Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001
From: ccohesh001@ucdavis.UUCP (Peter Costantinidis, Jr.)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Soliciting Opinions on AD&D Style
Message-ID: <403@ucdavis.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Nov-85 02:55:21 EST
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.403
Posted: Wed Nov 27 02:55:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 00:09:04 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 205

Recently a DM posted a message to net.games.frp (distribution ucd)
looking for AD&D players.  Some of his opinions of how AD&D should
be played surprised me.  I myself have only been a player for five
years and with seven different DM's.  This DM was so adamant about
his method of playing that I am beginning to have some doubts con-
cerning the manner in which I have been playing it.  The rest of
this message contains his original posting to net.games.frp and
the mail messages that we exchanged after that.  Lines starting
with "<" indicate the original Usenet message, lines starting
with "(*)" indicate mail originating from me, and lines starting
with "[*]" indicate mail originating from him.

I would like to hear the opinions of other AD&D players and DM's.

<From: ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (0058)
<Newsgroups: net.games.frp
<Subject: Looking for AD&D players
<Distribution: ucd
<
<Greetings.  If you are a competent or eager AD&D player at UCD, and are
<looking for an intelligent, reasonable, mature AD&D game to join, then
<please call Gary Huckabay at 758-2673, or send mail to ccs007.
<
<Consider This:  Leave your Monty Haul concepts and variants at home.
<This is a strict constructionalist game, and the books Fiend Folio (ugh)
<and Unearthed Arcana (Spew) are not used.  Players consist of upper division
<and Grad Students, but all persons over 16 are welcome.
<
<Sessions are on Friday Evenings, from 6:15 or so until roughly 1:00 am.
<
<Interested?
<Call Gary at 758-2673, or mail ccs007.
<
<Thanks.
<

(*)From ccohesh001 Mon Nov 25 12:53:37 1985
(*)To: ccs007
(*)Subject: Re: Looking for AD&D players
(*)
(*)>From: ccs007@ucdavis.UUCP (0058)
(*)>Newsgroups: net.games.frp
(*)>Subject: Looking for AD&D players
(*)>
(*)>Consider This:  Leave your Monty Haul concepts and variants at home.
(*)>This is a strict constructionalist game, and the books Fiend Folio (ugh)
(*)>and Unearthed Arcana (Spew) are not used.  Players consist of upper division
(*)>and Grad Students, but all persons over 16 are welcome.
(*)
(*)	What is a "strict constructionalist game"?  If you aren't using
(*)	the "Fiend Folio" or "Unearthed Arcana" (and how about the "Monster
(*)	Manual II"?) then how can you consider it to be AD&D?  I can
(*)	understand a DM who doesn't have all the money in the world to
(*)	go out and buy all AD&D materials, but if a player has made the
(*)	investment to purchase an "Unearthed Arcana", then I think that
(*)	they should be able to play, say, a Barbarian.
(*)
(*)	What is your stand on all the "official" articles in past issues
(*)	of the "Dragon" magazine?  Do you allow the Archer class?  What
(*)	is your stand on the modified Monk class that came in "The Best
(*)	of Dragon III"?  If you do not have access to these publications
(*)	I would be happy to let you see mine.
(*)
(*)	Are you the DM?  If so, how many players and player characters
(*)	do you usually run at once?  How many PC's per player characters?
(*)...pc
(*)

[*]From ccs007 Mon Nov 25 23:12:17 1985
[*]To: ccohesh001
[*]Subject: Re: Looking for AD&D players
[*]
[*]Good lord!  You don't seriosly expect to me to use unearthed drivel, do you?
[*]
[*]I've been playing D&D and AD&D for 13 years...(i was one of 30 original
[*]playtesters), and a contributing editor to TSR for six...
[*]
[*]Nothing in the dragon magazines is official, even if stated so by Mr. Gygax.
[*]
[*]The new monk is positively ludicrous, as are all classes in UA, the new
[*]'Oriental Adventures' book,and 99% of all the other classes I've seen played.
[*]
[*]I call my campaign AD&D by divine right.  Don't go preaching to me about the
[*]basics and playability of AD&D...I've been world champion for three years
[*]('81-83, gen con AD&D open & IADDPA point schedules), and I've attended,
[*]organized, and financially backed over fifty conventions, and been voted
[*]best GM each year at Dundracon since 1978.
[*]
[*]If your letter is any indication of the kind of Game you're used to playing,
[*]you'll detest my campaign.  I have written over 3500 pages of material for
[*]adventures, political scenarios, and characterization, all on the basis of
[*]maintaining game balance at all times.  Weapon specialization, character
[*]classes which bend the original concepts of the rules by giving players
[*]powers they were never meant to have, and the mere concept of statistics
[*]ever going up are all elements which destroy the balance which makes AD&D
[*]the best game (when properly played) ever.  You'll notice that those who play
[*]with the rules you mention (in conventions) usually switch to other games to
[*]fulfill their need for more character power.
[*]
[*]I could rant for hours...pardon my arrogance and anger.  I suggest you talk
[*]to Al Differ in person if you want to know more about my game.  If you're
[*]still interested, I'd like to talk to you personally, rather than by mail.
[*]Call me at 758-2673, or Al at 753-1286.
[*]
[*]In answer to your questions:
[*]7 players, all UCD students, mostly grad or upper division.
[*]1 character per player (the only way the game should EVER be played.)
[*]
[*]Pardon my tone, but you hit a nerve.  Interested in tournament?
[*]
[*]Gary.
[*]

