Slashdot Mirror
A 1974 Review of D&D
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.'"
A lot? Try everything. D&D gives you a framework, and consistent rules for engagement so you don't think you're at the GM's whims, but without someone who
- has imagination
- is organized
- is able to keep a group of unruly nerds in line
the game is still unplayable. This was proven to me time and again in a group of us with rotating gamemasters a long while back. Only one GM was worth playing with....7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
As was said it is similar to a lan party.
However if you've ever played Taboo or any of the drinking games, or even doing charades, then it's very similar to that. You can have as much fun as you put into it. You are only limited by your imagination.
If you happen to have a good DM then you're gonna have tons of fun.
I play D&D ocassionaly, and a lot of the times it basically is a chance to just get together talk, and have fun. For an avg session that goes for about 6 hours, we only have about 2 hours of serious game time and the rest is just goofing off and having fun.
It's all about the collaborative storytelling. Basically, you need imaginations, creativity, improvisational skills (especially for the gamemaster; players won't necessarily do what you anticipate...) and dedication (because creating a plausible, detailed setting and reasonable non-cookie-cutter missions takes a LOT of time and effort on the part of the GM).
With CRPGs, you normally drastically cut down on the personality and interaction aspect -- you're normally restricted to preplotted conversation trees or keyword systems, for instance -- that make pencil-and-paper RPGs shine.
It's not about the dice. It's not about the system, although choice of system will affect style -- e.g. players in the Middle Earth RPG system need to be extremely careful since healing's far harder to get than, say, AD&D-type systems.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Should you decide to play, have fun with it and keep an open mind.
That having been said, you should:
Oh yeah, get some dice. A nice big set of "matching" dice may look nice, but the favorites become those sets that are a hodge-podge of dice bought here and there. ;)
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
That was the Basic Set, I still have it .
.
...
.
...
n s/ Basic2Rule.html
A dragon seen thru a doorway, sitting
on a trasure pile, and a scared mage
with his mouth hanging open with a wand
in his hand
Hehe, forgot about the archer
It was light blue , and so was the box,
and came with a few cheap dice too
Here is a picture
http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/SetPages/SetSca
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Jeez, I was the one who submitted this story to Boing Boing. I never thought Slashdot would go for it. I keep missing so many Karma opportunities....
What I said in the Boing Boing submission that Wil didn't repeat here is, the 1974 review is by a gamer named Arnold Hendrick. Hendrick went on to run Heritage Miniatures and to design some cool boardgames for Heritage's short-lived Dwarfstar game line. Later Hendrick went into computer games, working for Microprose and others; he helped design or develop many of Sid Meier's best-known titles. Hendrick's best-known work as sole designer is probably the 1992 Microprose fantasy game Darklands. Here's his MobyGames rap sheet and a Darklands FAQ.
What I learn from this: Be bold! Despite all qualms, submit to Slashdot!
Of course the modern D&D product is of far higher quality - paper and production wise (content is of course a matter of taste) explaining the price increase.
* Figures from http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p07.htm
I think it went like this: Basic rules: Red. levels 1-4? Expert rules: Blue. levels 4-9? Companion rules: Green. levels 9?-20? Master rules: Black. 20?-36 Note: the Companion and Master rules were extentions to the orignal D&D well after AD&D was released and were not AD&D rulesets.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
The 1st edition rules have the best flavor (maybe that flavor is nostalgia). The 2nd edition rules were a mess of 1st edition rules with extra rules piled on top. 2nd edition was an attempt by TSR to adopt ideas that other gaming systems were running with at the time, like GURPS's skill based system, etc. It didn't work because the core of the edition remained the same. The 3rd edition is the best system mechanically. It all makes sense. You ALWAYS want to roll higher on all dice rolls, etc. It is streamlined, etc. It is much easier to play than 1st edition. Also, 3rd edition has the Open Gaming License which is allowing DOZENS of third-party publishers to improve the system, which is GREAT. Some of the 3rd party publishers are putting out better quality materials than Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro (the newest owners of D&D). For those people (like myself) who want a taste for 1st edition flavor though, I HIGHLY recommend Hackmaster, which is a licensed 1st edition game with enough tweaks to make it great fun.
Uhhhh. TSR has been out of business for years. It's been Wizards of the Coast since then, and (imo) they've actually done a reasonably good job of putting life back in the system.
heaven