Newsgroups: rec.games.frp
Date: Mon,  6 Apr 1992 23:31:23 -0400 
From: Anthony Russell Rosania <ar2j+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why do people like D+D/AD+D
	<1992Apr6.211537.27265@apollo.hp.com>

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.frp: 6-Apr-92 Re: Why do people like
D+D/.. John Francis@apollo.hp.c (4117)

> cs201139@BugsBunny.acslab.umbc.edu (cs201139) writes:
> >
> >      ...Apparently you have't read the last page in the 1st Edition DM's
> >guide which allows unlimited rule flexibility for each DM. If you find
> a better
> >way of conducting combat or whatever else then go for it. They are guidelines
> >not set in stone! That's why I feel 2nd Edition should have been released as
> >optional supplements to the 1st Edition and not set out to replace it and then
> >set say 2nd Edition is written in stone. This is a major difference in my
> >opinion. Gygax allowed the game to grow through each DM who runs it. 2nd
> >Edition seem too much like an absolute.

> Apparently *you* haven't read the inumerable articles penned by Gygax in
> issue after issue of Dragon, where he totally contradicted this viewpoint.
> Nor have you read the statement in the 2nd edition handbooks (DM's guide,
> I think) which explicitly re-states that the rules are *not* absolutes.
> And now Gary Gygax is not in a position to give the lie to this assertion.

> According to the great E.G.G.  D&D was a basic, flexible system open to
> interpretation by the DM, but AD&D was not.  Either you played AD&D by the
> official rules, or you were playing some different game **AND YOU SHOULD NOT
> CLAIM TO BE PLAYING AD&D**. This point was hammered home time and time again
> by Gygax and his buddies Frank Mentzer and Kim Mohan.  And what constituted
> an "official" rule?  Something written in the hardcover rule books. No house
> rules.  No rules from Dragon articles (not even those providing explanations
> of areas where the "official" rules were obscure or just plain contradictory)
> with the exception of the "Sorcerers Scroll" articles.  And why were these
> "official"?  Because they came from the pen of Gygax, that's why.  And this
> was despite the acknowledged fact that Gygax himself didn't play strictly
> by the official AD&D rules because he was "too creative".
> How good were these offical rules?  Well, just go read the Dragon articles
> where we first see some of the new character classes which were later to be
> published as part of Unearthed Arcana. From the moment these Dragon articles
> were published the new character classes became "official". At least by the
> time they appeared between the hard covers the character classes had received
> some more play-testing, and some of the worst excesses had been toned down.
> Gygax wanted AD&D to grow only in ways laid down by Gygax, and this meant
> along the lines of Uneathed Arcana.  Bear in mind, also, that Gary Gygax
> was basically a wargamer first and a fantasy gamer second.  So were most
> of the people who play-tested the original D&D game. Right from the original
> days Dave Arneson was finding fault with the way Gygax had implemented the
> fantasy rules.  But, once AD&D came along, the Gygax version of the rules
> was the one true interpretation - all other versions were heresy. Gygax liked
> playing super-powerful thief-plus characters, so we got bards forced on us.
> Gygax liked campaigns where a handful of adventurers not only ran entire
> kingdoms but also took on demons in their own domains, so not only did we get
> the named devils in the handbooks, we got Cavaliers and Paladins with all
> their munchkinesque megapowers. And if you didn't incorporate these rule
> extensions you weren't playing official AD&D.

> To my mind the single best thing that the 2nd edition did was to eliminate
> the worst misfeatures that Gygax rammed down the throat of the gaming world,
> including the stupid insistence of sticking strictly to "official" rules.
> The collection of all the basic knowledge needed by a player into a single
> players handbook (and DM information into a single DM's handbook) helped, too.
> Until 2nd edition came along a DM had to look in the DM's guide, the players
> handbook, the Unearthed Arcana, and several other places. Now a DM can choose
> to restrict a campaign to just the basics (players & DMs guide only - none of
> the class-specific handbooks), or choose to add some of the optional extras.
> Even some of the more esoteric stuff in the players handbook (proficiencies,
> specialization, . . .) is strictly optional.


Excuse me.... everybody... can we all relax, take a breath and go on
with our lives. Thank you.
						Ant

P.S.  I  am so sorry I ever said anything.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp