Gente Che Gioca > Segnalazioni e News
Luke Crane sul "vecchio" D&D
Moreno Roncucci:
Ecco le cose che ritengo personalmente più interessanti nei commenti: sono tutti post di Luke Crane (e sono quasi tutti quelli che ha postato, a parte qualche risposta breve), perchè è l'unico che ha dato esplicitamente il permesso, ma anche perchè finora mi sembrano le cose di gran lunga più interessanti del thread (altri commenti di altri utenti SEMBRANO informati ma sono pieni di errori storici) e sono comprensibilissimi anche se letti da soli.
Mi sono permesso di accentuale alcune parti (quelle con cui concordo, ovvio). I post originali non presentano NESSUNA sottolineatura, grassetto o corsivo. Sono tutti miei:
----------cut and paste, da qui in poi è roba scritta da Luke Crane:----------------
Responses by person (This should get fun):
+Tommaso Galmacci Are you speaking about modules and boxed sets from the 80s? If so, I disagree with you about the nature of the involution. There were good modules and bad modules, but modules on the whole were beneficial. +Thor Olavsrud believes they were responsible for spreading the culture. They provide a little piece of shared experience that gamers from Italy and gamers from the US can compare. For me (and here is where I think we agree), the involution rapidly begins as they try to make D&D do more and more. Expert sense strains credibility. Companion, Master and Immortal are a series of poorly implemented ideas. But to say it began there isn't true either. It truly begins in 1978 with the publication of the Player's Handbook. Here is where Gygax exercises his true vision. And his vision is not the same as that of Moldvay. Moldvay indicates that there should be no "hopeless" characters. Gygax states straight away that the characters must be heroes, and proceeds to change the character creation math: skewing all stats to 13 or higher. To me, this is a signal that the designer was at odds with his design. Rather than recognizing the good in the original design (and by good I mean "elegant probabilities"), he mucks about with the math and thus sets generations of gamers down a muddled path.
+Chris Carpenter I have a diagram too and it doesn't look like Tommaso's. I'm trying to upload it now. [Edit: il diagramma è qui, finchè non viene cancellato da Google]
+Patrick Marchiodi Yes. I expect you to translate all of the comments! (Just kidding).
And my comments about the game are very general. I didn't expect this to be a vindication of D&D. Only that my group discovered this old game, played it as written and found it profoundly enjoyable. I could properly review the game, I suppose and break it down by segment.
For everyone who is reading this essay and taking away the idea that D&D is fun and easy, let me disabuse you. This game is hard. It demands focus and discipline beyond even what Burning Wheel asks of you. It is unflinchingly deadly. Between six players, we lost 13 characters in 12 sessions. And that doesn't include archers, men-at-arms and torch-bearers. Such a death toll is unheard of in contemporary games. My girlfriend plays 4e. In 12 months, not a single character has died. These are two different games. And this game does not cater to our modern sensibilities. And that is why we bowed our heads to it. It seemed deceptively simple, and almost friendly. But truly it is a harsh master, laying the lash across our backs as we map, call, fail our saves and get swarmed and killed by kobolds.
---------------- commenti successivi-------------
+Tommaso Galmacci I can't speak to inspiration or the talent of the author's at TSR in the late 80s and early 90s. Planescape, Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms all seem rather beloved.
I can agree that the tone of the game changed. It became more character focused, more "heroic." This is reflected in the rules, the art and the culture. Moldvay does speak to the idea that your characters should be heroes, but he does so with a light touch. And, once we played the game, we saw that if we were to make these characters heroes, it would be by deed and accomplishment, not due to some inborn nature. The two longest surviving characters have the worst stat blocks. Their players are inordinately proud of these characters. Their deficiencies give them great personality and flavor; they certainly don't detract. Unfortunately, the game rapidly moves away from such storied heroes. As I mentioned, it begins in 1978 with Gygax's PHB and it rapidly progresses outward from there into the Unearthed Arcana and onward.
--------------
For anyone interested in further reading about my experiences with Moldvay D&D, you can read these two threads on Story Games:
http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=15909
http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=16050
Patrick:
altri post in tema:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/eLhyQnUQS7T (sulle varie edizioni)
--- Citazione ---
--- Citazione ---Cool. Are there significant differences between the Moldvay and Mentzer editions? I'd not realized there were two different versions of "the red box".
--- Termina citazione ---
There are. I'm hoping PAX will approve my panel on this topic so I can explain it to you in detail. These pages are slides from the presentation I gave at East and hope to give again at Prime.
In short, the difference is mostly tone and art. I find Mentzer's tone dry compared to Moldvay's warmth. I find Mentzer's art overdone and offensive in presentation compared to Moldvay's quirky and underdone pieces. But Mentzer also begins the trend or prescriptive rules. For example (and this is a small thing), he expands on the Reaction table, adding subtables to each result. I find the Reaction table to be a good guideline for roleplay and using Charisma as it was originally designed. I can certainly see the allure of adding more detail, more rules, but I think in this case it is unnecessary and a step down a dark path.
--- Termina citazione ---
Ci sono anche commenti di Lehman, Italo Czege...
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/5nmR5Ao4kG5
--- Citazione ---Reading Mearls' rewrite of the Caves of Chaos. At the beginning, he offers many great suggestions for interactions between the characters and monsters. He also issues a gentle warning in "Killer Encounters" that the PCs could "get into trouble." He entreats the GM to warn them.
Whereas the original version was less forgiving. Players learned about the nature of the caves…by having their characters mercilessly killed…until they got it.
I do like how he provides the sensory information for each area at the top of each heading. It's something I always intend to do, but never get around to.
The experience totals at the head of each area seem to indicate XP is earned through slaughter. I think that's a shame. There is a huge opportunity to move this edition off the slaughter path and return to XP earned for clever play.
--- Termina citazione ---
Moreno, se trovi risposte interessanti, copia qui ^^
Moreno Roncucci:
Visto che hanno toccato nel discorso la "hit point Inflation" che ha caratterizzato le varie edizioni di D&D, sarebbe gentile se qualcuno gli citasse questo articolo su Grognardia, da cui si vede che al decimo livello nella white box al massimo un Fighter ha 71 hp (i guerrieri tirano dei d6) dopo il supplemento (di Gygax) "Greyhawk" passa a 101 HP (I guerrieri tirano dei d8 e hanno maggiori bonus di costituzione), e in AD&D può arrivare a 129 HP (i guerrieri tirano dei d10)... direi che l'inflazione galoppante è più che evidente.
Moreno Roncucci:
Un altro commento di luke, in risposta alla classica boiata sul fatto che "con un gdr ci puoi fare tutto" (niente link, non ho ancora capito come fare un link ad un commenti specifico su G+)
-------Copy and Paste from Luke Crane -------------
D&D is a game. A game contains rules that form a system that shape the behavior of its players. The idea that you can do anything in any RPG is a fallacy. Each RPG, D&D included, encourages a certain kinds of play.
In the case of D&D, you can see a shift in incentive. Early editions earn 4/5s of total experience through acquisition of treasure.This simple rule may seem silly to us now, but combine it with deadly combat rules, and you create an incentive to explore and solve puzzles rather than kill.
If the game only presents a reward for killing, then the players will focus all efforts on killing.
Thus the design of the game shapes the behavior of the players and the culture of play.
giullina:
Moreno, fattene una ragione: è il momento di aprire un account G+.
Navigazione
[0] Indice dei post
Vai alla versione completa