I didn't like the answers they gave.
Of course, this was 2016. Back then, I wasn't worried in the slightest about AD&D (being rather preoccupied with living in Paraguay and raising a 5 year old boy and 2 year old girl). However, if Jason "the Mad Cleric" were to ask me this same set of questions, right now in 2024, here's what I would say:
(02:33) "Have I absolutely lost my mind? Is learning AD&D and trying to go through all of Gygax's modules just absolutely crazy? What are your thoughts?"
I assume that by "crazy" you mean, 'Is this a waste of my time?' Specifically with the context that there have been some half-dozen D&D editions published since 1E and 1E not being supported by the company currently publishing the brand. The short answer is "no." There are plenty of people still playing 1E, plenty of of folks still interested in learning to play 1E. These people are all over the world, united by the internet, and many of them are kids and young people. It is a viable system, and one that is readily available...currently...via 'print-on demand.' In my own opinion, it is the only edition worth playing (I'm a busy guy). Most (if not all) of the editions published since 1E were done so MAINLY for business reasons.
(04:36) "When did you first play? What do you remember from that first experience? What did you take away from it?"
I've detailed my personal history with D&D elsewhere; my friends and I started playing "full AD&D" (i.e. not some hybrid/Frankenstein game) circa November/December of 1984. I played till roughly 1990, when I put it aside in favor of other RPGs. I returned to 1E play in November of 2020, and have played it ever since. With regard to my first experience, I don't remember much specifically, save that it was exhilarating and exactly the creative outlet my friends and I needed. What I took away in 1990 (when I quit the game) was the false idea that one needs the right mix of friends/chemistry to make the game work, something I never thought I'd achieve again. However, I now understand that making the game work is largely a matter of commitment, something that (until I restarted four years ago) I had been unwilling and/or unable to do. As I wrote previously, I now consider it the only edition worth playing.
(10:03) "So how long did you play AD&D?"
Roughly six years the first stint (1984-1990). After that I played many other RPGs NOT named Dungeons & Dragons. I got back into D&D play circa 2000 and back into old edition play around 2009. I've played 1E exclusively since November 2020...however, I've continuously owned and studied all my old books since the days of my youth, so even when I wasn't playing I had plenty of exposure to the system and Gygax's writings.
(12:34) "Where do you think the AD&D mechanics excel?"
AD&D's mechanics excel at facilitating adventure gaming, a type of role-playing utterly unconcerned with "role-playing" (in the sense of portraying some sort of fictional character) or "creating stories" (in a literary sense). It does this by providing the tools...both in terms of mechanics and (what I'll call) "attitude" for long-term, engaging game play.
(15:16) "Tell us how the skill checks would be dissimilar from Pathfinder or another game you might be familiar with?"
With the exception of a handful of highly specific classes (thieves, assassins, monks, and bards) there are no ubiquitous "skill checks" in AD&D. All classes in AD&D have their own suite of capabilities, but the ability scores are not used (unlike post-2000 editions of D&D) for determining "chance to succeed," instead providing modifiers to specific, targeted mechanics. Later books in the 1E series (Oriental Adventures, the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, the Wilderness Survival Guide) offered a rudimentary "skill system" (as the term would be thought of in modern "trad" gaming) based on "non-weapon proficiencies," but these were never integral to the 1E game (being given in HIGHLY OPTIONAL supplementary texts) contribute nothing of note and are (IMO) poorly done. With regard to the "skill checks" of the specific classes mentioned, "thief skills" are rolled using percentile dice; actual targets are based on the level of the character and slightly modified by race and DEX scores...success is accomplished by rolling UNDER the target number; in 1E, "higher" does not always equal "better."
(25:30) "Why is this game, 1st edition, like that [an adversarial, tactical skirmish game instead of a 'role-playing game'], do you think?...and it's been kind of passed down to the other editions...do you think it's because it was written by one guy, and he was a war gamer in the past? And it just kind of bled over into his book? What's your take on that?"
It is like "that" because it was specifically designed in this way; D&D originally carried the subtitle "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames." Modern understanding is poor when it comes to what D&D is and was, let alone its potential. Why was it written as a "war game?" Because it was created by war gamers Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. The "role-playing" part grows out of game play organically, but AD&D is first and foremost a GAME, as Gygax makes abundantly clear in the text of his Dungeon Masters Guide. People who want to make it something other than "that" would be better served by finding an RPG aimed specifically at the type of gaming their looking for. Plenty of RPGs on the market to meet different needs.
