Dave Arneson, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, dead at 61
April 9, 2009 9:42 AM Subscribe
Dave Arneson joins Gary Gygax in the Happy Hunting Grounds. Arneson helped develop the original Dungeons and Dragons and was the man who introduced Gygax to the concept of roleplaying. Surely, it's a sad day in Blackmoor.
Fuck. The two of them are responsible for so much of who I am today, for better and worse. At least the group is playing this weekend.
.
posted by khaibit at 9:47 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
posted by khaibit at 9:47 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I hope that this thread goes as well for as the Gygax obit thread did, because that one had me both smiling and crying for about two weeks afterwards.
Dave, I owe more friends and good times to your efforts than I can recall or repay. Thank you. A thousand times, thank you.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:52 AM on April 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
Dave, I owe more friends and good times to your efforts than I can recall or repay. Thank you. A thousand times, thank you.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 9:52 AM on April 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:53 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:53 AM on April 9, 2009
In honor of Arneson, this weekend I will dig out my Basic set, make an elf, and have him slaughtered by some kobolds. I may bury one of my chipped, horrible orange dice in a field. And burn one of those awful 4e books as a sacrifice.
posted by adipocere at 9:54 AM on April 9, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 9:54 AM on April 9, 2009 [6 favorites]
Somewhere in my mother's house, in a box, on a character sheet, Treebark the Ranger puts down his bow, doffs his cap and takes a knee.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:57 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:57 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Y'know, partly spurred by all the good feelings of the Gygax thread, I've actually started playing again (2nd Edition, because, hey, it's what I remember) after about 12 years out. And it's really brought a lot of fun back into my life. So extra double thanks to Arneson, I guess.
posted by COBRA! at 10:03 AM on April 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by COBRA! at 10:03 AM on April 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
Where is my Resurrection Wand +2?
posted by homodigitalis at 10:03 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by homodigitalis at 10:03 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
It's times like these that I wish there was some way I could find a D&D group without my wife finding out and making merciless fun of me.
posted by camcgee at 10:04 AM on April 9, 2009 [8 favorites]
It's times like these that I wish there was some way I could find a D&D group without my wife finding out and making merciless fun of me.
posted by camcgee at 10:04 AM on April 9, 2009 [8 favorites]
Like COBRA! I've also started playing again recently. Having an awesome time at it as well.
posted by josher71 at 10:04 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by josher71 at 10:04 AM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by vibrotronica at 10:07 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by vibrotronica at 10:07 AM on April 9, 2009
Hmm. Always asumed Gygax and Arneson liked one another. I was wrong.
posted by bardic at 10:11 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by bardic at 10:11 AM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:11 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 10:11 AM on April 9, 2009
Wow. I had me some terrible, terrible (great) times in Blackmoor.
Black Khavren rails at the news from his prison cell.
.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:11 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Black Khavren rails at the news from his prison cell.
.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:11 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dave Arneson, RIP at Tor.com - Dude worked on a Zaxxon port? Respect!
posted by Artw at 10:14 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:14 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
Why in this world of nerds do I still know no one who still plays D&D?
And I'm assuming Dave's headed for Elysium but who knows.
posted by GuyZero at 10:14 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Why in this world of nerds do I still know no one who still plays D&D?
And I'm assuming Dave's headed for Elysium but who knows.
posted by GuyZero at 10:14 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am going to run a game of D&D this week. I'll try to make it a tribute to Arnseon's memories.
.
posted by clockworkjoe at 10:19 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
posted by clockworkjoe at 10:19 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I've been jonesing for some D&D for over a year now. What's spurned me on is the Penny Arcade / PvP / Will Wheaton gameplay podcasts (Series 1, Series 2). Unfortunately, I really want to play not run and it seems to me that the only way for game to happen is for me to do the latter.
Dave Arneson really was the soul behind D&D. Sure, it needed a heart like Gygax's to get going, but Arneson really defined the setting and mechanics of the hobby.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:20 AM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
Dave Arneson really was the soul behind D&D. Sure, it needed a heart like Gygax's to get going, but Arneson really defined the setting and mechanics of the hobby.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:20 AM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
.
posted by Lord Widebottom at 10:21 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by Lord Widebottom at 10:21 AM on April 9, 2009
Well, damn and blast. Nobody thought to get a phylactery ready?
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 10:22 AM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 10:22 AM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
And burn one of those awful 4e books as a sacrifice.
There was no 4th edition. There was only one edition.
.
posted by dersins at 10:26 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
There was no 4th edition. There was only one edition.
.
posted by dersins at 10:26 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just watched Futurama's D&D tribute "episode" Bender's Game last week. I never really played D&D, but . anyway.
posted by DU at 10:28 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by DU at 10:28 AM on April 9, 2009
It's been at least 15 years since I've played D&D, but I still keep my original Dungeon Master's guide prominently on my bookshelf.
R.I.P.
posted by HumanComplex at 10:29 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
R.I.P.
posted by HumanComplex at 10:29 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
The man invented "hit points" so even if you've never rolled up a D&D character, if you've enjoyed some form of interactive entertainment with a numerical representation of life force, you are at least somewhat in his debt. Now roll for initiative...
posted by jtron at 10:33 AM on April 9, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by jtron at 10:33 AM on April 9, 2009 [8 favorites]
I didn't comment in the Gygax thread. I did read it though. For me the relationship that I have to the game that these two men created has always been very important. I am a second generation gamer. My father picked up the habit in the military playing strategy miniatures games in the late 1960's and early 1970's. He loves fantasy novels and worlds though, so when Dungeons and Dragons came out the transition to the game was totally natural.
In the early 1980's my parents opened a game shop and stationary store that didn't survive the last economic downturn. The financial stress that it caused was too much for their relationship and they divorced. My mother retained custody of me. My father though was always the one that I was closest to as a young boy. He was good about visiting and taking me places and when he did we often did some sort of activity that centered around my burgeoning love of the hobby. I learned to paint miniatures, portray a character, do complicated arithmetic quickly and in my head and also how to try and argue a point without being offensive to someone; all traits that still serve me well. More importantly though was the shared connection that the game gave us both.
When I moved at eight to a city several hundred miles from my dad, it was the most difficult experience in the world for me. There was therapy sessions and rough patches at school, even fights with friends. My connection with him started to grow more tenuous just from the sheer distance. We no longer were able to talk about the things that I had done that day and had to settle for what was going on that week. As the years passed it grew to what happened that month as his visits to me slowed and he started a new family. My teenage years saw a lot of rebellion on my part and I drifted even further away from my parental units.
When I was of college age though we moved back up North. My mother and stepfather bought a house and I attended school. I also reconnected with my father. At first it was pretty difficult. I would go to his house in the hills and have various meals and maybe talk about his work. Things between us were a bit strained though until I started running a Dungeons and Dragons game for my younger half brothers. Dad was pretty excited about it. He has always been a great artist and started helping by providing hand drawn maps and painted figures. He had long ago given up on the role-playing side of our hobby, but still did other games like Warhammer and such. So through this sharing and reconnecting over something that had formed one of our first bonds we started to find the common ground that had eluded us. We became close again, and we have stayed that way, long since the dice to the game I started with my brothers was put down.
I still play Dungeons and Dragons. I also tell my dad about it during our weekly talks. And, when I need a really awesome looking figure, he mails me one fully painted. So, for me the game that these two created has done a lot to help me in life. I think if you ask my dad he would tell you the same thing.
May you rest in Peace, Dave Arneson. Your work has meant much to many.
posted by skewedoracle at 10:35 AM on April 9, 2009 [40 favorites]
In the early 1980's my parents opened a game shop and stationary store that didn't survive the last economic downturn. The financial stress that it caused was too much for their relationship and they divorced. My mother retained custody of me. My father though was always the one that I was closest to as a young boy. He was good about visiting and taking me places and when he did we often did some sort of activity that centered around my burgeoning love of the hobby. I learned to paint miniatures, portray a character, do complicated arithmetic quickly and in my head and also how to try and argue a point without being offensive to someone; all traits that still serve me well. More importantly though was the shared connection that the game gave us both.
When I moved at eight to a city several hundred miles from my dad, it was the most difficult experience in the world for me. There was therapy sessions and rough patches at school, even fights with friends. My connection with him started to grow more tenuous just from the sheer distance. We no longer were able to talk about the things that I had done that day and had to settle for what was going on that week. As the years passed it grew to what happened that month as his visits to me slowed and he started a new family. My teenage years saw a lot of rebellion on my part and I drifted even further away from my parental units.
When I was of college age though we moved back up North. My mother and stepfather bought a house and I attended school. I also reconnected with my father. At first it was pretty difficult. I would go to his house in the hills and have various meals and maybe talk about his work. Things between us were a bit strained though until I started running a Dungeons and Dragons game for my younger half brothers. Dad was pretty excited about it. He has always been a great artist and started helping by providing hand drawn maps and painted figures. He had long ago given up on the role-playing side of our hobby, but still did other games like Warhammer and such. So through this sharing and reconnecting over something that had formed one of our first bonds we started to find the common ground that had eluded us. We became close again, and we have stayed that way, long since the dice to the game I started with my brothers was put down.
I still play Dungeons and Dragons. I also tell my dad about it during our weekly talks. And, when I need a really awesome looking figure, he mails me one fully painted. So, for me the game that these two created has done a lot to help me in life. I think if you ask my dad he would tell you the same thing.
