I came across an old website (last modified in 2002) explaining the problems in the AD&D system. I have heard these arguments before, and to be frank, I've had a lot of the same concerns. It's funny, though, that when I have sat down to work on developing a game system of my own, I often realize that solutions to apparent problems in the mechanics I am developing are dealt with easily by AD&D rules. What I've found, more often than not, is that the seeming inconsistencies with the game are usually the result of my own misunderstanding of either the rules or the concepts behind them. Furthermore, I also realize that despite my preference for older games, I am still a product of the threshold of fantasy storytelling as a preference to adventure gaming. To be honest, most of the things that are criticized in the AD&D game come from a different style of play and the incompatibility of that play with older game systems. Furthermore, the older style of play is seen as something that was less refined than today's style of gaming, when that simply isn't the case. Others more insightful than myself have pointed out that contemporary roleplayers are unable to play in the old style while older gamers have no problem moving between the two. To me, that suggests that the contemporary style is less refined than the older.
However, it is important that even us older roleplayers look back on the rules systems that we enjoy so much and remind ourselves why they worked so well in the first place and what their intentions were. To that end, in the next few posts, I'll address some of the issues that Mark Damon Hughes points out on his website (the same one I mentioned earlier). For the sake of argument, let this first post be a response to his Manifesto. I believe that most of his criticisms result from a combination of 1) a lack of information about the function of the rules and 2) a completely incompatible playing style with vastly different expectations. I do want to point out that Mark's criticism and commentary are neither ignorant nor inarticulate. He makes some good, valid points (and as I said earlier, ones that I have made before, myself). I even applaud his intentions of contributing to the ongoing process of refining and raising up the hobby. He just wants something out of AD&D that isn't there and was never intended to be there. Gary Gygax even noticed the perspective that Mark represents, and Gary had implied on more than one occasion that he intended the game to be played in a certain way that newer and newer players did less and less. In short, AD&D may not stand up as a purely storytelling game (as the term storytelling is defined by contemporary rpg players), nor does it exist as the height of unadulterated combat-focused gaming. AD&D is a roleplaying game, and the best of them.
Related Links
Mark Damon Hughes: RPG: What's Wrong with AD&D?
Lulu download: A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming
Posts
I read a little bit of Hughes' website --- his complaints against AD&D are pretty familiar --- they might have been from the Wizards of the Coast 3e design team's playbook. I think the site said Hughes had written this in 1998, so he deserves credit for having identified a certain demographic's complaints about AD&D (demi-human level limits, magic users can't wear armor, etc.). Some of the issues he had with AD&D have been reversed, repealed, corrected, etc., in 3e and 3.5e. According to his criteria (as I understand it), 3e and 3.5 should be "better" games.
ReplyDeleteI just don't find myself wanting to play them... and as far as games go, I gravitate back towards good old AD&D.
My problem with his argument is he wants to apply logic to a decision which (for me, at least) is about wanting to be entertained, amused and diverted. 3e may be a 'superior' game by his criteria, but I find it less entertaining.
Eh, just another hater who doesn't understand that the charm of teh game is in the fact that there are no rules to tie you down in things like diplomacy. That's where the role-playing comes in. Why bother?
ReplyDelete