(28:52) "Have you guys actually played any of [Gygax's] modules? Because my understanding...and I haven't read any of them yet...is that a lot of them are just meatgrinders, absolute meatgrinders. And your character's going to die, and there's no time to pause, there's no real storyline to get to the end...is that descriptive of all of his stuff? What have y'all played of his modules? And what'd you take away from it?"
Your "understanding" is poor. Gygax wrote exactly 17 adventure modules for D&D, only 16 of which were written for (or adapted to AD&D (The Keep on the Borderlands was written to be included with the introductory Basic D&D box set). Of these 16, I own all but three and have run 11 of those 13 (I will note that I have run B2 KotB MANY TIMES, but only for B/X, never AD&D...it is not designed for AD&D). I wouldn't characterize any of Gygax's modules as "meatgrinders," with the possible exception of Tomb of Horrors...then again, much depends on how you define the term "meatgrinder." AD&D is intentionally designed to be adversarial, and poor play often results in character death; if your only experience with D&D play is a latter day edition in which death is rare (5E, for example) then, sure, you might consider ANY of the old TSR modules fairly bloody (with the notable exception of UK1). Gygax's modules specifically apply pressure and challenge in masterful fashion to provide a rich gaming experience; his adventures are widely considered some of the best published, and I don't disagree.
(33:57) "Do you think players today would have patience for that [losing a high number of PCs...like one for every 1-2 hours of play...to in-game "death"]? Do you think people would be like 'this game sucks, let's play another game?'"
Having introduced the AD&D game to MANY players over the years, some as young as 9 or 10, my experience is that players love AD&D and are just fine with the level of danger it presents. And I kill a LOT of PCs in my games...I don't really 'pull punches' when it comes to running D&D. However, losing a character every 1-2 hours is pretty exorbitant...my players (all under the age of 14) can go many sessions without losing a PC to death. 1E is actually quite forgiving compared to OD&D or the various Basic D&D games and their clones: higher PC hit points, more clerical/healing magic, and a negative hit point "buffer" all provide AD&D characters with more staying power. And yet TPKs still happen (when players really screw up)...and that constant threat of death makes the game experience very fun, even as the plethora of "raise dead" options means a beloved character can usually be brought back to life...for a price. No, I don't ever hear cries of 'this game sucks' at my table.
(39:39) "You don't hear about a lot of people that are playing 4th edition saying, 'Hey, I'm going back to 1st edition because it was so awesome, and that was the game that was so much fun!' So what about AD&D is just not good? Like, what is it that was a misstep, that you're so glad they fixed...in 2nd edition or some later form?"
You don't hear a lot of 4E players saying they want to "go back" to 1E, because many of them...like YOU...have no experience playing 1E. They started with 4E...or 3E or 2E...and, frankly, don't know what they're missing. Others may have started with 1E but are slaves to playing whatever new hot edition is supported by "the company" and don't have the gumption to stick with something "outdated." Still others played 1E poorly...or had poor experiences with the system...and have never experienced the edition's full potential. Again, what you may not understand is that the company moved on from 1E mainly for business reasons: TSR ousted Gygax from the company but he continued to collect royalties for any book that carried his name, and 2E was a means of breaking that financial leash. But after Gygax's removal, TSR largely became a paperback novel publishing company (rather than a game company) and the quality of gaming material went down the tubes. 3E was published after TSR was purchased by WotC and a new system was designed to rehab the brand using "modern" game mechanics. 4E was published to give the company a cash infusion (i.e. forcing players to re-buy the new core books) and to capitalize on the MMORPG craze of the time (specifically World of Warcraft). 5E was rolled out as a "great compromise edition" specifically with the goal of recapturing marketshare and brand recognition after the disaster that was 4E. So, NO...1E wasn't "fixed" by any of the later editions. Later editions of D&D have only served to make the game worse in various ways. I have my own house rules...as any long-running 1E Dungeon Master is inclined to have...but NONE of those come from later editions of D&D. The vast majority of later edition changes have only served to make the game worse (although they also served to make the company money).
(44:30) "So...do you think this game punishes players? It sounds like it's a 'DM's game' more than a 'players' game.'"
Again, the game is designed to be adversarial...it is designed to challenge the players. For the challenge to be real (i.e. for the challenge to matter) there must be consequences to failure. If there isn't, then there's little point to playing except mental masturbation. So does the game "punish" players? No, it "punishes" poor play (if you want to call those consequences "punishment;" I don't). But I've found most players ENJOY the type of adventure experience the AD&D game provides.
(47:38) "So, for myself or for anyone else who wants to learn AD&D what advice would you give? And with your advice I'd also ask for your two best house rules that you can remember."
