ccohesh001@ucdavis.UUCP (Peter Costantinidis, Jr.) (11/27/85)
Recently a DM posted a message to net.games.frp (distribution ucd)
looking for AD&D players. Some of his opinions of how AD&D should
be played surprised me. I myself have only been a player for five
years and with seven different DM's. This DM was so adamant about
his method of playing that I am beginning to have some doubts con-
cerning the manner in which I have been playing it. The rest of
this message contains his original posting to net.games.frp and
the mail messages that we exchanged after that. Lines starting
with "<" indicate the original Usenet message, lines starting
with "(*)" indicate mail originating from me, and lines starting
with "[*]" indicate mail originating from him.
I would like to hear the opinions of other AD&D players and DM's.
<From: ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (0058)
<Newsgroups: net.games.frp
<Subject: Looking for AD&D players
<Distribution: ucd
<
<Greetings. If you are a competent or eager AD&D player at UCD, and are
<looking for an intelligent, reasonable, mature AD&D game to join, then
<please call Gary Huckabay at 758-2673, or send mail to ccs007.
<
<Consider This: Leave your Monty Haul concepts and variants at home.
<This is a strict constructionalist game, and the books Fiend Folio (ugh)
<and Unearthed Arcana (Spew) are not used. Players consist of upper division
<and Grad Students, but all persons over 16 are welcome.
<
<Sessions are on Friday Evenings, from 6:15 or so until roughly 1:00 am.
<
<Interested?
<Call Gary at 758-2673, or mail ccs007.
<
<Thanks.
<
(*)From ccohesh001 Mon Nov 25 12:53:37 1985
(*)To: ccs007
(*)Subject: Re: Looking for AD&D players
(*)
(*)>From: ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (0058)
(*)>Newsgroups: net.games.frp
(*)>Subject: Looking for AD&D players
(*)>
(*)>Consider This: Leave your Monty Haul concepts and variants at home.
(*)>This is a strict constructionalist game, and the books Fiend Folio (ugh)
(*)>and Unearthed Arcana (Spew) are not used. Players consist of upper division
(*)>and Grad Students, but all persons over 16 are welcome.
(*)
(*) What is a "strict constructionalist game"? If you aren't using
(*) the "Fiend Folio" or "Unearthed Arcana" (and how about the "Monster
(*) Manual II"?) then how can you consider it to be AD&D? I can
(*) understand a DM who doesn't have all the money in the world to
(*) go out and buy all AD&D materials, but if a player has made the
(*) investment to purchase an "Unearthed Arcana", then I think that
(*) they should be able to play, say, a Barbarian.
(*)
(*) What is your stand on all the "official" articles in past issues
(*) of the "Dragon" magazine? Do you allow the Archer class? What
(*) is your stand on the modified Monk class that came in "The Best
(*) of Dragon III"? If you do not have access to these publications
(*) I would be happy to let you see mine.
(*)
(*) Are you the DM? If so, how many players and player characters
(*) do you usually run at once? How many PC's per player characters?
(*)...pc
(*)
[*]From ccs007 Mon Nov 25 23:12:17 1985
[*]To: ccohesh001
[*]Subject: Re: Looking for AD&D players
[*]
[*]Good lord! You don't seriosly expect to me to use unearthed drivel, do you?
[*]
[*]I've been playing D&D and AD&D for 13 years...(i was one of 30 original
[*]playtesters), and a contributing editor to TSR for six...
[*]
[*]Nothing in the dragon magazines is official, even if stated so by Mr. Gygax.
[*]
[*]The new monk is positively ludicrous, as are all classes in UA, the new
[*]'Oriental Adventures' book,and 99% of all the other classes I've seen played.
[*]
[*]I call my campaign AD&D by divine right. Don't go preaching to me about the
[*]basics and playability of AD&D...I've been world champion for three years
[*]('81-83, gen con AD&D open & IADDPA point schedules), and I've attended,
[*]organized, and financially backed over fifty conventions, and been voted
[*]best GM each year at Dundracon since 1978.
