tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post8873892871878048885..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: SnobberyAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-82611732358336355652013-11-01T20:12:33.097-06:002013-11-01T20:12:33.097-06:00Late to the party (yes, I read the other, newer po...Late to the party (yes, I read the other, newer post), but oh well.<br /><br />Original D&D came out in 73 or 74, around the time I was born. And looking at that disorganized mess of a game, most of the original stuff does appear in the Basic and Expert sets (both the Moldvay/Cook 81 sets and the 83 Mentzer sets). And if you continue on with the Mentzer Companion, Masters and Immortals sets, you do get over 400 pages of rules. Just not all at once.<br /><br />And it's not all simplistic dungeon bashing games. And it's provided me with just as good of a base to create MY D&D as AD&D would have. Better in some aspects, I'd say. <br /><br />Now, I've not developed my rules as highly as you have. Never will. Maybe I am a lazy DM in your eyes, but really, I don't give a shit. I'm not doing this to win your approval, just like you're not doing it to win mine or anyone else's save the players at your table. And my players are having fun, enjoying my games. And when something like sheep shearing or forging international treaties comes up, we'll figure out something together. <br /><br />Trying to start an edition war to get people to think about how they can improve your game doesn't work. It just gets people bogged down in debating the minutia. <br /><br />Players already do what you are calling on them to do. I've had people leave my games or decide not to play at all because they don't like the simplicity of my rules. Fair enough. I hope they find games they will enjoy instead. I've never had trouble finding players who do appreciate it, and I'm happy to run games for them. Doesn't make one better than the other in my mind.Dennis Laffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03053699552003336733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-45850790244788693292013-10-30T15:33:05.945-06:002013-10-30T15:33:05.945-06:00Pissed? Hardly.
Pissed? Hardly.<br />Timothy S. Brannanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02923526503305233715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-52650725404055756512013-10-30T13:06:43.975-06:002013-10-30T13:06:43.975-06:00No, I'm aware of the cries for simplicity... m...No, I'm aware of the cries for simplicity... my point is just that it's really not about which rules set you start with, it's about where and when you stop. <br /><br />Also, the whole "rulings and not rules" approach to me was more about moving the game along than a design credo. I understand that's not how a lot of people take it. Again, the debate to me isn't about from where you started but rather to where you're intending to go.<br /><br />I should have been more specific above. My first sentence should have been, "Regarding AD&D's superiority as a starting point, I couldn't disagree more Alexis." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-55382374742905943152013-10-30T12:28:18.473-06:002013-10-30T12:28:18.473-06:00James, you seem to have missed the part where I wa...James, you seem to have missed the part where I was already <i>four years</i> into replacing the AD&D rule set before coming across the Basic Set.<br /><br />You also seem to have missed the part where people scream <i>simplicity!</i> all over the net ... it the OSR warcry. These people don't want a set of precedents (rule negotiations) and expanded gaming. They want the fewest rules possible for the fewest situations possible.<br /><br />Of course someone could take the Red Box set and do what I'm doing! But the proponents of the Red Box set aren't. If they were doing what I'm doing, then every set and every edition would be sauce for the goose ... and there wouldn't be edition wars.<br /><br />Apart from the apparent misconception in this post, where my AD&D roots are referenced for what they were 30 years ago, have you heard me hammering the Good News of AD&D?Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-18456512159009837142013-10-30T12:00:59.865-06:002013-10-30T12:00:59.865-06:00Replace it, get rid of it... your argument appears...Replace it, get rid of it... your argument appears to be more with semantics and attitudes than rule sets. <br /><br />Here are two absolutes for you: All published versions of the game are serviceable but insufficient. It's always been up to the DM's to make them better. <br /><br />The fault in your argument lies is pre-supposing that a DM couldn't do what you're doing with the Basic set. Many of your rules actually fit quite nicely on a Basic chassis. I know because I've used them.<br /><br />By your stated standards AD&D would be just as limited as Basic D&D, only with a few pet classes and a pole arm fetish bolted on. Nothing you argue for above and in the other post was ever addressed by AD&D that I recall. <br /><br />The best one can say about AD&D is that it was sophomore year for the game. Celebrating it or holding it up as some standard is, at best, only marginally better than gushing about the Basic set. You're better off holding your own game up as the standard, but that's really what all of this is all about anyway, right? <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-22474077880862938252013-10-30T11:44:13.202-06:002013-10-30T11:44:13.202-06:00Tim Brannan is pissed that I did not immediately r...Tim Brannan is pissed that I did not immediately recognize that he was absolutely correct when he stated that I was absolutely wrong about the time of the Red Box set's creation. "That is what I get for trying to correct an 'expert' " he says.<br /><br />I am not an expert in the order and authoring of D&D detritus, of which there is a lot, and over which I have yet to see any definitive agreement. I said right in the post that I had to be precise by "WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY" ... because I knew someone was going to correct me. I don't consider the correction either relevant or necessarily accurate - because I did not see a source for the correction beyond Tim Brannan's assertion. It's a shame that Mr. Brannan decided that this particular irrelevancy precludes the chance of anything else I've said being correct or accurate. But there you are.<br /><br />Don't argue with the point, argue with the irrelevancies. Troll science 101.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-7911126016156950952013-10-30T11:38:15.267-06:002013-10-30T11:38:15.267-06:00Very little, James.
