So, Wait, You Play D&D? Like, '80's D&D?
So you're eating a sandwich?
Yes.
Wouldn't you rather be eating a vegan tuna-melt wrap on a gluten-free buckwheat tortilla?
No.
But don't you find that the texture of the salami on that sandwich inevitably leads to indigestion, fatigue, nervousness and decay of the fine motor functions?
No.
Well I've been eating food for 35 years now and I can tell you that it did in my case, that's why I switched to vegan tuna-melt wrap on gluten-free buckwheat tortillas and now I never have that problem!
Ok. I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever you.
It's because the gluten-free buckwheat tortillas are made with genuine unprocessed tapioca! Do you see the innovativeness of it?
Sure.
Do you not feel that if you wanted to be a better, smarter, more mature person, you, too, would suffer a great many ill-effects from that sandwich and prefer my spectacular wrap?
No.
You know that the guy who invented sandwiches is dead right?
Yes.
Don't you think that continuing to eat that sandwich indicates you are less mature, evolved, avant-garde, intelligent, and forward-thinking in your lunch choices than I?
No.
Why must you look upon my wrap with contempt?
I don't, go ahead and eat your wrap.
Do you think the fact that you despise my wrap proves your innate superiority? Because let me tell you now, buster, it most certainly does not!
Uh...
Why do you let your girlfriend eat sandwiches? Does she not know any better?
"Let"?
Why must you molest me with your atavism? Do you not see that my wrap is a wrap finely-honed and forged through decades of lunch-design-evolution and therefore is, ipso facto, the finest possible of finger foods?
You seem very happy together.
IT'S TRUE! WE ARE!
Yeah, champ, good going there. Enjoy that lunch you got.
Would you like to try my wrap?
Sorry, I don't like tuna.
Oh, but this is not just ANY tuna, it is tuna in a WRAP!!!!! Do you not see the glorious, all-applicability, all-lunches-to-all-people appeal of placing the tuna in a wrap? Never will you have to deal with the inconveniences caused by, say, the squeezing-the-protein-out-the-backside-of-your-lunch-effect, or STPOTBOYLE as it is known on the Internet!
Ummmm...
Do you not yearn for the worlds of lunchtime pleasure you are denying yourself?
Actually, I really like this sandwich...
Why won't you grow up, spread your wings, fly to new heights?!!!
Well, actually, I was gonna go make some money at my job and then drink with my friends and then have sex with ladies, I just figured, y'know, I'd have lunch first and I like salami so...
You are hopeless! I mock you! I will find a like-minded group of people who appreciates vegan tuna-melt wrap on gluten-free buckwheat tortillas! We will conquer you! You will see! Soon your outmoded neanderthal lunch-eating will be exposed for the fraudulent decadence it is! Lotta Continua!
Uh, ok.
____________
2011 addendum:
In order to have a full-scale analysis of this never-ending debate I would have to include a bit where the sandwich guy steals bits off the wrap yet still is not interested in eating the whole thing and where he goes home and makes gigantic sandwiches he's invented from scratch with far more stuff in them than any commercially available lunch product of any kind but since they're still between two pieces of bread the wrap guy just keeps giving him shit about it and saying how hidebound and tyrannical his approach to sandwichmaking is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
Oh...
Kay...
...
Can we have another picture of Mandy, please?
@GSV
www.mandymorbid.com
knock yourself out.
I don't think I noticed this the first time around -- or if I did, I forgot it -- but I may have to go and ponder the allegorical significance in "vegan tuna".
Also, if I were the type to wear slogan t-shirts, I'd have one with "Why must you molest me with your atavism?" on it, but I'm not.
I like your cool ideas. Can you post more cool ideas? The ideas and opinions you are not interested in looking at you are not interested in looking at.
Understood. Nothing alternative will be suggested. Scouts honor.
@Barking
"nothing alternative will be posted"
STOP IT. PLEASE.