May you rest in Peace, Dave Arneson. Your work has meant much to many.
posted by skewedoracle at 10:35 AM on April 9, 2009 [40 favorites]
.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:36 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:36 AM on April 9, 2009
Somewhere in my mother's house, in a box, on a character sheet, Treebark the Ranger puts down his bow, doffs his cap and takes a knee.
Indeed.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:39 AM on April 9, 2009
Indeed.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:39 AM on April 9, 2009
I'm very [rolls d20] sad to hear this.
posted by Who_Am_I at 10:40 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Who_Am_I at 10:40 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Some people can go to their graves with the knowledge that they've improved the world, and Dave Arneson was one of those people.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:41 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:41 AM on April 9, 2009
Skewedoracle, your story touched me.
Rest in peace, Arneson and Gygax, you opened a new world to me. When I discovered D&D, I had the same sensation of wonder that I have had when scuba diving and sky diving for the first time. It also hooked me on Sci/Fi Fantasy for life, a love I have now passed on down to my daughters.
posted by prodigalsun at 10:43 AM on April 9, 2009
Rest in peace, Arneson and Gygax, you opened a new world to me. When I discovered D&D, I had the same sensation of wonder that I have had when scuba diving and sky diving for the first time. It also hooked me on Sci/Fi Fantasy for life, a love I have now passed on down to my daughters.
posted by prodigalsun at 10:43 AM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 10:43 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by CrunchyFrog at 10:43 AM on April 9, 2009
. [wow - having all your hero's begin to leave this plane is really depressing]
posted by jkaczor at 10:44 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by jkaczor at 10:44 AM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:49 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:49 AM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by schyler523 at 11:00 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by schyler523 at 11:00 AM on April 9, 2009
Wynn the irresponsible half-elf ranger with a drinking problem hasn't seen battle since Senior Year. I think it's time he came out of forced retirement.
posted by The Whelk at 11:04 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by The Whelk at 11:04 AM on April 9, 2009
He was teaching in the game department at Full Sail when I was going there for film. I never met him but his reputation was that he was very friendly, approachable, and prone to random gifts of first-gen RPG stuff.
posted by jtron at 11:07 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by jtron at 11:07 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm sort of surpised local news hasn't really picked up on this in the Twin Cities, where Dave was from and where he created the games that bridged the gap between tactical simulations and role-playing games and where he died.
Guess there are less nerds in the local news than I thought. I put in on MnSpeak. Maybe others will pick it up. Arneson really did contribute something significant to American culture, even if people outside of gaming circles don't know his name and don't really get it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:14 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Guess there are less nerds in the local news than I thought. I put in on MnSpeak. Maybe others will pick it up. Arneson really did contribute something significant to American culture, even if people outside of gaming circles don't know his name and don't really get it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:14 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:23 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:23 AM on April 9, 2009
Dave Arneson was the first role-player. Here's an excerpt from an article about Braunstein, the proto-rpg:
posted by Kattullus at 11:27 AM on April 9, 2009 [17 favorites]
On paper Braunstein 4 looked like a wargame or a boardgame. Most of the players controlled units (army, the inland navy or the secret police) and filled out order sheets to send them places each turn. Want to take over the radio station? Send some soldiers!"Final score: Dave Arneson, plus several thousand points."
And it might have stayed that way, except for the nefarious wiles of one player: Dave Arneson.
Dave Arneson: Gamer Ex Nihilo
“Peaceful revolutionary. Gets points for printing and delivering leaflets to each of his revolutionaries, and more for handing them out to other civilians (who may be agents or guerrillas of course…). Starts at home. (B-4)”
–Braunstein 4, Banana Republic
When you started gaming you read all these books, and they told you you could be a cleric or a thief or an elf (or a vampire or a Prince of Amber) and they told you you should probably pick a caller and set up a marching order and listen at doors and all that other stuff. You marched your character around and talked in funny voices. Sooner or later you may have realized that the rules didn’t drive the game, your imagination did.
But what if you never had any of those books? What if no one had ever explained to you what roleplaying was? Were you a good enough gamer to become a gamer without even knowing what a gamer was? Could you have just started being a gamer out of thin air, without anyone ever telling you how to do it?
Dave Arneson did.
He lied, swindled, improvised, and played his character to the hilt. He came to the game with fake CIA ID he’d mocked up, so when another player “captured” and searched him he could whip them out. Other players were still moving pieces around the board and issuing orders like a wargame while Dave Arneson was running circles around them and changing the whole scenario. He was winning the game entirely by roleplaying.
You may think of Dave Arneson as one of the godfathers of GMing, but even before that he was the godfather of players. He was, literally, the proto-player.
Modern Gamers: Teach Your Grandmother to Suck Eggs
“You’re the student revolutionary leader,” Wesely says “You get victory points for distributing revolutionary leaflets. You’ve got a whole briefcase full of them.”
Much later, having convinced his fellow players that he is really, perhaps, an undercover CIA operative, and that the entire nation’s treasury is really much safer in his hands, Dave Arneson’s character is politely ushered aboard a helicopter to whisk him to safety.
Far below the streets are still churning with fighting, plastic soldiers colliding with innocent citizens and angry rioters. In his lap sits the forgotten briefcase of revolutionary leaflets. “I get points for distributing these right?” And with a sweep of his arm he adds insult to injury, hurling reams of pages into the downdraft of the helicopter where they scatter and float lazily down upon the entire town…
Final score: Dave Arneson, plus several thousand points
Big whoop, you say, this is all old timey stuff. We modern gamers are way beyond dungeon crawls and listening at doors and all that primitive stuff. We have indie games and story games and narrative control and yadda yadda yadda.
Yes indeed. But even skipping the “standing on the shoulders of giants” argument or the “know your roots” argument, look again at what happened in that game: Dave Arneson was winning entirely by roleplaying. He isn’t doing tactical combat or playing some dumb-ass linear quest, he is making his own rules and being, for lack of a better word, an excellent player by any modern definition. He is making the game.
Don’t think Dave Arneson would kick your ass in some Sorcerer or Dogs In The Vineyard? Then you haven’t been paying attention. He would, as the kids say, take you to the net.
Modern gamers are pushing into new territory, but they’re also reclaiming old territory whether they know it not — the lands of their ancestors. If you’re an indie gamer or an avant garde gaming revolutionary, old school titans like Dave Arneson and Major Wesely are your peeps. They were trying things that had never been done before in their day too. They are your guys.
posted by Kattullus at 11:27 AM on April 9, 2009 [17 favorites]
.
[pours out an invisibility potion] See you at the crossroads, homey.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:36 AM on April 9, 2009
[pours out an invisibility potion] See you at the crossroads, homey.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:36 AM on April 9, 2009
.
"It's times like these that I wish there was some way I could find a D&D group without my wife finding out and making merciless fun of me."
Tell her you joined a bowling league?
posted by Mitheral at 11:38 AM on April 9, 2009
"It's times like these that I wish there was some way I could find a D&D group without my wife finding out and making merciless fun of me."
Tell her you joined a bowling league?
posted by Mitheral at 11:38 AM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by georg_cantor at 11:40 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by georg_cantor at 11:40 AM on April 9, 2009
Once, we killed a huge demonic badger-looking thing the GM found in the 3rd edition Monster Manual. We hauled it to the nearest city, had it stuffed and mounted onto a wagon platform and put on a set of wheels. We brought it with us, and called it Scampers; we included it in watches ("I'll sleep now and memorize spells, Scampers is on watch"); we carefully considered its place in our marching order; we rolled initiative for it ("Scampers goes first! As usual, he just sits there for a full-turn action.") I'm pretty sure we used him as a battering ram at some point. I can't tell you what my Cleric's name was, but I can tell you that Scampers was once kidnapped by kobolds and worshiped as a god until our rescue operation.
I guess my point is, sometimes you live on long beyond your mortal time, bringing joy to others, even if you don't know it and never can, because you're stuffed and mounted to a wooden platform.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:43 AM on April 9, 2009 [26 favorites]
I guess my point is, sometimes you live on long beyond your mortal time, bringing joy to others, even if you don't know it and never can, because you're stuffed and mounted to a wooden platform.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:43 AM on April 9, 2009 [26 favorites]
I'm going to blow whatever little bit of nerd cred I may have gained here and say I've never played D&D. But the Gygax thread is one of my favorite Metafilter threads, I really enjoy reading about things like this that were so important and influential to people as kids. I mean, I'm sorry these guys died, but these are some good conversations.
Main reason I butted my head in here was to link to one of my all-time favorite comments here in case anybody missed it the first time around.
posted by marxchivist at 11:51 AM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
Main reason I butted my head in here was to link to one of my all-time favorite comments here in case anybody missed it the first time around.
posted by marxchivist at 11:51 AM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm just going to throw this out here, as one of those nerds cough former DND, AD&D 1/2 players who can't seem to find anyone thick enough locally to run a campaign.... would a remote campaign be feasible? Skype or Ventrillo? Yeah, enh, I guess not seeing the dice kinda stinks.. I dunno.. just wafflin ideas... with syrup..
posted by cavalier at 11:55 AM on April 9, 2009
posted by cavalier at 11:55 AM on April 9, 2009
Cavalier-
There are a lot of tools for remote campaigns. I'm pretty smitten with maptool. Check out the forums to get some idea of what it can do. We've used it in my weekly game when one of the players was sick and couldn't make it, but I know others are using it to run whole campaigns remotely.
posted by gofargogo at 11:59 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
There are a lot of tools for remote campaigns. I'm pretty smitten with maptool. Check out the forums to get some idea of what it can do. We've used it in my weekly game when one of the players was sick and couldn't make it, but I know others are using it to run whole campaigns remotely.
posted by gofargogo at 11:59 AM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
cavalier, as you might imagine, the internet being what it is, there are a ton of applications to facilitate this kind of gameplay and a lot of it going on. I'm not sure what the good ones are, but if you have a look, you'll no doubt find some pretty easily.
posted by picea at 12:00 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by picea at 12:00 PM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by Benjamin Nushmutt at 12:05 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Benjamin Nushmutt at 12:05 PM on April 9, 2009
I've just jumped back into a campaign. This one's for you, Dave.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:34 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:34 PM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by Smart Dalek at 12:35 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Smart Dalek at 12:35 PM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by Bovine Love at 12:36 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Bovine Love at 12:36 PM on April 9, 2009
After reading that he passed comfortably and peacefully with his family, I've decided to reluctantly hang my +2 bastard sword Lifebane back on the wall.
It seems pretty clear that his death does not need avenging.
Small, But I swear, if I find out there were goblins involved, villages will burn...
posted by quin at 12:43 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
It seems pretty clear that his death does not need avenging.
Small, But I swear, if I find out there were goblins involved, villages will burn...
posted by quin at 12:43 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
if I find out there were goblins involved, villages will burn...
Yes, where will my children learn about genocide now that Arneson's gone?
ducks, runs for cover
posted by GuyZero at 12:47 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yes, where will my children learn about genocide now that Arneson's gone?
ducks, runs for cover
posted by GuyZero at 12:47 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
.
posted by Mintyblonde at 12:51 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Mintyblonde at 12:51 PM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by DetonatedManiac at 12:58 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by DetonatedManiac at 12:58 PM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by Richard Daly at 12:58 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Richard Daly at 12:58 PM on April 9, 2009
GuyZero: Yes, where will my children learn about genocide now that Arneson's gone?
I made a Race in D&D post to MetaFilter so I know what you're saying but dropping into Dave Arneson's obituary thread to take a swipe at him for this is ill-informed and insensitve.
posted by Kattullus at 1:03 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
I made a Race in D&D post to MetaFilter so I know what you're saying but dropping into Dave Arneson's obituary thread to take a swipe at him for this is ill-informed and insensitve.
posted by Kattullus at 1:03 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
Cavalier, I'd also recommend dndonline. It's play by post. Not the same as tabletop but fun in it's own way. Seems to be down right now but that should be temporary.
posted by Lokisbane at 1:03 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Lokisbane at 1:03 PM on April 9, 2009
After Gygax bit it, I picked up a bunch of 3rd edition books and started the Domes Gary Gygax Memorial D&D Dungeon Crawl in the community I live in. We started with myself plus three players, just a little over a year ago. It was the first time I had played an RPG in five years, in spite of playing throughout my youth. We never actually made it to the infinite random dungeon I had planned on, getting caught up in some local conflict between a logging operation and a band of goblins trying to protect the forests. More community members heard about it, and wanted to get in on the fun. A year later, the game is still going. We have a rotation of dungeon masters, and there are enough players that we (usually) have two concurrent games running. It's awesomely fun.
So if you want people to play with, I suggest running a game until your friends are so attached that they're willing and ready to run a game themselves.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:12 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
So if you want people to play with, I suggest running a game until your friends are so attached that they're willing and ready to run a game themselves.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:12 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Kattullus, it is meant as a joke and nothing more. I understand it may not be tasteful to do so, but with the mention of burning goblin village I had a moment of weakness. I absolutely do not think that either Gygax or Arneson has anything in mind when they built their game other than epic fantasy battles that were totally awesome. A questionable joke aside, believe me when I say that I have nothing but love for this man and every single thing he ever did (well, that I know of anyway).
posted by GuyZero at 1:15 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by GuyZero at 1:15 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Here's a site for The Great Svenny, one of the original characters in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. That makes this one of the very, very first role-playing game characters.
posted by Kattullus at 1:18 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Kattullus at 1:18 PM on April 9, 2009
Cheers Dave. The the hobby is full of unsung, messy, crazed geniuses, but you were the first. You had the golden idea, you beautiful gonzo bastard.
Maybe you never hot tubbed with Miss Beverly Hills but I respect you a lot more for keeping the sun rising and setting over Blackmoor all this time.
posted by fleacircus at 1:30 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
Maybe you never hot tubbed with Miss Beverly Hills but I respect you a lot more for keeping the sun rising and setting over Blackmoor all this time.
posted by fleacircus at 1:30 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
Man. What a blow. I knew he was ill, and that this was soon to come, but this is hard. I know someone who actually has one of the first generation rule sets, on old style xerox copies, which are hand written. I learned to play from 3rd hand 2nd ed books I bought at a Goodwill store, before I even had friends to play with. This hurts.
You know you are getting old when your heroes are starting to die.
posted by strixus at 1:39 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
You know you are getting old when your heroes are starting to die.
posted by strixus at 1:39 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
but with the mention of burning goblin village I had a moment of weakness.
Sorry about that. I suppose the joke is amusing only if you have context. In one of the games that we played, the goblins were a peaceful and industrious group who were the constant victims of raids from bloodthirsty outsiders.
Which is to say... us.
We were the bad guys, the goblins were just villagers who suffered in our presence.
One of the things that I always loved about the game was that it was built in such a way that, using the same rules as everyone else, we could play it as villains, constantly on the run from those heroic, chivalrous figures trying to defend their kingdoms.
Basically, his games showed us that creativity could be its own reward.
posted by quin at 1:43 PM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]
Sorry about that. I suppose the joke is amusing only if you have context. In one of the games that we played, the goblins were a peaceful and industrious group who were the constant victims of raids from bloodthirsty outsiders.
Which is to say... us.
We were the bad guys, the goblins were just villagers who suffered in our presence.
One of the things that I always loved about the game was that it was built in such a way that, using the same rules as everyone else, we could play it as villains, constantly on the run from those heroic, chivalrous figures trying to defend their kingdoms.
Basically, his games showed us that creativity could be its own reward.
posted by quin at 1:43 PM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]
I once brought my D&D group to my mother's house to play a short game. She took one look at them and was sure I was on drugs. We had THAT talk, they were banned from her house, and I did not even try drugs for a couple of years more.
What I am trying to say, it is thanks to D&D that I started hanging out with people outside my little sheltered corner of the world. There was the philosophy professor, the professional illustrator (a girl!), the bikeless bike messenger (he rode buses) with the Mohawk and the tattoos, the gun nut who dressed in camo, the 12 year old kids and the old dudes (30+) with families.
D&D showed me how much life is like an RPG. Chose your character, play it to the hilt, and if you don't like it any more, you can always roll again.
.
posted by dirty lies at 1:52 PM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]
What I am trying to say, it is thanks to D&D that I started hanging out with people outside my little sheltered corner of the world. There was the philosophy professor, the professional illustrator (a girl!), the bikeless bike messenger (he rode buses) with the Mohawk and the tattoos, the gun nut who dressed in camo, the 12 year old kids and the old dudes (30+) with families.
D&D showed me how much life is like an RPG. Chose your character, play it to the hilt, and if you don't like it any more, you can always roll again.
.
posted by dirty lies at 1:52 PM on April 9, 2009 [3 favorites]
D&D. I think most roleplayers over a certain age got their start with D&D.
There were good times to be had there. Kick in the door, kill the ugly people and take their stuff, then go back to the tavern (there is always a tavern) and kick back.
I've mostly stopped playing D&D, its almost all GURPS for me these days, but it was D&D that got me started.
It was also D&D that, back in the bad old days of dial up modems and local BBS services, got me out of the house to play with a guy I met on a BBS. He was the DJ for a local strip club and I, at age 15, achieved the dream of many young nerds: I played D&D, not merely with girls, but with strippers. Ok, so they were fully clothed the entire time I was there, but that's not the point when you're a 15 year old geek, the point is that they were strippers and I played D&D with them.
So thanks for all the good times, both with and without strippers, Mr. Arneson.
posted by sotonohito at 2:12 PM on April 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
There were good times to be had there. Kick in the door, kill the ugly people and take their stuff, then go back to the tavern (there is always a tavern) and kick back.
I've mostly stopped playing D&D, its almost all GURPS for me these days, but it was D&D that got me started.
It was also D&D that, back in the bad old days of dial up modems and local BBS services, got me out of the house to play with a guy I met on a BBS. He was the DJ for a local strip club and I, at age 15, achieved the dream of many young nerds: I played D&D, not merely with girls, but with strippers. Ok, so they were fully clothed the entire time I was there, but that's not the point when you're a 15 year old geek, the point is that they were strippers and I played D&D with them.
So thanks for all the good times, both with and without strippers, Mr. Arneson.
posted by sotonohito at 2:12 PM on April 9, 2009 [5 favorites]
.
posted by GoodDesign at 2:23 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by GoodDesign at 2:23 PM on April 9, 2009
The Gygax thread was before daily favourite limits, wasn't it? I'm gonna put it to the test here for sure...
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:35 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:35 PM on April 9, 2009
Wow, sotonohito, you did live the dream. My hat is off to you.
posted by Lokisbane at 3:35 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Lokisbane at 3:35 PM on April 9, 2009
I played D&D, not merely with girls, but with strippers.
