E infatti, io archivio...
Altre cose postate da Crane:
12 giugno 2012:
-------------------------------------
Part of the reason I chose Moldvay is because he takes Holmes/Gygax/Arneson out of the basement. He turns a rather quirky collection of hodgepodge notes and rules into clear procedure. I'm all for quirky and weird games, but the best games have clear procedures.
In fact, I think Moldvay (and Mentzer to a lesser degree) realize Gygax's vision better than he did. Gygax's work on AD&D is embarrassing.
Those books are disorganized, poorly written and condescending. Moldvay's tone is warm, his procedures clean. He strips away the cruft and presents the core activity of the game: dungeoneering.
Speaking as a game designer, I think that is the heroic thing. It's easy to come up with a good idea. Much harder to present a good idea in a clear manner and get that idea out into the world.------------------------------------
In un post successivo, rispondendo all'obiezione che è Holmes a ridurre il gioco a "esplorare dungeon" mentre la white box aveva regole anche per molte altre attività:
---------------------------------------
It is called Dungeons and Dragons…
I absolutely see your point. My point is that while the original designers may have wanted an inclusive and expansive design, their best rules focused on underground exploration and stealing treasure. Moldvay brushes away the caked up sand like an archeologist and shows the true beauty of the artifact. Or, more accurately, Moldvay does a fine job editing the rules down to their core game and evoking the brilliance of the original design.
The Basic D&D line is a product line. As you know, each successive product attempted to reintegrate into the game the features you note present in the earliest editions. My assertion is that none of those rules were as well-designed or well-supported as those for the core activity of dungeon crawling.---------------------------------------
Continuo con i post di Crane perchè è l'unico che ha esplicitamente autorizzato il copia-incolla, è comunque sempre comprensibile a cosa risponde:
---------------------------------------
I think we can look to Gygax digging his own hole. He wrote AD&D (edited by Mike Carr, if I'm not mistaken). If he wanted to address problems with the game, that was his chance. Not only is the book a muddle, not only does he distort the elegant math of 3D6 stats, but his example of play in the book is a dungeon exploration. Even with his obsession with airborne adventures, he reverts to the dungeon as the core activity of play.
I understand that the designers may have thought their game could do anything. I understand they may have wanted to bend it to a variety of circumstances, but in truth their design had narrow application. It does most things poorly, and a few things exceedingly well—and it odd though it may seem, it's not for the designers to say. You can say your game is about friendship, but if most of the rules are about fighting, then the game is about fighting.-----------------------------------
A questo punto nella discussione viene citata una intervista all'Editor della prima edizione di AD&D (scritta da Gygax):
An Interview with Lawrence SchickPoi, rispondendo alla classica obiezione sul fatto che con D&D ci puoi fare di tutto e chi se ne frega del reward system...
.................................................
If you're going to discount roleplaying games as games per se without rules, currencies and reward systems, I have no basis on which to continue this discussion with you.
It appears you're bending the bounds of subjectivity in order to justify how you like to play D&D.
But for the audience at home, a roleplaying game is a game like any other. It has rules that encourage certain behaviors and incentivize others. D&D, regardless of edition, is no exception. This is not an abstract or academic concept, confined to classrooms. It's how games work. Saying that reward systems have no bearing on play is like saying gasoline has no effect on driving.
It doesn't matter if the author is still with us. I don't care what the author thinks or wants. I only care what's written in the text itself. And I would prefer not to have to quote pages, but the rules in the BECMI texts grant experience points for treasure.
For example: The Goblin Chieftain in room 20 of the Caves of Chaos (B2) is worth 25 XP if defeated. He guards a tapestry worth 900 XP. The Goblin Chieftain may not seem like much of an opponent, but he's actually rather stiff opposition. He has 11 HP, AC 4 and does 2-7 HP damage.
A lucky 1st level Fighter or Dwarf will have AC 2 and 8 HP and do 1-8 HP damage. This means that the fighter hits the goblin on a 15+ and cannot kill him in one blow. And the goblin hits the fighter on a 15+, neither can he kill him in one blow. However, due to the D6+1 damage of the goblin, he's more likely to do more damage per hit than the fighter. And thus the fighter is more likely to die in this combat.
And that's just him against a fighter. Only fighters and dwarves get the D8 hit die. All other classes get a D6 or D4. As the math plainly states, the goblin chieftain will kill those characters in one hit. Kill. Dead. Eliminated from the game: the worst possible result at least 25% of the time (by AC).
