One Fighter at a Time, a History of d&d

[captaincrumbcake]

There was a series of You-tube (follow the link) videos by Matt Colville that I discovered just last night. For the most part, I think he makes some interesting points.
I was particularly interested in his remarks regarding the Greyhawk changes intended to boost the Fighter; and the appearance of the Thief as a class--something (from what I gathered) he felt was a disastrous inclusion in the game, and he reasons why. I found this illuminating, and myself in agreement with him on several points; though not 100% in every point, I was still able to appreciate the analysis.
If you haven't seen these, I hope you watch them.

Now as to what I walked away from these with: I am, now, thoroughly convinced that classes, do not make the game better. That there has to be another way to account for a character's abilities to do things, without boxing the character into a restrictive space. People are just people. There is no more  necessity to force players to be a fighter, cleric, mu or thief, as there would to make anyone be a fireman, doctor, ship's captain...when their purpose is not to actually serve in those capacities, but to be a group of tomb raiding (Indiana Joneses) miscreants! I suspect, I am leaning toward the total elimination of spells. But all this is beside the point.

Enjoy the vids

[Vile Traveller]

Jan 11, 2016 12:33:10 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

I am, now, thoroughly convinced that classes, do not make the game better. That there has to be another way to account for a character's abilities to do things, without boxing the character into a restrictive space. People are just people. There is no more  necessity to force players to be a fighter, cleric, mu or thief, as there would to make anyone be a fireman, doctor, ship's captain...when their purpose is not to actually serve in those capacities, but to be a group of tomb raiding (Indiana Joneses) miscreants!

Beware, captain, that way lies RuneQuest ...

Alternatively, just eliminate all other classes except thieves! Yes, I admit it, I have always loved thieves. 

[waysoftheearth]

I've tried to watch the video several times, but I have a hard time sticking it out. There are some neat observations in there for sure, but also much that could be challenged. I will try to make some notes.

Meanwhile,

Regarding classes: remember the subject is a Fantastic Medieval Wargame. It's typical in wargames to see figures classified according to their function to facilitate gameplay.
FWIW, I agree with Vile Traveller. Classes are a comparatively simple design--most alternative mechanics I've seen tend toward increasing complexity. Simplicity is functional, facilitates game pace, and can occasionally be elegant.

Regarding thieves: Sneaks are the quintessential dungeon delver type for me too. I agree that the percentile skills mechanic was a botch, but that error of judgement must lie at the designer's feet, not at the thief's. If only EGG could have re-used more of OD&D's existing mechanics, or borrowed more of Wagner's box-man... sigh.

[waysoftheearth]

I made a few notes while trying to listen through it again...


Text transcribed from the video in black. My thoughts in blue...


(It seems he has a 6th-7th print of M&M. It has Svenny and no price on the cover, Halflings appearing on p8. This wasn't printed until 1977 at the earliest, so just be aware he's not discussing the original original here).


Didn't play until 2008
(Yep).


What type of fantasy game is this? Even though there really was only the one.
(Not true; there were at *least* Dave's and Gary's games, and we know there were other Fantasy games extant too.)


Anything missing? The Lord of the Rings isn't in here.
(You don't have to look far to see D&D is riddled with LotR-isms, even in the purged 6th-7th prints. Hell, even "dwarves" is Tolkien!)


Not that he didn't like LotR!
(Not sure on this; I'm pretty sure I've read remarks to the effect that EGG didn't think overly much of LotR).


Equippage
(If it is French, then it's misspelled équipage. Just as likely it's misspelled English equipage).


Dungeons & Dragons was orders of magnitude more populate than Chainmail ever was!
(Not in 1974 it wasn't.)


Chainmail is the core rules, and Men & Magic is the first expansion to it
(Not true. D&D was a new game that re-uses CM's combat rules.)


Didn't include a dungeon... he had 'em, and worked on a lot of 'em.
...there was a discussion about: hey should we include an adventure and he was like no. We made up our adventures. If we include one of ours, then people will use that instead of making up their own.
(Pure speculation. I doubt EGG had worked on "a lot" of dungeons in 74-75. Besides which, U&WA does include a sample dungeon).


Can I get away with five maps? NO IT MUST BE SIX. NO, THEN YOU HAVE FAILED, IT MUST BE SIX.
(Rubbish).


All of a sudden we've introduced the notion of race, which really should be called "species", I think, but this is the 70s so it's race.
(Neither "race" nor "species" is mentioned in the booklet).


Can you be a "Human"? It doesn't say.
There's a built in assumption that the default is human and humans don't get anything cool.
(OD&D doesn't have "Humans". It has "Men").


You want to be a dwarf wizard? No. There is no such thing.
There just aren't 7th level dwarves and you can never be one.
(Not true. You can play as anything).


Seems very weird to me; why not let the players play whatever they want?
(see M&M p8)


The ability to make these things (magic items) is often now lost.
(Not true. Wizards can make magic-items).


They note slanting passages... in an underground setting.
The GM does not draw ... the part of the dungeon you're in.
The GM describes it using English, and the players have to make their own maps
The GM would say: there's a corridor in front of you that goes about 70ft north and then it turns to the east at a 90 degree angle.
(Right idea, could be handled better. The ref need not give exact passage length unless the players are pacing it out. Unless the players have an infallible compass and are measuring angles with set-squares and string lines, the ref need not say any more about a passage way than: "it turns right".)


The first level of the dungeon is pretty easy
(That's not been my experience).