Would you characterize these strippers more as slovenly trulls, or brazen strumpets? Or would you say they might be cheap trollops? Perhaps saucy tarts? Or wanton wenches? Maybe the occasional haughty courtesan or expensive doxy? Or were they more the typical streetwalker type? Was there a den-motherly aged madam or wealthy procuress about? And would you say your DJ friend was more of a sly pimp, or was he the rich panderer type?
posted by dersins at 3:41 PM on April 9, 2009 [10 favorites]
Would you characterize these strippers more as slovenly trulls, or brazen strumpets? Or would you say they might be cheap trollops? Perhaps saucy tarts? Or wanton wenches? Maybe the occasional haughty courtesan or expensive doxy? Or were they more the typical streetwalker type? Was there a den-motherly aged madam or wealthy procuress about? And would you say your DJ friend was more of a sly pimp, or was he the rich panderer type?
posted by dersins at 3:41 PM on April 9, 2009 [10 favorites]
.
posted by graymouser at 3:46 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by graymouser at 3:46 PM on April 9, 2009
The name of the Happy Hunting Grounds always struck me as odd. It's the only plane whose name indicates an emotion.
posted by LSK at 4:02 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by LSK at 4:02 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
posted by homunculus at 5:06 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by homunculus at 5:06 PM on April 9, 2009
.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:11 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:11 PM on April 9, 2009
Kick in the door, kill the ugly people and take their stuff, then go back to the tavern (there is always a tavern) and kick back.
A lot of people mistake the juvenile D&D they played as juveniles for something inherent in the game itself. You get out of the game what you bring to the game, and it doesn't matter if it's D&D, GURPS, or Mouse Guard.
Unless you're talking about 3E/D20 in which case, yeah, that piece of shit system's not good for nothin'.
posted by fleacircus at 5:20 PM on April 9, 2009
A lot of people mistake the juvenile D&D they played as juveniles for something inherent in the game itself. You get out of the game what you bring to the game, and it doesn't matter if it's D&D, GURPS, or Mouse Guard.
Unless you're talking about 3E/D20 in which case, yeah, that piece of shit system's not good for nothin'.
posted by fleacircus at 5:20 PM on April 9, 2009
I actually found out about this via Order of the Stick.
I wish I still had my dice, so I could roll a d20 in his honour.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:32 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I wish I still had my dice, so I could roll a d20 in his honour.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:32 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I've been playing off and on for 25 years. Mostly D&D but a good sprinkling of other systems (Torg, GURPS, Parinoia, Amber) along the way.
Ever since I started my father has been asking me when I got back from a game "Who won?" And I've been trying to explain that it isn't a game you win per se. I think that in the last couple of years he's got the concept but he doesn't really understand why I'd bother to play a game no one wins.
So thanks Dave for helping me to learn co-operative play and getting me started on trips to other worlds; Fantasy, historical and Sci-Fi.
posted by Mitheral at 5:39 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ever since I started my father has been asking me when I got back from a game "Who won?" And I've been trying to explain that it isn't a game you win per se. I think that in the last couple of years he's got the concept but he doesn't really understand why I'd bother to play a game no one wins.
So thanks Dave for helping me to learn co-operative play and getting me started on trips to other worlds; Fantasy, historical and Sci-Fi.
posted by Mitheral at 5:39 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is sad. I haven't touched a die in years, but still have some 1st and 2nd edition rule books kicking around...and fond memories of my first ever trip to the Keep on the Borderlands.
posted by never used baby shoes at 6:10 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by never used baby shoes at 6:10 PM on April 9, 2009
I wonder how young I can start my son with some D&D... :)
posted by Cathedral at 7:02 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by Cathedral at 7:02 PM on April 9, 2009
I remember playing in an intense campaign at summer camp. We were in the middle of a very, very fierce battle with some monster the DM had created that we were totally groving on, when a spider crawled into the pile of dice. We went from warrior heroes to OMG KILL IT KILL IT KILL IT in about 1 nano-second.
It was awesome.
.
posted by tzikeh at 7:32 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
It was awesome.
.
posted by tzikeh at 7:32 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
grooving on. Groving on sounds like planting trees. We were not planting trees. But goddamn that spider had us backing away from the table in total "flee in terror" mode.
posted by tzikeh at 7:33 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by tzikeh at 7:33 PM on April 9, 2009
Please come back in spirit form and free D&D from Wizards.
.
posted by dopamine at 7:36 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
posted by dopamine at 7:36 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
.
For creating what would somehow lead to MTG... you and Gary, Peace.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:53 PM on April 9, 2009
For creating what would somehow lead to MTG... you and Gary, Peace.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:53 PM on April 9, 2009
I wish I had something clever to say but I don't.
posted by sandraregina at 8:15 PM on April 9, 2009
posted by sandraregina at 8:15 PM on April 9, 2009
2nd Ed AD&D was a terrible and extremely rigid system, and your criticisms of newer versions as being glorified combat engines are due to the fact that you were far more creative in high school and far happier to just make things up, and are romanticizing the past.
...just sayin'.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:18 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
...just sayin'.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:18 PM on April 9, 2009 [2 favorites]
.
Started with 2nd edition, played 3, 3.5 and 4 and now I'm rocking the GURPS4e. Thanks for the many hours of creativity and fond memories.
posted by incompressible at 10:35 PM on April 9, 2009
Started with 2nd edition, played 3, 3.5 and 4 and now I'm rocking the GURPS4e. Thanks for the many hours of creativity and fond memories.
posted by incompressible at 10:35 PM on April 9, 2009
and your criticisms of newer versions as being glorified combat engines are due to the fact that you were far more creative in high school and far happier to just make things up,
I know I was (although it was mostly late-elementary and middle school, for me.) I don't have any personal playing experience with anything past 2nd ed., and I'm sure feats are fun and everything, but we just winged it if there wasn't a rule for what we wanted to do. The rules were just a framework. The flexibility was in our heads.
and are romanticizing the past.
I'm guilty of that too. And with good reason.
Thank you, Dave Arneson.
posted by Cyrano at 11:31 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
I know I was (although it was mostly late-elementary and middle school, for me.) I don't have any personal playing experience with anything past 2nd ed., and I'm sure feats are fun and everything, but we just winged it if there wasn't a rule for what we wanted to do. The rules were just a framework. The flexibility was in our heads.
and are romanticizing the past.
I'm guilty of that too. And with good reason.
Thank you, Dave Arneson.
posted by Cyrano at 11:31 PM on April 9, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dammit, and I can barely participate due to a broken laptop power cord. I'm typing this on a USB keyboard through Wii Opera, that should give you some idea how strongly I mean what I'm about to say:
If you want to pay tribute to Arneson, please do not do it playing 4th edition. It's not that it's a bad game, it's that it's really not Dungeons & Dragons.
I've come around to thinking that you can only really understand the mood of classic D&D, as intended by Arneson and Gygax, if you read some of the suggested inspirational reading in the AD&D DM's guide. (Want to know why Vancian magic is beyond cool? Read "The Dying Earth" by Jack Vance.)
These days, D&D is nothing more than a brand name, exploited by that most ruthless exploiter of brand names, Hasbro. OD&D and 1st edition bear amazingly literate mechanics. 4th edition reads like a tone-deaf mix of World of Warcraft and all the worst D&D novels.
posted by JHarris at 1:12 AM on April 10, 2009 [5 favorites]
If you want to pay tribute to Arneson, please do not do it playing 4th edition. It's not that it's a bad game, it's that it's really not Dungeons & Dragons.
I've come around to thinking that you can only really understand the mood of classic D&D, as intended by Arneson and Gygax, if you read some of the suggested inspirational reading in the AD&D DM's guide. (Want to know why Vancian magic is beyond cool? Read "The Dying Earth" by Jack Vance.)
These days, D&D is nothing more than a brand name, exploited by that most ruthless exploiter of brand names, Hasbro. OD&D and 1st edition bear amazingly literate mechanics. 4th edition reads like a tone-deaf mix of World of Warcraft and all the worst D&D novels.
posted by JHarris at 1:12 AM on April 10, 2009 [5 favorites]
I count myself lucky to have played D&D with Dave Arneson once. I was at a gaming convention, and he was a featured guest. As part of a charity fundraising auction to raise money for a local literacy group, four seats at Dave's D&D table were auctioned off. I paid $100 for mine.
I remember nervously asking "Mr. Arneson" the night before what rules we were using and whether I needed to roll up a character. The first thing he said was just to call him "Dave." The second was that he'd have characters we could use. And finally he held up this battered, ancient-looking Rules Cyclopedia and said between that and what he had in his head, we didn't need any books.
I don't remember much about the game the next day, except for the fact that it went by way too fast. I do remember how friendly and funny Dave was, how he was great about posing for pictures, and how he signed my character sheet and told me that the next time we played, I would be second level.
Thanks, Dave. That was the best $100 I ever spent.
posted by Shoggoth at 4:07 AM on April 10, 2009 [6 favorites]
I remember nervously asking "Mr. Arneson" the night before what rules we were using and whether I needed to roll up a character. The first thing he said was just to call him "Dave." The second was that he'd have characters we could use. And finally he held up this battered, ancient-looking Rules Cyclopedia and said between that and what he had in his head, we didn't need any books.
I don't remember much about the game the next day, except for the fact that it went by way too fast. I do remember how friendly and funny Dave was, how he was great about posing for pictures, and how he signed my character sheet and told me that the next time we played, I would be second level.
