The state of Post-OSR content

[PrinceofNothing]

Chromatic Orb, am I right brother? #CheapomaticOrb #BringItBack

Ooooh oooh also Multi-Classing, Weapons Mastery and Ambidexterity before they got nerfed were rad as hell as well. @squeen is probably going into paroxysms thinking about it!

Chromatic Orb was fucking awesome and the gemstone material component kind of put a cap on its overuse. Squeen isn't against spells that were originally in UA is he? I remember the UA spells being pretty good in general. The book was a mixed bag and the classes and races were terrible, but the spells were awesome.

Dirty 2e storygamers represent!

@PrinceofNothing uses house-rules B/X.

I prefer to think of my version of Rules Cyclopedia DnD as 'little girls B/X' as it allows for such degenerate concepts as rerolling hit points every level, starting with max hp, The mystic (dirty optional class, booh hiss) gets 100% of xp for treasure and raise dead costs 5000 gp and a point of Con with the caster aging 1d5 years for versimilitude reasons. And yes they will take the 10 day detour to Threshold to get it done. Also 1 day and 100 gp for each level of the spell you learn, no failure chance. And I introduced Raggi's Lotfp encumberance system. I made platemail almost 10 times as expensive to torture my players. I think I introduced caltrops somewhere. Otherwise it is your average run of the mill B/X. I'm contemplating the addition of market classes from ACKS to settle disputes of how many wardogs are readily available swiftly and surely. The frequent deaths manage to funnel sufficient wealth into the local economy to keep them somewhat hungry, but they have a bag of holding so the amount of junk they can cart around is all but unlimited, 10.000 cn equivalent! I could also torture them more over the fact that the coins they generally carry are mostly platinum, so your average vendor is likely to have little change when you are shopping for provisions, but whatever.

The equipment list is one thing both 1e and 2e definetely have a leg over B/X. I can't imagine playing it for any prolongued period of time and not gradually adding inn prices, some extra adventuring bricabrac, establishing how much magical ink you can carry (its encumberance value is twice its gp value to prevent them using it as an impromptu currency) and I need to extort them far more then I currently do. I should devise some sort of 'inconvenient city encounter' table with tax collectors, huxters, troublemakers, ne'erdowells, doom saying homelessmen, mobs of annoying children etc. etc. to make visiting big cities more exciting.

 

[The Heretic]

I remember liking the idea of having a villain that you cannot kill directly, sort of like a proto-lich. Dissapointing. Niles did B5, one of the best adventures in the B series.

I'm hoping to see a review of X3 on your blog. Curse of Xanathon has some good ideas (the goofy edicts, the curse itself, the invulnerable adversary) but the adventure itself was a disaster. It's the perfect example of the designer using the wrong format (keyed encounters for what is basically a mystery). Perhaps Bryce should use this as an example of bad design in his book.

 

[The Heretic]

Chromatic Orb was fucking awesome and the gemstone material component kind of put a cap on its overuse. Squeen isn't against spells that were originally in UA is he? I remember the UA spells being pretty good in general. The book was a mixed bag and the classes and races were terrible, but the spells were awesome.

I think the biggest criticism of Chromatic Orb was that it could cause instant death if you were high enough level. I think it was even referenced as something broken that they 'fixed' with 3rd edition.

 

[Osrnoob]

I had not!

@EOTB : Thanks. Makes sense now. I never liked the "old school" slang in any context. I'll also add this: when it comes to D&D, I think there were several cycles of reinvention, growth and bust. Sounds like each one was different, and that each one had it's heyday (...err...except 4e!).

Quote below
"I started with Dave at CSA meetings in '75, out at Phil's in early '76, and when I started working for Dave at Adventure Games he'd send me down to TSR stockholder meetings where I met Gary; Gary invited me to play in Greyhawk, which I did when I was down there. (Gary was always very nice to me, despite knowing that I worked for Phil and Dave.)
I was one of the founders of Phil's 'Thursday Night Group', when we split off from the power gamers' group."

 

[squeen]

Squeen isn't against spells that were originally in UA is he?