[*]
[*]If your letter is any indication of the kind of Game you're used to playing,
[*]you'll detest my campaign. I have written over 3500 pages of material for
[*]adventures, political scenarios, and characterization, all on the basis of
[*]maintaining game balance at all times. Weapon specialization, character
[*]classes which bend the original concepts of the rules by giving players
[*]powers they were never meant to have, and the mere concept of statistics
[*]ever going up are all elements which destroy the balance which makes AD&D
[*]the best game (when properly played) ever. You'll notice that those who play
[*]with the rules you mention (in conventions) usually switch to other games to
[*]fulfill their need for more character power.
[*]
[*]I could rant for hours...pardon my arrogance and anger. I suggest you talk
[*]to Al Differ in person if you want to know more about my game. If you're
[*]still interested, I'd like to talk to you personally, rather than by mail.
[*]Call me at 758-2673, or Al at 753-1286.
[*]
[*]In answer to your questions:
[*]7 players, all UCD students, mostly grad or upper division.
[*]1 character per player (the only way the game should EVER be played.)
[*]
[*]Pardon my tone, but you hit a nerve. Interested in tournament?
[*]
[*]Gary.
[*]
(*)From ccohesh001 Tue Nov 26 02:39:00 1985
(*)To: ccs007
(*)Subject: AD&D differences of opinion
(*)
(*)>From ccs007 Mon Nov 25 23:12:17 1985
(*)>To: ccohesh001
(*)>Subject: Re: Looking for AD&D players
(*)
(*)>Nothing in the dragon magazines is official, even if stated so by Mr. Gygax.
(*)
(*) Does this mean that all material presented in the dragon magazine is
(*) to be disregarded in your campaign? What do you consider "official"?
(*)
(*)>The new monk is positively ludicrous, as are all classes in UA, the new
(*)>'Oriental Adventures' book, and 99% of all the other classes I've seen played.
(*)
(*) I will admit to feeling that the new monk has some failings.
(*) But some of us other AD&D players like the challenge of trying to
(*) play new classes. In one campaign I've been in for a couple of years
(*) now I am playing a character called a Shape Shifter that a friend
(*) found described in some game magazine. The description of this
(*) character was lacking in a lot of details for an AD&D campaign, but
(*) the DM liked the idea and so we worked out the necessary details.
(*) As problems arise with this class we discuss them and try to come up
(*) with solutions that best fit into the game. Every once in a while
(*) this character is useful to the rest of the party.
(*)
(*)>> What is a "strict constructionalist game"? If you aren't using
(*)>> the "Fiend Folio" or "Unearthed Arcana" (and how about the "Monster
(*)>> Manual II"?) then how can you consider it to be AD&D? I can
(*)>I call my campaign AD&D by divine right. Don't go preaching to me about the
(*)>basics and playability of AD&D...I've been world champion for three years
(*)
(*) I suppose that if I can accept one DM who virtually creates a character
(*) class then I should be able to accept another who places restrictions
(*) on existing "rules". But, you make like anyone who uses the FF or UA
(*) is not a real AD&D player but a fake.
(*)
(*)>If your letter is any indication of the kind of Game you're used to playing,
(*)>you'll detest my campaign. I have written over 3500 pages of material for
(*)>adventures, political scenarios, and characterization, all on the basis of
(*)>maintaining game balance at all times. Weapon specialization, character
(*)
(*) Is it your opinion that the "new" rules destroy game balance?
(*)
(*)>classes which bend the original concepts of the rules by giving players
(*)
(*) Perhaps I could understand your point of view better if you could
(*) explain to me "the original concepts of the rules".
(*)
(*)>powers they were never meant to have, and the mere concept of statistics
(*)>ever going up are all elements which destroy the balance which makes AD&D
(*)>the best game (when properly played) ever. You'll notice that those who play
(*)>with the rules you mention (in conventions) usually switch to other games to
(*)>fulfill their need for more character power.
