Gentechegioca
Gente Che Gioca => Segnalazioni e News => Topic aperto da: Patrick - 2012-06-08 11:09:44
-
Segnalo un post di luke crane che sta girando in queste ore, in cui parla della sua recente esperienza con il "vecchio" dnd (non mi addentro ulteriormente nel discorso perchè non sono sufficientemente informato)
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5
(oltre al post, c'è anche un lungo commento di Crane che approfondisce ulteriormente il suo discorso)
We've been playing D&D at BWHQ for the past four months. Our group consists of me plus six players: two ladies, four gentlemen. The players have a range of experience with D&D: from none at all to grognardia to having worked on the brand.
We're using the Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert books. Only myself and one other had played this particular edition previously. And I'd only played Cook Expert when I was a lad. I still have that book. Very sturdy, though it has suffered from much abuse at my hands.
The game began as an experiment with +Thor Olavsrud to understand how "original" D&D was played. Thus we set out to play as close to the rules as possible. While this edition is indeed old—published in 1981—it is a far cry from OD&D. It is, by my count, the fifth edition of D&D (editions being: OD&D, three Holmes editions, then Moldvay). I chose this edition over the Gygax/Arneson and Holmes editions because it contains a defined set of procedures that I could follow, not just for the subsystems, but for the entire structure of play: character creation, the adventure, parley, combat, advancement and recovery. I felt I could play this best as written and thus get closer to how it was intended to be played.
In order to ensure our experience was in line with what the original designers intended, I made sure we used their published adventures. Moldvay edition is the genesis of "Basic" D&D. Thus the B series of modules are ostensibly built for this version of D&D.
We started at the beginning: B1, In Search of the Unknown.
The set up is thin: monsters infest an abandoned secret fortress. I think we all, players and me as GM, found the geographic design of this dungeon arbitrary. It was a collection of rooms on a sheet of paper, not the secret fortress as advertised. I'll admit that I was finding my feet with the game and thus did a poor job running this module. But it lacked a compelling narrative or internal logic. The players duly raided away, but after the third wave of character deaths, they had a dawning realization that this endeavor was pointless. They quit Quasqueton after exploring 80% of the dungeon in three sessions, at the cost of about six deaths: They vowed never to go back.
And then I discovered that B1 was designed for the Holmes Edition of D&D and so perhaps that's why it lacked a little of the cohesion of the later Moldvay edition.
Next we played B2, Keep on the Borderlands. This is a curious module. It skirts the conceit of Basic D&D— only dungeons, no wilderness, no town—by giving a map of the keep/town and small wilderness area. And like B1, this is because B2 was designed for the Holmes edition, and predates Moldvay's publication by a year.
In B2, the characters sortie out from the eponymous Keep to the Caves of Chaos. I want to be careful not to spoil this adventure, so I won't give specifics. Suffice to say, at the Caves they must root out a deeply entrenched, and rather extensive, infestation of monsters and servants of Chaos. I think this module's design is genius. It evokes exactly what this era of D&D is about: exploration and puzzle-solving. The puzzles are geographical, social, magical and physical in nature—on a variety of scales, from tiny objects, to map-wide. Exploration serves to reveal information that serves in solving the puzzles. The design is simple in execution, but surprisingly subtle. One solution opens one possibility and closes the others. When we played, it was easy to make the Caves feel alive. It feels as if Gygax designed this module and then Moldvay reedited D&D to evoke the experience of playing Keep on the Borderlands.
Why is this era of D&D about puzzle-solving and exploration? Because your characters are fragile and treasure compromises 4/5s of the experience you earn, whereas fighting monsters earns only 1/5. Thus if there's a big monster guarding a valuable piece of treasure, the incentive is to figure out a way to get the treasure without fighting the monster. Fight only as a last resort; explore first so you can better solve. This shift in emphasis away from fighting was frustrating at first, but then profoundly refreshing once we sussed out the logic.
Having learned this lesson at the cost of another seven deaths, the group completed B2 in grand style: Their plans were so effective, their exploration so thorough, that the victorious player characters suffered not a point of damage in the final confrontation. And I opposed them with mind-boggling array of villainy!
After their rousing conquest of the Caves of Chaos, we moved on to B3, Palace of the Silver Princess. I chose this module for their next adventure out of many possibilities because: 1) it seemed like something they could tackle without getting shredded 2) it is short 3) it has narrative motivation/cause 4) they're locked in the dungeon 5) Tom Moldvay shares an author credit. I thought those were a good set of features, different from the part-time-day-worker mercenary feel of Keep on the Borderlands.
However, after the gold-standard of Keep, I was sorely disappointed in this scenario. The logic is thin. The puzzles are poorly conceived. The traps are simply cruel and don't make too much sense in the larger ecology of the castle. The map of the castle is pure nonsense as well. If it is a palace, it's rather dank and claustrophobic. If you have to get downstairs, you have to go through the Court Magician's lab. He must love that.
I know some of you will disagree with me on this assessment. And I know this module has a troubled and storied history, but I hoped in vain that Moldvay would elevate it the way he elevated the Basic edition. Alas, he did not.
Regardless of the dungeon's quality, my crack team of adventurers busted the scenario open with a Charm Person spell in session 2. Much to their credit, and my frustration, while they had the solution of the adventure in their power, they continued to explore. Unfortunately, the adventure didn't measure up to their expectations and their exploration only lead them to worse traps and more hideous monsters, without granting a better understanding of the problem they faced.
At one point, they tried to rest upstairs, but were rudely interrupted multiple times. Their desired eight hour rest period turned into a 14 hour bout of exhaustion and flight. That broke them. After that, they went for the goal, and true to form, bashed through the final encounter with nary a hit point lost.
Despite my feelings about B3, I decided to use it as a platform to build their world on. Their characters advanced to level 4 and so it was time to leave the red book and head for the blue: Expert set. After careful research, I discovered the most excellent module, B10 Night's Dark Terror. I modified that scenario slightly, placing Haven (from B3) at the center of its action. I let the group stay at the Palace to learn new spells and weapon mastery (from the black Master book). I let them bank their gold there. And I set up Princess Argenta and Ellis as their patrons. In this newly built world, constructed of a few patchworks of wilderness, towns and dungeon locations, they had done good, word had spread, and now their services were in demand. In fact, I let them choose between B10 and combined campaign of X1 Isle of Dread and X6 Quagmire. They boldly took up the Princess's cause in the form of B10, with only the vaguest promise of reward. I'm proud of them. They did it because they had a lust for adventure, not for empty promises of reward.
I'm nervous about the transition to the wilderness style of adventure, since the beautiful economy of Moldvay's basic rules are rapidly undermined by the poorly implemented ideas of the Expert set. However, this module is so beautiful and detailed, I think all will be well. We already had our first river journey and fight on the deck of a ship. I think I was more excited about the change of venue than the players were.
After more than 16 sessions of play, I think this is a magnificent game. The previous editions have seeds of the hobby, seeds of greatness in them, but this edition is not only a game with digestible procedures, but it is a fully realized vision. A new vision. A vision of a monster-filled world, riddled with dungeons, ready to be plumbed by desperate heroes. It created a perilous world with death lurking around every corner in the form of this dangerous, unforgiving game.
During some of the darker moments of the game, when curses flew and lives ended, my players turned to me and said, "Don't worry; don't feel badly. It's not you. It's the game."
What a tremendous thing to say.
I realized at that moment that this group had done something all too rare in my experiences with roleplaying games. Rather than bending the game to our predilections, we bent our collective will to the game. We learned it, and it taught us. It taught us how to play it, but it also taught us lessons. And though it can be cruel, there is a savage logic operating underneath it's Erol-Otus-drawn skin. Something that we could grasp, even if it hurts a little. Once we divested our modern notions of fantasy—of Dungeons and Dragons, even—and subjected ourselves to its will, we leveled up. Suddenly, we were sharing a hobby; we had discovered something new and our motley crew was better friends for it.
