Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uokvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!cdrigney From: cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.games.frp Subject: Re: Soliciting Opinions on AD&D Style Message-ID: <2400115@uokvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 05:01:00 EST Article-I.D.: uokvax.2400115 Posted: Sun Dec 1 05:01:00 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 08:35:59 EST References: <403@ucdavis.UUCP> Lines: 111 Nf-ID: #R:ucdavis.UUCP:403:uokvax.UUCP:2400115:000:5339 Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!cdrigney Dec 1 04:01:00 1985 Quotes are marked by: >> Gary Huckaby > Peter Costantinidis, Jr. (ccohesh001@ucdavis.UUCP) writes: > 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 OK, I'll bite. By the way, Peter, I do hope you asked Gary for permission to quote his letter in your posting. I began playing D&D 11 years ago, and for both that and AD&D, and for that matter all RPGs, the final word on what is and is not used must be the GMs. If this differs radically from the printed versions, the GM should let the players know, and since Gary did say what he planned to use, I see no problems with that. I agree with him that most of the new classes are badly thought out, many of them are just powers thrown together to produce something new and different, with flimsy rationales. In part this stems from limitations in the inherent nature of a class/level system, but I won't get into *that* debate again. Game balance is a function of the GM, not the game - if the GM's good he'll maintain balance, if he's not then things are liable to get out of hand whether you use the new stuff or not. I tend to be a minimalist in these matters, I prefer a campaign where it's not necessary to trot out ever newer and more powerful magic to keep the attention of jaded players. (Note that I say players, not characters.) >> 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 This is a little bit of snobbism on Gary's part - it's quite possible you might enjoy his game even if it is radically different from the style you're used to, Peter. I hope you don't have to read all 3500 pages, though! :-) >> 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. Nonsense. D&D still has the highest (potential) power level of any game on the market (I include AD&D and Arduin Grimoire under the heading of D&D here), and munchkins can remain delighted with it forever. I find the reverse to be true; people switch to other systems when they can no longer put up with AD&D's artificial restrictions on role-playing. As for AD&D being the best game, that's silly. Any game is only as good as its Gamesmaster. A good GM can make any game fun, the rules are just a tool. > 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. What difference does it make? The only advantage to an "official" rules set is for tournament play. There's no such thing as "real" or "fake" players. >> 7 players, all UCD students, mostly grad or upper division. >> 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. The adventure can be geared to the number of characters, and should be. It's true that as you get more players, it becomes harder to find a time when all can attend, but it's also true that a campaign can be set up so that you don't need all the players to run it; you can just involve the characters of the players who are available. And undoubtedly as you get more players things proceed more slowly - the usual bottleneck is having one GM, who has to divide his time among the players. But if you're interested in roleplaying, it's usually much easier to run one character than two per player, because you can concentrate on that role, instead of slipping back and forth between two roles. Most campaigns that have two or more characters per player, I dare say, do so because the casualty rate is high, so the player can lose a character and not have to sit out the remainder of the evening. I used to allow two heroes per player in my Champions campaign, for just this reason. I now have one hero per player, and I'd never return to the old method. Having said that, let me also mention that I have run two characters at once and had more fun than I could have with one, but they were twins, so maybe that shouldn't count. And there was the campaign in which I and a friend shared a single character, a schizophrenic illusionist... --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney "You needn't thank me for telling you all this, the havoc created shall be my reward."