Houserule or Just Sloth?

[geneweigel]

I recently saw a thread elsewhere (K&K here) where if they didn't use segments are they still playing AD&D.

It depends on the alternative. If its a cloak to hide that you don't even want to try to understand Gygax's Advanced and prefer to keep on playing the same Lorraine Williams' non-developed but trend-based D&D games with skills and all that junk then yes you need to at least give the game as is a try.

You can't play the Zeb Cook edition books then say its just a heavily house-ruled 3 book set game. One is one and one is the other.

When I had that village and dungeon game in 2006 (geez has it been that long?) one of the particpants e-mailed me out of the blue and asked me if the rules that we were using were CHAINMAIL. To which I was kind of confused because we had no large scale battles at all during that campaign but I had the book out on the table one or two times.

I think that there is a sense of belonging to the original things that everyone wants and they shouldn't be denied.

So I think if you make an effort to implement facets of AD&D or keep them in mind always then you are playing AD&D. Otherwise its laziness if there is no effort. I've created "house rules" of accelerating magic spells by relearning them. Now thats a fucking house rule. Should using the second edition system and not even bothering to use the simpler classic AD&D system and calling it classic AD&D with house rules fair to players?

Now thats the question!

[Falconer]

Just sloth in my case, I guess. I never decided I was “not using segments.” In my head, segments were always still the laws of the universe. It was just rare that I had to zoom in to that level of detail, in my judgment. I always preferred to speed through combat. But it’s possible we lost something in the process.

[geneweigel]

Using another system and calling it OD&D because OD&D is an open system isn't a house rule.

For example, using critical hits isn't a house rule its a known Gygaxian game breaker. Well, according to POLYHEDRON #1 (1981)

RPGA:

When the D&D phenomenon
first started, of course, there
were just a few players. We've
been explaining to people how
the first set was for hard-core
gamers. and then the audience
became more widespread The
version written by John Eric
Holmes was a little bit easier,
and now the latest version is
easily understandable by anyone
willing just to spend the time to
read it. You've made the terms a
little blander. and have been
getting rid of a lot of the gamese:
in general. improving it
for the mass market. Do you like
what has happened to the D&D
game? I'm sure you like the widespread
publicity and the approval
it has received, but do
you like the directions it has
taken?


E. GARY GYGAX:

(chuck les) If I understand right:
I'm not really too fond of the
way Dungeons & Dragons games
have kind of mutated and changed
into very strange exercises. But
who can say "nay" to someone
who's having a good time with
the game? One of the reasons
that I was able to throw myself
into the Advanced Dungeons &
Dragons@! project with such vigor.
and put in so many hours
and turn it out as quickly as I
could, is that I felt that a game
was needed that would have
more control over its audience.
and one that was not so openended
and one that was going
to have more uniformity of play,
and yet retain the sense of
wonder and imagination and
creativity that the Dungeons &
Dragons system, as a game form,
had produced. So I have high
hopes for Advanced D&D games
in that respect. Unfortunately, it
seems as if they're still being
perverted , although not as badly.
I believe that the RPGA influence
is going to help to raise the
level of Advanced Dungeons &
Dragons play by forcing a little
more conformity. I don't mind
creativity, I don't mind mutation.
if it brings out better game
play. and superior gaming in
general. But from everything that
I can see, all the changes that
are made are usually foolish
and meant to either baby players
along or kill them off, one
way or another. They're destructive.
rather than creative.
Just think about some of the
outstanding changes that were
made in Dungeons & Dragons
games, and Advanced Dungeons
& Dragons games too. for that
matter. and look at what their
effects are. Consider the "double
damage on a natural 20",
which of course seldom went to
the monsters, but only went to
the players, therefore making it
yet easier for the players to kill
monsters
Critical hits? Again, players
never took critical hits, only monsters.
for some reason. would
take critical hits. The weapons
expertise idea, that a player's
chosen weapon .. , he or she would
do a lot beller with it. And yet,
monsters fighting with their natural
abilities. fang and claw -
who could be more expert than
a tiger with its claws and teeth?
-weren't getting any bonuses.
The spell point system, which
allowed magic-users to become
veritable machine guns of spells
without ever having to seriously
consider what they were going
to take and just shoot everything
down, made the magic-user
the only character worth
playing.
Some of the proposed classes.
such as the barbarian I've heard
of and the mighty knight. and
one or two others that I've heard
of. create super-powerful characters
who just can .. again, it
was the only one worth being
Then you just go through and
beat up on everything The
changes in the demi-human races
create, again, super-powerfu l
characters, so that everybody
wants to be a dwarf, or an elf. or
whatever it is, and nobody wants
to be anything else. because it
overbalances in favor. And generally
these are done at the
whim of a Dungeon Master, or
from group pressure. to make a
rather uninteresting campaign
where everybody is one thing.
These are usually the Monty
Haul games.
On the other hand, you have
the really silly monsters, or suredeath
traps for the DM who
seems to be rather sadistic and
just wants to proceed to kill all
of his players regularly , in capricious
ways, without giving
them any chance whatsoever.
That's also guaranteed to spoil
a game.

