How do you politely say...

[subplotkudzu]

 Over the last few days I've been dipping in to the first edition DMG to remind myself of what the game was really like. I had intended to post some comments on the how DMing theory had changed over the last three decades. I may yet, but first, I have to comment on this: 

http://www.slate.com/id/2186203/

Now I'm trying to find a polite way to tell the author that, with his points had been debated to death decades ago and "hurting bad fun" condescension, his best course of action is to go f*** himself. 

"The problem with D&D is that it plays like a video game?" No, the problem with video games is that they play like the weakest, least innovative sort of D&D - which is not the sort of D&D that Gygax played, or really that anyone else plays either. 

"More importantly, characters in this new system [GURPS] could be fleshed out down to the smallest detail, from a crippling phobia of snakes to a severe food allergy." Funny, I played D&D characters with a fear of snakes too, and the system didn't have to bribe me to do it by saying that having a fear of snakes gave me the points to be a better archaeologist. I just decided the character was afraid of snakes. And without D&D, GURPS would be non-existent. The creators who you mention whose works "far outclassed" Gygax have been writing eulogies to him, which makes it clear they understand all gamers debt to the original D&D concepts, even if this writer doesn't 

Pisses me off.

Comments

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

From the AD&D 1E DMG, in the discussion of encounters, combat and initiative (p61): "As has been detailed, hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as the characters...are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them... Are crippling disabilities and yet more ways to meet instant death desirable in an open ended, episodic game where participants seek to identify with lovingly detailed and developed player-character personae? Not likely!" (Emphasis added.)

Yes, the DMG did describe using callers, the example given in the DMG has the other players speaking freely to the GM and each other, while the LC (lead character) is the one who tells the DM the final version of their plans are to prevent argument. However, the magic user doesn't need to confer with the LC before wrenching the spider off her back, for example, nor does the cleric need to clear his exploration of the pool with his magically illuminated staff (and the LC has already indicated that they should call off the search). OK, none of the characters have names or personalities, but they're also all first level characters in the players first dungeon. I don't think my initial forays had much by way of those either.

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

(I confess I tend to focus overmuch on callers, because it was and still is such a "WTF?" convention to me - none of my groups ever used them. Or weapon speed or AC modifiers ... O NOES we're DOIN IT WRONG!)

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

My groups didn't use them either, but we also a)didn't come from a wargaming background and b) were more willing to engage in pointless "you said you did this" "No I didn't" arguments in the 5th grade. I can easily see how more adult players with a more formalized mindset would see the presence of a "first among equals" player giving the final description of actions to the GM could be a benefit.

Memory does not serve is callers are described in the Red and Blue box D&D sets, and alas I no longer have my copies.