(*)From ccohesh001 Tue Nov 26 02:39:00 1985
(*)To: ccs007
(*)Subject: AD&D differences of opinion
(*)
(*)>From ccs007 Mon Nov 25 23:12:17 1985
(*)>To: ccohesh001
(*)>Subject: Re: Looking for AD&D players
(*) 
(*)>Nothing in the dragon magazines is official, even if stated so by Mr. Gygax.
(*)
(*)	Does this mean that all material presented in the dragon magazine is
(*)	to be disregarded in your campaign?  What do you consider "official"?
(*)
(*)>The new monk is positively ludicrous, as are all classes in UA, the new
(*)>'Oriental Adventures' book, and 99% of all the other classes I've seen played.
(*)
(*)	I will admit to feeling that the new monk has some failings.
(*)	But some of us other AD&D players like the challenge of trying to
(*)	play new classes.  In one campaign I've been in for a couple of years
(*)	now I am playing a character called a Shape Shifter that a friend
(*)	found described in some game magazine.  The description of this
(*)	character was lacking in a lot of details for an AD&D campaign, but
(*)	the DM liked the idea and so we worked out the necessary details.
(*)	As problems arise with this class we discuss them and try to come up
(*)	with solutions that best fit into the game.  Every once in a while
(*)	this character is useful to the rest of the party.
(*)
(*)>>	What is a "strict constructionalist game"?  If you aren't using
(*)>>	the "Fiend Folio" or "Unearthed Arcana" (and how about the "Monster
(*)>>	Manual II"?) then how can you consider it to be AD&D?  I can
(*)>I call my campaign AD&D by divine right.  Don't go preaching to me about the
(*)>basics and playability of AD&D...I've been world champion for three years
(*)
(*)	I suppose that if I can accept one DM who virtually creates a character
(*)	class then I should be able to accept another who places restrictions
(*)	on existing "rules".  But, you make like anyone who uses the FF or UA
(*)	is not a real AD&D player but a fake.
(*)
(*)>If your letter is any indication of the kind of Game you're used to playing,
(*)>you'll detest my campaign.  I have written over 3500 pages of material for
(*)>adventures, political scenarios, and characterization, all on the basis of
(*)>maintaining game balance at all times.  Weapon specialization, character
(*)
(*)	Is it your opinion that the "new" rules destroy game balance?
(*)
(*)>classes which bend the original concepts of the rules by giving players
(*)
(*)	Perhaps I could understand your point of view better if you could
(*)	explain to me "the original concepts of the rules".
(*)
(*)>powers they were never meant to have, and the mere concept of statistics
(*)>ever going up are all elements which destroy the balance which makes AD&D
(*)>the best game (when properly played) ever.  You'll notice that those who play
(*)>with the rules you mention (in conventions) usually switch to other games to
(*)>fulfill their need for more character power.
(*)
(*)	I play with "those rules" and I could go on playing AD&D forever.
(*)	I can't see myself switching to other games anywhere in the future.
(*)
(*)
(*)>1 character per player (the only way the game should EVER be played.)
(*)
(*)	I have never heard this position on player/PC ratios before!
(*)	I find it a pain to adventure with a lot of players.  It seems
(*)	that the more players there are the less frequently the party
(*)	plays and the slower things go when they do play.  Also, the
(*)	smaller the party, the riskier the adventure.  I am speaking
(*)	in general terms here.  So, with this, I find that I (and most
(*)	DMs I've played with) would rather have a party of 4 players
(*)	and 8 PC's than a party of 8 players and 8 PC's.
(*)
(*)...pc
(*)

[*]From ccs007 Tue Nov 26 22:56:52 1985
[*]To: ccohesh001
[*]Subject: Re:  AD&D differences of opinion
[*]
[*]If you seriously want replies to your questions which would be more than 
[*]superficial, you'd have to talk to me in person.  Stop by Hutch on Sunday nights
[*]if you desire, or Surge on Thurs & Sat.  I can't go into detail here.  If you
[*]could see how a game works well with the philosophy I've outlined, you could 
[*]come and watch a session. (although UCD players aren't exactly the best in the
[*]world, they have their moments.)
[*]
[*]Forever arrogant,
[*]Gary.
[*]
-- 
-- Peter Costantinidis, Jr.
-- ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001@ucb-vax.arpa		(ARPA)
-- ...!{ucbvax,lll-crg,dual}!ucdavis!deneb!ccohesh001	(UUCP)