Not at all. I have an Appendix for my campaign filled with non-standard spells that can be found in the wild. I even like multiple versions (like local dialects) of standard spells that are close-by-not-exactly-the-same. Magic should be a bit strange and unpredictable (maybe even more than just "a bit").

Note: Some of them are just AD&D spells absent from OD&D/S&W.



Again, though --- these emerge through exploration...a magic-user only gets to pick (I don't randomize it BtB) the number of 1st-level spells he knows at start-up from the "standard list". Everything else has to be discovered in the world. Scrolls and defeated MUs spellbooks are fantastic treasure. My players always get excited when they capture one. If you can gain membership to a secret wizard's society you've hit the jackpot! The stranger the local, the more foreign the magic. "Imagine the hell out of it." Am I right?

I also (house rule?) that cleric can only pray for unusual spells once they've witnessed them first-hand (cast against them) or else read them on a (found) scroll---asumming their deity is willing. I've even had the Gods occasional grant a cleric a magic-user spell if it's thematically appropriate (e.g. Thor grants lightning bolt to one of his clerics for a certain important battle).

While my players love Acid Blast, Strangulate, Magic Scythe, and Repel---and they've become perennial favorites---some on those list have never been found to date. That's OK. I still get excited thinking about the first time they may used against the party---should be a hoot. Anticipation!

Don't think for a second I don't like to introduce creative twists and generally mix things up---I just can't stand rules that enshrine a player's ENTITLEMENT to said privileges. No Cheat Codes Ya Mo'Fo's !

I also don't do Illusionists as a class, but MUs can find (some) Illusionist AD&D spells and specialize in them. Bad guys do this.

The GAME is not suppose to be boring...and the rules are not a straitjacket---but the core rules should be minimalist, invariant, and balanced to perfection. Treasure in the form of gold/magic/XP/strange-abilities/etc. is to be won. You want it? Go find it! Once you leave the town, ANYTHING can happen. My challenge as a DM is to keep it interesting without giving away the farm. I'll repeat it another way: My challenge as a DM is to create challenge for my players---to motivate them to want explore the world and play (more). It's a knife edge to walk. What makes D&D interesting is what happens when you play D&D. The longer you play, the wilder the ride.

Players think it's "cool" when they have all sort of awesome special abilities. I do too---but I also think its sucks and breaks the game when they get them from the start (or demand them). You are all "Joe Average", no f***ing special snowflakes---now get Out There and make something of yourselves (or die trying). Even making a Grade-A-Fool of yourself is wonderful fun for all.

It's a simple notion really. Start simple. Start vanilla. THEN add sprinkles. Horse--cart...that's the order.
(Just takes a bit of patience---all ye worshipers of instant gratification.)

And, "boo hiss" on the emotional cripple who needs a game pre-loaded so that each and every player has "their special moment to shine", each and every session. I want nothing to do with that pathological self-indulgence and ego-stroking. Yuck! Get over yourselves! What sort of delusional mind doesn't see through that hollow facade as to how utterly meaningless their staged-victory is? And it's not just me---if they watched a character behaving in a movie like that, they would be disgusted too! (e.g. The Roman Emperor that fights an opponent hobbled and drugged so he can act a big-shot in front of his people. Boo! Hiss!)

Squeen isn't against spells that were originally in UA is he? I remember the UA spells being pretty good in general. The book was a mixed bag and the classes and races were terrible, but the spells were awesome.

Umm....
As you can see, I've tossed a few of the better ones in here or there...but a lot of the UA were pretty awful IMO. You can harvest and adapt better ones from the internet (which is what I did above). Over at K&KA Landifarne posted a dozen AWESOME spells I want to steal and add to my list. I'd already scoped up @grodog's Gatetrace spell and placed it strategically as a pivotal plot-aide in my campaign.