I put these questions to my kids (ages 13 and 10) and they gave great advice: know the adventure you're running, know the rules you're running, prepare to adapt your game to the actions of the players. The house rules they felt were most important included all dice rolls in the open, no PVP ('player vs. player conflict) at the table, no cell phones at the table, and no goofing off. With regard to specific rule tweaks, the two most important ones I use are A) clerics need not memorize their spells ahead of time (they pray for their spell when a specific miracle is needed), and B) spells that are "ruined" in combat (because the spell-caster is damaged during the casting) are not "lost;" spells are only expended upon a successful casting. If I could ONLY change two rules in the game, those would be the ones...and if I could only change ONE rule, it would be the first (regarding clerical spells). Everything else in AD&D (especially racial class restrictions and level caps) I either enjoy or can easily live with.
(56:34) "Do you have any final thoughts?"
So many. 1st edition AD&D may be difficult to parse and figure out, even for an experienced Dungeon Master, but it IS possible. My friends and I did it...at the age of 11 and 12...without any mentoring or parental help. I understand that the rapidly declining literacy of our culture may make this more difficult, but it's still possible. And its embarrassingly easy to teach people how to play (as players), even kids as young as 7 and 8 years old. I grok that some folks may be intimidated to play 1E, but it's really not rocket science, and there are many on-line groups, forums, discords, etc. where one can find advice, support, and help with learning. The game is easily (and cheaply) purchased through P.O.D. sources, and even cheaper if you just want a PDF/ebook. For less than $50, you can buy all three core books (PHB, DMG, and MM) plus a set of dice and you'll have a game that can provide DECADES of enjoyment. It's the greatest game ever published. And it's unfortunate that so many RPGamers...probably the majority...will never figure this out. However, there are some of us out here that are willing and able to help...willing and able to provide whatever knowledge we can, to aid in spreading the love for this game.
Best wishes.
: )
"Most (if not all) of the editions published since 1E were done so MAINLY for business reasons."
ReplyDeleteI'm not one of those early D&D scholars but wasn't AD&D published in part to not have to pay Dave Arneson royalties?
Claiming other editions were mainly done for buisness reasons is dismissive and probably redundant as all companies sell things to make money.
I think the designers of all the latter editions thought they were offering improvements on the system and tried to make it better Or what they thought was better. The results depend are up to opinion, but no edition of D&D was a slapped together cash grab. Someone put a lot of time in effort into all of them.
1e is a good game, you dont need to claim that it's somehow more pure because it wasn't a buisness decision.
I agree that was part of the reason for 1E.
DeleteThat being said, the OD&D game was put together in very amateurish fashion, with its hodge-podge of supplements issued at infrequent intervals. 1E was mainly issued in a way as to codify the game and present it in a largely finished, professional product. That Gygax and TSR felt this was enough to deny Arneson royalties was, perhaps, despicable behavior...but that was not THE reason 1E was put together.
On the other hand, there was no NEED to publish 2E. 1E was a proven commodity. It had a ten year life and sold strong prior to 1E. Part of the mandate of 2E was that it was required to be compatible with 1E products.
There were, of course, additional reasons for 2E. But it wasn't necessary. Gygax talked about a new edition himself...only after the company had financial issues (due to mismanagement). But this was solved largely by releases of such books as Unearthed Arcana and no such projects truly materialized.
Mainly for business purposes? Yeah, it's dismissive and redundant to say businesses do things for business purposes. But it's still true in the case of these later editions. And it was NOT true with regard to 1E. Business purposes were secondary to the MAIN purpose of creating a polished, professional project incorporating the best used rules of OD&D, the supplements, the Strategic Review, etc.
Yeah. I get that stance will ruffle feathers. Adkison needed to do something to rehab the brand, never liked 2E, wanted to "put the demons and devils back in," and was, himself, a game designer with years of RPG play experience as well as being a successful businessman. He could have just brought 1E back, but he wanted to put his own stamp on WotC's new baby.
4E was corporate-driven. So was 5E.
It doesn't take away the time and effort and design-sweat and artwork that went into making them distinct editions. It doesn't take away the millions of people that enjoyed playing those editions.
But I'll stand by what I wrote above.
I agree with you that OD&D was never going to build the brand outside a niche market based on its armature presentation, but I don't think making 1e was done for any altruistic reason, such as to present the best form of the game to humanity, but to ensure TSR and Gygax could grow the brand and company. And I'm ok with that. But I don't think its any different from the reasons the made 2e, to help build and sustain the brand.
DeleteI think Gygax and David "Zeb" Cook were both trying to present the best D&D possible because a better product would sell well and sustain the brand. Cook was handcuffed a little by corporate policies, but 2e was no more of a money decision than 1e.
We need 1e: We are can't sustain a brand on a mish mash of rules spread over multiple books that reference Chainmail and have questionable art.
