A 1974 Review of D&D 404
CleverNickName writes "Boing Boing pointed me to this 1974 review of the 'new' Dungeons and Dragons game. Some highlights: D&D was subtitled 'Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargams Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures.' The reviewer concludes, 'In general, the concept and imagination involved is stunning. However, much more work, refinement, and especially regulation and simplification is necessary before the game is managable.'"
Ah the good old days (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Much more regulation? (Score:1, Insightful)
-1974
-----
29
Re:I have no D&D experience... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have no D&D experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot depends on the referee / game master.
sort of like how a joke can be messed up or great depending on who tells it.
Re:Sheesh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose implying an old story is new could be worth a valid complaint, but the simple act of posting something "old" isn't inherently wrong. Slashdot is at it's best when it directs us to links that focus on nerdly curiosities.. I don't care when it was created, if I haven't read it before it qualifies as "news".
Grand-daddy of all those RPGs. (Score:5, Insightful)
But what makes this so interesting is that so many of todays PC RPGs have their basis in D&D rules. Sure, they've evolved significantly and taken different directions in different games, but the fact remains that most RPGs have their battle decisions based on complex mathematical rulesets, and D&D basically introduced these. (Orc attacks with 3d8, beating your 2d10 defence and inflicting d8 damage.)
Early computer 'RPG' were very simplistic in their battle rules, rarely better than 'attacker wins', but by the time that home computers advanced enough to support better rulesets, there was a very advanced 'template' for developers to start from.
Re:Very interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
A few years later, wanting to get into Traveller, I got into GURPS and really like the system. It's looser than D&D (as I remember it, not getting into v2 of the hardback books) but provides as much framework as you like or need.
Talk about missing the point! (Score:5, Insightful)
The beauty of D&D can be boiled down to two propositions:
1. Anything can happen.
2. The Dungeon Master is God (and a capricious one at that).
This is why computer rpg's are, at best, pale imitations of a good pen and paper game.
Re:Okay, really now (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Talk about missing the point! (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to more realistic (read: less fun) games:
"Oh, well, I could chase the baron down, but I've lost four health levels, so I'm restricted to pulling myself along the ground with my arms. I guess I'll just let him go" or "Ow! That last hit cut my sword-hand! Guess I'll have to sit this fight out."
Re:Very interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
d20 D&D (3ed) was revamped from the ground up by people with actual game design experience and it thoroughly shows.
The only real complaint I have is that it's very much 2-dimensional - when you start dealing with situations with entities at different elevations, you have to fall back on common sense a bit too often, too often because everybody was issued a different version of "common sense."
Re:Very interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
I honestly never liked the feel of AD&D2, although those are the rules we used the most. I was disapointed with AD&D2. It was published when other RPGs had already started away from class based systems to skill based. The v2 core mechanics were really just a rehash of v1 with most of the limitations of v1. Other systems had progressed. Finally the books were not very well written. Not that AD&D1 was anything to write home about, but the poor writeing did contribute to my disapointment.
When people talk about D&D they are usually refering to AdvancedD&D. The Basic (red book) D&D never recieved the attention it deserved. Basic D&D used most of the same core rules as the AD&D with some simplifications. D&D had some limitations such as fewer character classes. But it also had some of the best source material in the form of adventure modules, and the big appendixes that were published for the D&D homeworld. Due to the simpler rules, and excellent source material I found straight D&D easier to roleplay then AD&D1 or AD&D2.
D&D3 simplified the game by takeing out many of the restrictions that were in AD&D. The D&D3 mechanics are much more consistent then in previous versions which allow players to concentrate on the game not on memorizeing odd rules and exceptions. In addition it is easier for the DM to create new rules (on the fly) by either applying the mechanics directly, or by extrapolation. Any group that is useing AD&D1 or 2 should seriously consider useing the D&D3 rules next time they start a campaign.
Re:Disaster could have been averted (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, back then (yes, I know I'm old) I knew several women who were D&Ders, and at least two male players who met their future spouses playing the game. I'm not sure when role-playing games became a guy thing, but they didn't start out that way.
Why compare what can not be compared??? (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have no D&D experience... (Score:3, Insightful)
scripsit ndnet:
You really can't compare computer games with roleplaying; they're two totally different experiences. It's sort of like comparing a book and a movie.
With the computer games, all you really have to do is kill things, get treasure, build up a character's level/skills/whatever. Some online games have interaction with other players, but the actual gameplay is very formulaic.
Roleplaying is about entering playing a role (no kidding! <grin>). You get inside the head of your character and respond to stimuli as him (or her). This doesn't mean faking a cheesy Renaissance Festival accent and saying `thee' and `sire' all the time; it's about interacting with an imagined world. Sometimes a game is plot-centered, sometimes it's character-centered. Either way, the mechanics of the game aren't the point, and neither (necessarily) is killing and looting. It's enjoying the experience of entering another person's mind for a little while. (And sometimes, of course, it's the joy of getting to thwack things with a big sword.)