This slim red volume emerged before us as a brilliant piece of game design that not only changed our world with it's own bright light, but looking from the vantage of 1981, I can see that this game changed THE world. This world of dark dungeons and savage encounters slowly crept out into ours, from hobby shops to basements, to computer labs and movie screens. And we're all better off for having adventured in it, even if the game isn't played quite the same anymore.
+Matt Snyder What have I learned? The core lesson is as I stated: Make no assumptions. Put aside your biases and play the game.
I also feel qualified to talk about D&D for the first time in my life. I have gone deep into this monster. I've read all of the early editions: Gygax/Arneson, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer and Gygax AD&D.
I'm still processing what's happening in the group. The group is often engaged, but not at the level I'm accustomed to with Burning Wheel. Interactions with the system are simple and brief. Either a die roll or two, or the selection of an expendable resource. The engagement via the caller and mapper is also very high. There's a little character play, but nothing as intense as what I'm used to. But the decisions are so fraught with peril, I have nightmares later that night (as does another one of the players). We call it PTSD&D.
I've learned that it's a hard game to run. Not because of prep or rules mastery, but because of the role of the GM as impartial conveyer of really bad news. Since the exploration side of the game is cross between Telephone and Pictionary, I must sit impassive as the players make bad decisions. I want them to win. I want them to solve the puzzles, but if I interfere, I render the whole exercise pointless.
I've a deeper understanding why fudging dice is the worst rule ever proposed. The rules indicate fudging with a wink and a nudge, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game." Seems like good advice, but to them I say, "Don't put bad die rolls in your game."
To expand on the point: The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.
So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text. It's easily ignored, but power corrupts and all that. The game is fantastic, but it is not perfect. I didn't talk about its lumps in my Ode, but it has plenty.
As for design specifically…the game seems easily hackable. And it is, in the same way a hotrod is customizable. You can tune the engine, try different tires and even change the chrome, but you can't take it off-road. This game is a hotrod. It is built to explore dungeons. As soon it moves away from puzzle-solving and exploration, the experience starts to fray. There are precious few levers for the players to pull once their out of their element. Heaven forfend we get into an in-character argument at the table, the game is utterly silent on that resolution. Might as well knife fight.
The hacking is endorsed by the game. There's a rule in the DM section at the back of the book. It tells you how to make a call on the fly, then after the session, come up with a rule and propose it to the players.
House Ruling is thus enshrined. I'm fascinated by this. The core game is rock solid, but there are little niches you can modify while maintaining the experience. We modified how firebombs work, for example. I'm sure most people make much heavier modifications more rapidly—because they think they know better than the game. I want to read all of those house rules. In fact, I think WotC should embrace House Rule culture. I think they should publish that slim volume and then create a central repository for everyone's house rules. I'd page through it for hours.
I could ramble on about this game for hours. This post is a paean to the game, but I have more designer thoughts running around my head: Charisma as über stat, functional alignment, encumbrance is awesome, the caller is the best rule I used to hate, mapping is a metagame, bored players, the poor fighter, and why this game is so fucking addicting.
Also, changed the ending. Split the last paragraph into two and rewrote a couple of sentences. My last two points were muddled. Hopefully they're clearer now.
One thing I confirmed (that I've always previously suspected): FUCK NOSTALGIA. FUCK IT UNTIL IT IS DEAD. For me, I need to experience games so i can internalize them. As soon as I feel that haze of nostalgia drifting through me, I know my critical faculties have failed me. Getting the chance to pierce the veil of nostalgia and look at this game with fresh eyes has been a poignant reminder not to pretend nostalgia is knowledge.
Counter to that sentiment is an equally dangerous one. Now that I have undertaken this experiment, I have that terrible urge to claim to know the true D&D.
