I don’t really understand why the need to focus on terminology - it is a distraction to the debate here which was to explain the history of role-playing games/D&D (the OP is only interested in Dungeons and Dragons, which is fair enough and a wide enough subject on it’s own).
I guess my view is that for role-playing games I can see the advantage of having no or minimal systems and great DMs (let them rise to the top and the players will follow) because anything more gets in the way of the role-playing, which is the unique feature of the genre.
For most other games, and all board games, then of course the system and specific rule book is the key driver as you are playing within a fixed boundary. **Fantasy **RPG should be without boundaries - and for me it was at its purest in the original, pre-AD&D, version of the game (let us ignore their fixation with having rules for twenty-seven different versions of halberds).
Psionics are optional rules in 1st ed so I never spent the time getting well acquainted with the rules. If we were running a campaign that included them, I’d take the time to review the chapter.
As I recall Amber was a diceless role-playing game that relied heavily on imagination and narrative but it never did especially well compared to the more popular RPGs (which had more rigid and dice-based rulesets). In other words, everyone’s play style may vary but I suspect most groups preferred to have a somewhat robust rule framework.
I don’t wish to get too far off the subject of the OP but at much the same time I was involved in a gaming group called Wargame Developments (they are still going at http://www.wargamedevelopments.org/) that was a foundry of alternative free-flow gaming systems. The only rules of WD was that every member had to deliver a game to the group.
An idea I borrowed for D&D - where I did not have a rule or an idea of appropriate die adjustment- was the idea of inviting the player to support his desired action with his three best supports for it being a success (e.g I want to do X, and support that with having done it before back at Y, it is in daylight this time and he is distracted by Z going on right now). Often his supporting arguments would be things I would not have thought of - but it would involve the player and give him influence whilst giving me time to come up with an appropriate percentage chance, adjusted for the quality of what he came up with.
Quick! What saving throw do you roll against Lighting Bolt?
Honestly, I’m not sure this is a meaningful comparison. Because:
A) Gamers are creatures of habit. Good luck selling them a new game even if it were somehow demonstrably superior to the game they are playing, which gives D&D a big ‘we were here first’ advantage. You’ll observe that even other rigid, dice-based rule sets didn’t exactly attract big followings. When’s the last time you heard about someone putting together a Talislanta game? How about TORG? Rolemaster?
B) Let’s face it. Amber? It’s not exactly a big name license, and it’s far enough removed from the standard tropes of D&D that I think many games wouldn’t have been interested on that basis alone.
[QUOTE=Johnny Bravo]
There’s no system that is unarguably bad, since you can’t really make statements like that about an inherently subjective judgement. I mean, christ, there are people who play and enjoy Hackmaster - a system that is a satire of bad systems! For them, Hackmaster is a good system. I don’t get it and I wouldn’t want to play it, but that doesn’t mean the system is unarguably bad. It just means that it doesn’t appeal to me.
[/quote]
SOMEONE has never heard about FATAL (no, I’m not going to link it). So no, there are systems which are unarguably bad. Hackmaster may have started as a joke, but by all reports, at this point it’s a relatively normal if somewhat crunchy system. I don’t really understand why it’s so hard to accept that some games are just not good. AD&D is not actually in this category, but it DOES have a number of spiritual successors that are better. It IS, however, something of a train wreck.
It’s important because otherwise people will go even deeper down the side-track argument rat hole.
I dunno; I mean, if you presume that being a great GM is an art form (dunno what else it could be) then it seems reasonable to assert that art thrives under constraint and therefore there should be rules.
I and my +3 Bohemian Ear Spoon beg to differ!
Seriously though - I find the assertion that “Fantasy RPG should be without boundaries” to be fallacious. If I want my character to have a phazer pistol with an infinite fusion power source, would you assert that I have departed from the ‘boundaries’ of the game? How about if I want to be a robot? Or a modern special forces operative? Fantasy RPGs have boundaries just like everything else; They are the boundaries of genre, of tone, and of story as much as of rules, but rules can be used to highlight the other differences.
