Gary Gygax's Unrealized AD&D Updates

[nick_crenshaw]

Has any attempted to expand on Gary Gygax's mid 1980s plans for updating D&D/AD&D before he was forced out? An outline of this plans can be found here (https://www.greyhawkgrognard.com/2009/02/16/ad-second-edition/).

[Tarmor]

I think the answer is a simple 'no'. I'm sure nothing has happened in the 11 years since GG wrote his article.
Anything that did happen would have to be fan produced, and couldn't be published. There's no reason while you couldn't write your own. Use classes from later editions, and convert them back to a AD&D equivalent. Look around the forum - there may be stuff here that comes close.

[Vahnavoi]

Due to the way OGL for d20 system works, it would be possible to do and publish an AD&D retroclone which would implement most of this stuff - not very different from OSR games that already exist, really. But I don't know of any OSR product bend on doing this specific thing.

[AuraTwilight]

Adventures Dark & Deep is a retroclone based on this exact premise.

[noob]

Now I wish barbarians had naturally magical attacks(for bypassing dr) in later dnd editions.

[Shinizak]

This thread was on /tg/.👀

Anyway, many of those classes look familiar. Like options that were picked up for 5e and pathfinder classes.

I will say, I read a while ago that gygax regretted making the thief/rogue class because he later considered that everything a rogue does (sneaking, hiding, the occasional backstab, etc) is an essential part of adventuring/heroism.

So I'm interested in how that would've been baked into the rules.

[noob]

This thread was on /tg/.👀

Anyway, many of those classes look familiar. Like options that were picked up for 5e and pathfinder classes.

I will say, I read a while ago that gygax regretted making the thief/rogue class because he later considered that everything a rogue does (sneaking, hiding, the occasional backstab, etc) is an essential part of adventuring/heroism.

So I'm interested in how that would've been baked into the rules.

Remove the thief class and make that hitting someone unaware of you is extra efficient(should be true for everyone) and that group bullying of an opponent is extra efficient(which should be true).
Sneaking and hiding is not hard to implement just say that adventurers are naturally good at that thing called "doing what they must for surviving"

[Silly Name]

This thread was on /tg/.👀

Anyway, many of those classes look familiar. Like options that were picked up for 5e and pathfinder classes.

I will say, I read a while ago that gygax regretted making the thief/rogue class because he later considered that everything a rogue does (sneaking, hiding, the occasional backstab, etc) is an essential part of adventuring/heroism.

So I'm interested in how that would've been baked into the rules.

Probably allow for "backstab/sneak attack/striking a vital point" to simply be a game mechanic accessible to everyone regardless of class, and to allow everyone to have access to the Thief's skills.

[Morty]

I will say, I read a while ago that gygax regretted making the thief/rogue class because he later considered that everything a rogue does (sneaking, hiding, the occasional backstab, etc) is an essential part of adventuring/heroism.


It's rare that I agree on something with Gygax, but I do agree with this.

[Anonymouswizard]

Now I wish barbarians had naturally magical attacks(for bypassing dr) in later dnd editions.

Yeah, it's a cool idea and fits in more with the actual Barbarian Hero archetype than the rage powers most versions of the class get.


I personally like the Sorcerer ideas here, a class that just goes all in on summoned monsters. While I'm not a massive fan of the Pathfinder summoner is obvious that this class wouldn't have been that, I'm guessing it got the ability to summon demons for a time measured in hours and bargain for services?

[Tanarii]

UA gave us the Barbarian, which is a good long lasting archetype. But it also gave us the Cavalier and Theif-Acrobat.

Honestly, in the long run the best thing Gygax did for the game was get out (even unwillingly), let TSR do a new core rules revision and then fail under the new management, and let WotC buy it out. It wasn't until that happened that the much needed d20 universal resolution mechanic came along to improve the game.

Gygax had many good and innovative ideas, but his love of inventing new niche subclasses and sub-mechanics wouldn't have worked for a revised core game. OTOH that was amazing for Dragon articles. He'd have been perfect for the 2e softcover handbook series or the many wotc 3e splatbooks.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I will say, I read a while ago that gygax regretted making the thief/rogue class because he later considered that everything a rogue does (sneaking, hiding, the occasional backstab, etc) is an essential part of adventuring/heroism.

So I'm interested in how that would've been baked into the rules.