D&D has mutated into quite a beast in its lifetime. Everyone who plays it claims to know the truth. The best way to play. I think it's one of the strengths of the game.
So now that we've gone back and played 1981 D&D we are better D&Ders than 1982 and onward! Right? Maybe. But probably not.
D&D isn't one thing anymore. It's a broad canopy covering a lot of lesser flora and fauna. This old tree that we've climbed is just one part of it. Getting a feel for how the game was played in 1981 certainly helps me see the current iterations more clearly. And it helps me identify design decisions made in this edition and others. I can see how those decisions have ramified through play, through the culture, through multiple editions.
But, as much as I'd like to lay claim to it, I have not found the one true way. It's a great game, and I encourage you all to play, but it is merely one game out of many.
-
Cool, avevo visto i suoi tweet a riguard ma questo mi era sfuggito!
-
ps: è il caso che copio-incollo direttamente quì il contenuto?
Magari prima chiedigli il permesso. Sì, è un post "pubblico", però io mi farei lo scrupolo lo stesso.
-
Non vi fermate all'articolo, leggete pure i commenti che sono anche più interessanti (ed equilibrati)
Noto in alcuni commenti di italiani (a giudicare dal cognome) la solita confusione che abbiamo qui fra la Basic-Expert di Moldway-Cook e la BECMI di Mentzer. Sono giochi diversi. L'edizione che ha giocato Luke da noi in Italia non è mai stata tradotta, quella tradotta dall'Editrice Giochi è la BECMI di Mentzer. (vedere QUI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons) se vi confondete fra le edizioni).
Credo comunque che certe riscoperte di quanto i primi D&D non facessero schifo come i successivi siano esagerate: non tanto quella di Luke citata qui che invece è molto equilibrata e non nega i difetti (nei commenti) quanto il trend generale. E anche Luke per tirar fuori la lode alla parte del gioco che gli interessa e che ha scoperto "giocandola come è scritta", ha... "dimenticato" (anche se poi la cita nei commenti) il fatto che nel manuale è pure scritto di ignorare il risultato dei tiri di dado "se rovinano la storia"
Questo non è "giocare il gioco come è scritto", è "giocare il gioco come è scritto, alla luce dell'esperienza di decenni di consigli farlocchi come quello, tanto che ora sappiamo che bisogna ignorarlo". Il GM che leggeva il libro a quei tempi avrebbe considerato come sua precisa responsabilità l'ignorare tiri che "rovinavano la storia". Io ho giocato e visto giocare versioni di D&D coetanee o precedenti anche se non proprio quella (AD&D) e all'epoca un GM che non cambiava i risultati dietro lo schermo era un "cattivo GM".
-
La parte più interessante penso sia l'enfasi sull'esplorazione della mappa e degli enigmi più che sul combattimento... nella mia testa, questo rimette in prospettiva storica i Ladri di AD&D che facevano schifo e pena. Probabilmente per "eredità" di un gioco in cui picchiare
non era così fondamentale era secondario!
-
E anche Luke per tirar fuori la lode alla parte del gioco che gli interessa e che ha scoperto "giocandola come è scritta", ha... "dimenticato" (anche se poi la cita nei commenti) il fatto che nel manuale è pure scritto di ignorare il risultato dei tiri di dado "se rovinano la storia"
In realtà non c'è scritto questo ma, come viene quotato, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game."
Non si parla di storia e credo che si debba tenerlo a mente, per me non si tratta di un'inezia. E se non erro questa è proprio una delle cose che cambia con il passaggio all'ad&d.