The other direction to take that is that those games weren’t offering anything demonstratively better than AD&D was. Sure, D&D was there first. On the other hand, to jump media, Everquest was the MMORPG no other game could beat with its entrenched population… until World of Warcraft crushed it. Being “first” only works until something comes along that fills everyone’s needs significantly better.
(Yes, I know Warcraft itself was an established franchise. Still, the way it rolled over the previous 600lb gorilla in the field was impressive)
Is that how it worked? I don’t even remember. How little sense does that make? @_@ I didn’t even KNOW that was a trick question. I had always assumed that like, saving throws were supposed to map to effect ‘types’ so that saves versus “wands” really meant saves versus “beams” and… like, paralyzation saves were for things you had to endure via physical toughness.
This is also probably true. Though that’s not the reason I didn’t play them.
Well, the funny thing about that is that everyone thought being 600lb gorilla was “big” when in actuality, compared to say, the Warcraft franchise, 600lbs was tiny.
That said, Everquest was (and I say this as someone who played it for years) a REALLY BAD GAME in a lot of respects. And most of the respects in which it was better than WoW at the time didn’t really get a lot of respect. (“Look! I can SOLO in WoW!” “Yes, but that sortof defeats the point of playing an MMO, don’t you think?”)
But to pull it back to tabletop, I don’t think most gamers even tried most of the other games, and enough of them were bad enough (Palladium, I am looking at you!) that people who did venture elsewhere had a pretty good chance of being burned for it. The irony being that the game that finally DID get some decent market share wasn’t actually a good game either (it suffered from mechanics that were still designed in the D&D style, but trying to support a very different style of play), but sold everyone with its premise. (Vampire: The Masquerade).
But to pull this even FURTHER back, any ‘History’ of tabletop RPGs with no mention of Vampire should be considered a failure.
I agree tat the system is important, but you’re really exagerating here. It doesn’t require an amazing GM to produce a good game with a bad system. Even the most basic level of cooperation by the players will suffice to overcome this issue.
And besides, playing AD&D 1st really wasn’t complicated at all, despite the examples given in this thread. Throw a D20 and check the table to hit, the dice for damages, a D20 against a char for random actions (that would be home rules), a saving throw once in while, a percentile dice for the thief once in a while, and that was about it. If anything, the game was lacking rules (for everything that wasn’t combat).
Most of the rulebook, as far as I remember, was made up of general advices and rules mostly intended for campaigns that nobody used (followers, castles, magic item creation, random encounter tables… I now remember that the GM guide included tables to generate random dungeons too).
No, seriously, ADD was really simple to play. Too simple for my taste, even.
Hmm…There was a period of time (I would say the 90s) when there was a lot of variety in RPG. New games would be released all the time, and some would attract a large following. It’s my feeling that at the time, AD&D players became a minority, and many new players were introduced to RPG via other games. People were enthralled by Call of Chtulhu, or Warhammer, or Middle Earth, or Cyberpunk, or Vampire (plus in my case a variety of French games), and there was hardly anybody I knew who still played DD.
It is also my feeling that it’s not the case anymore. I wouldn’t know for sure, because not only I don’t play anymore but also I don’t follow at all what’s happening anymore, but nowadays, almost all references I read to RPG are about DD, a bit like it was at the very beginning when there were almost no alternatives.
I would strongly disagree here. First, as i already stated, they offered different systems allowing a very different approach to RPG, and from my point of view, what they offered were often extremely interesting and original settings, sometimes based on existing fiction, sometimes created by the game authors.
Maybe someone is going to say that a good, creative GM can provide an equally interesting setting, but it’s not my experience. Even the best GMs I’ve known didn’t create “worlds” as good and original as the ones provided with games or on which games were based.
As I wrote before, it isn’t at all my experience. But then again, the success of alternate games might have been an European (or maybe even French) phenomenon, and ADD might have kept its dominant position all the while in the USA.