(*)
(*) I play with "those rules" and I could go on playing AD&D forever.
(*) I can't see myself switching to other games anywhere in the future.
(*)
(*)
(*)>1 character per player (the only way the game should EVER be played.)
(*)
(*) I have never heard this position on player/PC ratios before!
(*) I find it a pain to adventure with a lot of players. It seems
(*) that the more players there are the less frequently the party
(*) plays and the slower things go when they do play. Also, the
(*) smaller the party, the riskier the adventure. I am speaking
(*) in general terms here. So, with this, I find that I (and most
(*) DMs I've played with) would rather have a party of 4 players
(*) and 8 PC's than a party of 8 players and 8 PC's.
(*)
(*)...pc
(*)
[*]From ccs007 Tue Nov 26 22:56:52 1985
[*]To: ccohesh001
[*]Subject: Re: AD&D differences of opinion
[*]
[*]If you seriously want replies to your questions which would be more than
[*]superficial, you'd have to talk to me in person. Stop by Hutch on Sunday nights
[*]if you desire, or Surge on Thurs & Sat. I can't go into detail here. If you
[*]could see how a game works well with the philosophy I've outlined, you could
[*]come and watch a session. (although UCD players aren't exactly the best in the
[*]world, they have their moments.)
[*]
[*]Forever arrogant,
[*]Gary.
[*]
--
-- Peter Costantinidis, Jr.
-- ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001@ucb-vax.arpa (ARPA)
-- ...!{ucbvax,lll-crg,dual}!ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001 (UUCP)mjc@cad.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) (11/29/85)
I think you, the poster you responded to, and I would all have trouble
playing in the same campaign. My philosophy on what should be "allowed" is,
roughly:
- the fact that it's in an "official" rule book doesn't make it ok
- the fact that it isn't in an "official" rule book doesn't make it
unreasonable
I won't detail the changes I've made in the AD&D rules in my campaign; it
would take too long. (Send me mail if you're really interested.) No rule is
above scrutiny; if it looks bad to me or to a player I'll look it over and
rule on it. The game ORIGINALLY was meant to be "a set of guidelines that
could be modified"; only *after* original D&D (and the early days of AD&D?)
did TSR and EGG start handing down judgements from On High that only their
rules were real and if you didn't use exclusively their rules, you weren't
playing D&D.
As an aside, I refer to my campaign as "variant AD&D". I would like to meet
a player or DM who does AD&D *strictly* by the published rules; I don't think
such a person exists.
One question: Did you have permission from the other person involved in the
exchange to post that mail? If not, you should have at least deleted names
and sites.
-Dragon
--
UUCP: ...seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc or if that doesn't work:
...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crgchris@globetek.UUCP (chris) (11/29/85)
"Arrogant" about sums up this guy -- no, not all DM's are like this,
by any means. TSR's stuff is a *guide*, not THE BIBLE -- if you
encounter a DM too hidebound to use a little intelligent judgement
on some of the more questionable rules, then quit his campaign --
you'll be miserable because you'll feel he's arbitrary and unfair,
and the object of fantasy gaming is to HAVE FUN, not memorize
rule books and one-up the rest of the players. If your DM's not
open to discussion with the rest of the players on points everyone
but him objects to, you've got a little tin god, not a DM.
("he" in the above refers equally to "she", as well. Substitute as
appropriate.)
