All this work has made me think. The Original edition of the game required that DMs and players to create the game as they went. Not only the adventuring environment, but classes, gods, spells, magic and the like. The first few supplements were more to show what was possible with the game instead of define it. DMs were expected, and again required, to make up rules, fill in things that were missing from the game, make judgment calls on the fly, playtest the results and refine as needed. I've written about this powerful "genie in a bottle" effect Original D&D possessed that once released could not be easily stoppered again.
And in fact TSR's attempt to stopper it was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Strange that it got the moniker "advanced". Was that due to the depth of rules, or that it was to be seen as "better" than what had come before? Probably a bit of both. And even though the "advanced" version of the game stated that it still preserved GM fiat and as needed rules interpretation, it was clear that the game had changed. The official game had been more expansively defined, rules for most situations could be found, and layers of rich crunch and interpretation were to be found throughout. Truly playing the game "as written" required a knowledgeable and well read GM with a remarkable memory and organizational skill. You couldn't get by on a general gist of the rules and a good imagination.
Well, the thing is, you could. If others didn't really call you out on it. As long as everyone at the table was willing to roll with it, very few references had to be made to the official books. Essentially we were all playing "classic" D&D with advanced books. You see, this influence on AD&D, the genie in a bottle, ran through most games of the day regardless of the "advanced" moniker. Sure there were rules we changed to, but these were mostly already available in classic D&D. Race as class, nine point alignment, variable hit dice and weapon damage. We did enjoy the to hit tables, that made things simpler, but these also were already in development before compiled in advanced. And we really shouldn't be surprised. Advanced was a project of vivisection and reassembly of the original books according to Tim Kask. Most of what was in the books was already there before advanced was "created". It was just a matter of suturing the parts together with Gygaxian Prose and viola! Advanced Lives!!
But what as become clear to me is that advanced, true advanced, is a magnificently different beast than most of us have ever realized. Because, despite its Rube Goldbergian construction, AD&D does get the job done. It fits together, and while there appear to be contradictions, they are usually found to be contrivances that don't apply in some situations. Clearly improvements could have been made, but the man who was the true brainchild behind its cohesion is, sadly, no longer with us to do so. And he wasn't allowed to say much about it when he was here after the rights were sold. Thus we are left with his first edition, which, keep in mind was really a third edition. Original being the first, supplements being the second and advanced coming as a global third attempt to write the full definition of the game.
I have run into the labyrinth of AD&D when I truly did try and run RAW some years back. Originally we started with OSRIC so the rest of the table could get the rulebooks without buying used ones. But I quickly ran into problems trying to use the original books while my players used OSRIC. They are not the same. Some say the changes are minute, but truthfully they aren't. The problem is the layers of meaning and rules implications in the prose of the 1e books. They are simply lacking in OSRIC, and in fact come in slightly more clear in Matt Finch's second attempt Swords & Wizardry Complete where he sidebars numerous rules explaining some of the behind the curtain history and thinking that went on about certain rules and mechanics. So in our case we decided to make the actual AD&D books the rules default. But I played with savvy players and they began to actually read the books and challenge me on calls I was making in game. Why? Because I was making calls like I always had: because I either didn't know the rule from the books as written, or I knew but I didn't like it. d6 initiative being one--I preferred the 2e d10.
So what I began to find out that we were beginning to have rather deep discussion and sometimes disagreements about the way the game was to be played. The fact is, I rather enjoyed them, but also found my weakness in terms of game knowledge being sorely tested. As it happened this was about the time a slew of Pathfinder players began making noise and we shifted to play PF for a time. And I can tell you what, that didn't do much for my confidence. The point is I have experienced myself the terrible truth about "advanced" D&D. Not many of us are truly advanced players.
In point of fact I don't think Gary was. From what I've heard most of his games were fairly fast and loose, much more "classic" in style than "advanced". And for that matter if you talk to several old grogs they all prefer the original game, Tim Kask included. This influence of the original game on subsequent editions has always been a marvel to behold. In that way I think D&D has remained more or less the same over the years. At its heart, D&D is about a few constants woven together with the imagination of those present. And some people really like that. For myself it creates a real dilemma. More on that later.
