Reposting an old comment from
The Mystical Trash Heap that I think is relevant to this thread:
T.Foster said:
The rules aren't systematized - different dice are used, ability scores and other modifiers are applied in different ways, sometimes a high roll is better and other times a low roll is better, etc. - and they're not necessarily consistent with each other (two similar types of effect in two different dungeons (or caused by two different spells or magic items) might require completely different rolls to resolve), and in the published rulebooks they're not really organized except in a sort of stream-of-consciousness way...
In my other work-life, I have written an in-house replacement for the
Mathwork's MATLAB/SImulink, in the C programming language. It's been a labor of love since it allow me and my group of co-workers to do things outside-the-box of a canned piece of software who's source-code we do not control---even one as programmable as MATLAB.
It's grown organically over the past 20 years in odd directions, most often in response to our helter-skelter engineering needs for a particular application, in a particular time, given the limits of computer technology during that particular age. It's not complete. But it's solid and broad, having much real-world usage under it's belt.
Looking back at the whole, that continuity of effort has also created more than a few disparate ways of doing/coding things. Some are now dead-ends, superseded by something "better".
In short, it has "character" now, much like AD&D.
Trent continues...
T.Foster said:
AD&D definitely has an "it" factor that other rpgs don't, which is why I'm still thinking and talking about it now while countless other games are just distant memories. I was just packing stuff for my move and came across my boxes of RuneQuest and Traveller stuff. I still have good memories of playing those games, but seeing those books didn't give me even a slight urge to "get back into them" the way that the AD&D books always do. I can't quite grasp it firmly enough to put it into words, but it's definitely there.
T.Foster said:
OK, here's a (probably half-baked) theory I came up with about the "it" of the AD&D books and, by relation, why revisiting them is inspiring in a way that other books aren't:
Because the AD&D rules aren't really systematized and everything in them is "bespoke" and modular, all of it fits exactly with what it was designed for both flavorwise and in terms of possible outcomes, so everything feels tied to the imagined space - nothing ever feels like disconnected math, or like a square peg and a round hole. This makes the imagined scene feel richer and more immediate. This happens in play, but it also happens when reading the books: every time you come across a rule, you imagine a scene in play where that rule applies - whether it's someone being chased by a monster through a dungeon-maze, throwing out food and treasure to try to distract the pursuers, or someone who's fallen overboard in stormy water and has to try to remove their armor before it pulls them under, or someone who's removed their helmet to listen at a door and then been surprised by a monster and has to fight bare-headed, or somebody who's trying to hire henchmen and is trying to decide whether the best way to advertise is to post notices, hire the town crier, employ an agent, or just make the rounds of local taverns.
I added the bold emphasis.
T.Foster said:
The books are filled with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of examples like this - many of the monster, spell, and magic item descriptions include their own little "mini-scenarios" in the form of special case rules - how long do you have to escape or be rescued if you're swallowed whole by various creatures, how fast can a levitating person pull themself along a wall, what happens if you put too many sharp objects inside a bag of holding, etc.
Every one of these little special cases makes you visualize a scene in the game, and makes you (or at least me) think about what you would do in that situation. In that way, just perusing the rulebooks, spotting a few of these little bits, and then imagining the scene around them, is kind of like playing the game.
A more elegant and systematized set of rules is easier to explain and easier to use, but it doesn't have that same immersive feel, and doesn't get your blood pumping. Or something like that...
I think he's close. That's what the 1e DMG does to me too. D&D's 1st-revision with all that play-testing stuffed into its rules.
Yes. It's a disheveled heap, but it
inspires (me). Maybe that's why so many "adventures" these days don't work at the table, but are for off-line reading. People are longing for a means (now leeched from the rule books) to get inspired.
When I posted about the B/X books feeling like forgeries when they were first published--- that's probably what was lacking. They no longer drew me in, or made me want to start playing. The "stream of consciousness" and "situational" feel was lost. They didn't have Trent's "it" factor.
Wonderfully, Finch's Swords & WIzardy Core (1st-2nd printing*) rulebook does. Why? A single-author voice? A conversational tone that encourages creative/divergent design? I don't know**. But to me, it's
lightning-in-a-bottle....and I'm such a sucker for magic.
[* the 3rd printing was reskinned by someone other than FInch and feels airy-fairy and disjointed. Some of the author's passion has clearly been drained.]
[** Apologies to DP, EOTB, & our moderator for ending this post with a puzzled tone. I promise my next one will conclude with an authoritative shout above the battlefield-din of the internet. ;P]
Miss you Ma. )