You are a smart and nice guy, you must be able to understand the difference between:
ZAK: I like A because, for me, it leads to C
BARKING: I like B, because for me, it leads to D
(Which is fine and good and which you do sometimes.)
and
ZAK: I like A because, for me, it leads to C.
BARKING: I like B, because I prefer games which are (fun, mature, collaborative, interesting, creative, which involve everyone at the table, exciting, etc.).
___________________
That second thing is a form of logical fallacy called "begging the question". i.e., when you say "I like my way because then I feel like I'm GMing with the players rather than 'at' them"
You KNOW the obvious response you're going to get is "Well obviously that good thing you want is possible for other people WITHOUT doing whatever you;re doing or else we--who are smart--would all be bored playing our games."
So don't do that. It wastes everyone's time.
You are allowed to suggest different ways of playing.
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T PLAY YOUR WAY DO SO OUT OF IGNORANCE, NEOPHOBIA, OR A FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE UNIVERSALLY APPRECIATED VALUES LIKE: FUN, MATURITY, EXCITEMENT, CREATIVITY OR COLLABORATION.
Do you understand the difference here?
My intention is never to say that people who play differently than I do are in any way inferior, negative or wrong. I did however come to play the way I do because of a mix of positive and negative experiences. I want/ed to share those experiences.
I actually saw a post on a blog suggesting it was unlikely I actually had those experiences. As if no GM ever attacked a player, no player was ever a rules lawyer, no gamer was ever a power gamer and no GM ever ignored a logical assumption a player made because it wasn't in the GM's finely tuned adventure. These things happen. All I've ever meant to say is I have seen these things happen, I don't personally like them, I try not to do them.
I also try to explain why I don't like them so its not just me being 'Grouchy Smurf'. I do like having my players have a say in the world building as it relates to their characters. I do like letting them develop some background info so I have extra stuff to work with.
Do I sometimes pitch it a bit snarky? Maybe, sure. What I'd love to see is a response that says, "Adam, I know you're being snarky. Here's why I disagree and what I think is cool...".
Sometimes I get that, sometimes I don't. I try not to beat a point to death though because I know, as gamers and geeks, we rarely change our minds once they're 'locked in' on a subject. No one is ever going to convince me Picard is better than Kirk. I love Picard but not gonna happen. On the other hand I think I am more flexible than the average joe, seeing increments of ideas instead of absolutes.
So where does that leave us? Hell if I know. I will try to easy off the snark lever if others will try to actually listen and compare notes. Writing a whole post on the dark, mean, evilness of collaborative creations and the responses that followed just make me want to go somewhere else where people talk about working together as a positive. If that's wrong than I am gladly wrong.
>Writing a whole post on the dark, mean, evilness >of collaborative creations
Who did that, Alien? Not me. I wrote a post making 2 points:
1-"collaborative creation" does not always result in more than the sum of its parts, and
2-there;s a way to do collaborative creation that IS fun and IS good. In fact, that's what most of the goddamn post is about.
If I may venture a guess-and let me know if i'm overstepping--I think, at least regarding the post, you only read what you were AFRAID you were going to read, rather than what I wrote.
I think a lot of people do that with the OSR, they are afraid they are going to hear some cranky bullshit and so they glaze over a few paragraphs in and think that's what they're reading.
If you stopped for a second you'd realize -DNDWPS could POSSIBLY be against "working together"- that's all I fucking do here, remember?
As for:
"Do I sometimes pitch it a bit snarky? Maybe, sure. What I'd love to see is a response that says, "Adam, I know you're being snarky. Here's why I disagree and what I think is cool..."."
We don't do that here at DNDWPS. When people snarked at you I told them to stuff it and when you snark I am gonna tell you to stuff it.
There are lots of other blogs and forums where everybody can gleefully make personal remarks about everybody else for not rolling the way they do, this isn't one of them. I don't do this because I like arguing, I do it because I want to have more information about what I can do with my game when I'm done than when I started, and snarking derails that process.
@Zak
Oh I know.
