grain by saying, "I play AD&D but with the following changes ..." For a great many people out there, saying "I play AD&D" brings with it certain expectations about what such a campaign will include, expectations I don't get when I say "I play OD&D."

But, like I said, this may be a better topic for a new thread of its own.

James Maliszewski wrote:

francisca wrote:But in the end, I'm more concerned about the way the guys at my table enjoy playing it. Reading the forwards and afterwords in several of his writings, I think that is the way he intended, IMO, anyway.

I'm almost certain you're right, but then what would we talk about?

You know, after some further consideration, you're right. Most websites like this and certainly most blogs are simply stages for pointless, hyperbole filled, circle-jerkery.

francisca wrote:You know, after some further consideration, you're right. Most websites like this and certainly most blogs are simply stages for pointless, hyperbole filled, circle-jerkery.

I hope you're making a joke here, because I certainly was ...

James Maliszewski wrote:

francisca wrote:You know, after some further consideration, you're right. Most websites like this and certainly most blogs are simply stages for pointless, hyperbole filled, circle-jerkery.

I hope you're making a joke here, because I certainly was ...

Does that help?