Gary would try to trick players into descending a level
We never played like that. I mean maybe we played like that once or twice in the 80s, but very quickly it's like this is done. This isn't fun.
(This is not a problem with the game design).


They published dozens of adventures in the 70s.
(Really? I'm interested to know what they were...)


[Long discussion about dwarves' ability to detect slanting passages]
How useful is this ability, let us wonder?


(Mentions some "classic" adventures by name:
KotB (Dec 1979)
In Search of the Unknown (1978)
Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan (1980)
Against the Cult of the Reptile God (1982)
Temple of Elemental Evil (First printed 1985)

Few of which were actually published in the 70s, and none of which were written for OD&D).

Searched for "slope"...
This [room 109 in Temple of Elemental Evil] is, as far as I can tell, one of the only instances... where a dwarf would actually get to use his: hey, this is not a level surface, ability.

(To start, OD&D dwarves have the ability to detect SLANTING passages, not SLOPING passages; that came with AD&D. The host neglects to mention the sample dungeon in U&WA which clearly demonstrates--area 3--the use of SLANTING passages, which are those that are not arranged in orthogonal N-S, E-W compasses directions.

The point is that a dwarf will know when a passage heads off at 75 degrees rather than at 90 degrees, and therefore his map will be superior to the Man's map--who would have assumed a 90 degree turn--and so the dwarf is ultimately less likely to get lost underground, and so less likely to die trying to find a way back to the surface).


The idea of class is only 3 pages old and already we have elves as kind of a weird exception
(The idea of classifying figures is as old as wargames themselves. The idea of the combination fighter/M-U figure--e.g., Elric of Melnibone--appeared in CM back in 1971.)



23 minutes in... sorry, can't go on tonight

[robkuntz]

As a famous philosopher (I forget exactly who...) once said: "To the flames with it..."

Edit:  It was Hume, though not a verbatim quote, but the gist of it...

[captaincrumbcake]

I agree with most of y'all's rebuttals. He makes a lot of mistakes in his analysis and assumptions; I credit this with the notion of his generation (to gaming)--he just doesn't have as much of the b.g. as most of us do, but his inqusitiveness should be at least, noted.

For me, my bold remark: 

I am, now, thoroughly convinced that classes, do not make the game better

I'm gonna stand by it, with the following clarifiers: d&d is a great game as it is. If you like (and I do) playing fighters, magic-users, clerics and thieves in a medieval fantasy setting.

But at the gut level, does it even make sense that these types would be out in the unknown, away from where their professional skills would serve them better, risking life and limb for rumored buried treasures of long ago? If so, why would the powers-that-be allow it? Wouldn't the nobles, barons and kings have legions of troops out there doing the same thing for the same reason(without their own personal risk)?
And why would these classes...really...improve as players robbed more and more tombs? Wouldn't their counterparts back in the civilized world--performing these same class skills in the context they are meant to be performed--ever improve? Only tomb robbers get better in skills that have nothing to do with it, than others that practice their professions in the conditions for which they were designed?

The classes are there because of the leap from sand table miniature war game simulation. The Fantasy chapter is a great one, but because of it, the linear jump from sand table to tomb robbing pinned the designer/s into a framework of familiarity; rather than go about creating a system wherein tomb robbers/dungeon explorers could, rightly, come from all professions/fields.


What I'm trying to express in the statement, is that there is no need to lump tomb robbers into 3, 4 or 9 classes that have nothing to do with the actual exploring and looting of ancient tombs, dungeons, etc. Anybody can be a tomb robber. And, in fact, it is possible that the classes we've been so accustomed to believing are the best suited for tomb robbing, actually--aren't! And it is my contention in the statement, that abilities such as S, I, W, C, D, CH... are shared among all residents of the fantasy campaign world. And if one decides to become a tomb robber, as opposed to joining the militia/army and being a fighter, or joining the wizards guild, or becoming the cultist of a certain temple, or outrunning the city guards as one decides thievery is the easiest way to make a living... all these abilities would have the same effect on the skills one develops over time from continuous tomb robbing: combat, stealth, etc. (It is only when magic is introduced, that allowances appear.)

(Added)
There is an illustration in the AD&D 1E DM guide (p.111) and a paragraph (p.85) that conveys Gary's point about why the game is centered around the classes as we know them. Let me quote:

While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience...fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise...magic-users should be deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically...while thieves should spend  their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims... All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!

Which is all true, if one is going to create a situation that requires those classes to be functioning outside of their actual professions. So, why not, to begin with, simply design the system that allows all tomb robbers (whether they be a former militia fighting man, lowly cleric in a local perish, apprentice mage sent on errands by his master, an opportunist pick pocket, a blacksmith's son, a bored scribe, a former harlot, etc.) to go out adventuring, with their skills and abilities improving over time and success? Only those classes can fight for their lives? force open a stuck door? move quietly? listen? try to hide in dark places? run? steal?


 (Back to original post)
So, yes, the videos are littered with incorrect assumptions, conclusions, and wonder. 
Kinda like a lot of forum posters.

 

[robkuntz]

C.C.Ck noted: 'but his inqusitiveness should be at least, noted."

Duly noted before consigning "to the flames..."

Next pseudo-historian please...

[captaincrumbcake]

Jan 12, 2016 14:06:47 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

C.C.Ck noted: 'but his inqusitiveness should be at least, noted."

Duly noted before consigning "to the flames..."

Next pseudo-historian please...

Love it.