Just the best part of that post was getting to the end and seeing her pic at the top of the previous post.
And I don't know if sandwiches is a good analogy.
Because sandwiches always taste better when someone else makes them.
I don't think that necessarily applies to games.
I did read the post and that's largely what I got out of that portion of it.
I obviously misunderstood the point you were trying to make. So much of it felt negative to me that I let it cloud over the positive parts. Or maybe, just maybe, your positive views on the subject were, in my mind, overshadowed by the negative ones. Its the internet. Until every post we make is a podcast or delivered telepathically some intent and nuance will always be lost.
I will refrain from snark, though to be clear I never intended to aim it at anyone in particular. Its sort of a general, ambient snark, a...snark field or aura if you will. I have deactivated it to the best of my ability.
And thanks for the PS.
New reader here, gradually working my way through your back posts.
Straight question, no snark: what do you like about OD&D so much? I played it for years and loved it, but would have little interest in going back and playing it again (other than for nostalgia purposes, I suppose). My reasons are pretty standard ones that I'm sure you've heard many times before. I'd be interested to hear what your reasons are. (If you've already laid them out in a post, I haven't come across it yet.)
cheers,
Doug M.
There are too many sandwich iconoclasts in the world!
Just sayin'...
See, I prefer wraps to traditional sammitches, but that's mainly because it means there's less bread to distract from the goodness inside. That doesn't mean I don't like traditional sammitches, just that if given a choice, I'll go wrap-style.
...oh, wait, was that some kinda metaphor? I thought we was talking about food.
@Doug
quick note:
Technically, OD&D is pre-AD&D '70s D&D where race-is class whic I don;t play.
But anyway...
I don't know what the "standard reasons" not to play D&D are since I don't hang out much on boards where people don't play it.
But here are my reasons we play it:
Why dnd instead of another genre?
-i like medieval stuff.
-i love (love) dungeons. would marry them.
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-i-mean-when-i-say-dungeoncrawl.html
-it's easy to communicate to players whats going on in a semi-historical setting
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2009/10/imaginable-monsters-sci-fi-monsters-etc.html
Why Dnd instead of another Medieval game?
-the rules newbies have to learn are simple but the game can grow in complexity as they grow in experience
-player skill is emphasized over PC skill:
http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/3159558
-AD&D is the only game EVERY SINGLE gamer I know knows how to play so it's easy to drum up a game. (I arguably would rather play Rolemaster if it was only ever just me and people who knew how to play already)
-it emphasizes style, puzzles and problem-solving.
Why AD&D (with some 3.5 thrown in) instead of a later version:
-the player is "small" and the world they explore is "large" rather than the other way around
-instead of 3.5: skills, feats, and prestige classes seem like unnecessary replacements for player-invented character details and also kinda confuse my players, many of whom are new to RPGs.
-Instead of 4E: 4e is fun but the combat is so involving that designing encounters is like a game in itself and there's little time left for anything else, like problem-solving and weirdness. I like it and would play it, but it is a different game. I like and would play Warhammer 40k, but i wouldn't want it replacing my D&D.
what's the difference between a wrap and a burrito?
Haha. Yes. Funny.
I finally switched from ADnD to 3.5 because I felt the rules were simpler. (very personal reason) And I dont like rules getting in the way of our adventure. But in the end, what does it matter indeed :)
I get it.
You play the game you want to play, and more importantly the game your players want to play. I’ve played every edition starting with AD&D, and I really do like the combat game of newer editions. I like building combat puzzles, I like playing with people that engage in the rules and the story, but for most people who play the game, especially newer players, those things just slow you down.
When I run new players or for folks who don’t seem to be interested in those crunchy sentences sitting on the page, I run it fast and loose. Earlier editions are easier to run fast and loose.
Nerds are a passionate people, though, and DMs are princes of their own pocket universe. They often think they have the answers for what makes a game perfect. And they are correct but in a limited sense—they have the greatest game their basement has ever seen. And that is awesome.