That's not to say, by the way, that many people don't play D&D as Baldur's Gate with paper and dice, but when they do (IMO) they're missing the point.
For what it's worth, as an historian I find that my roleplaying experience is very useful in trying to understand historical figures on their own terms, rather than from my own perspective. That's not a benefit that can derive from playing a fantasy computer game.
Re:Okay, really now (Score:5, Insightful)
scripsit jericho4.0:
I wouldn't bet too much were I you. If you compared, say, English majors and CompSci majors at the typical American university, the English majors just might win. However, if you took the university as a whole (i.e., including business, communications, nursing, leisure studies, etc.) I think you'd find that the geeks win. And if you took a random sampling of an urban population, you'd get a whole lot o' blank stares. Hell, you'd get a whole lot o' blank stares asking about Chaucer.
My own experience is a bit different. I am a geek whose home is currently in the humanities, so I've seen both sides of the fence. The absolutely most arrogant insistance that there's nothing to be known outside of their own field, surprisingly enough, seems to come from literary criticism and similar types.
A more typical geek problem, in my experience, is assuming that their knowledge of ``soft'' fields is definitive. This is understandable in that you will find many more physicists able to converse on surrealist painting than you will find art historians able to converse on neutrino mass. However, the geek problem is sometimes mistaking an ability to make cocktail-party conversation with the ability to write and publish scholarly works. Where the general population knows squat about history, the geek typically knows much more -- sometimes just enough to be dangerous.
Cheer up geeks of the world- YOU WILL GET LAID! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are actually a lot of girls JUST LIKE THAT. Right now! On your campus! Attractive ones! In fact, even basic statistics and probability (and I know you're down with statistics and probability) tells us that some of them would willing, hell, even _excited_ to FUCK YOU!
Think you're insecure? Guess what? Girls are actually worse. WAY worse. Even the pretty ones- hell ESPECIALLY the pretty ones. Watch TV some time and look at the way women are still portayed, even in this day and age. Many, if not most, girls feel uncool, unsexy, and out of place a MILLION times a day and they actually prize above all else in a relationship is to feel like they are actually worthwhile _people_ and not maids, bitches or fuck toys.
YOU, a geek, nerd or dork can actually give them this feeling by doing nothing more than BEING YOURSELF. Feel unattractive? You can do a surprising amount to fix this. Loose weight! spend an extra 10 bucks on a haircut! Get a decent wardrobe that can STILL INCLUDE ANIME T-SHIRTS! Moisturize! Most girls are good at improving a persons looks. Ask one. She will probably love to help you.
Why are they so hung up on it? because our society tells them that they HAVE to be attractive while NEVER allowing them to live up to its standard of perfection. But you know what? Maybe they've learned something but you don't even need to be a chiseled slab of beef. Shocked?? Read on!
What you learned in high school is now WRONG! YOU CAN get a wonderful, even SEXY girl simply by NOT treating her like a SEX OBJECT and choosing NOT to be a FAKE ASS PLAYER! Believe it or not people just as nerdy as you have gotten HOT, smart, wonderful girlfriends by simply being loving, _attentive_, down to earth (like the way you are with your friends) people and also NOT DATE RAPING THEM!
No, you won't hit it off with every girl, but you are picky too remember? Find one that is like you. You have a star wars figure collection? Well your girl might have a collection of plastic horses from when she was twelve that she was TERRIFIED of anyone finding out about in high school. You will be able to relate a hell of a lot more than you expect. She might even love computers! She might even love linux! There's more and more every day! No, she's not Natalie Portman, but you know what? You won't care!!
You are, smart, well-educated, compassionate and a nice guy (or girl)-- in addition to being sexy (you are sexy right? If not, see above.) You are willing to be a good boyfriend instead of just a dick delievery service. YOU ARE A DAMN GOOD GUY (or girl). So stop whinning and get to work!!!.
GEEKS OF THE WORLD- YOU WILL GET LAID!!!!!
/robbins>
Note: Does not apply to those currently in or about to enter high school. You are all still shit out luck for a few years. Don't cry, we all had to be patient too.
(And I am absolutely serious, guys I kid because I love, and I been there, I am not trying to troll.)
Also: Go to a doctor and get treated for your depression/anxiety/bi-polar/ADD etc if you think you have it. Don't be ashamed, just fucking do it. Some (not all or even a whole lot- don't flame me) of you out there have some of these and they will fuck with your life until it gets fixed. Be brave. They are wonderful people and they can work miracles now days. They really can. Dealing with women is, as you know, very hard psycholoically at times. Especially meeting them.
Re:Very interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course this calls for a lot of blind reliance on the GM and his abilities to keep the game balanced. So although the free reign games have been some of the most memorable, they also resulted in the juiciest fights
Blah the more things change the more likely (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they just pop in a CD/DVD and click away. Killing the imagination and creative processes at an early age.