Comunque hai ragione, è giocare "col senno di poi". Solo che te, avendo di fronte tutti i progressi fatti in questi anni, giocheresti mai a un qualsiasi gioco come facevi 20 anni fa? :D
-
Comunque hai ragione, è giocare "col senno di poi". Solo che te, avendo di fronte tutti i progressi fatti in questi anni, giocheresti mai a un qualsiasi gioco come facevi 20 anni fa? :D
Non giocherei proprio gli stessi giochi... 8)
Capisco l'interesse di Luke e altri game designer per capire come funzionava davvero D&D "as written", visto che all'epoca praticamente nessuno lo giocava così, ma io:
1) non sono un game designer (e me ne vanto ;D )
2) non ho più nessuna traccia di quell'attaccamento affettivo a D&D che è ancora molto forte anche in molti giocatori di giochi Indie, specialmente negli USA.
Quel gioco a "evitare di farsi male usando l'intelligenza e non i dadi" lo conosco. Luke l'ha scoperto ora, ma io me lo ricordo. Non perchè Luke abbia iniziato dopo di me (credo abbia iniziato prima) ma perchè il primo gruppo con cui ho iniziato era un po' un "fossile" dagli anni 70, legato a vecchie abitudini e senza molti contatti con la cultura dei rpg contemporanea. Anche lì la vita dei PG era molto breve (il mio primo PG campò fino a 4a livello, eguagliando il record del gruppo e la cosa stupì moltissimo gli "anziani" del gruppo, che un "novellino" se la cavasse così bene a quel gioco... la morte di quel personaggio subito prima che potesse passare al quinto, superando il record di anni di gioco degli altri, mi è sempre parsa molto sospetta... attacco di sorpresa e morte automatica, senza alcuna decisione o tiro da parte mia, nel mezzo del gruppo durante un accampamento. Mmmm....).
Mi ricordo la soddisfazione che dava, come dice Luke, il riuscire ad organizzarsi tanto bene da superare gli ostacoli senza farsi male. Ma mi ricordo anche la frustrazione del dover comunque passare dal GM-padrone. Anche il piano migliore del mondo non serviva a nulla se il GM non aveva l'intelligenza di capirlo (o l'interesse per ascoltarti).
E' un errore di percezione dato dall'essere il GM (o dall'avere un ottimo GM): dici che il gioco è "usare l'intelligenza per superare ostacoli e problemi", mentre in realtà è "usare la comunicativa per convincere il GM che la tua soluzione è intelligente". Per la percezione del GM, sono due cose assolutamente identiche, per i giocatori no.
-
Mentre postavo qui, la discussione nei commenti è andata avanti, e il commento postato alle 17:32 da Luke Crane dice con altre parole diverse delle cose che ho cercato di dire prima (non solo quello, ovvio). Sempre più interessante come discussione (anche se i commenti degli italiani mi fanno rizzare i capelli: AD&D2 senza tiro di iniziativa??? E i modificatori delle armi sarebbero la parte sana di D&D???) , e concordo anche sull'ottima osservazione di Luke sul fatto che l'inizio della degenerazione è il player's handbook del 1978. L'edizione in cui Gygax per seguire le sue paturnie di "come dovrebbe essere D&D" si dimentica di essere un game designer.
Peccato che essendo postato su G+ tutto questo andrà presto perso per sempre, come lacrime nella pioggia: Patrick, hai avuto il permesso, copia e incolla a futura memoria...
-
AD&D2nd edition credo sia ufficialmente il primo gioco di cui nessuno ha mai letto tutte le regole, ma ognuno sa le sue...
-
ho copiato il post e i primi commenti di crane all'inizio di questo topic. La discussione però contiene anche altre cose interessanti. Con il link dovrebbe essere sempre raggiungibile, ma dite che è il caso di copiare tutta la discussione di qua? Magari in un topic a parte?
-
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 (https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts), 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
-
altri post in tema:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/eLhyQnUQS7T (sulle varie edizioni)
Cool. Are there significant differences between the Moldvay and Mentzer editions? I'd not realized there were two different versions of "the red box".
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.
Ci sono anche commenti di Lehman, Italo Czege...
https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/5nmR5Ao4kG5
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.
Moreno, se trovi risposte interessanti, copia qui ^^
-
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 (http://grognardia.blogspot.it/2012/02/falling-damage-and-hit-point-inflation.html), 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.