Any give day, I can tell you why I think Pathfinder and 4e are superior games to the editions that came before them. I still like playing an occasional AD&D game. But eventually boasts of superiority and sermons about how my favorite games have the most awesome just make people sick of listening to me. And all that jabbering does not capture the fun of D&D. You have to experience it to get it, and even then some people just don't.
I disagree with you, Zak; I think the DM is the director. But some directors are the charismatic leaders of the cast (and act more like a lead), others are dogged workers, some are fine administrators, and a few channel the authority of some dread ancient god. But all successful directors know how to wrangle their cast and entertain their audience. It just happens that in D&D cast and audience are the same thing.
Eat the sandwich you want. Your players are the only ones who have to smell your breath.
If I'm starving, I'll even eat liver and brussel sprouts to receive nourishment. I might even enjoy it if there is enough bacon on the brussel sprouts.
@darktouch
If I remember correct you vampire LARPed, so I guess that's true.
Is tuna even a vegan allowed food?
I love the internet, as it provides me with porn and entertaining discussions. I care about how only one gaming plays (mine) though I used to care about two because I liked IHIWMA.
AD&D is a way for me to play games with my friends every Wednesday night while we drink beer and whiskey. I somehow feel that it's more productive than poker or bridge.
This weekend I tried to play Asshole with a bunch of Gen-Y people and they added a shitload of crappy rules (new rules to the version I played in college,) to the point where it wasn't the same game and I hated it. In my drunken mind, I started to compare it to the changes in D&D editions, but that was silly. I'm just a 30-something guy who hates the rules that my 20-something friends tried to force into a game that I started playing back when they were running around in short pants and had to be in bed by 9PM.
Thanks for letting me rant on your blog about my Asshole game. I didn't know who else to rant to because my wife is also Gen Y and thinks I'm being a grouchy old man.
"Technically, OD&D is pre-AD&D '70s D&D where race-is class whic I don;t play."
I hate to say it, but that's not the case in OD&D. Inarguably so by Sup-I when Thieves enter.
Anyway, Danifesto Rule #2: "Never dis another man's lunch."
"with" race-as-class. get it?
@Barking Alien:
Dude, you came out the gate with this: "The ideas and opinions you are not interested in looking at you are not interested in looking at.
Understood. Nothing alternative will be suggested. Scouts honor.", and you don't expect this will sound a little pissy?
If anything, Zak is being really easygoing about this, in what, after all, is his digital 'house', if you will.
RPGs: My way=best way is a false dichotomy, especially applied to RPGs. Rules sets don't become obsolete, they can't be 'phased out'. It's a benefit of the medium. Hell, I'm sure some one right this minute is playing, say Systems Failure, and loving it. I'm not trying to harsh your cool here on the 'Net. And I hope no one else is either. Same token, ya know?
Your experiences in RPGing Hell: I believe you. I've heard tell of it, and more importantly, seen it. It's ok to be pissed at those people who call you a liar. I don't think that happened here, and certainly not by me.
@Doug M: Forgive me, but this statement kinda puzzles me:"I played it for years and loved it, but would have little interest in going back and playing it again." Never understood comments like these. I guess this means: it was good at that time, but now I found something better. But then this sentiment WAS prefaced with: what do you like about OD&D so much?(Zak and the crew don't play this, as it was pointed out; I guess you didn't get to the rules posts?)
Me, I like all kinds of games, any one I liked I'd play again, certainly.
@Zak: this is even funnier and more pertinent than the first time you posted it!
Rolemaster: "I arguably would rather play Rolemaster if it was only ever just me and people who knew how to play already" *ding ding* 8-O. Did you just gain a level there? SS or Classic or 2? Express is col for casuals as well it's basically ICE's Middle Earth Roleplaying all over again. At this rate, I'll bet we'll learn you even play Encounter Critical or Street Fighter The Storytelling Game ;-)...
4E: Seemed a bit like their miniature skirmish game replacing their variant of Rolemaster-but hey, wasn't terrible, and people play it, right?