Thanks, Dave. That was the best $100 I ever spent.
posted by Shoggoth at 4:07 AM on April 10, 2009 [6 favorites]
(I do have to say, now that I'm back on the Lappy, that Pope Guilty is right about 2nd edition. 3rd isn't bad and is definitely easier to learn than 1st edition.)
posted by JHarris at 9:56 AM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by JHarris at 9:56 AM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Read "The Dying Earth" by Jack Vance.
So my copy has been sitting on my bedside table ever since I re-read it a few months ago. I dunno - it's quite obvious how it influenced the game, but as far as fantasy novels go I'm not so sure if so far up there. If you didn't know better you'd probably assume it was inspired by D&D, not the other way around. From a literary standpoint Vancian magic is kind of dull and arbitrary; as a game balance mechanic it was probably one of the most important elements of the game.
posted by GuyZero at 10:04 AM on April 10, 2009
So my copy has been sitting on my bedside table ever since I re-read it a few months ago. I dunno - it's quite obvious how it influenced the game, but as far as fantasy novels go I'm not so sure if so far up there. If you didn't know better you'd probably assume it was inspired by D&D, not the other way around. From a literary standpoint Vancian magic is kind of dull and arbitrary; as a game balance mechanic it was probably one of the most important elements of the game.
posted by GuyZero at 10:04 AM on April 10, 2009
I flat-out don't understand the MMO criticism of fourth edition.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:59 AM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:59 AM on April 10, 2009 [1 favorite]
Comics taught me to read, but D&D taught me math, proble-solving and a whole lot about group dynamics.
I'm another one who's life was immensely influenced by this man.
.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:22 PM on April 10, 2009
I'm another one who's life was immensely influenced by this man.
.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:22 PM on April 10, 2009
.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:18 PM on April 10, 2009
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:18 PM on April 10, 2009
Pope Guilty: My complaint concerning D&D4 being like WoW was geared towards how it was written, not its play mechanics.
But it DOES have some things in common with MMORPGs, and I think they weaken the game. The root change is the further divorcing of D&D from the fantasy literature that inspired it, moving it more towards the heavy combat-oriented play found in MMORPGs. In particular, it has to do with:
1. How all the classes have been reworked to fit, not fantasy literature archetypes, but combat party roles: you have tanks, healers, melee characters and area-effect attackers.
2. Combat play has been moved into the heart of the game. What was strongly encouraged in 3rd edition, the use of a grid and miniatures to represent battlefields, has become essential.
3. Another change that 3rd edition began: the game has also become "crunchier," using die rolling and atomic actions like "backstabbing" and "searching for traps," instead of having players interact with a DM-provided description of a scene.
4. Related to this, a character's abilities have been further moved away from whatever a person could do in that situation (jumping on tables, swinging from chandeliers, sneaking up behind an orc, putting your hands over his eyes and saying "Guess who?") to a number of "actions" that the player is encouraged to think of that character's moveset. (Yes, this also began in 3rd edition.)
5. While the purpose of the character classes has, as stated above, been moved away from fantasy archetypes and towards MMORPG combat archetypes, additionally a number of new classes have been added. These are generally not literary in origin, further divorcing the simulation away from reality, and often sounding like something out of Diablo. (This is a bad thing.)
6. In my opinion the worst change: the mechanics of all the classes have been regularised and brought into the same action framework. That is to say, while mages still cast spells, those spells fit into the same ability framework used for all the other characters. Everyone has abilities they can use once an adventure, once per encounter, and so on, limited by frequency. (This is similar to how monster powers have been handled in prior editions.) Mages no longer memorize spells, but have specific powers that have X uses in Y time. Further, fighter-types also use this framework to control their powers, even though it makes much less sense for them. (Also, they're called "exploits," which is even a worse name for them than "feats" was for 3rd edition add-on abilities.) This is similar to the way special abilities are partitioned in MMORPGs, where the underlying similarity aids both in balancing characters against each other in combat (the only type of action that means anything in the great majority of MMORPGs) and in fitting their options into a UI that must serve all character types.
GuyZero:
The cool things about Vancian magic, in my opinion, are:
- It is a kind of lost technology, a relic of long-dead civilizations.
- It must be carefully preserved or it will be lost to the ages.
- On the other hand, it is so powerful that mages do not spread their spell knowledge around, so as to preserve advantage over other mages.
- It is limited. Dying Earth mages cannot memorise many spells at once.
- It often carries the name of the inventing mage, further linking spells to bygone ages and people such as Phandaal the Archmage.
- It is flexible; there are a great many different kinds of spells for a great many kinds of situations. A mage must judge ahead of time what kinds of spells he'll need so as to have them ready should the situation demand them.
- Finally, and this is something D&D lost sight of as soon as 1st edition, it doesn't make the practitioner weak in other ways. Vance's mages were anything but bookish aesthetes. They went out and did things, and they would as often use their own strength and wit to do things as a memorized spell. A OD&D mage has as many hit points as a fighter, and can use nearly all the same weapons, very much like a Dying Earth magician. This is important because, at low levels in 1st ed. AD&D and later, a mage can wear barely any armor, can only use the weakest weapons, and additionally gets a scant d4 hit points per level, but additionally gets very few spells! A wizard is nearly entirely dead weight at 1st level, unable to wade into battle without getting killed in a single attack, but unable to use more than a single spell (unless he's got high intelligence) before having to rest. OD&D wizards were more physically powerful, and so were Vance magicians.
I did not mean to imply, by the way, that Dying Earth was extremely great fiction. I like it a lot, it's got great atmosphere, and is highly imaginative, but as a cohesive work it's a bit lacking. All of the Dying Earth books take the form of assorted stories that are only loosely tied together, if at all, and characters who you grow interested in suddenly leave the books, never to return. But as a collection of short fantasy stories, I think they're marvellous.
posted by JHarris at 1:41 AM on April 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
But it DOES have some things in common with MMORPGs, and I think they weaken the game. The root change is the further divorcing of D&D from the fantasy literature that inspired it, moving it more towards the heavy combat-oriented play found in MMORPGs. In particular, it has to do with:
1. How all the classes have been reworked to fit, not fantasy literature archetypes, but combat party roles: you have tanks, healers, melee characters and area-effect attackers.
2. Combat play has been moved into the heart of the game. What was strongly encouraged in 3rd edition, the use of a grid and miniatures to represent battlefields, has become essential.
3. Another change that 3rd edition began: the game has also become "crunchier," using die rolling and atomic actions like "backstabbing" and "searching for traps," instead of having players interact with a DM-provided description of a scene.
4. Related to this, a character's abilities have been further moved away from whatever a person could do in that situation (jumping on tables, swinging from chandeliers, sneaking up behind an orc, putting your hands over his eyes and saying "Guess who?") to a number of "actions" that the player is encouraged to think of that character's moveset. (Yes, this also began in 3rd edition.)
5. While the purpose of the character classes has, as stated above, been moved away from fantasy archetypes and towards MMORPG combat archetypes, additionally a number of new classes have been added. These are generally not literary in origin, further divorcing the simulation away from reality, and often sounding like something out of Diablo. (This is a bad thing.)
6. In my opinion the worst change: the mechanics of all the classes have been regularised and brought into the same action framework. That is to say, while mages still cast spells, those spells fit into the same ability framework used for all the other characters. Everyone has abilities they can use once an adventure, once per encounter, and so on, limited by frequency. (This is similar to how monster powers have been handled in prior editions.) Mages no longer memorize spells, but have specific powers that have X uses in Y time. Further, fighter-types also use this framework to control their powers, even though it makes much less sense for them. (Also, they're called "exploits," which is even a worse name for them than "feats" was for 3rd edition add-on abilities.) This is similar to the way special abilities are partitioned in MMORPGs, where the underlying similarity aids both in balancing characters against each other in combat (the only type of action that means anything in the great majority of MMORPGs) and in fitting their options into a UI that must serve all character types.
GuyZero:
The cool things about Vancian magic, in my opinion, are:
- It is a kind of lost technology, a relic of long-dead civilizations.
- It must be carefully preserved or it will be lost to the ages.
- On the other hand, it is so powerful that mages do not spread their spell knowledge around, so as to preserve advantage over other mages.
- It is limited. Dying Earth mages cannot memorise many spells at once.
- It often carries the name of the inventing mage, further linking spells to bygone ages and people such as Phandaal the Archmage.
- It is flexible; there are a great many different kinds of spells for a great many kinds of situations. A mage must judge ahead of time what kinds of spells he'll need so as to have them ready should the situation demand them.
- Finally, and this is something D&D lost sight of as soon as 1st edition, it doesn't make the practitioner weak in other ways. Vance's mages were anything but bookish aesthetes. They went out and did things, and they would as often use their own strength and wit to do things as a memorized spell. A OD&D mage has as many hit points as a fighter, and can use nearly all the same weapons, very much like a Dying Earth magician. This is important because, at low levels in 1st ed. AD&D and later, a mage can wear barely any armor, can only use the weakest weapons, and additionally gets a scant d4 hit points per level, but additionally gets very few spells! A wizard is nearly entirely dead weight at 1st level, unable to wade into battle without getting killed in a single attack, but unable to use more than a single spell (unless he's got high intelligence) before having to rest. OD&D wizards were more physically powerful, and so were Vance magicians.