 

[squeen]

I prefer to think of my version of Rules Cyclopedia DnD as 'little girls B/X' as it allows for such degenerate concepts as rerolling hit points every level, starting with max hp, The mystic (dirty optional class, booh hiss) gets 100% of xp for treasure and raise dead costs 5000 gp and a point of Con with the caster aging 1d5 years for versimilitude reasons. And yes they will take the 10 day detour to Threshold to get it done. Also 1 day and 100 gp for each level of the spell you learn, no failure chance. And I introduced Raggi's Lotfp encumberance system. I made platemail almost 10 times as expensive to torture my players. I think I introduced caltrops somewhere. Otherwise it is your average run of the mill B/X. I'm contemplating the addition of market classes from ACKS to settle disputes of how many wardogs are readily available swiftly and surely. The frequent deaths manage to funnel sufficient wealth into the local economy to keep them somewhat hungry, but they have a bag of holding so the amount of junk they can cart around is all but unlimited, 10.000 cn equivalent! I could also torture them more over the fact that the coins they generally carry are mostly platinum, so your average vendor is likely to have little change when you are shopping for provisions, but whatever.

The equipment list is one thing both 1e and 2e definetely have a leg over B/X. I can't imagine playing it for any prolongued period of time and not gradually adding inn prices, some extra adventuring bricabrac, establishing how much magical ink you can carry (its encumberance value is twice its gp value to prevent them using it as an impromptu currency) and I need to extort them far more then I currently do. I should devise some sort of 'inconvenient city encounter' table with tax collectors, huxters, troublemakers, ne'erdowells, doom saying homelessmen, mobs of annoying children etc. etc. to make visiting big cities more exciting.

This here Ladies and Gents is "doing it right" in my mind.

What you'll note is the prominent tone of self deprecation and flagellation that says to the world: "I'm a horrible, lenient, over-indulgent, DM, who's lazy house rules are probably are making things worse rather than than better...but...whatev's...I'm trying.".

(Constrast this with the "AD&D sucks! Gygax was an ass! Stupid rules! They're too complicated!" crowd. Who would you trust for years of fun adventure?)

Humble effort always gets my respect.

Sounds to me like the Age of Dusk is in good hands.

 

[Beoric]

NOTE: Yora's B/X "mods" are things like "Poison attacks do not kill instantly". Err...OK. (They almost never did.)

Not my experience, so I did a quick word search of the MM. I found 28 monsters with insta-death poison and 11 with non-lethal or delayed death poison. There were a few outliers I didn't count (green dragons, for example, where the save is vs. breath weapon), but that's a pretty clear majority.

Also, IIRC, when Yora ragequit D&D he said that if he ever did play again it would be something like B/X. So even then he knew on some level.

 

[Beoric]

Not at all. I have an Appendix for my campaign filled with non-standard spells that can be found in the wild. I even like multiple versions (like local dialects) of standard spells that are close-by-not-exactly-the-same. Magic should be a bit strange and unpredictable (maybe even more than just "a bit").

Note: Some of them are just AD&D spells absent from OD&D/S&W.

View attachment 1019 View attachment 1018

Again, though --- these emerge through exploration...a magic-user only gets to pick (I don't randomize it BtB) the number of 1st-level spells he knows at start-up from the "standard list". Everything else has to be discovered in the world. Scrolls and defeated MUs spellbooks are fantastic treasure. My players always get excited when they capture one. If you can gain membership to a secret wizard's society you've hit the jackpot! The stranger the local, the more foreign the magic. "Imagine the hell out of it." Am I right?

I also (house rule?) that cleric can only pray for unusual spells once they've witnessed them first-hand (cast against them) or else read them on a (found) scroll---asumming their deity is willing. I've even had the Gods occasional grant a cleric a magic-user spell if it's thematically appropriate (e.g. Thor grants lightning bolt to one of his clerics for a certain important battle).

While my player love Acid Blast, Strangulate, Magic Scythe, and Repel---and they've become perennial favorites---some on those list have never been found to date. That's OK. I still get excited thinking about the first time they may used against the party---should be a hoot. Anticipation!

Don't think for a second I don't like to introduce creative twists and generally mix things up---I just can't stand rules that enshrine a player's ENTITLEMENT to said privileges. No Cheat Codes Ya Mo'Fo's !

I also don't do Illusionists as a class, but MUs can find (some) Illusionist AD&D spells and specialize in them. Bad guys do this.

The GAME is not suppose to be boring...and the rules are not a straitjacket---but the core rules should be minimalist, invariant, and balanced to perfection. Treasure in the form of gold/magic/XP/strange-abilities/etc. is to be won. You want it? Go find it! Once you leave the town, ANYTHING can happen. My challenge as a DM is to keep it interesting without giving away the farm. I'll repeat it another way: My challenge as a DM is to create challenge for my players---to motivate them to want explore the world and play (more). It's a knife edge to walk. What makes D&D interesting is what happens when you play D&D. The longer you play, the wilder the ride.

Players think it's "cool" when they have all sort of awesome special abilities. I do too---but I also think its sucks and breaks the game when they get them from the start (or demand them). You are all "Joe Average", no f***ing special snowflakes---now get Out There and make something of yourselves (or die trying). Even making a Grade-A-Fool of yourself is wonderful fun for all.

It's a simple notion really. Start simple. Start vanilla. THEN add sprinkles. Horse--cart...that's the order.
(Just takes a bit of patience---all ye worshipers of instant gratification.)

And, "boo hiss" on the emotional cripple who needs a game pre-loaded so that each and every player has "their special moment to shine", each and every session. I want nothing to do with that pathological self-indulgence and ego-stroking. Yuck! Get over yourselves! What sort of delusional mind doesn't see through that hollow facade as to how utterly meaningless their staged-victory is? And it's not just me---if they watched a character behaving in a movie like that, they would be disgusted too! (e.g. The Roman Emperor that fights an opponent hobbled and drugged so he can act a big-shot in front of his people. Boo! Hiss!)



Umm....
As you can see, I've tossed a few of the better ones in here or there...but a lot of the UA were pretty awful IMO. You can harvest and adapt better ones from the internet (which is what I did above). Over a K&KA Landifarne posted a dozen AWESOME spells I want to steal and add to my list. I'd already scoped up @grodog's Gatetrace spell and placed it strategically as a pivotal plot-aide in my campaign.

I'm having trouble reconciling this with the "by the book is the only way to play" stance you were taking a while ago. Did you resile from that when you decided you were more of a B/X player than an AD&D player?

This here Ladies and Gents is "doing it right" in my mind.

What you'll note is the prominent tone of self deprecation and flagellation that says to the world: "I'm a horrible, lenient, over-indulgent, DM, who's lazy house rules are probably are making things worse rather than than better...but...whatev's...I'm trying.".

(Constrast this with the "AD&D sucks! Gygax was an ass! Stupid rules! They're too complicated!" crowd. Who who you trust?)

Humble effort always gets my respect.

Sounds to me like the Age of Dusk is in good hands.

Same comment as above. Also, I would agree that it is better to have system mastery before you start tinkering with the system. But I have also always felt that DIY also applies to rules, not just content.

 

[squeen]

I'm having trouble reconciling this with the "by the book is the only way to play" stance you were taking a while ago. Did you resile from that when you decided you were more of a B/X player than an AD&D player?

Same comment as above. Also, I would agree that it is better to have system mastery before you start tinkering with the system. But I have also always felt that DIY also applies to rules, not just content.

I am not condemning what others like to play as RPGs (except in the weird cases Psuedo mentioned that just seem neurotic---like replaying a dungeon over and over to get your character's "big moment" perfect? WTF is that all about?), but I am an unabashedly an advocate of challenge-play. That was always the first block in my foundation when I went to teach D&D to my kids.

While I am generally not a big fan of B/X...from inception...I am trying to be open the the general ethos around here that classic play is possible (with varying effort) in more than one edition/rule-set. I'm saying I like the things Prince is focusing on, and it sounds like he's aware when he's hand waiving away some of the fiddley bits here and there. Points to him for general effort.

Hey! I'm...trying....to be inclusive? <wags tail>

I've said as much about @The1True's 3e game and @Two orcs ACKS game in the past too.

Nevertheless, my goal is to learn to adhere to the AD&D rules --- and use them all properly. It's a personal decision.

However, you all talk as if I'm a BtB despot DM---and only use what's in the books. I'm trying to absolve you of that notion. That's completely off.