--
Christine Robertson {linus, ihnp4, decvax}!utzoo!andor!chris
If my boss thought he might be held liable for my opinions, he'd probably
laugh himself sick.cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/01/85)
<You don't have to be evil to read this, but it doesn't get in the way.> Quotes are marked by: >> Gary Huckaby > Peter Costantinidis, Jr. (ccohesh001@ucdavis.UUCP) writes: > looking for AD&D players. Some of his opinions of how AD&D should > be played surprised me. I myself have only been a player for five > years and with seven different DM's. This DM was so adamant about > his method of playing that I am beginning to have some doubts con- > cerning the manner in which I have been playing it. The rest of OK, I'll bite. By the way, Peter, I do hope you asked Gary for permission to quote his letter in your posting. I began playing D&D 11 years ago, and for both that and AD&D, and for that matter all RPGs, the final word on what is and is not used must be the GMs. If this differs radically from the printed versions, the GM should let the players know, and since Gary did say what he planned to use, I see no problems with that. I agree with him that most of the new classes are badly thought out, many of them are just powers thrown together to produce something new and different, with flimsy rationales. In part this stems from limitations in the inherent nature of a class/level system, but I won't get into *that* debate again. Game balance is a function of the GM, not the game - if the GM's good he'll maintain balance, if he's not then things are liable to get out of hand whether you use the new stuff or not. I tend to be a minimalist in these matters, I prefer a campaign where it's not necessary to trot out ever newer and more powerful magic to keep the attention of jaded players. (Note that I say players, not characters.) >> If your letter is any indication of the kind of Game you're >> used to playing, you'll detest my campaign. I have written >> over 3500 pages of material for This is a little bit of snobbism on Gary's part - it's quite possible you might enjoy his game even if it is radically different from the style you're used to, Peter. I hope you don't have to read all 3500 pages, though! :-) >> AD&D the best game (when properly played) ever. You'll notice >> that those who play with the rules you mention (in >> conventions) usually switch to other games to fulfill their >> need for more character power. Nonsense. D&D still has the highest (potential) power level of any game on the market (I include AD&D and Arduin Grimoire under the heading of D&D here), and munchkins can remain delighted with it forever. I find the reverse to be true; people switch to other systems when they can no longer put up with AD&D's artificial restrictions on role-playing. As for AD&D being the best game, that's silly. Any game is only as good as its Gamesmaster. A good GM can make any game fun, the rules are just a tool. > I suppose that if I can accept one DM who virtually creates a > character class then I should be able to accept another who > places restrictions on existing "rules". But, you make like > anyone who uses the FF or UA is not a real AD&D player but a > fake. What difference does it make? The only advantage to an "official" rules set is for tournament play. There's no such thing as "real" or "fake" players. >> 7 players, all UCD students, mostly grad or upper division. >> 1 character per player (the only way the game should EVER be >> played.) > I have never heard this position on player/PC ratios before! > I find it a pain to adventure with a lot of players. It seems > that the more players there are the less frequently the party > plays and the slower things go when they do play. Also, the > smaller the party, the riskier the adventure. I am speaking in > general terms here. So, with this, I find that I (and most DMs > I've played with) would rather have a party of 4 players and 8 > PC's than a party of 8 players and 8 PC's. The adventure can be geared to the number of characters, and should be. It's true that as you get more players, it becomes harder to find a time when all can attend, but it's also true that a campaign can be set up so that you don't need all the players to run it; you can just involve the characters of the players who are available. And undoubtedly as you get more players things proceed more slowly - the usual bottleneck is having one GM, who has to divide his time among the players. But if you're interested in roleplaying, it's usually much easier to run one character than two per player, because you can concentrate on that role, instead of slipping back and forth between two roles. Most campaigns that have two or more characters per player, I dare say, do so because the casualty rate is high, so the player can lose a character and not have to sit out the remainder of the evening. I used to allow two heroes per player in my Champions campaign, for just this reason. I now have one hero per player, and I'd never return to the old method. Having said that, let me also mention that I have run two characters at once and had more fun than I could have with one, but they were twins, so maybe that shouldn't count. And there was the campaign in which I and a friend shared a single character, a schizophrenic illusionist... --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney "You needn't thank me for telling you all this, the havoc created shall be my reward."
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (12/03/85)
In response to your solicitations, the one thing which comes immediately to
mind is that if you don't agree with the way a DM is Dm-ing then don't play
in their game.
It does - on second thought - strike me as odd that the DM you exchanged
ideas with seems to feel that people change to other systems in order to
play with MORE power. My reason for preferring RuneQuest is exactly the
opposite. Of course there is Champions. But you can hardly compare AD&D with
Champions now can you ??? :-)
the never-present whisper spirit
Joel Rives
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!"
