In posting over the last several days, about the original Dungeons and Dragons booklets, I have remarked that the original booklets contain a certain style of presentation that is unmatched in the retro-clones. That is both a good and a bad thing.
It is a bad thing in the sense that the Gygaxian style of writing (described by many as being florid), flowing through the oDnD booklets, has been lost in favor of a much more precise and workmanlike method of presentation in the retro-clones. The original oDnD booklets were at times frustratingly vague. Other times the rules were bordering on the inscrutible. But those very features provided room for limitless imagination. The precise language of the retro-clone is like Tylenol: it takes away the fever-dream of oDnD.
On the other hand, there are certain passages in the oDnD booklets which need no duplication. ODnD was a product of its time. It was also a product of a particular sub-culture, which may have been extant within the world of wargaming. This passage, in particular, is, today, absurdly comical, though at the time it may have elicited a chuckle (but more likely groans) from its readers.
"DRAGONS: These additional varieties of Dragons conform to the typical characteristics of their species except where noted. There is only one King of Lawful Dragons, just as there is only one Queen of Chaotic Dragons (Women's Lib may make whatever they wish from the foregoing)." Greyhawk, p.35
That is one passage that the retro-clone authors can safely ignore in their recreationist efforts.
2 comments:
Just a small aside along the same lines regarding dungeon ecology. I've noticed that several of the cherished modules that I loved being a PC in as a kid ... when revisited ... are really not at all the kind of thing I'd enjoy as an adult. I remember the dungeons where you go in one room and it has a monster type that would never exist with the monster type in the next room ... let alone the rest of the dungeon. RPGs have matured substantially in many ways since the early days. While I find myself occasionally waxing nostalgic ... wanting to play a "classic" style D&D game ... too much of that would likely irritate me. To me Gygax is alot like Tolkien ... he wasn't a professional author/writer/game designer ... he was a passionate fan who turned his hobby into a profession. Which to me accounts for some of the quirky things he did. That isn't a criticism just an observation.
To me Gygax is alot like Tolkien ... he wasn't a professional author/writer/game designer ... he was a passionate fan who turned his hobby into a profession. Which to me accounts for some of the quirky things he did.
I think this just confused me further. It seems that in Tolkien's case (as a professor of literature) it's more like the other way around.
Post a Comment