I did not mean to imply, by the way, that Dying Earth was extremely great fiction. I like it a lot, it's got great atmosphere, and is highly imaginative, but as a cohesive work it's a bit lacking. All of the Dying Earth books take the form of assorted stories that are only loosely tied together, if at all, and characters who you grow interested in suddenly leave the books, never to return. But as a collection of short fantasy stories, I think they're marvellous.
posted by JHarris at 1:41 AM on April 11, 2009 [2 favorites]
Original D&D was a much better game than people give it credit for. And Mystara, a.k.a. The Known World, the world that TSR eventually tied to Blackmoor and came out in the gazetter format (best world-building format ever, as far as I'm concerned) was a lot more interesting than any of the other official D&D campaign settings (Taladas excepted, but sadly it never got developed very much).
posted by Kattullus at 7:34 AM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Kattullus at 7:34 AM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
dersins That was, I think, one of the things I loved most about the old 1.0 DM's guide. All that wealth of stuff in the appendices, the rest of the book too, but mostly that huge collection of weird words and minutia about pseudo-medieval societies.
I used to spend hours reading those, looking up undefined terms in the dictionary, etc. Good times.
fleacircus wrote A lot of people mistake the juvenile D&D they played as juveniles for something inherent in the game itself. You get out of the game what you bring to the game, and it doesn't matter if it's D&D, GURPS, or Mouse Guard.
Yes and no. Of course the stuff my group did back then was less involved and detailed, I started with the red box D&D Basic Set when I was 8, and moved on to AD&D when I was 10. So, yeah, the adventures then were simplistic because I was a more limited person then.
However, the AD&D rules as written are pretty much designed for combat and nothing else. The first edition didn't even have rules covering non-combat skills, and thanks to the ridged class system there wasn't really any way to create characters similar to those from the supposed source material.
Want a wizard who, like Gandalf, can kick ass with a sword too? It ain't happening under the AD&D 1.0 RAW. Can your character swim? Shoe a horse? Cook? No rules for any of that.
Of course, with enough house rules and a flexible enough GM and group you can play any style with any ruleset; jerk around with enough house rules and even RIFTS can be something other than munchkin fodder. But the fact is that the rules for various games encourage certain styles of play. And the rules for D&D in all its incarnations have been very much devoted to combat and not much else.
Yes, with enough house rules and a good GM and group you can do an involved non-combat game. But you'll have to invent so many rules that you can't really be said to be playing AD&D anymore.
JHarris I really don't see a problem with D&D adopting a few things from the MMO world. Obviously you wouldn't want it to be WoW with dice, but I can't criticize them for stealing good ideas. I do think they sacrificed a lot of the flexibility of the wizard class in order to make it fit in with the general pattern for the other classes, but they also did a damn good thing by both making the wizard non-useless at lower levels and simultaneously nerfing them at higher levels.
While the purpose of the character classes has, as stated above, been moved away from fantasy archetypes and towards MMORPG combat archetypes, additionally a number of new classes have been added.
You are making the false assumption that the character classes were either useful or particularly rooted in the source material, they were and are neither. Gandalf, quite possibly the Ur wizard, used a frakking sword, something strictly verboten by the 1.0 RAW. The Grey Mouser was both a fighter and a thief, and knew a smattering of magic to boot. Elric doesn't fit any of their neat character classes. And all three are from the 1.0 list of recommended reading and sources of inspiration.
I will agree that the addition of MMO style categories isn't a good thing, but really its no worse than the horrible idea of character classes. I think you could make a very good argument that the MMO style roles are a natural outgrowth of class based gaming.
Combat play has been moved into the heart of the game.
Disagree completely. Combat has always been the hart of the game. The 1.0 DMG does, briefly and somewhat dismissively, address the issue of XP gained through non-combat interactions, but then goes on to deride the idea that any fun at all could be had in a game where thieves case joints and actually commit crimes, clerics study holy texts and evangelize, etc. Look at page 85 and you'll see what I mean.
D&D is a combat game, always has been.
And that, I think, is why I don't mind the 4.0 rules at all. They took the core of what D&D was: a great beer and pretzels game where you kick in the door, kill the ugly people, take their stuff, and then go back and relax at the inevitable tavern, and distilled it down to its essence. I'll agree completely that 4.0 is completely worthless for anything but a combat focused game. I disagree that any version of D&D was ever particularly good for anything but a combat focused game. All 4.0 did was focus on the strengths of D&D and cut out all the cruft that had built up.
As I said above, yes you could houserule it until it wasn't really D&D anymore and play whatever style of game you wanted to. Back before my friends and I learned about other game systems we did just that when we got bored with combat and nothing but combat. But that ain't D&D as written.
Ultimately D&D has always been about entering a 10' by 10' foot room and finding an orc guarding a chest. And its damn good at that, and there's good times to be had there. Limited times, but good.
posted by sotonohito at 6:34 PM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
I used to spend hours reading those, looking up undefined terms in the dictionary, etc. Good times.
fleacircus wrote A lot of people mistake the juvenile D&D they played as juveniles for something inherent in the game itself. You get out of the game what you bring to the game, and it doesn't matter if it's D&D, GURPS, or Mouse Guard.
Yes and no. Of course the stuff my group did back then was less involved and detailed, I started with the red box D&D Basic Set when I was 8, and moved on to AD&D when I was 10. So, yeah, the adventures then were simplistic because I was a more limited person then.
However, the AD&D rules as written are pretty much designed for combat and nothing else. The first edition didn't even have rules covering non-combat skills, and thanks to the ridged class system there wasn't really any way to create characters similar to those from the supposed source material.
Want a wizard who, like Gandalf, can kick ass with a sword too? It ain't happening under the AD&D 1.0 RAW. Can your character swim? Shoe a horse? Cook? No rules for any of that.
Of course, with enough house rules and a flexible enough GM and group you can play any style with any ruleset; jerk around with enough house rules and even RIFTS can be something other than munchkin fodder. But the fact is that the rules for various games encourage certain styles of play. And the rules for D&D in all its incarnations have been very much devoted to combat and not much else.
Yes, with enough house rules and a good GM and group you can do an involved non-combat game. But you'll have to invent so many rules that you can't really be said to be playing AD&D anymore.
JHarris I really don't see a problem with D&D adopting a few things from the MMO world. Obviously you wouldn't want it to be WoW with dice, but I can't criticize them for stealing good ideas. I do think they sacrificed a lot of the flexibility of the wizard class in order to make it fit in with the general pattern for the other classes, but they also did a damn good thing by both making the wizard non-useless at lower levels and simultaneously nerfing them at higher levels.
While the purpose of the character classes has, as stated above, been moved away from fantasy archetypes and towards MMORPG combat archetypes, additionally a number of new classes have been added.
You are making the false assumption that the character classes were either useful or particularly rooted in the source material, they were and are neither. Gandalf, quite possibly the Ur wizard, used a frakking sword, something strictly verboten by the 1.0 RAW. The Grey Mouser was both a fighter and a thief, and knew a smattering of magic to boot. Elric doesn't fit any of their neat character classes. And all three are from the 1.0 list of recommended reading and sources of inspiration.
I will agree that the addition of MMO style categories isn't a good thing, but really its no worse than the horrible idea of character classes. I think you could make a very good argument that the MMO style roles are a natural outgrowth of class based gaming.
Combat play has been moved into the heart of the game.
Disagree completely. Combat has always been the hart of the game. The 1.0 DMG does, briefly and somewhat dismissively, address the issue of XP gained through non-combat interactions, but then goes on to deride the idea that any fun at all could be had in a game where thieves case joints and actually commit crimes, clerics study holy texts and evangelize, etc. Look at page 85 and you'll see what I mean.
D&D is a combat game, always has been.
And that, I think, is why I don't mind the 4.0 rules at all. They took the core of what D&D was: a great beer and pretzels game where you kick in the door, kill the ugly people, take their stuff, and then go back and relax at the inevitable tavern, and distilled it down to its essence. I'll agree completely that 4.0 is completely worthless for anything but a combat focused game. I disagree that any version of D&D was ever particularly good for anything but a combat focused game. All 4.0 did was focus on the strengths of D&D and cut out all the cruft that had built up.
As I said above, yes you could houserule it until it wasn't really D&D anymore and play whatever style of game you wanted to. Back before my friends and I learned about other game systems we did just that when we got bored with combat and nothing but combat. But that ain't D&D as written.
Ultimately D&D has always been about entering a 10' by 10' foot room and finding an orc guarding a chest. And its damn good at that, and there's good times to be had there. Limited times, but good.
posted by sotonohito at 6:34 PM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
sotonohito: You are making the false assumption that the character classes were either useful or particularly rooted in the source material, they were and are neither. Gandalf, quite possibly the Ur wizard, used a frakking sword, something strictly verboten by the 1.0 RAW. The Grey Mouser was both a fighter and a thief, and knew a smattering of magic to boot. Elric doesn't fit any of their neat character classes.
Part of this comment I've already responded to, basically, by mentioning how OD&D magic-users were only slightly worse fighters than Fighting Men. Also, in the very original OD&D rules, there were no thieves; they were introduced in the first supplement. By the original rules, everyone was considered to be flexible enough to do most things, which means there's less to distinguish them from each other. Which more neatly fits in with the literary origins.