<< Buckaroo Banzai >>johnf@apollo.uucp (John Francis) (12/03/85)
Before anybody ELSE tells me - I know that what I play is not AD&D, but I hope
that some of the points I make below are relevant to any frp game.
What is the DM's job? Is he an adversary, a referee, or what?.
In my point of view definitely "what". Our group meet once a week to ENJOY
playing together. This means that I, as DM, consider it my responsibility
to make the game enjoyable for my players. In particular I consider it part
of my job to avoid deliberately killing off characters. I try and weight my
encounters such that with optimum play all player characters ought to survive.
(Of course players will not always find the optimum way to play ...). Any DM
who sets up an encounter with the expectation that several player characters
will not survive it is running a campaign that will not get the most from
the players. My players put a lot of time and effort into imbuing their
characters with idiosyncracies, background, etc., and I consider it in poor
taste to casually throw away all that effort with a single roll of the dice.
(I know that AD&D has a Raise Dead spell to get the characters back, but I
regard that as a cop-out). There are other ways to remove characters from
the game besides simply killing them off. When I was a player in another
campaign I played a half-elf fighter/mage for several years - he eventually
got to max out as a mage, and got to be quite a well-equipped fighter. The DM
eventually "retired" him from the campaign by having him go off into seven
years servitude to a VERY evil NPC. This was quite "in character" - he had
begun to develop tendencies that surprised even me (the player), and I felt
that this was exactly what the character would do. This means that the DM
was able to remove a character that was out of balance with the rest of the
party, but the years of investment in the character were not totally wasted.
There is always the chance that he will turn up again somewhere down the line
(probably on the other side ...), whereupon I will get the chance to play him
again.
This does NOT mean that the DM should always avoid killing player characters -
it simply means that he should only do it when the players have made the wrong
decision or done something absolutely stupid. Two examples where I let characters
go without any compunction:
The party (low level characters) had just escaped being gored by a very
angry Unicorn stallion. They were patching up their wounds, and one of
the weakest of the fighters in the party said "I wish I had just one
good blow at that unicorn..." The way I play things, there is always a
one percent chance that somebody will be listening to anything starting
"I wish ...". A roll of the dice indicated that somebody was indeed
listening, and hey presto there was our low-level fighter in the middle
of the meadow facing the Unicorn. The player got surprise, and his first
blow was an automatic critical hit. This merely served to annoy the beast,
and about 3 rounds later all that remained was an angry Unicorn trampling
the remains of one fighter.
The party (slightly higher level) were raiding a crypt. In one of the rooms
they found a ghost. The character with the best chance of dealing with this
problem came to the (erroneous) conclusion that the way to destroy the pest
was to destroy the perfectly innoffensive suit of elven chain mail that was
also in the chamber. As a result the best magic weapon did not take any part
in the combat, and so one of the party characters got killed, and another got
aged beyond reasonable adventuring age before she managed to escape. Even then
she could have escaped earlier, but she was truly lawful good, and one of her
companions was trapped in the room ...
Another point - Monster value. In my campaigns, my players will go to any length
to avoid combat with a dragon. I simply do not believe that there exist dragons
with as few as 30 "hits to kill", let alone less than this. An average sixth-level
fighter has 33 hit points! To me this means that Dragons should START at around
80 hits to kill, and range up to maybe two or three times this amount. Instead of
dragons I have firedrakes, colddrakes, etc., which have the hits-to-kill of an
AD&D dragon (although slightly less offensive power), but do NOT have the vast
amounts of loot that dragons have. If my characters find a single item worth
2500 GP this is great treasure indeed - none of these Dragon Hoards with seven-
figure sums in gems, platinum, +4 plate mail,... I try and match the amount of
loot that a monster has on hand with the amount that a comparable player character
has. In other words if you defeat a monster single-handed in fair combat you might
double your total worth, but no more than that. And this is only for the richest
monsters, as I assume that my adventuring characters are the cream of their society.