@velaran
Barking never said "my way=best way"
you need to relax, man.
@Zak S: um, oops, I type this in notepad, rearrange, and transfer to comment box.(So not as to retype if blogger loses comment, ya know): this
Your experiences in RPGing Hell: I believe you. I've heard tell of it, and more importantly, seen it. It's ok to be pissed at those people who call you a liar. I don't think that happened here, and certainly not by me.
was supposed to come before this:
RPGs: My way=best way is a false dichotomy, especially applied to RPGs. Rules sets don't become obsolete, they can't be 'phased out'. It's a benefit of the medium. Hell, I'm sure some one right this minute is playing, say Systems Failure, and loving it. I'm not trying to harsh your cool here on the 'Net. And I hope no one else is either. Same token, ya know?
But, in any event, if I came off harsh(I'm actually really hard to piss off, honest :-)): I apologize to Barking Alien(and you)!
Thanx!
OD&D does not have race-as-class.
@delta
What, then, is the term you would use for the version of D&D that had Elf as a class and halfling as a class?
Hm, wrote a comment that's too long to fit in one comment, so I'm going to be that annoying guy who breaks it up rather than pares it down or posts it on my own blog, mostly because I've spent too much time on this already and I don't have my own blog. Apologies. If a single person reads it and is made to think about this differently because of it, it will be worth it though, I suppose.
A metaphor that I think it's helpful to use in this discussion is that of the Distributed Cognitive System, a concept that comes from the philosophy-heavy sort of CogSci that I get all slobbery over. The idea is more or less that a DCS is any system with multiple points of computation that, in total, performs cognitive-like behavior. So, for instance, a brain is a DCS made of neurons. The brain-body system that makes up a person is a DCS. A brain-body-abstract-symbol-pen-and-paper DCS is much better at peforming division than a simple brain-and-body one is. The scientists who work at CERN, their instruments, and the social structures that facilitate decision-making together make a DCS. Metallica is a DCS whose group members have stayed the same while the social structures have changed, resulting in shittier music. And any role playing group is a DCS.
So, the question is what does this metaphor bring to the discussion? Well, I'd argue that most RP groups are looking to, in the end, output *more or less* similar things. Enjoyment for the individual players, stories to be told about playing, etc.. One of the major differences between Old Skool and New Skool styles of doing things can be thought of as where within the structure of the distributed cognitive system some of these things are performed, particularly narrative elements. New Skool games offload some degree of narrative control from the players and social structures and place it in the system in much the same way that long division offloads systematic abstract symbol manipulation from the brain and onto the pencil and paper.
The reason I bring all this abstract theoretical BS up is that I think it helps Zak's point here. When folks come along and say that the New Skool is more "collaborative" than Old Skool, or that it allows more narrative control on the part of the non-GM players, or whatever, what they're doing is denying that these things can be performed by parts of the DCS other than the RP system. The problem is that while a system can ensure that, to a degree, things such as plot or character development happen, a system that focuses purely on simulation of the world does not in any way ensure the opposite, that they don't. Rather, it puts the onus of making them happen on the players -- including but not limited to the GM -- and the social structures existing between them. Maybe it's accurate to say that in Old Skool plot is an emergent element of the entire DCS, whereas in New Skool plot is a created element resting on the scaffolding of the system (this ignores the 3.5-DMG-railroady style of play, but no one is talking about that here, and it's pretty easy to fit into this framework as offloading plot from the players+social system onto the GM alone).
