I stumbled across this article by Gary Gygax about D&D in Wargames Digest the other day. I'd downloaded it (from here) and read it on my Kindle and left it there. I was looking for something else and found it again.
It's a fast read and pretty entertaining. It's got that nostalgic pull of what attracted me to fantasy role-playing gaming in the first place. It's got that way a good game writeup implies endless fun in the scenes you see in between the words.
I hit this quote and knew I needed to post about it:
"Players selected a "character type to begin the campaign - either a fighter, magic-user, or cleric (whether human, elf, dwarf, or what have you; and naturally, they can also opt to play as monsters instead)."
It had sure changed by the time the DMG, my formative gaming reading, came along.
"The considered opinion of this writer is that such characters are not beneficial to the game and should be excluded."
- Gary Gygax, DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE, p. 21
That's six paragraphs into a seven paragraph exposition on why you should do that.
I'm not a big proponent of freakshow PCs, myself, because I like "normal PCs, weird world" more than "weird PCs, normal world" and "weird PCs, weird world" just makes me tired all over. I wonder how much of it came from this? Not even a simple no; it's an op-ed on Hurting Wrong Fun.
Ah well, I'm no better. It's just such a stark change.
Had a major campaign chnge because a mixed party incuding a catfolk and an ogre decided that trolls were not monsters.
ReplyDeleteTrolls aren't monsters!
DeleteCatfolk, though, are clearly monsters.
I'd read it as the experiment run in '74 had proven to break the game repeatedly by '79, so Gary was basically say, "Look, this is going to cause problems, but if you insist, here's how to mitigate those problems at least a little bit."
ReplyDeleteCould be. I don't really have the historical knowledge to say either way - but having first encountered the 1979 DMG, that statement in 1974 seemed remarkable.
DeleteMy understanding was that Gygax always didn't care for non-human PCs, and by 1979 had sole editorial voice for D&D so he could spout off whatever he wanted.
ReplyDeleteSo you think his "naturally" bit was a nod to his co-author?
Delete"and "weird PCs, weird world" just makes me tired all over."
ReplyDeleteSo the latest Gamma World is really not your cup of tea eh?
I haven't seen it. The latest Gamma World material I read was for 2nd edition.
Delete7th ed is all about going gonzo and letting your inner freak out to play. "Pile of psionic kittens" is a throw away example of a possible character.
DeleteI think the difference is D&D was more free-wheeling, with a lot for room for judgement calls, while AD&D was supposed to be a more comprehensive system with fewer GM's calls. Of course, it never worked out that way as a practical matter.
ReplyDeleteYeah, D&D as descriptive of what you could do, AD&D as prescriptive of what you should do. The latter needs a lot of judgement calls in any case.
Delete