And in fact TSR's attempt to stopper it was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Strange that it got the moniker "advanced". Was that due to the depth of rules, or that it was to be seen as "better" than what had come before? Probably a bit of both. And even though the "advanced" version of the game stated that it still preserved GM fiat and as needed rules interpretation, it was clear that the game had changed. The official game had been more expansively defined, rules for most situations could be found, and layers of rich crunch and interpretation were to be found throughout. Truly playing the game "as written" required a knowledgeable and well read GM with a remarkable memory and organizational skill. You couldn't get by on a general gist of the rules and a good imagination.
Well, the thing is, you could. If others didn't really call you out on it. As long as everyone at the table was willing to roll with it, very few references had to be made to the official books. Essentially we were all playing "classic" D&D with advanced books. You see, this influence on AD&D, the genie in a bottle, ran through most games of the day regardless of the "advanced" moniker. Sure there were rules we changed to, but these were mostly already available in classic D&D. Race as class, nine point alignment, variable hit dice and weapon damage. We did enjoy the to hit tables, that made things simpler, but these also were already in development before compiled in advanced. And we really shouldn't be surprised. Advanced was a project of vivisection and reassembly of the original books according to Tim Kask. Most of what was in the books was already there before advanced was "created". It was just a matter of suturing the parts together with Gygaxian Prose and viola! Advanced Lives!!
But what as become clear to me is that advanced, true advanced, is a magnificently different beast than most of us have ever realized. Because, despite its Rube Goldbergian construction, AD&D does get the job done. It fits together, and while there appear to be contradictions, they are usually found to be contrivances that don't apply in some situations. Clearly improvements could have been made, but the man who was the true brainchild behind its cohesion is, sadly, no longer with us to do so. And he wasn't allowed to say much about it when he was here after the rights were sold. Thus we are left with his first edition, which, keep in mind was really a third edition. Original being the first, supplements being the second and advanced coming as a global third attempt to write the full definition of the game.
I have run into the labyrinth of AD&D when I truly did try and run RAW some years back. Originally we started with OSRIC so the rest of the table could get the rulebooks without buying used ones. But I quickly ran into problems trying to use the original books while my players used OSRIC. They are not the same. Some say the changes are minute, but truthfully they aren't. The problem is the layers of meaning and rules implications in the prose of the 1e books. They are simply lacking in OSRIC, and in fact come in slightly more clear in Matt Finch's second attempt Swords & Wizardry Complete where he sidebars numerous rules explaining some of the behind the curtain history and thinking that went on about certain rules and mechanics. So in our case we decided to make the actual AD&D books the rules default. But I played with savvy players and they began to actually read the books and challenge me on calls I was making in game. Why? Because I was making calls like I always had: because I either didn't know the rule from the books as written, or I knew but I didn't like it. d6 initiative being one--I preferred the 2e d10.
So what I began to find out that we were beginning to have rather deep discussion and sometimes disagreements about the way the game was to be played. The fact is, I rather enjoyed them, but also found my weakness in terms of game knowledge being sorely tested. As it happened this was about the time a slew of Pathfinder players began making noise and we shifted to play PF for a time. And I can tell you what, that didn't do much for my confidence. The point is I have experienced myself the terrible truth about "advanced" D&D. Not many of us are truly advanced players.
In point of fact I don't think Gary was. From what I've heard most of his games were fairly fast and loose, much more "classic" in style than "advanced". And for that matter if you talk to several old grogs they all prefer the original game, Tim Kask included. This influence of the original game on subsequent editions has always been a marvel to behold. In that way I think D&D has remained more or less the same over the years. At its heart, D&D is about a few constants woven together with the imagination of those present. And some people really like that. For myself it creates a real dilemma. More on that later.
If ind your take really interesting!
ReplyDeleteAnother take on AD&D is that it was a personal effort by Gygax to claim control over D&D, as a schism was slowly forming among people wanting to have a say in its future. Gygax asserts his sole authorship and his role as the "Master" of D&D in the Players Handbook in '78 and elsewhere thereafter. I agree with you about the lesser quality of AD&D. For all it tries to do more, it falls short in playability. Maybe that's why I never played it much and even found the books annoying.
As a young boy, though, owning the Basic Set, I got the idea from the products' names that I would have to mature and understand to really be able to "handle" the Advanced rules! Gygax even presents it as for "advanced" players. I soon learned that this was misleading. Anyway, AD&D was never for me.
Very true Lich. As I quote Tim Kask in my most recent post; there were a lot of reasons why they wrote AD&D. And for Gary to have control over the game is certainly one of them.
ReplyDelete