Whether you want to believe it or not, the incentive for the scenario is not to fight, but to some how connive to get the treasure. Acquiring the tapestry earns 900 XP and the tapestry will not kill you. 900 XP without fear of death is more than 25 XP and death.
Even so, you can fight the goblin. You can risk it all and win. That's the beauty of the game. There are multiple solutions to each problem, some better than others. But regardless of our preference for battle or trickery, they game lays out a clear reward. The reward shapes our behavior.
This isn't about me finding the one true way. This exercise is about me shedding my biases and nostalgia as best I am able and trying to play the game as written. Not as I wish it should be.---------------------------
Tutta la parte precedente (sui giochi come giochi) non dovrebbe meravigliare nessuno che legga questo forum, ma non a mai male ripeterla...
Poi, Luke fa un osservazione molto interessante per la datazione dell'arrivo della "degenerazione" data dalla regola zero:
--------------------------------------------
For edification, the rule on page B60 of Moldvay Basic Dungeons & Dragons (TSR, 1981) is as follows: "The player will often surprise the DM by doing the unexpected. Don't panic. When this happens, the DM should just make sure that everything is done in the order given by the outline or sequence of events being used. Minor details may be made up as needed to keep the game moving."
I may be reading this wrong, but this excellent passage seems to say "follow the rules first, then add additional rules as needed." That's how I read " make sure that everything is done in the order given by the outline or sequence of events being used."
Thus the game instructs me to follow the rules. Hacking or inventing is secondary and to be done in the spirit of the existing rules.
Beyond that you seem to be saying that D&D should be fun and D&D can be anything. Well, I agree. Playing D&D should be fun. But fun isn't a rule, not can it be a procedure. If my game simply said, "Now have fun." You'd regret purchasing it. "Fun" is a subjective individual experience. Whereas a game is a system that governs the behavior of its participants. Fun can be a byproduct of the interaction of the system, but not the objective of said system.
And if D&D is all things to all people, then D&D is nothing.
As I said in my previous comments, I'm not claiming One True Way. I am claiming that I try to play by the rules as written, not as nostalgia dictates.------------------------------------------
Fan mail a distanza, e se nel D&D di Moldway del 1981 non c'era tanta regola zero come in AD&D del 1979, che era un gioco più confuso e peggiore... cosa ci dice questo? Chi ha iniziato a scriverla nei manuali per coprire le proprie carenze come game designer?
Però, di regola zero non ce n'è tanto poca manco in Moldway... qui devo citare parte del post di risposta a Crane perchè sennò è incomprensibile....
Da "Kris Kobold":
----------------------------------------
[...] The important role of the DM in (subjective) relation to the "rules" is spelled out both in the Foreword and more fully on p. B3 (quoted here in full):
"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed. This is not to say that everything in this book should be discarded! All of this material has been carefully though out and playtested. However, if after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these rules is to provide
guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."
Note, this doesn't negate what you've said about the status of the D&D game's "rules," but it certainly doesn't strengthen your notion of cleaving to the "game as written" in hopes of fulfilling the game's expected "promise for play"--especially for the sake of having a D&D be a "game." As I said above, that's just one, individual--valid--way to play D&D.
When you say "And if D&D is all things to all people, then D&D is nothing," I hear echoes of Gygax's own disavowing of OD&D (1974):
"Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules wre incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Without destroying the imagination and individual creativity which go into a campaign, AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of D&D. There are few grey areas in AD&D, and there will be no question in the mind of participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to AD&D, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else."
Do you hear Gygax's anxiety about D&D being a non-game? How successful was AD&D as a game, in your estimation? (Not as a phenomenon, but as a game.) Not very? Its systems were still subordinated explicitly to DM subjectivity, as are those of all RPGs.
Gygax himself is reportedly to have said "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." This seems to contradict his assertions about D&D (in favour of AD&D), but it getting at the spirit of what is compelling about RPGs in general, I think. But role-playing games, as you conceive of them, must have rules, so is D&D a non-game, since its rules are subject to the subjective judgements of its DMs and players? If you change the rules of Monopoly to suit individual tastes, you're no longer playing Monopoly. If you changes the rules of D&D to suit individual tastes/requirements, you are, according to the game as written and its authors, still playing D&D--and, furthermore, you're playing it as intended. That's the point; whether you change nothing or everything, you're playing D&D as intended. What is this thing, then? Is it really a game? A social activity? A hobby? This line of thinking, it seems to me, has not be rigorously pursued by you to its philosophical conclusions. [...]
-----------------------------------
Risposta di Crane nel prossimo post, questo ormai è troppo lungo.