-
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.
-
Moreno, fattene una ragione: è il momento di aprire un account G+.
-
Moreno, fattene una ragione: è il momento di aprire un account G+.
Fanmail. Non per la frase, ma per la sua efficacia.
Oppure, fanmail a chiunque abbia aperto un fake account a nome Moreno Roncucci.
-
L'account G+ ce l'ho non ricordo più da quanto. Però... l'ho aperto e lasciato lì senza niente per "darci un occhiata" in seguito. E non ho più fatto un solo login. I social network non mi attirano proprio... (e il fatto che mi debba mettere a fare dei copia-incolla per salvare contenuto utile invece di fare un semplice link a qualcosa che rimanga lì non me li rende più simpatici). Prima o poi dovrò decidermi visto che troppa roba viene postata lì (e se non sono lì a copiarmela poi scompare per sempre) ma non ne ho voglia per nulla.
Quindi, io finora ho visto solo i post pubblici, anche di chi ha già messo nelle sue cerchie.
Non mi ricordo nemmeno dove ho messo la password,..
-
Ah io su G+ non ci pubblico nulla, al massimo metterei link a GcG. Piacciono anche a me le cose che restano.
-
ma perchè... su G+ la roba scompare? o_O
-
In ogni singolo stream puoi andare indietro solo di 200 discussioni al momento. Non sono certo di cosa succeda se però hai il link a una discussione specifica. So che tanti per ovviare a questo problema fanno il resharing delle discussioni che vogliono conservare ad una propria cerchia vuota.
-
Oltre a ciò, non è uno strumento "di archivio". Un forum lo è.
-
E infatti, io archivio... 8)
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 Schick (http://grognardia.blogspot.it/2009/05/interview-with-lawrence-schick.html)
Poi, 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.
-
Ecco la risposta di Luke Crane, postata oggi nel suo account:
---------------------------
Hah. You got me. I willfully ignore any passage in a roleplaying game that says "ignore these rules! They're not rules!" What rubbish. I bought the game for its content. I want to play the game as its designers intended and explicated through design and playtesting.
If I wanted to ignore their rules or use guidelines, I'd make up my own game. Which I have done. Many times. To great effect.
So I am not interested in doing that with this game. I'm interested solely in playing out the rules as they have written them. I am not interested in changing them. I understand very clearly that altering them creates my own version of the game. I think that is a wonderful byproduct of gaming: I'm fascinated by hacks and house rules.
However none of this changes the point that this game, TSR Dungeon & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game Basic Rulebook (©1980 and 1981) is a wholly functional game with a complete set of rules, currencies and rewards. If you thought I was speaking about all editions of D&D, about D&D as a brand, D&D as a phenomenon, I apologize for misleading you. In this thread, I am only speaking about the comparison between the current edition of Caves of Chaos and the original version as seen through the lens of the aforementioned edition of D&D.
----------------------------------------------
La discussione pare conclusa, questa seconda parte la trovate (finchè non scompare per sempre) a questo indirizzo: https://plus.google.com/u/0/111266966448135449970/posts/5nmR5Ao4kG5
-
segnalo che ho chiesto a luke e gli altri utenti il permesso di copiare anche gli altri messaggi ^^
-
segnalo che ho chiesto a luke e gli altri utenti il permesso di copiare anche gli altri messaggi ^^
Mah, se non arrivano nuovi messaggi, gli altri a parte quello di Luke non erano granché (avrò contato non so quanti "il sistema non conta", "un bravo GM sa fare tutto" e pure "un buon gdr non mi deve dire come giocare", articolati in varie maniere, oltre ovviamente a quelli che confondono le edizioni e pensano che parlasse della scatola rossa pubblicata in Italia...)
-
Ah, segnalo poi un errore che ho fatto io, per tutto il thread ho usato "Moldway" invece di "Moldvay", adesso non sto a editare ogni singolo post ma lo segnalo così sapete il nome giusto...