[RPG]: AD&D Monster Manual, reviewed by Lev Lafayette (3/1)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12821.phtml

Lev Lafayette's Summary:

An appropriate product for an AD&D single-unit wargame with high physical standards. As a roleplaying product there are only occasional moments of usefulness with most of the description being about martial skills and potential treasure. The colour-coded dragons are surprisingly weak given the title of the game. There are a number of historical and literary creatures, primarily from European and Hellenic-Semitic mythology and fantasy.

Go to the full review for more information.

[fmitchell]

Uh oh ... Mr. Lafeyette does it again. Brace for impact!

Not that I disagree, per se, although the Monster Manual contained some unlikely gems. The Mind Flayers, for example, developed into fascinating alien invaders in several subsequent supplements. Recently I played in a D&D encounter where a succubus seriously messed with our heads, causing more mayhem than the three or four demons that preceded her. So, in the hands of a DM with imagination, those bare stats can form memorable encounters.

if you want to see far sillier monsters see Chaosium's All the Worlds Monsters series. There's maybe a dozen interesting word-pictures or ideas in the largely unillustrated, seemingly dot-matrix printed trilogy, but most are ordinary monsters with a "surprise" or bizarre chimera that are unlikely to survive in the wild.

Ultimately, hacking up a bunch of strange creatures -- cataloged, mind -- does not a game make, certainly not in this post-MMORPG world. The most dangerous animal is man, and hunting down a supernatural menace can be the focus of an adventure, if not a campaign, if done right. Today, we're better served with splatbooks telling how to fit each of these creatures into a world, and manuals on crafting creatures for unique encounters.

[One Horse Town]

I'm not going to get into another argument with you Lev, you'll be pleased to hear!

However, "An appropriate product for an AD&D single-unit wargame..." Leave that crap out.

[Lev Lafayette]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

Uh oh ... Mr. Lafeyette does it again. Brace for impact!

Hey, I'm half-way through my DMG review... Boy, is that a hard one..

(I won't be giving too much away by saying the DMG pinched a substance point that should have gone to the MM).

if you want to see far sillier monsters see Chaosium's All the Worlds Monsters series.

Now there's some products that, irrc. would struggling to get a 1 for susbtance or style.. Fortunately for the folk at the Chaosium I don't own them so therefore I can't review them...

[The Grey Elf]

Okay, Lev...now I think you're just pushing for attention...

[fmitchell]

Originally Posted by One Horse Town

However, "An appropriate product for an AD&D single-unit wargame..." Leave that crap out.

Well ...

My unnamed informant tells me that's pretty much how Gygax tends to run dungeons even today: players clear and secure rooms like soldiers clearing an enemy-occupied building. Considering how D&D grew out of miniatures wargaming, it's not a big stretch to suppose that, especially back in the early years, authors and players stuck fairly close to that aspect.

The 1e mentality seems to require rules for combat, and leave "that other stuff" to "roleplaying". Which is to say, "that other stuff" is so trivial you can just make it up as you go along, but COMBAT is IMPORTANT. Oddly enough, though, many of my favorite creatures -- mind flayers, succubi, liches -- tend to lurk in the shadows and mess with the character's heads. (The only others I can think of are purple worms, Type V demons (aka Marilith), and homonculi, because I read Dune and saw various Ray Harryhausen movies at an early age.)

After leaving the hobby for a while and coming back, I now wonder why combat (and thievery) should be in such a privileged position. If I concede a character can fight better than I can, I can also concede he can talk better than I can, know more than I do, and use social contacts that I wouldn't have. A few games try to make a clean break from the wargaming tradition -- FATE, HeroQuest, Primetime Adventures, and Amber spring to mind -- but most still dedicate at least one extra chapter to physical combat.

[fmitchell]

Originally Posted by The Grey Elf

Okay, Lev...now I think you're just pushing for attention...

Attention to himself? Or maybe attention to fondly-remembered AD&D rules that, upon examination, weren't all that great. Honestly, I don't understand OSRIC or similar fits of nostalgia at all.

What made or broke those games weren't the rules, but DMs who decided to take what they had and add their own imaginations to them. Which is still true today, but now we have a wide variety of better-constructed rulesets to add our imaginations to, from the complexity of Hero and GURPS to the minimalism of FATE and PDQ.

Maybe Mr. Lafayette is one of those people who also deconstructs the original Star Wars trilogy and keeps a complete and cross-referenced catalog of cliches and bad science in Star Trek. I have no idea. But I for one welcome a critical look at the "original text" of our hobby, to understand where we've been and in some ways where we still are.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

[...]
The 1e mentality seems to require rules for combat, and leave "that other stuff" to "roleplaying". Which is to say, "that other stuff" is so trivial you can just make it up as you go along, but COMBAT is IMPORTANT. [...]

I guess that the design goal was restricted to combat since day one. Arneson & Gygax never though much about include rules for social interaction as this would need very complicated rules (implied by examining their combat rules) but could be easily obtained by "freestyle roleplaying". Not a bad philosophy that I wish it was more in use today.

[The Grey Elf]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

Attention to himself? Or maybe attention to fondly-remembered AD&D rules that, upon examination, weren't all that great. Honestly, I don't understand OSRIC or similar fits of nostalgia at all.

Honestly, I don't get why it's cool to have nostalgia fits for clunk like BRP and RQ, but pariah-inducing to have a fondness for AD&D.

What made or broke those games weren't the rules, but DMs who decided to take what they had and add their own imaginations to them. Which is still true today, but now we have a wide variety of better-constructed rulesets to add our imaginations to, from the complexity of Hero and GURPS to the minimalism of FATE and PDQ.

Hero is another one that to me is clunky nostalgia trips. You can put the brilliancy of any game in the hands of the GM and players.

Maybe Mr. Lafayette is one of those people who also deconstructs the original Star Wars trilogy and keeps a complete and cross-referenced catalog of cliches and bad science in Star Trek. I have no idea. But I for one welcome a critical look at the "original text" of our hobby, to understand where we've been and in some ways where we still are.

Which is fine...but a review and a critical essay are two completely different things.

[One Horse Town]

Originally Posted by The Grey Elf

Okay, Lev...now I think you're just pushing for attention...

As much as it pains me to say so, i think i have to agree. I can't recall other reviewers here starting a thread in TTO saying that they were going to be reviewing loads of products and basically saying that he wouldn't fall into the trap of being over-enamoured with certain games. Well, Lev is struggling to practise what he preached IMO. Which is the problem with making such bold statements.

What is obvious though, is that Lev loves his gaming and RPGs in general and the amount of effort that he is putting into his reviews. I can't thank him enough for that.

As for the wargame jibe (and it was a jibe), it's getting tired. If you are allowed to use your imagination in one game (pick one), i don't see why ad&d is exempt from that. Remarking about it being a one figure wargame (which still persists with 3.5 BTW) is simply a cheap shot by those who don't like that type of game. It's not a 'Roleplaying game' it's a 'war game'. It's just tribalism and a tad of snobbery, all rolled into one. Because you can bet that this distinction is used to belittle the 'war game' and suggest that the 'roleplaying game' is somehow a superior interest.

All it comes down to is the Forever War of rpgs.