In short, I'm trying to draw a distinction between in-world content (which I truly believe that BtB can be anything) and rules-tinkering intended to change the difficulty level of standard play (for DM and/or players) or slant the style-of-play in a different direction (e.g. DL/R trad "plots").

Here's a simple example of the difference: a PC might obtain an artifact that totally borks the challenge-balance---ruining that game. Oh well. Start over with different in-world content. On the contrary, rules-tinkering has the potential to bork EVERY game. (...hence the erroneous conclusion that "D&D is broken".)

I'm also a minimalist at heart. As much as necessary...but no more. Don't add anything if you can avoid it.

There will always be exceptions to every rule. Finding those outliers (in world) is part of the joy of each game and setting.

My OD&D bias against the full set of AD&D classes (looking at you UA+Dragon magazine+paladin+bards+every new DM) will probably be a house-rule that is specific to my campaign. AD&D doesn't say anywhere that you can't have a setting in which there are no PC elves, dwarves, or Illusionists. I think it may say somewhere in the DMG exactly the opposite.

However, those sort of omissions are not the typical type of rule-tinkering folks are usually advocating.

Similarly, there is no BtB prohibition against adding new spells. Heck, magic-users are suppose to research new spells (e.g. Tenser's Floating Disk).

New Magic items. God-granted powers and abilities. Wishes. Skills taught by ancient sages. Drinking a potion and exceeding level-limits. New monster variants. Coming back from the Dead. Being turned into a Newt. etc. That's ALL "By-The-Book, Mr. Saavek!".

If you see any shackles on me---it's an illusion.
If you think you've noticed a contradiction---that too is in your head.

Viva la D&D!

 

[squeen]

Not my experience, so I did a quick word search of the MM. I found 28 monsters with insta-death poison and 11 with non-lethal or delayed death poison. There were a few outliers I didn't count (green dragons, for example, where the save is vs. breath weapon), but that's a pretty clear majority.

Also, IIRC, when Yora ragequit D&D he said that if he ever did play again it would be something like B/X. So even then he knew on some level.

There's a whole table of poisons in the 1e DMG. Only one is lethal. I don't know B/X well enough to say whether or not if poison types allowances were rescinded.

...and you are encouraged to customize monsters as much as you'd like. The MM is only a catalog, not the Bible.

"All poisons must be lethal" just was never a hard-and-fast rule is all that I am saying.

Most of the monster content I create...it's not (like the Drow sleep poison in D1-D3).

But I think it's a wonderful idea that SOMETIMES IT IS LETHAL.....bwhahahahaha.

 

[Beoric]

In short, I'm trying to draw a distinction between in-world content (which I truly believe that BtB can be anything) and rules-tinkering intended to change the difficulty level of standard play (for DM and/or players) or slant the style-of-play in a different direction (e.g. DL/R trad "plots").

Here's a simple example of the difference: a PC might obtain an artifact that totally borks the challenge-balance---ruining that game. Oh well. Start over with different in-world content. On the contrary, rules-tinkering borks EVERY game.

I'm also a minimalist at heart. As much as necessary...but no more. Don't add anything if you can avoid it.

There will always be exceptions to every rule. Finding those outliers (in world) is part of the joy of each game and setting.

My OD&D bias against the full set of AD&D classes (looking at you UA+Dragon magazine+paladin+bards+every new DM) will probably be a house-rule that is specific to my campaign. AD&D doesn't say anywhere that you can't have a setting in which there are no PC elves, dwarves, or Illusionists. I think it may say somewhere in the DMG exactly the opposite.

Okay, but I'm looking at issue #1 of The Dragon (June 1976) and it has an article with houserules for ability checks in OD&D - basically, a rudimentary skill system. It's a mess, but it's there. And issue #2 includes the Alchemist as a D&D character class. I don't have any issues of the Strategic Review to see if these sorts of things appeared earlier, but it would not surprise me if there was. I have read that some groups used Chainmail, and some muddled through without it, and some made their own rules to get OD&D to work, and there was that whole Berkley group that EGG hated so much, and EPT and others.