Regarding games that have to be mentioned, I would nominate Call of Chtulhu. It seems that at some point, everybody was playing it, if only sometimes. I wonder if there are somewhere objective sale figures to be found.
Ironically (or perhaps coincidentally) I think many of those reasons stemmed from Brad McQuaid’s goal of essentially making virtual AD&D. Hence the food and drink that did nothing, no NPC titles (“Baker”), hell you weren’t even given stats on your spells or a real mana number to keep track of. For a select group of people who grew up on RPGs, some of that was acceptable but, for most players, that shit was bananas.
I was one of the five people in the world to own/play Wraith!
I dunno; I feel like there WERE lots of other RPGs in the 80s and 90s, but people mostly seemed to be playing D&D and WoD. Of course, this is all super speculative, since none of us really have anything more than anecdotal evidence on this topic.
I’m not so sure; Certainly, through the magic of the internet, there are many, many more games (of generally better quality, also due in part to the internet) available for purchase than there ever have been before. This doubtless results in some market fragmentation; D&D (and I include Pathfinder in this, since it’s essentially just D&D 3.75) is still big but split across “editions”. The newest Star Wars game has some traction, Dungeon World is surprisingly popular, Numenera has done pretty well, Savage Worlds definitely has a following, etc.
Brad was a NUTJOB. When he ran off and did all that work on Vanguard and it was like “Yah! Now we’re doing Everquest right! With The Vision and stuff!” I just shook my head and said “Sorry, your game is dead already.” and yup, it was.
Now now, there must’ve been at least 10 who OWNED it. You might be right about only five PLAYING it though.
Played a one-shot once; that was enough. But somewhere I still have the first printing of Wraith, and we had an alternate game called the Wraith Challenge. You get someone to read the poem on the back cover emotively and accurately (typos and everything) without cracking a smile.
I know, how ridiculous is that–that you have a number on your character sheet to roll to save vs. lightning, and you choose a different number depending on whether it’s a spell or a wand?
Thank god 3E cleared all that up, where you have a number to add to a roll, and your target number is determined by spell level + the int of the caster, unless it’s a sorcerer in which case it’s the cha of the caster, unless it’s a wand in which case you need to figure out the theoretical lowest int or cha that could cast the spell, determined by 10+the spell level, and then take the modifier from that and add it onto the spell level +10. Totally streamlined and inarguably superior.
Because nothing ever gave bonuses to saving throws?
You mean “Where you have a number on your character sheet that you add to roll against a target number provided to you by your opponent?” Trying to derive it on the spot makes about as much sense as trying the derive the chart in AD&D. Actually, if you really wanted, you could make the chart.
Been awhile since I played 1E, but IIRC, the bonuses were a lot rarer than in 3E.
The save bonus is on your sheet, sure, but the DC is tricky–folks I play with often don’t have the DC ready to go, and they’re significantly trickier to derive than they were in 1E.
In general I agree that 3E did a great job systematizing things–when I realized 3E was object-oriented, it blew my mind in the best way. Many changes made the game make a lot more sense. At the same time, in my experience it led to a lot more computation both before and during the game.
The example of saves vs. lightning is great. In 1E it was arbitrary, hard to understand, and simple. In 3E it’s very sensible, affected by everything it ought to be affected by, and complex.
Right, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t change “never”
I think this is kinda on them; Like, if a player casts a spell and doesn’t know what his saving throw DC is, that’s his fault, just the same way as it’s his fault if he doesn’t know what number to roll against a spell because he didn’t write THAT down. One comes from looking it up in a table, one comes from from doing a bit of basic math, but both only change when you level up or some other significant event.