Disagree completely. Combat has always been the hart of the game. The 1.0 DMG does, briefly and somewhat dismissively, address the issue of XP gained through non-combat interactions, but then goes on to deride the idea that any fun at all could be had in a game where thieves case joints and actually commit crimes, clerics study holy texts and evangelize, etc. Look at page 85 and you'll see what I mean.
Graah, I can't drag out my books right now... but I do need to remind you that in OD&D, gold pieces carried out of the dungeon provided the lion's share of experience points. Under those rules, players earned experience for gold pieces carried out, on a one-for-one basis. A player could gain entire levels without fighting a single monster if he could somehow get the gold without being seen.
Combat being the core of the game... well, it's a matter of degree. Fighting has always been important, granted, but there were ways to advance without fighting. Combat was a means to an end, not the point in itself. That orc guarding the chest wasn't the point, it was the contents of the chest, which could either be really good, amazingly bad, or both.
(There is more to be written on this point, but I gotta run....)
posted by JHarris at 7:49 PM on April 11, 2009
Part of this comment I've already responded to, basically, by mentioning how OD&D magic-users were only slightly worse fighters than Fighting Men. Also, in the very original OD&D rules, there were no thieves; they were introduced in the first supplement. By the original rules, everyone was considered to be flexible enough to do most things, which means there's less to distinguish them from each other. Which more neatly fits in with the literary origins.
Disagree completely. Combat has always been the hart of the game. The 1.0 DMG does, briefly and somewhat dismissively, address the issue of XP gained through non-combat interactions, but then goes on to deride the idea that any fun at all could be had in a game where thieves case joints and actually commit crimes, clerics study holy texts and evangelize, etc. Look at page 85 and you'll see what I mean.
Graah, I can't drag out my books right now... but I do need to remind you that in OD&D, gold pieces carried out of the dungeon provided the lion's share of experience points. Under those rules, players earned experience for gold pieces carried out, on a one-for-one basis. A player could gain entire levels without fighting a single monster if he could somehow get the gold without being seen.
Combat being the core of the game... well, it's a matter of degree. Fighting has always been important, granted, but there were ways to advance without fighting. Combat was a means to an end, not the point in itself. That orc guarding the chest wasn't the point, it was the contents of the chest, which could either be really good, amazingly bad, or both.
(There is more to be written on this point, but I gotta run....)
posted by JHarris at 7:49 PM on April 11, 2009
Gandalf... The Grey Mouser... Elric
If Arneson and Gygax gave the world anything, it was a game with a smattering of balance based on a literary form where the very notion of balance was the farthest thing from the author's mind. It must be fun to play Elric, but it would be hell to be the DM.
posted by GuyZero at 7:52 PM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
If Arneson and Gygax gave the world anything, it was a game with a smattering of balance based on a literary form where the very notion of balance was the farthest thing from the author's mind. It must be fun to play Elric, but it would be hell to be the DM.
posted by GuyZero at 7:52 PM on April 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
It must be fun to play Elric, but it would be hell to be the DM.
Depends on which edition. I recommend Stormbringer 4th Edition (for the love of Kwll don't get Elric!).
posted by Kattullus at 8:30 PM on April 11, 2009
Depends on which edition. I recommend Stormbringer 4th Edition (for the love of Kwll don't get Elric!).
posted by Kattullus at 8:30 PM on April 11, 2009
Fighting has always been important, granted, but there were ways to advance without fighting. Combat was a means to an end, not the point in itself.
That'd be a more credible argument if getting experience points made you get better at things that weren't fighting.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:33 PM on April 11, 2009
That'd be a more credible argument if getting experience points made you get better at things that weren't fighting.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:33 PM on April 11, 2009
That'd be a more credible argument if getting experience points made you get better at things that weren't fighting.
They do. Saving throws increase with level, clerics and mages gain spells many of which are useless in combat, many things that aren't combat do hit point damage, and so on.
Of course, saving throws also help in fights, and lots of combat spells are learned too. My point about combat play wasn't intended to say that fighting hasn't been important, but that it wasn't central. A player doesn't descend into a dungeon to fight monsters if he can help it, or gain experience for that matter. He does so to get loot and enrich himself, or accomplish quests. If he's smart, he tries to avoid fighting.
But it could be said that this is true of 4th edition, too. I get the sense that I described what I had in mind incorrectly. To try again:
What I'm trying to say has to do with how, in 4th edition, how different abilities affect different spaces in a way that feels more like the attack ranges of chess pieces. It's taken combat away from being something that DMs could handle either in narrative or by moving to a physical map using miniatures, and definitely made it so that miniatures are the definitive way to handle it. Combat has become more like a board game in that respect, a special "mode" distanced further away from the "normal" mode of exploring the dungeon. Combat looks less like a specialised version of exploring the dungeon and more a game in itself. Because combat is so important, in 4th edition D&D has subtly moved towards being -that- game, a kind of board game with narrative add-ons, rather than being a narrative game that becomes a quasi-wargame at times.
Part of my thinking on this arises from an article I've been stuck on writing for a few months, on CRPG design. There is a certain something that pen-and-paper RPGs that has always been missing fro CRPGs, even from the roguelikes (which are generally the closest in spirit to old-school D&D). It's something that seems to me to be damaged by 4th edition, but I still can't express what it is very well.
posted by JHarris at 1:37 AM on April 12, 2009
They do. Saving throws increase with level, clerics and mages gain spells many of which are useless in combat, many things that aren't combat do hit point damage, and so on.
Of course, saving throws also help in fights, and lots of combat spells are learned too. My point about combat play wasn't intended to say that fighting hasn't been important, but that it wasn't central. A player doesn't descend into a dungeon to fight monsters if he can help it, or gain experience for that matter. He does so to get loot and enrich himself, or accomplish quests. If he's smart, he tries to avoid fighting.
But it could be said that this is true of 4th edition, too. I get the sense that I described what I had in mind incorrectly. To try again:
What I'm trying to say has to do with how, in 4th edition, how different abilities affect different spaces in a way that feels more like the attack ranges of chess pieces. It's taken combat away from being something that DMs could handle either in narrative or by moving to a physical map using miniatures, and definitely made it so that miniatures are the definitive way to handle it. Combat has become more like a board game in that respect, a special "mode" distanced further away from the "normal" mode of exploring the dungeon. Combat looks less like a specialised version of exploring the dungeon and more a game in itself. Because combat is so important, in 4th edition D&D has subtly moved towards being -that- game, a kind of board game with narrative add-ons, rather than being a narrative game that becomes a quasi-wargame at times.
Part of my thinking on this arises from an article I've been stuck on writing for a few months, on CRPG design. There is a certain something that pen-and-paper RPGs that has always been missing fro CRPGs, even from the roguelikes (which are generally the closest in spirit to old-school D&D). It's something that seems to me to be damaged by 4th edition, but I still can't express what it is very well.
posted by JHarris at 1:37 AM on April 12, 2009
You do know that squares have dimensions, and that any given space in squares can be rendered as feet or meters or whatever you like?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:21 AM on April 12, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:21 AM on April 12, 2009
And I mean, the bit about combat being a special "mode" and this being new is ridiculous; you know damn well that you didn't, in 2nd and 3rd edition, describe what you were doing in 60 or 6 second chunks outside of combat.
Have you actually read the rules?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:23 AM on April 12, 2009
Have you actually read the rules?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:23 AM on April 12, 2009
JHarris Maybe I'm just really crappy at narrative combat, but I've long regarded miniatures as essential for any combat resolution. I use miniatures and a hexmap for all combat in the GURPS games I GM.
Yes, I'll agree that 4.0 went a bit overboard trying to make the miniatures rules more like those a wargame, but a) there's nothing specifically forbidding swinging from the chandeliers, and b) I seem to recall that specifically being used as an example of how to spice things up, complete with suggestions for how to handle it with various dice rolls.
As far as GP to XP, yes, that's in the 1.0 rules, and I think carried on through 2.0. Always seemed like a bit of a bad idea to me, lots of room for abuse and lawyering. Yes, I can appreciate the point that it can reward players for avoiding combat, but the fact remains that if you both killed the monsters *AND* took the gold, you'd get more XP than if you just stole the gold and avoided the monsters. Anyway, what is your Fighter (who has no defined skills outside combat, or any official system to resolve non-combat skills) going to do if all you do is sneak around?
Still, each to their own. If you don't like D&D 4.0 I'm not here to evangelize for it, I'm not a real fan myself. I'm just saying that I disagree with the conclusion that somehow its not real D&D, or that its somehow a departure from the true origins of D&D or anything like that.
Like Star Wars us geeks often have some distorted, nostalgia tainted, memories of D&D that turn it into something better, or at least bigger, than it really was. Like Star Wars, D&D was formative, critical to a lot of what we have today, but really it wasn't nearly as amazing as we remember it. Ultimately it was a game about killing ugly people and taking their stuff, and there's fun to be had there. But it wasn't a super deep game, and its rules were always pretty much combat and nothing else. 4.0 just finally admitted it, while the other versions pretended otherwise.
posted by sotonohito at 5:43 AM on April 12, 2009
Yes, I'll agree that 4.0 went a bit overboard trying to make the miniatures rules more like those a wargame, but a) there's nothing specifically forbidding swinging from the chandeliers, and b) I seem to recall that specifically being used as an example of how to spice things up, complete with suggestions for how to handle it with various dice rolls.