Outside of my own immediate group and the rulebooks, my only exposure to gaming culture "back in the day" was Dragon magazine. And it always included houserules, including new races and classes, as a result of which DIY rules was a big part of what I perceived as the culture of the day.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to play BtB, you can play BtB, even if you are using rules that EGG himself ignored. I just don't accept that as part of the original culture, and sometimes I feel like that is what you are arguing.

I think rules homogeneity was something EGG only started advocating for when he started to see variant rule systems as business competitors. And from my perspective it never looked like a dominant part of the culture. I mean, every few months EGG would rant in the Dragon against some houserule or system he didn't like, but you have to weigh those odd articles against the fact that most issues contained several articles that included rules variants - and then later EGG started posting regular articles with his own rules variants. The EGG rule variation articles eventually ended up in UA, but prior to that they actually contributed to the impression that making up new rules was all part of the game.

 

[EOTB]

Making up new rules is done by everyone, to some degree. There are rules and there are pillars. “BTB” is typically concentrating on the pillars.

The point of AD&D was to create a system with recognized pillars.

People I don’t believe are saying “BTB” was original culture. Instead that in the original culture the game aspect was placed in primacy over the roleplaying aspect, which was an interesting, fun wrinkle but not the overriding point

 

[The1True]

I think the biggest criticism of Chromatic Orb was that it could cause instant death if you were high enough level. I think it was even referenced as something broken that they 'fixed' with 3rd edition.

lolololol yeah. Fail your save; die. Make your save; paralyzed and might as well die. I don't think Spell Resistance worked on it either. It was a terrible spell right from low level-on.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

There are rules and there are pillars. “BTB” is typically concentrating on the pillars.

How did you come to that conclusion? The term "by the book" has always meant following something to the letter of what's written as if using a script (hence, "book"). That would be rules, not pillars - pillars are nebulous concept of guidance, not a book to be followed.

 

[squeen]

Okay, but I'm looking at issue #1 of The Dragon (June 1976) and it has an article with houserules for ability checks in OD&D - basically, a rudimentary skill system. It's a mess, but it's there. And issue #2 includes the Alchemist as a D&D character class. I don't have any issues of the Strategic Review to see if these sorts of things appeared earlier, but it would not surprise me if there was.

[...]

The EGG rule variation articles eventually ended up in UA, but prior to that they actually contributed to the impression that making up new rules was all part of the game.

Beoric, you are 100% right. I once privately ranted at Malrex about a new class a D&D founder had submitted over at Dragonsfoot. He was like, "Calm down, man. What's your beef?" It only then jelled in my mind how utterly ubiquitous this had been since the first days of the hobby. Dragon #1, as you said.

...and I've always disliked it. It is the lowest hanging fruit. It goes like this:
(1) new DM plays a session---everyone had fun
(2) between the first and second session, he has invented a new class.

It strikes me personally as such a noob idea. It is SO easy, and SO obvious, everyone tries it. Even Gygax (UA, ugh!). In music it is sometimes called variations on a theme. It's one of the first light bulbs that goes off in everyone's head, in what already is essentially a massively DIY hobby.

Here's the rub---it's so easy...I don't really need (or want) your new class. Really. (Maybe it falls into the category of world-building, as Prince so eloquently stated it.)

That's why I attach minimalist to my personal profile. Some folks want all sorts of new gizmos to trick out their game. That's just not for me. Seems gaudy and inelegant, but I'll admit that's totally a matter of personal taste.

What's not personal taste, is when the new class becomes a "candy class" --- i.e. something so much obviously elite and better that the players are all over it because they crave instant status and/or a power-boost. That's when I say, "No way man. That is not a new class---that's a disguised cheat-code!" I like magic items that are cool...but also come with a price---i.e. a balanced trade-off. The classes need to be that way too otherwise, like modern movies, EVERYONE is a ninja (too, even the 90-lb stick-thin models).

The other ubiquitous class-variant is a version of an existing class that has somehow been pigeon-holed in a pointless way. e.g. magic-users that specialize in one type of magic (e.g. fire). Why? Do you separate your peas from your carrots at dinner too?

Again---this is probably just my own weird sensibilities. To my harsh aesthetic, there's a lot of stupid D&D-esque movies to copy from too. They are often filled with Magnificent Seven-like specialists. It's an over-used Hollywood trope.