I… guess? I mean, the saving throw example is a great one. In AD&D, you leveled up and looked up a bunch of new numbers about your character. In 3E, you level up and you compute a bunch of new numbers about your character. I don’t see a big difference there. OTOH, 3E does have a larger “bunch” of numbers, but I think that’s the difference, not the fact that you have to “figure out” what 10+half your level+charisma mod or whatever is. Honestly, for me, the computations are quicker than the table lookup, but when there are three times as many numbers, it starts to feel like work.
Note: I am not actually a big fan of 3X - I find it WAY more rules heavy than I like my games.
The irony is that it doesn’t need to be either. It’d be perfectly fine if you had arbitrary numbers as long as it made some degree of sense which arbitrary numbers you used for what. Though ideally the numbers wouldn’t be completely arbitary either. But really, 4E does the best job here - everyone has an “attack” and some defenses. Casting lightning bolt on me? You use your attack value against my reflex defense, because I am dodging. Casting a mind control spell? Same (or at least, very similar) attack value, vs my will defense. These numbers are updated on level up via a simple formula, and more importantly, there are only 5 of them. 4E gets a lot of flak, but it did a lot of stuff right. (Note: I haven’t actually read the 5E rules, so maybe they are better)
On the one hand, I agree: it’s annoying for me when a player doesn’t know their bonus, and we have to stop while everyone reminds them how to calculate it.
On the other hand, when I said that I had three separate spreadsheets for my druid, I wasn’t kidding. Knowing all the numbers is really complicated. Whereas in 1E, the target number was pretty much determined by one table–all fifth level fighters saved against all wands at the same target number–in 3E, the following factors affect a spell’s DC:
-Whether it’s cast by a caster, a staff, or a wand;
-The spell level
-The caster’s casting score (which can change pretty often, depending on buffs or debuffs)
-Whether the spell has any applicable feats (e.g., spell focus)
If you’re casting a dozen spells with saves, it’s not uncommon to have six or seven different DCs–and high level casters can have two or three dozen spells easily.
I think people either do what you and I do, devoting way too much out-of-game time to figuring all of these out (as I said, my third-level fighter has eight different attack bonuses depending on which feats apply to the situation), or do what the other folks in my group do, calculate them on the fly.
I love 3E and Pathfinder, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a crapload of math in it, and I definitely don’t think it’s simpler than 1E. More logical, sure, but not simpler.
Definitely–I love this aspect of 4E, not only for the reason you give, but because it allows PCs to be rolling more dice. It’s a complaint about 3E that the high-level debuff caster rarely rolls anything, and watching the pretty plastic sparkle and roll is part of the fun of the game.
Fair; Though I’m not sure at this point that 3.X qualifies as “modern games” since they’re basically just rearranging the deck chairs on a game that came out in 2000.
And I confess, the amount of math (and, really, just the general “crunch” level) in these games is why I’m no longer interested in playing them.
That’s an interesting point; While I do think that for a lot of folks the act of rolling dice is really cool, I have realized recently that it’s not something I -require- in my gaming experiences.
Perhaps–but Pathfinder is a pretty huge current in gaming right now, and while it might not be incredibly innovative, it’s definitely modern in that sense.
I have a love-hate relationship with it. My head sometimes needs something to grapple with, and if I don’t give it something else, it’s going to go down dark paths, getting in useless enraged arguments with people in my head. But if instead I give it a twelfth-level fighter in Pathfinder, it can spend a long time happily figuring out the attack bonus for the character, comparing optimal builds for an archer versus a greatsword-fighter. The crunchiness gives my brain-hamsters a wheel to run on.
Mid-game, it drives me crazy.
No doubt. One of my all-time favorite games was one I played with some friends in the mid-nineties. The GM rotated on a monthly basis, and characters also rotated, albeit more slowly (the new GM surrendered her character to the old GM). There were no dice involved, and not a lot of combat. The single most powerful scene in the game was a dinner party at which a professorial PC’s wife called him into the kitchen and, while chopping carrots for salad, told him she suspected an affair and was offering him a friendly separation, though that was the last thing she wanted.
They don’t make gaming sessions like that these days.
