Those who have been reading my stuff for some time know that I’m mostly a Mono-Gamist GM. I’ve embraced the latest edition of D&D because we wanted to try it, because I idolize one of it’s creators and because it’s one of the easiest RPGs to prep for.
And it’s, like, you know, fun…
However, I have a very strong nostalgic streak and I really appreciate reading about the game’s history and roots. The Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game was my Star Wars. I discovered it when I was 10 and it took over my nerd brain like nothing else did. I played it too much, I talked about it all the time and I created tons and tons of dungeon.
I played it for many years and I still have many good souvenirs about it. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been watching the Old School Ressaissance movement with interest lately. While I have no intention of ever DMing anything other than post 2e D&D, I’d gladly play any older version of the game (or one of the many retro-clones) at a Convention.
The blog that re-introduced me to retro-gaming is fellow canuck James Maliszewski’s (don’t ask me to pronounce it) Grognardia. James has written/contributed to several RPG products and he’s quite the D&D scholar.
The quality of his posts is very high and he makes an effort to be thorough and fair in his reviews, no matter how controversial the subject matter may be. This gives him the occasional headache when he tries to have a rational discourse about some of the recent controversies surrounding the old school movement or when some irate gamers make him the unwilling ambassador of the Old-school regiment of the Edition Wars).
I like James’ style a lot and enjoy reading his reviews of the old modules I played or his take on the current retro-clones. He does however have a certain “Damn kids, get off my lawn!” vibe when he happens to discuss later editions of D&D (i.e. anything after the Moldvay/Cook editions of the game) but I don’t dwell on that too much! If you want to explore the roots of D&D, be it about the original game, the founding fathers of the hobby and the influences of Pulp Fantasy on the game, Grognardia is a Don’t Miss.
So here’s a Chatty look at 3 of his recent posts.
If you want to see where James comes from in one short essay, that’s the one you want to read first. He divides the history of D&D’s editions from the original rules (1974) to late into the A D&D 2e era (1999).
Based on his preference for Pulp Fantasy and the liberties that the older rules allowed (it’s rulings, not rules eh?), James classifies the period encompassing the original game (74), Advanced D&D (1979) and the Basic Game (1981) as the Golden Age.
I find his classification entertaining and I don’t feel particularity qualified to argue it’s relative validity. I do happen to agree completely with him about the Dark Ages of D&D that correspond to the 2nd half of A D&D 2e’s commercial lifetime. It’s no secret that I have no love for the 2nd edition, it came out at a time where I had grown tired of D&D and where I had reached the ‘I want more crunch in my RPG’ phase of my role-player evolution (I left D&D for Gurps from 1989 to 2001). I came back in the late 90’s to have a quick peek at Planescape and then decided (at the time) to leave D&D for good.
James seems to be very careful at this point not to discuss the post 2e era, mostly because it holds limited interest for him and falls outside of his self-imposed blog niche. I think it was a wise move and I agree with his tangential argument that 3e and onwards are different games that could be better discussed elsewhere and maybe a little later when historical perspective can help the analysis more.
Oh! Gygaxian Naturalism, how often I’ve seen this term coined any which way without really understanding it, especially during my own involvement in a little controversy.
I used to think that this expression meant Gygax’s way of creating dungeons, with monster factions, weird empty rooms and PC/gear destroying altars. Turns out I was wrong.
I’m not surprised to see that James is the one that defined the term first (unless I’m mistaken) and I now understand what it means: Monsters in the older editions of the game had game mechanics that explained how they behaved/existed in the game world apart from fighting PCs: Number of females and children in a lair, presence of secondary and tertiary monsters in said lairs, stats for animals, descriptions of non-c0mbat related spell-like abilities and such.
All these things did indeed anchor the various monsters in the campaign world further than just being a challenge for Player Characters. I never realized it and yet I do recall using these mechanics to create monster lairs way back when I was a 1st Ed DM.
As I read this I realize just how big a chunk of D&Dism got removed from the game with 4e. Removing a lot (if not everything) that James defines as Gygaxian Naturalism was a very conscious design decision of D&D 4e. I don’t particularity miss it because after having DMed the game for a quarter century (I still call what I play D&D), I feel comfortable making the decisions of what is or isn’t “natural” in a given adventure, but I now understand just how important this used to be in the game before.
A must read piece for all readers who want to step into the whole ‘but what is D&D’ debates.
I’m not getting involved in said debates, but I like to understand where the various sides come from.
Old School Dungeon Design Guidelines
This post is as brilliant as it is short. James condenses almost everything that I liked about old school adventures into 12 short points.
Reading them , I could not help but tell myself “4e can do most of those without problems!”. The two that it can’t do: “Permanent drain of player character metric (levels, ability) and Cursed items were willfully taken out of the game for ‘fun’ purposes. See my old piece on Retro-Stupid here.
However, it’s true that current published adventures do not embrace many of those points.
I think it would be a nice experiment to try to design a 4e compatible adventure that touches all of these, including the draining and the cursed item… provided that clues could be discovered by clever players that allowed them to dodge the deleterious effects.
Yeah… I’m one of those suckers who think that 4e can do the old-school justice… sue me! 🙂
Have a look at James’ Blog… it’s well worth it!
Grognardia is the only old school blog even a complete and total New-Schooler like myself rushes to read every day without fail (and the only one where I go “No update today? Did Maliszewski DIE OR SOMETHING?!”)
During the part of my life wherein I wanted (and did) play every single old edition of D&D and learned about its history, Grognardia practically became my manual. I love any update where James talks enthusiastically about the modules he’s played, and the pulp fantasy he’s read. It’s all very interesting, and though he’d probably be less than proud about this, one of the inspirations for my current satirical endeavors in 4e adventure writing. Not he himself, but all the old-school insight, ESPECIALLY the old-school modules. He was the reason I went out and sought a huge bunch of them.
Great blog overall.
Wyatts last blog post..The Primus Libris: Primer And Background
Wow! Since I have recently begun playing 2e (after a 20+ year hiatus) this blog is a Godsend. Thank you Chatty. I’m adding it to my personal Blogroll.
Vulcan Stevs last blog post..Gaming in the Universe of: Pirates of the Caribbean
@Wyatt: I totally agree. While I’m close to James’ age, I decided to stay with the latest edition of the game, knowing that I would not probably enjoy DMing 0th or 1ed at all. Still reading what he has to say about it all (and other games like Traveller) is entertaining and informative.
@Vulcan Stev: Well my job is done then! Thanks man!
The Naturalism article is also one that will be included in the RPG Blog Anthology. It’s really top notch, and like Wyatt — James’ blog is a must read for me.
jonathans last blog post..Open Game Table – Weekly update
While his “get off my lawnism” rubs me the wrong way sometimes, James’s blog is definitely required reading for any DM that wants some of that old time pulpy goodness in his game. I have no desire to play old school (again), but there is certainly a lot of wisdom that the old school keeps that is useful in any edition of D&D.
Linnaeuss last blog post..Race for the Galaxy Strategy – Phase Selection
“get off my lawnism”…
That’s a very good term for what keeps me from being a regular reader of many of the big old-school blogs. Grognardia included, unfortunately, though it seems to be better for it than a lot of others.
Chatty, thanks for pointing out a great site. While I don’t play anything other than 4e now, I do occassionaly like to read about the older editions. It’s amazing what tidbits will inspire a new idea. Thanks, Grongnardia is now in my reader.
Wimwicks last blog post..Skill Focus: Perception
Nice links, thanks for collecting ’em!
With a little help from one of the editors at GAMES magazine, I recently tracked down an article on D&D from 1979 that got me into the game. I’m playing/DMing in a 4e game currently, as well as some homebrew systems that’d be classified as 3e variants. They all have their moments. “Old school” seems to be more a play attitude than anything else, IMHO.
Focusing on classic dungeon crawls, character development (not necessarily level advancement), and the story/adventure seem to be key elements independent of rule systems.
Get off my lawnism! I love that term Linneus! Consider it adopted here!
@Graham: As you know, I really don’t much care for bloggers with axes to grind. Old School blogs have their fair share of those too. Fortunately James manages to avoid sounding like a grumpy grognard (maybe it’s part of the job description) mot of the time, which is fine by me.
@Wimwick: Hey, thanks for the kudos. I too play 4e exclusively yet I enjoy seeing how lively the renaissance movement is. I’ll try to get into an old school game at a Con over the next year. I’m eager to see how the play style will mesh with my impatient psychodrama hungry instigator style.
@Anarkeith: I know enough of the old school movement to say that it’s harder to define than it seems. But the attitude does figure a lot into it.
in a 1979 article in Dragon magazine Gygax himself said that “The ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS rules comprise a different game [than original 1974-edition D&D]. It is neither an expansion nor a revision of the old game: It is a new game.” If the differences between one “old-school” edition and the next are enough to warrant that distinction even though Gygax was part of them both, how much more so now after a half-dozen complete changes of personnel?
I’m going to be running some ’74-era D&D at Gen Con – a session on Wednesday yet to be scheduled, and another on Saturday from midnight to 4 – and would love to have y’all at the table.
I was interested to read his post on the “ages of D&D”. Due to my age I got into D&D during the bronze age and really started playing seriously during the dark ages. (As he calls them). I think getting into D&D late into second edition is why I really enjoy the third edition rules. It’s like a cleaned up, well organized version of second edition AD&D.
These articles make me want to look into getting some old rule books and playing earlier editions, just to see what all the fuss is about.
My comment got far too long. It is now a blog post.