We need 2e: We can't sustain a brand with the pressure from religious groups and the poor organization making it hard for new players to learn the system.
Also based on Unearthed Arcana I think we dodged a bullet not getting Gary version of 2e.
My big point was I don't think you need to bash other editions as money grabs to help sell the fact that 1e is a good system. Just like I don't have to say the Ford F150 is a great truck because Ford was the only American automaker not to take bailout money from the government in the 2008 recession.
Hm. I don't think I'm "bashing" other editions. The question asked in the podcast is based on a false premise...specifically that 2E was issued to "fix" or "correct" issues with 1E.
DeleteOD&D was not a "finished" product. It was constantly evolving, changing, and growing. AD&D (1E) was a finished product: it codified what was deemed appropriate to include and culled outmoded parts (like the idea of using Chainmail as the standard method of resolving combat). Gygax's own writings state that this was a "finished" product, that he hoped it would be something akin to chess...not a game that gets updated every so many years.
The UA was published for business reasons. The company needed money and needed a "hit" with the Gygax name on it.
Regardless of the reasons for 2E's publication, with regard to the question asked ('what is it that 2E fixed?')...well, the answer is NOTHING. It changed some things, adjusted some things, cut some things, shuffled the organization. But did it "fix" 1E? No. In many ways, it made the game a WORSE game, especially with its advancement system (as I've written about before...extensively).
That's not "bashing" 2E. If anything, it's bashing the false premise that underlies the question.
1E was already solid. It was collated from years of supplements and playtesting. It provided years of gameplay until the new folks in charge of TSR decided a new edition was "necessary." It is still a viable system...to this day!...and circumvents many of the issues found in later editions.
Some people prefer different editions for different reasons. Okay, cool. But 1E was never "broken," and that's NOT why later editions were created.
Just wanted to drop in a quick comment on this: "We can't sustain a brand with the pressure from religious groups"
DeleteIn retrospect, they absolutely could have. They could have simply ignored the pearl-clutching BADD-types. It was a huge mistake to capitulate to the loud, but ultimately impotent, group of people who couched their fear of something different than existed when they were kids in "religious" terms (I can discuss the theology that underpins the idea, too, but it's not really relevant here; suffice it to say that it goes back to the 17th century Reformation, specifically the Puritans, and it was garbage theology then too). The only real function those people served was as free advertising, benefiting the company and the game in the end.
Um, yes. Actually, there were TWO waves of "Satanic Panic." The first one (when Gygax was there) they rode out, and actually used it to increase their brand recognition and popularity several-fold...it ended up being a lot of free marketing and publicity.
DeleteThe second occurred after Gygax was no longer at the helm. But regardless, EGG and Arneson were still being paid huge royalties off the 1E books, and THAT, more than anything else, seems to be the impetus behind the 2nd edition.
That's a very good way of framing your own opinions - answering questions asked to someone else nearly a decade ago.
ReplyDeleteAll very interesting answers. The one that resonates with me strongly is your opinions on the drivers for the different editions. I can't help but feel that capitalism has evolved to generating demand through spurious and unnecessary change. There's no doubt that 1e could've used a tidy up and re-presentation, but it didn't need a full update. My pals and I had just made the transition from BX and C to 1e just as they announced the 2e books. We had a look at the volumes and decided thst we already had what we needed and we drifted off to MERP/RM and a bit of WFRP, never going back to TSR.
Ha! Maybe (i.e. "maybe it's a good way of framing my opinions"). However, I'll say that if I had been answering the questions in 2016, many of my answers would have been quite different.
DeleteRE your transition to MERP, etc.
It definitely wasn't disgust with crass capitalism or anything that caused me to drop AD&D right around 1990...it was more my transition to high school, the new friends I acquired, and the new games that were on the market at the time (I remember making MERP characters in trig class, but we were mostly doing Paladium stuff and...later...World of Darkness). 2E held no great excitement for us because we had all the 1E stuff already and were well-versed on how to play it (and didn't have the money to throw away on a new edition of a game we already knew how to run/play). But I'd also experienced some "burnout" with poor 1E products even before 2E...I had purchased the Dungeoneers Survival Game and the 1E Lankhmar supplement found nothing very good or game-able in either.
[my disgust with the crass capitalism of WH40K *did* lead me to quit that particular game]
This was a fun read. Good to see another 1e DM mention those ubiquitous house rules. I recently had a negative experience with a group of 1e DMs who decided that their interpretations were the only accurate interpretations, rather than simply their house rules.
ReplyDeleteHuh...that's odd. Perhaps they've been using them for so long, they forgot where exactly they picked them up?
Delete