But I didn't get rid of i...Very little, James.<br /><br />But I didn't get rid of it; I replaced it. And the original was critical in my thinking on HOW to replace it.<br /><br />I run a very, very complex world. You, a player, have three questions to ask yourself:<br /><br />How fair is it to the players? How much do you respect it? How much do you trust your judgement there?<br /><br />I feel my approach to limiting my involvement in my world produces those three qualities, which makes my world superior. I don't believe I could produce a superior world with ad hoc judgements. Moreover, I believe that Red Box set games MUST play like traditional D&D (hack/slash) because there's no room for any higher involvement.<br /><br />I want more than disagreement of opinion. Disagreement I have in abundance. I want an argument that rationally demonstrates where my thinking is faulty.<br />Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-22897089483421164172013-10-30T11:23:13.827-06:002013-10-30T11:23:13.827-06:00Couldn't disagree more, Alexis. Personally I&...Couldn't disagree more, Alexis. Personally I'd rather take 64 pages of rules that work and build the rest from there then have to trim out all of the useless shit Gygax packed into the DMG and PHBK then have to rebuild the damn thing after that herculean effort. It's not that the Basic Rules were so brilliant. It's one part nostalgia and one part not not being the hot mess AD&D was and is. How much of that DMG do you even use anymore? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-66058698806626404122013-10-30T04:57:53.923-06:002013-10-30T04:57:53.923-06:00I have nothing against basic D&D myself but it...I have nothing against basic D&D myself but it's basic, it isn't the whole game, it is a reduced subset of something larger. Not wanting to play the reduced training wheels version of the game makes some sense. <br />For me the Basic and Expert sets (pre Mentzer) offer enough of the game I'd give a calmpaign a shot, but it isn't "Red Box" once the rules are doubled. Were I DMing such a campaign there'd be a few houserules added maybe so many it would be its own game. Heck, my current D&D game is a house-ruled hodge-podge because no version of published D&D was good enough. JDJarvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07691101939920824546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-33606786149233651612013-10-29T16:04:03.115-06:002013-10-29T16:04:03.115-06:00How do the unenlightened learn if the snobs don...How do the unenlightened learn if the snobs don't show them the way ? ;-) <br />I wouldn't play 4e just don't care for it in the slightest, is that snobbery? JDJarvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07691101939920824546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-42617350801485268182013-10-29T15:08:29.028-06:002013-10-29T15:08:29.028-06:00Ok, so "Robert Holmes" is wrong. That is...Ok, so "Robert Holmes" is wrong. That is some Prof. I used to work with. <br /><br />We don't have to have guesses on dates. Books have ISBNs, Library of Congress numbers, we can look that information up. Get a copyright date.<br /><br />But otherwise.<br />Sure. Whatever you need think man.Timothy S. Brannanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02923526503305233715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-51922420215998068012013-10-29T14:40:01.537-06:002013-10-29T14:40:01.537-06:00On further reflection, I like that phrase, "....On further reflection, I like that phrase, "... got over it." Like it was a disease.<br /><br />Alternatively, "... got lazy."Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-15380157639686814042013-10-29T14:17:12.915-06:002013-10-29T14:17:12.915-06:00My facts?
What the fuck is a fact here?
For ever...My facts?<br /><br />What the fuck is a fact here?<br /><br />For every blogger who's out there screaming that this thing was produced on this day and released in this year and put out from this guy, there's ten others who disagree.<br /><br />I wrote "Robert" because that's what Wikipedia said. I don't really give a shit one way or the other.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-22991239568866306532013-10-29T14:11:01.411-06:002013-10-29T14:11:01.411-06:00Well...not to be the buzzkill, but make sure you c...Well...not to be the buzzkill, but make sure you check your facts first (granted you did say you were sick).<br /><br />It's <b>Tom</b> Moldvay, not Robert. <br />It the Magenta-ish "Red Box" Modlvay set was out in 1980-81.<br /><br />The <b>Robert</b> Holmes Basic, also called the Blue Basic was out in 1977.<br /><br />I went through the same sort of "red box hate" you described. Then I got over it. You know what, there is a damn fine game in that Red Box. <br /><br />Yeah I have D&D (and several other games) committed to memory. But who cares? Red Box is like the Wii, cheap and fun. <br /><br />And yeah. I do run these things at cons. It's a blast.Timothy S. Brannanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02923526503305233715noreply@blogger.com