RPGA: So how should somebody - assuming
that these major pitfalls
are avoided and game balance
is attempted. at least - how
should someone introduce a
new monster, a new magic item.
and so forth, to be sure of game
balance?


EGG: Compare it to what's there. There
Is a monster rating system; it's
fairly easy, and it's given in the
DMG. Just write up the points
for the monster and be fair -
and then look at what it is, compared
to the other monsters,
and use it. For example, someone
was talking about a dragon
that changed hues, and as you
were fighting it, one moment it
would be red , and another it
might turn to blue, and then violet...
a spectrum dragon, or a
rainbow dragon, or a scintillating
dragon, something like that.
Well , this would be just a horrendous
monster, assuming it
could use each of those powers
{breath weapons} three times;
or even jf it could only use them
once! Particularly if you got into
some of those shades ... obviously,
you can't throw it against anything
except super-powerful
characters. The problem with
characters is that.. . how many
new monsters can you dream
up, and how many new challenges
can be dreamed up to
handle a thirty-second level..
ANYTHING? The game is reasonably
well-balanced, as it
stands right now; so that if you
add in a new character class, it
should be within the general parameters
of the other characters,
and have some useful purpose.
Obviously, rangers have a useful
purpose: they're basically an
outdoor character, like a druid
is, although both work well in a
dungeon. A paladin is specifically
aimed at lighting all the
bad guys. and the undead. The
cleric is there to both fight and
heal. A magic-user is there to
use some powerful spells to get
the group through the tough
times; the fighters are there to
bear the brunt of all the action.
The thieves are to act as, kind
of, scouts, (SORRY I HAD TO
EMPHASIZE THIEVES ARE
NOT SCOUTS BUT
"KIND OF SCOUTS"-GENE )
and second-story men,
and deliver some nifty behind
the back blows, and so forth .
Illusionists are a type of magic-user,
meant really to probably
best combat the more stupid
monsters, or humans. Bards are
an interesting exercise for those
people dedicated to a long-term
project in an ongoing campaign.
Monks are intriguing in that they
offer all sorts of promise if you
can get them up near the top.
But if the DM plays it properly.
its going to be so hard to get a
monk up to beyond tenth level
that it might mean - DESPAIR
So, and even so, the Grandfather of
Assassins - or the Grand
Master of Flowers in the monk
class - or a 23rd level Bard - or a
20th level magician or wizard - is
certainly tough, but its very hard
to get there. and by that time
there's probably one or two other
characters to contest that individual's
supremacy within
the game. And of course,
anybody who properly DMs a
campaign long enough to get
somebody up to that level has
certainly put in enough creative
work to have challenges, and so
forth. commensurate with the
level of players.

A "fan" letter responds to this, sort of, in the villainous and ultimate nerdy 2E type fan tone that we are now well familiar with in POLYHEDRON #11 (1983) here in his "pupae form" as Demigod of Awkwardness Roger E. Moore:

Dear POLYHEDRON Newszine,
"This is the first time I've ever written
to your magazine. It's been on my mind
to do so for a long time now; Issue #9 was
the spark that it took to get this letter
going.
"In the Notes For The Dungeon Master
column by Frank Mentzer, there was a
comment to the effect that the creator of
the AD&D game, Gary Gygax, does not
himself run a 'straight,' by-the-rulesgame.
This seems rather funny in away, because
numerous times, people I've met and
gamed with have asked me if anyone
ever played a by-the-rules AD&D game,
and my answer was always, 'Well, Gary
Gygax probably does, but I don't know
of any others.'
"What I would like to do in this letter is
to lay to rest, forever, the rumor that official
AD&D games are common, or even
occasionally seen. I have been playing
AD&D and D&D games since 1977, and
in all those years have never seen an
AD&D game that did not include at least
small amounts of 'unofficial' game material.
There have been critical hit charts,
critical fumble tables, double-damage on-
all-20's rules, new character classes,
new character races, new weapon types,
new magical spells, new monsters, altered
level-progression systems that let
dwarves be paladins and the like, games
in which everyone had an artifact, and
games in which there was no magic.
Melee has been restructured for segment by-
segment play or streamlined to dump
things like speed factors and armor class
adjustments for weapons. Magical
systems - I could not count all the new
magical systems I've seen. Elements from
other games have been included on top
of all this. Some characters have been
allowed to reach levels over 20 (some up
to level 100); some games have no one
over 1st-level.
"I allow alternate player character
classes and races to participate in the
games that I run. Several of my games
have involved conversion of player characters
to new game systems for short
adventures. Why do I do this? Why does
anybody do this? Because it is fun. I like
it. The people I game with tell me they
like it. They alter their own AD&D games
and they like it, and so do their players.
Aren't some people unhappy with
changing AD&D game rules or some
additions Dungeon Masters make to the
system? Sure. Aren't some people
unhappy playing a 'by-the-rules' system
of the AD&D game? Sure. Are there
more people who play 'straight' AD&D
games than there are people who play
variant AD&D games? I wouldn't want to
put it to the test if I were you.
"What's the point of all this? The point
is that someone doesn't have to be as
creative as Gary Gygax in order to be
'allowed' to play variant AD&D games.
By 'allowed' I mean freed from criticism.
It can well be argued that many variants
of the AD&D game are unbalancing to
the system, and from personal experience
I know that to be true. But from
personal experience, I know that many
variant games are very plausible. A lot of
people like critical hit tables; I don't, but
they do and they seem to have a well-run
campaign with them anyway (monsters,
like player characters, get to do critical
hits). Every DM chooses for himself or
herself how the campaign will be
structured.
"As for 'unofficial' AD&D games in
convention tournaments, my wife and I
have been in several and we haven't seen
a strictly 'official' one yet. There were
always particular 'house rules' that aitered
the system in someway, which we learned
and accepted. It was no big deal.
"It all boils down to this: the AD&D
game, like any other game in the whole
world, is still a game. People play AD&D
games to have fun. I may raise my voice
against some particular practice or
another, but at the bottom line I realize
that I am making a lot of noise about
nothing. Games are meant to be fun - a
shared experience for a small group of
people who just want to have a good
time. However, I will defend to the death
all my player characters the right of
anyone to play whatever they want, provided
it doesn't harm anyone, and Heaven
knows, the AD&D game is as harmless as
they come.
" I would appreciate it if you consider
this letter for publication in a future issue
POLYHEDRON Newszine. I would
be interested in hearing other people's
feelings on this matter. Thank you for
your time."
- Roger E. Moore, Louisville, KY


Let me preface my reply to this letter by
mentioning to any of our good readers
who may have been residing on another
plane for the last year or so, that Roger is
a contributing Editor for DRAGON'·
Magazine and has produced some extremely
good material to be optionally
used with the AD&D game system. (My
favorite ones are the "Point of View"series
of non-human and demi-human deities!)
Having listed your qualifications,
Roger, let me say that I both agree and
disagree with your letter. The disagreements
arise in a number of areas, but let
me point out the strongest ones.
A) You're wrong if you say that because
you haven't run in any "straight" games
they aren't "even occasionally seen." I've
seen them and run in them, both private
and tournament games, and I can assure
you that they are definitely out there. I
must agree that they are not "common." I
feet that this point was the whole thrust
of Frank 's comments. If you observe the
number of new gamers starting out who
don't even try the established, balanced
system, or as Frank mentions, "the D&D
game, a flexible and adaptable framework,
"you'd understand the reason Frank
urges players to try it. The amount of
mail I read from Refs who have strayed
from the game (not only ADVANCED
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and DUNGEONS
& DRAGONS games, but nonTSR
games as well) and whose games
are now completely out of control is
staggering. The usual reason for this is
because they didn't even try to balance
the game as it is constructed. Seldom
can you successfully build options without
knowing the basic framework, or
even how and why it exists. I believe
what Frank was emphasizing is the need
to play the game long enough to make a
sound judgement concerning what should
or shouldn't be "dumped."
B) RPGA HQ Is a bit strict when it
comes to having an AD&D or D&D
tournament run "by- the-rules." We have
never said that any other tournament is
less than enjoyable if it isn't one of our
official RPGA Network tournaments, only
that we won't support it. The reason for
this is because a large number of gamers
want an equal chance when they play.
We can't always guarantee equality when
completely off-the-wall monsters, items
or rules are introduced. Some gamers
may have fought a particular monster
before where the majority have not. We
try to provide the best common ground
possible for gamers to compete - we
feel the best common ground is the
established game rules that everyone
has access to. Your comment that ·'it was
no big deal, " is not usually echoed by a
gamer whose character was just killed in
an encounter that conflicted with Information
gained during extensive years of
gaming. Matter of fact, they often get
heated about this form of what they
believe to be "cheating."
As I mentioned, I do agree with you on
a number of points. The game is fun and
we have always stressed that fact. We
have also stressed that it is the Referee's
game world and what they say is final
-after all, it is a game. Since we agree on
these points, I am a bit confused when I
see the phrases, " allowed to play,"
"defend to the death of your player characters
the right of anyone to play whatever
they want, permitted it doesn't
harm anyone," and putting the two different
theories "toa test. " Where did this
all come from? Who said anything about
anyone attacking players or their rights?
It's all very democratic and noble, but I
don't see what it has to do with Frank 's
article or RPGA HQ. (I have this image of
me walking around at conventions with a
spiked club slaughtering innocent garners
who pleadingly call out, "No, Kim, no -it
was just an innocent variant!" "Tough," I
holler. " You know the (organ sound
here) RPGA Network rules! To vary from
the books is to DIE!!" Yep, pretty convincing
stuff, Rag.)
If a player wants to have an M-U riding
a griffon encounter a Scoutship from the
TRAVELLER game system, fine. If the
TRAVELLER players like it, great. Our
purpose is to offer a control, just like an
anchor, from which the gamers can venture.
These are our beliefs about the game, which are
there for the same reason as yours - not
to hassle or offend anyone, but to help
our members. Thanks for laking the
time. - Kim