An average monster might only have one quarter of this amount (or less).cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (12/04/85)
In article <2a7d8c2b.917@apollo.uucp> johnf@apollo.uucp (John Francis) writes: >Before anybody ELSE tells me - I know that what I play is not AD&D, but I hope >that some of the points I make below are relevant to any frp game. > >(I know that AD&D has a Raise Dead spell to get the characters back, but I >regard that as a cop-out). There are other ways to remove characters from > >Another point - Monster value. In my campaigns, my players will go to any length >to avoid combat with a dragon. I simply do not believe that there exist dragons >with as few as 30 "hits to kill", let alone less than this. An average sixth-level >fighter has 33 hit points! To me this means that Dragons should START at around >80 hits to kill, and range up to maybe two or three times this amount. Instead of >dragons I have firedrakes, colddrakes, etc., which have the hits-to-kill of an >AD&D dragon (although slightly less offensive power), but do NOT have the vast >amounts of loot that dragons have. If my characters find a single item worth >2500 GP this is great treasure indeed - none of these Dragon Hoards with seven- >figure sums in gems, platinum, +4 plate mail,... I try and match the amount of >loot that a monster has on hand with the amount that a comparable player character >has. In other words if you defeat a monster single-handed in fair combat you might >double your total worth, but no more than that. And this is only for the richest >monsters, as I assume that my adventuring characters are the cream of their society. >An average monster might only have one quarter of this amount (or less). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have not tried it already, I strongly suggest you look into RuneQuest. From the sound of things concerning your campaign, it would suit your needs better than modified AD&D rules. Just a suggestion. the never-present whisper spirit Joel Rives Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/05/85)
<"Knights are hardly worth it. I mean, all that shell and so little meat...">
So, once again, the spectre of straight AD&D by the book rears it's ugly head.
Once more, it must be asked what FRP is for, and why we play. This time,
let's skip the hard stuff and keep it simple.
Adherence to a rule system to the detriment of the fun of the game is no
virtue;
Creativity by the referee to enhance the fun of the game is no vice.
I invented my own rule system because I felt that I did not like other game
systems. I will play in Rolemaster, Fantasy Hero, AD&D, RuneQuest and others,
but if you want me to referee, then I'll run what I please. All referees have
the same prerogative, but the players have the ultimate veto.
Some groups I have known practice blind faith in the Holy Tomes of Geneva, and
all but go into cataleptic shock when a rule change comes out, and others
don't. Playing AD&D by the book is not all bad, but it's not all good either.
The same goes for all game systems, my own included.
In the end, it is the referee who makes the system, not the other way around.
A good referee can run *any* system and make it fun, while a bad one can run
*all* of them in sequence and be uniformly rotten. But a referee that
refuses to make allowances for possible imperfections in an existing game
system will be put on the defensive by even a moderately imaginative party.
And a defensive referee is a tragedy to behold, and no fun either.
My personal feelings about AD&D notwithstanding, I think one of the prime
requisites for a good referee is a willingness to talk over the differences
the players (and prospective players) have with the game, and be prepared to
accept reasonable suggentions. Not Official ones, but reasonable ones.
Now, about the comments about players going to other games in search of more
power, well, perhaps this is true for Arduin (but I doubt it), but it is not
for RuneQuest or Rolemaster, and as for my own campaign, no way. I left the
AD&D crowd because the characters got TOO powerful, TOO fast. I am one of
those silly people who believe that a person with 33 hit points looks like
a seven-foot-tall Dwarf, and that a five-foot-tall human should NEVER out-
hit-point a sixty-foot-long dragon, regardless of levels. I know these views
are unpopular, but I made up the system to be fun from my own point of view,
not anyone elses.
By the way, stupidity remains a terminal disease (especially when warrior
kings have 18 hit points), but that tale about the character getting munched
by the unicorn sounded a bit beyond the bounds of reason.
--fini--
Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
"To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare)
"I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes
"<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)