Time to ground theory in examples. Dogs in the Vineyard, the sort of prototypical Forgeite New Skool game, offloads character development onto the system. After each conflict, characters gain new characteristics whose strength/weakness depends on whether they won/lost. Or FATE, whose aspect system allows players direct narrative control over the events outside their character. The thing is, and what I think the New Skool doesn't recognize explicitely, is that in bringing these things into the system, it systematizes them in ways that can curtail some creativity, and make certain kinds of unexpected events less likely. When I lose a conflict in DitV, my hands character changes in one specific way. When I want to exert narrative control in SotC, I can do so pretty much only by compelling aspects. The problem with this, to me, is that while when it comes to long division the unexpected is bad because it means getting the wrong answer, when it comes to narrative games the unexpected isn't necessarily bad, and in fact those of us with Old Skool tendencies think it's a desireable and necessary part of the game. We enjoy a system that systematises those aspects of the world which are systematic, but allows whoknowswhatthefuckall when it comes to those more ellusive, human-constructed elements of the world such as plot, narrative, growth, morality, relationships, etc..
Frankly, there are times and places where I agree that offloading these elements onto the system is a very good thing. For a one-shot with strangers, I'd much rather play Spirit of the Century than Dungeons and Dragons. It makes explicit people's expectations of what their characters are, it allows everyone some time in the limelight, and it ties the hands of the GM some (as well as the players) so they can't be an uberprick. When it comes to writing fiction with one of my buddies, a system like Universalis can be useful to get us on the same page at times. But in the case of gaming with my close friends, I'd much rather a system that stays out of the narrative so that we can come up with it on our own, because I trust our social structures and playstyles to make it happen on its own, in a way that is greater than the sum of its parts and more freeform than a system that constrains the narrative will allow for.
Blah, OK, that's long but hopefully coherent and thoughtful.
@Adrian
it was coherent and sounded pretty much like what everyone else has been saying. minus the jargon and examples.
@Zak S: *trivia* IIRC, and I think I do: you call it 'Classic' or 2nd Edition D&D; it's a syntactical quirk. Most people don't know the difference. OD&D allowed certain races to become specific classes. The revision in 1981 codified Race as Class: i.e. Elf is Elf , instead of Fighter OR Magic User, depending on parameters still discussed today! Feel Free to Ignore, if ya don't care is how I see it. *trivia*
Hope this isn't a double...
@Adrian: I'm a long poster, myself, so I don't mind. The examples given were germane to the topic, imo. I feel the same way. I don't understand why Universalis, imo the most truly collaborative of the New Skool games, isn't pushed more by that particular crowd of enthusiasts. Round-robin storytelling, interrupts, token buy-ins/antes, etc.. rather than Dogs, or 3:16, Houses of the Blooded, or Ron Edwards own Sorceror, and suchlike.
Great post!
@Zak S:
Seconded!
@doug, delta, velaran
well whatever it is, point is I don't play it, which I do feel I've amply proved here.
@zak yeah, the problem with my education is that I have a hard time not thinking/talking in jargon. Hopefully at least putting it in these terms more clearly delineates the issue for those who, like me, think analytically. Particularly (to be somewhat finger-pointy) because there seems to be a misunderstanding about the role of the system in the framework of a game that has been showing up again and again on the part of the New Skool folks. I've been enjoying the discussion here, it'd definitely helped me think about my own game.
@velaran one of the things I specifically wanted to point out is that how "collaborative" a system is doesn't necessarily map to how collaborative or not a specific game is (where to me game = a particular instantiation of a ruleset being played by a particular group of people). More to your point, I imagine that Universalis isn't touted more due to its lack of genre. While it allows for a very free-form story generation, one of the tenants of the new skool seems to be that system should enforce certain types of playstyles, genres, and game ends. But here I'm analyzing something I'm not a part of and know only superficially, thus putting words in people's mouths, so I should probably quit while I'm ahead.
@adrian
believe me, buddy, you're not the only one around here who thinks analytically. Most of us can talk parallel processors with the best of them.
@zak not at all what I meant to suggest. I know most people here are smarted and more informed than I am. Just trying to bridge a few gaps and participate a bit myself rather than always being the lurker. Apparently I'm failing at the whole "not being pretentious" thing while doing it. I'd blame the text-only medium, but that would just be a way not to get better at that in the future.
*smarter, not smarted. I obviously need to sleep before I type any more.