----

Here's the thing about the original style of play: even if you are a 1st-level magic user with 2 hit points...and you've already fired off your one spell...YOU CAN STILL PLAY! You are still an actor on the stage. You can pull levers, drink the magic waters, solve puzzles, squeeze the trigger on an alien ray-gun, parley with the dragon, drag your buddy out of the dungeon, etc...in other words---interact with the environment. You are a person, with a brain, and you matter. A PC is so much more than his or her special skills. I'm tempted to say class "hardly" matters.

Somewhere, perhaps during the video-game revolution's emphasis on combat, that notion may have gotten lost from D&D. I can't say. I wasn't there for that act of the play...I ducked out to go to the bathroom.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Being angry that others are inventing their own classes and saying that it's ruined the game is like being angry that people are using the ocean to surf and waterski because "back in the day" people only swam. It's like, calm down bud, it's a big fucking ocean...

 

[Osrnoob]

Nobody commented on my historical note

Changes in play patterns were pre Hickman and seem to be a natural evolution as the hobby expanded.

 

[squeen]

Don't get me wrong, if you want to play BtB, you can play BtB, even if you are using rules that EGG himself ignored. I just don't accept that as part of the original culture, and sometimes I feel like that is what you are arguing.

I don't think I knew enough people to speak definitively about what the culture was --- I can only say that so many people were picking up Holmes Basic D&D and AD&D books, and playing in a generally similar (and often Berkley-like Monty Haul) way, that there was some kind of cultural movement taking place---and it never involved story-railroads (unless your DM was a total buttmunch).

Finding a copy of the The Dragon was not easy. Many folks I knew only ever had a handful of issues, but I'll say this---a lot of crazy shit appeared in the The Dragon, and most of it was ignored (kind of like D&D blogs today). I think folks like Trent and @grodog have an encyclopedia knowledge of published articles that far surpasses your average gamer. I never met anyone like that "back then".

And look, how many of those notions/classes/etc in the The Dragon persisted? Who do you know that has played an Alchemist? (Zzzzz....) Even the UA stuff is only adopted piece-meal, and by a select few.

To your point, "what I am arguing" is:

1. I think that there was a subculture pre-Hickman, and to pretend like trad was the first culture is a non-starter with most folk who look at Hickman as the "death" of their style-of-play.
2. I personally am going to try to get more AD&D BtB with my game --- i.e. stop ignoring rules because they seem like effort.
3. BtB does not equate to boring --- in-world content can bend and warp the playing field. BtB D&D is not suppose to be limiting.
4. Challenge-style play is essential to D&D...otherwise it's just narcissism, or play-acting, or something else! Just not (good) classic D&D.
5. Sometimes I just like to share "how I do it" and hear pointers on how other people do it too. No argument intended.
6. Sometimes I'm just an over opinionated fool, bitching.

Why do you post?

 

[squeen]

Nobody commented on my historical note

Changes in play patterns were pre Hickman and seem to be a natural evolution as the hobby expanded.

Sorry! I honestly didn't make the connection. That's a fair point --- each table had it's own norms based on member preferences.

But from there (and considering that both groups had the same DM), I think it's a stretch to say the subculture was too fragmented to have any discernible cohesion or play-style....especially when contrasted to the seismic change that came afterwards.

 

[Beoric]

And look, how many of those notions/classes/etc in the The Dragon persisted? Who do you know that has played an Alchemist? (Zzzzz....) Even the UA stuff is only adopted piece-meal, and by a select few.

I think quite a few things stuck. Off the top of my head, I think the anti-paladin (and possibly other paladin variants) ended up as the blackguard. Several articles making dragons more interesting certainly stuck, especially "Self-Defence for Dragons" (or whatever it was called), many elements of which appeared in later editions. Later bards follow the patterns in Dragon more than the one in the PHB. The idea for the ranger-archer stuck. For UA, the barbarian certainly had legs, and the cavalier still pops up from time to time.

It's harder to remember where pure rules ideas came from, but it wouldn't surprise me if a number of ideas in the Dragon made their way into later editions; there were many, many ideas to choose from, and they can't all have been bad.