As far as GP to XP, yes, that's in the 1.0 rules, and I think carried on through 2.0. Always seemed like a bit of a bad idea to me, lots of room for abuse and lawyering. Yes, I can appreciate the point that it can reward players for avoiding combat, but the fact remains that if you both killed the monsters *AND* took the gold, you'd get more XP than if you just stole the gold and avoided the monsters. Anyway, what is your Fighter (who has no defined skills outside combat, or any official system to resolve non-combat skills) going to do if all you do is sneak around?
Still, each to their own. If you don't like D&D 4.0 I'm not here to evangelize for it, I'm not a real fan myself. I'm just saying that I disagree with the conclusion that somehow its not real D&D, or that its somehow a departure from the true origins of D&D or anything like that.
Like Star Wars us geeks often have some distorted, nostalgia tainted, memories of D&D that turn it into something better, or at least bigger, than it really was. Like Star Wars, D&D was formative, critical to a lot of what we have today, but really it wasn't nearly as amazing as we remember it. Ultimately it was a game about killing ugly people and taking their stuff, and there's fun to be had there. But it wasn't a super deep game, and its rules were always pretty much combat and nothing else. 4.0 just finally admitted it, while the other versions pretended otherwise.
posted by sotonohito at 5:43 AM on April 12, 2009
What I've enjoyed about the RPG games I've been in is how out-and-out weird they've all been. I figure it has to do with adding together the hyperactive imaginations of several otherwise naive youngsters. I've yet to read a book, or watch a movie or TV show, no matter how absurd, cartoonish or shameless, or dumb that compared. Good times.
Thank you Dave. Rest in peace.
posted by wobh at 9:00 AM on April 12, 2009
Thank you Dave. Rest in peace.
posted by wobh at 9:00 AM on April 12, 2009
Pope Guilty:
You didn't clap your damn miniatures around space by space like it was damn Clue, though. (Except when you did in 3rd edition.)
There is a difference between making use of combat time and requiring the use of what amounts to a gameboard, and then defining the "moves" the characters can perform in terms of spaces. Yes, the grid regularises distances and it comes down to the same thing as the 120, 90, 60 or 30' movement rate. I'm not sure why, I'm still trying to pin this down. It has to do, maybe, with the introduction of more gameish trappings. I can't say I'm a fan of the way 3rd edition does it either, even though it does open up the strategic potential of the game.
It seems obvious that I have a strong reaction to 4th ed. rules for some reason. There are actually a lot of things I hate about the version. (Like the drastically simplified alignment system, eladrin a.k.a. "super elves," things like "epic destiny features," the much-more-highly programmed mode of treasure distribution and character development, etc.) These things just seem really obvious to me, and in that way that people who think something obvious are, am probably going a bit overboard in defending my perceptions. Sorry about that.
sonotnohito:
Experience for gold pieces is listed in the 2nd edition rules as "an option," probably to try to appease those players who were familiar with it from prior editions. I had actually forgotten if 1st ed. AD&D had retained it, but I should have realized it did; 1st ed. AD&D actually seems rather close to OD&D now. It gives as the reason for it's shifting into the "option" column the tendency for DMs to give out extra treasure to give their parties free experience.
On the game's depth, perceived or otherwise: I'm not sure. When I read the OD&D books, I get the sense that the game really isn't intended to be all that serious either. The seriousness seems to have crept in 1st and 2nd editions, which tried to excise the weirdness, but the original books are filled with a lot of wacky things, intentionally so. The original books contain monster generation tables for Edgar Rice Burrough's Barsoom/Mars, after all.
In fact, the original books don't really seem to have strong ties to the idea of "role-playing," probably to be expected since the game had just come out of wargaming. Characters were viewed as being more-or-less disposable, and not to be strongly personified with, sort of like playing a wargame except, instead of a character's existence beginning and ending on the battlefield, he continued between them in the way wargamers treat a "campaign," and instead of controlling armies a player contented himself with a single character. The Order of the Stick comic linked up above is accurate, I think.
I get a much stronger feeling that 4th ed. is full of itself, with its sales pitches for the different races ("Play a Dragonborn if you....") and the high-falutin' names for everything. ("Feywild," feh.) I don't get the sense that the game recognises its mercenary roots.
Anyway, I think I'll shut up now. Sorry about the arguing Mr. Arneson.
posted by JHarris at 11:00 AM on April 12, 2009
You didn't clap your damn miniatures around space by space like it was damn Clue, though. (Except when you did in 3rd edition.)
There is a difference between making use of combat time and requiring the use of what amounts to a gameboard, and then defining the "moves" the characters can perform in terms of spaces. Yes, the grid regularises distances and it comes down to the same thing as the 120, 90, 60 or 30' movement rate. I'm not sure why, I'm still trying to pin this down. It has to do, maybe, with the introduction of more gameish trappings. I can't say I'm a fan of the way 3rd edition does it either, even though it does open up the strategic potential of the game.
It seems obvious that I have a strong reaction to 4th ed. rules for some reason. There are actually a lot of things I hate about the version. (Like the drastically simplified alignment system, eladrin a.k.a. "super elves," things like "epic destiny features," the much-more-highly programmed mode of treasure distribution and character development, etc.) These things just seem really obvious to me, and in that way that people who think something obvious are, am probably going a bit overboard in defending my perceptions. Sorry about that.
sonotnohito:
Experience for gold pieces is listed in the 2nd edition rules as "an option," probably to try to appease those players who were familiar with it from prior editions. I had actually forgotten if 1st ed. AD&D had retained it, but I should have realized it did; 1st ed. AD&D actually seems rather close to OD&D now. It gives as the reason for it's shifting into the "option" column the tendency for DMs to give out extra treasure to give their parties free experience.
On the game's depth, perceived or otherwise: I'm not sure. When I read the OD&D books, I get the sense that the game really isn't intended to be all that serious either. The seriousness seems to have crept in 1st and 2nd editions, which tried to excise the weirdness, but the original books are filled with a lot of wacky things, intentionally so. The original books contain monster generation tables for Edgar Rice Burrough's Barsoom/Mars, after all.
In fact, the original books don't really seem to have strong ties to the idea of "role-playing," probably to be expected since the game had just come out of wargaming. Characters were viewed as being more-or-less disposable, and not to be strongly personified with, sort of like playing a wargame except, instead of a character's existence beginning and ending on the battlefield, he continued between them in the way wargamers treat a "campaign," and instead of controlling armies a player contented himself with a single character. The Order of the Stick comic linked up above is accurate, I think.
I get a much stronger feeling that 4th ed. is full of itself, with its sales pitches for the different races ("Play a Dragonborn if you....") and the high-falutin' names for everything. ("Feywild," feh.) I don't get the sense that the game recognises its mercenary roots.
Anyway, I think I'll shut up now. Sorry about the arguing Mr. Arneson.
posted by JHarris at 11:00 AM on April 12, 2009
JHarris They changed the alignment system in 4.0?!
Just checked my books, yeah they did. Weird.
I've completely ignored the alignment system for the past, 15 years or so. When I first started playing AD&D it seemed kind of cool, then I realized it was a blunt instrument that accomplished nothing worthwhile, and actually stood in the way of good roleplaying. I didn't even look at the alignment section of the 4.0 rules until just now. That's kind of embarrassing.
posted by sotonohito at 4:08 PM on April 12, 2009
Just checked my books, yeah they did. Weird.
I've completely ignored the alignment system for the past, 15 years or so. When I first started playing AD&D it seemed kind of cool, then I realized it was a blunt instrument that accomplished nothing worthwhile, and actually stood in the way of good roleplaying. I didn't even look at the alignment section of the 4.0 rules until just now. That's kind of embarrassing.
posted by sotonohito at 4:08 PM on April 12, 2009
I've always seen the alignment thing as simply a tool for the DM to help ensure that players are staying within the role they've created.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:16 AM on April 13, 2009
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:16 AM on April 13, 2009
Cheers Dave,
Thanks for immeasurably enriching my childhood.
(I like 4th Ed. btw. It just isn't the same game as 1st Ed. I'm fine with that)
posted by schwa at 7:45 AM on April 13, 2009
Thanks for immeasurably enriching my childhood.
(I like 4th Ed. btw. It just isn't the same game as 1st Ed. I'm fine with that)
posted by schwa at 7:45 AM on April 13, 2009
I think there was a shift amongst the audience between 2nd and 3rd editions. When 3rd came out, I remember people talking about clerics in MMORPG terms, about stacking buffs (Bear's Strength) and so on, timing things such that everyone was always super-tough at all times. That lead to people crying for nerfs and lo, 3.5 was born.
Players had begun to think more tactically and the game changed to meet their needs. The narrative-types had plenty of games to go play, but the tactical people, the folks who planned out their WoW characters to the Nth level ahead of time, did not. D&D became their game, as it always really was.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:51 AM on April 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
Players had begun to think more tactically and the game changed to meet their needs. The narrative-types had plenty of games to go play, but the tactical people, the folks who planned out their WoW characters to the Nth level ahead of time, did not. D&D became their game, as it always really was.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:51 AM on April 14, 2009 [1 favorite]
Like last time ... I loot the body.
Unlike last time, I'll use the proceeds to destroy the Temple of the Frog.
.
posted by moonbiter at 4:56 AM on April 15, 2009
Unlike last time, I'll use the proceeds to destroy the Temple of the Frog.
.
posted by moonbiter at 4:56 AM on April 15, 2009
« Older Robot Dinosaurs That Shoot Beams When They Roar | Truth: Out there? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
.
posted by cimbrog at 9:45 AM on April 9, 2009