"What, then, is the term you would use for the version of D&D that had Elf as a class and halfling as a class?"
B/X or BXCMI by Moldvay/Menzter (aka "Basic D&D"). Started in 1981.
@Adrian:
"More to your point, I imagine that Universalis isn't touted more due to its lack of genre." as good a reason as any I've seen.(Though to my mind, that woould be one of its strengths...) Most New Skool dude/ettes I know hereabouts will pretty much play anything, and aren't terribly prone to proselytize their preferences. More than one will play D&D, oddly enough the older editions seem more popular with the particular breed who lives around here.(That's where I scored my copy of Universalis! Nice of the guy really.)
This "one of the tenants of the new skool seems to be that system should enforce certain types of playstyles, genres, and game ends" is something I've observed on boards, but never actually discussed in detail. This kind of explains the honorable mentions of Marvel Superheroes and James Bond RPGs as proto New Skool stuff. Mix that philosophy with Old School trappings and you get Clinton R. Nixon's Donjon!
@Zak S:
On the lingo:
It's the kinda shit you have to learn to drop out in the real world, just like every other professional does.(Oh, that CPT degree! What have you done to oursocio-personal relationships) I mean, you're not hitting us with Art Theory/Practice, now are ya? :-)
On thinking 'analytically':
Not touching this one! 7+-2's all I'm sayin'. That's on a good day.
...or I suppose some people call it "Red Box" D&D. This. (8E+)
@Adrian, very well said! I think you will find people linking to your comment as they do to Zaks and to Matts old school primer. One quibble, you said "systimization can curtail some creativity." As a chaos theorist I would argue that more strongly as "systemization is the curtailing of creativity".
Its simply the case that most of us prefer some things - combat tables for example - to be systemized, and others to be left to the creative chaos of the gaming table.
@Zak, the breakdown is pretty simple really.
"O(riginal)D&D" "0ed" = the 1974 edition + supplements. The collaborative effort by Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax to turn Blackmoor into a commercial product and earn some cash.
"Classic" D&D = Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia. (Holmes is usually included here also because it introduced the idea of race as class, but was otherwise much the same as OD&D).
"AD&D" "1st ed" "2nd ed" etc. = Gygax D&D, that, overly systemized beast that turned a great game into a monstrous, rules heavy headache.
"4e" A game introduced by Hasbro, using the D&D brand label purchased from a defunct company and generally having a very different ruleset.
Fun with Trivia again! Isn't this enlightening, Zak!?!? :-D
@Delta:
Yep, 8th Printing/Revision. (Not quite a 'Red' Box. Most people associate that with 1983's Mentzer, from what I can tell.)
@DHBoggs:
"Classic" D&D = Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia. (Holmes is usually included here also because it introduced the idea of race as class, but was otherwise much the same as OD&D).
As I understand it, Holmes belongs here becuase it is a revised version of D&D. Oh, and Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings can be Thieves in Holmes, BTW.(Though players are told to consult AD&D for specifics!) Race as Class would have to wait till 1981's Tom Moldvay-edited Basic.
4E: Ruleset is still semi-recognizable, I'd say. The feel of the game, not so much. Different expectations, I guess...
You may all be able to parallel process while doing the Times crossword and making a paella, but I blanked out about two sentences into Adrian's first comment, sorry. I've only just come to, and I'm just pleased I still have all my kidneys.
I dunno, this seems to use the other persons stubborness about their food as an excuse to just as stubbornly not eat the thing they make, completely, even once.
@Callan
Then you have completely misunderstood the post and are making your own interpolations.
Possibly, but probably much like yourself I don't just believe whatever I'm told. I prefer to investigate. But if there isn't time, fair enough. I'll leave it in a state of dubiety.
@Callan
If somebody says they are eating tuna and the box says it has tuna in it then they are probably eating tuna.
People who don't like tuna should probably sta away.
I just read it that he was eating a salami sandwich. Not tuna.
@Callan
the sandwich he doesn't want to eat is tuna
Post a Comment