All the AD&D rules were the state of the RPGA, this is the shape of tournaments and this is the shape of Gygax's hope for the future.

Here he showed that he took popular forms: the barbarian, the knight and the specialist and adapted them for D&D.

Nowhere did he try to adapt "critical hits" because they break the system down.

In the above stated link where everyone is patting themselves on the back for not using segments (as their dark lord Roger has ordered- JUST KIDDING!!!), we see the breakdown of even a resurgence in classic AD&D not because of lack of new material but because of the futility of it.

Why do the long ritual to conform to Gygax's ideals to fit in this Shrangri-La of gaming , if you will, if Shrangri-La is now closed forever?

Because using the "full monty" (raw;naked rules) of Gygax is now not a way to stop the nerds (as Mohan comically suggests above) but it is a way to return to a better place. So while no one wants to use Grappling or Psionics...

...Its better than fucking nothing!

Anybody and everybody can follow Moore's suggestions but why would they want to?

This the fucking question.

I'd rather clobber the shit out his suggestions and focus on the adventurous dream outside of this scope to dream of designing greater vehicles of adventure not quicky plot-hook-thumb-a-ride-in-a-burnt-up-barely-running-car and pretend...

The game always rode on the new and the new has been many, many shortcoming for a looooong time. Even the new forms are still not using the energy that Gygax put into it. If we don't use his energy then its wasted.

Waving a classic D&D or classic AD&D flag must come with a price and that price is Gygax's ideas must always be considered first.

[davegibsongreyhawkdm]

Is there a site thread that collects various house rules lists?

I would be interested in users' links to recommended house rules that have been play tested and retain gygaxian AD&D flavor.

[davegibsongreyhawkdm]

Are most house rules centered around initiative, psionics, and weapon speed factor use? What other classes are in use in your campaigns - the archer class per the dragon magazine article?

[davegibsongreyhawkdm]

Are their recommended house rules variants for how far negative PCs can go before being declared dead and not just unconscious or in a coma?

[davegibsongreyhawkdm]

Do any of you tone down the triple rate of normal fire for middle weapons in surprise segments? Do any of you use individual initiative instead of group initiative?

[Merkholz]

I think that the combat round, surprise and the sequence of events in a combat round is, without doubt, the most confusing aspects of AD&D. Whether it's because Gygax hadn't adequately thought it through or just was unable/unwilling to explain it with clarifying effect I don't know. But I think it's safe to say that this part of the game could have used a second (or third) glance Before being set loose on all the unsuspecting players.

[geneweigel]

I've had DMs who roll surprise for every encounter. So its not like I don't understand where you're coming from its just that Gygax wasn't involved for so long that its hard to reflect on what would have been discussed if AD&D had remained official while he was alive. All I know is I've used everything in the Gygax era hardcovers some I probably did not use to their full potential before I grokked the entire system like for instance Tiamat. Used her once. ONCE! And I should have made her more powerful.

[Scott]

Gary once told me he over estimated the common sense of his readers. Which I think is true, but I think it's more a case of him writing for a broader audience than he was used to. He went from experienced, adult hobby gamers to lots of young neophyte kids. Gary was thinking, 'Eh, they'll figure it out, use what they want, ignore the rest.' Like the gamers he was used to associating with for years would do it. The reality was his new audience was used to board game like instructions that tried to clearly cover every situation.