Remove the thief class and make that hitting someone unaware of you is extra efficient(should be true for everyone) and that group bullying of an opponent is extra efficient(which should be true).
Sneaking and hiding is not hard to implement just say that adventurers are naturally good at that thing called "doing what they must for surviving"

The problem he (and others, especially OSR designers) identified with the Thief was not that a class exists that is particularly good at sneaking around and shanking people, since it was always the case that Thief skills were there in addition to the normal things anyone could do; anyone could e.g. find some shadows and hide in them if they described what they were doing and passed any check the DM might require, but a Thief could Hide in Shadows to "blend into dark areas, to flatten oneself, and by remaining motionless when in sight, to remain unobserved" and had a flat percentage chance to just do that regardless of description or surroundings (and, if the DM required a check for hiding, to roll percentiles instead of in addition to that check), the equivalent of 3e's Hide in Plain Sight.

The issue was that the existence of a class that was particularly good at all those thief-y things eventually made people start to think that other classes shouldn't be good at those areas at all. You shouldn't be able to build a sneaky Fighter because stealth is the Thief's job! Fighters shouldn't have lots of class skills and skill points because having skills is the Rogue's schtick! Basically, introducing the Thief eventually split the "noncasting action hero" archetype into more martial Fighter and less martial Thief conceptual spaces where neither could borrow too much from the other, where the original intention was that Fighters and Thieves were both good at fighting and not-fighting but each was particularly good in one area, the same way that 1e Paladins and Rangers were everything that a Fighter was and then also got other goodies on top.

So an appropriate way to bake the Thief/Rogue stuff into all adventurers is not to get rid of the Thief/Rogue class entirely but to build in whatever stealth and shanking and bluffing and suchlike into the base system that you want and then make a Thief/Rogue that's superheroicly good at those things, in the same way that e.g. any martial type can be good at mounted combat but Paladins get special mounts which make them better than the rest in that arena without obsoleting non-Paladin mounted combatants.

[Willie the Duck]

I will say, I read a while ago that gygax regretted making the thief/rogue class because he later considered that everything a rogue does (sneaking, hiding, the occasional backstab, etc) is an essential part of adventuring/heroism.
So I'm interested in how that would've been baked into the rules.
Given that he wanted to add Mountebank and Jester classes, I can't imagine that he would be dialing back the existing implementation.

And that's why I don't think this Gygax-penned 2e would have been significantly different from the 2e we got (sure, differences in the specifics, but not in the basic trends). It looks like Gary was interesting in making a second Unearthed Arcana-style set of new rules, and then rolling that and UA into the core books for a consolidated edition. He wasn't going back and reflecting on whether such-and-such rules had worked in the '77-79 implementation, he was gluing bits and bobs onto it (as he had done with oD&D->AD&D previously). It seems he required a (IP rights mandated) clean break from his previous work before he could go back and reexamine base assumptions and mechanics such as he did for Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventure (which are pretty distinctly new systems, if still very traditional TTRPGs with general fantasy tropes).


The issue was that the existence of a class that was particularly good at all those thief-y things eventually made people start to think that other classes shouldn't be good at those areas at all. You shouldn't be able to build a sneaky Fighter because stealth is the Thief's job!
Yet another thing lost on a huge swath of the not-wargamers who took up the game because TSR/Gary refused to adapt to their audience and hated explaining the purpose of the rules put in the books. Moldvay/Cook came closest with sublimely elegant generalized resolution advice on X51, but in general -- if Gary had spent half as much time explaining how the surprise, hide in shadows/move silently, and informal 'well of course anyone can just plain hide' rules interacted as he did in admonishing DMs not to let players get too uppity and that timekeeping was of upmost importance, the game as others played it would have looked significantly more like it did at his own table.

[Tanarii]

The problem he (and others, especially OSR designers) identified with the Thief was not that a class exists that is particularly good at sneaking around and shanking people, since it was always the case that Thief skills were there in addition to the normal things anyone could do; anyone could e.g. find some shadows and hide in them if they described what they were doing and passed any check the DM might require, but a Thief could Hide in Shadows to "blend into dark areas, to flatten oneself, and by remaining motionless when in sight, to remain unobserved" and had a flat percentage chance to just do that regardless of description or surroundings (and, if the DM required a check for hiding, to roll percentiles instead of in addition to that check), the equivalent of 3e's Hide in Plain Sight.
From what I've read, there's no actual proof this is the case. It seems to be a modern interpretation of how,to run the Thief "correctly".

[Willie the Duck]

From what I've read, there's no actual proof this is the case. It seems to be a modern interpretation of how,to run the Thief "correctly".

I mean, all you have to do is have a DM who says that everyone else can still climb, hide, and look for things (I am extrapolating some other things for which only thieves have explicit rules). However, you are correct, there's no real game rule or to my knowledge even Dragon magazine article support suggesting that this was specifically was what EGG expected people to do. One might think that, if this were the intended gameplay, it would have been mentioned. However, there are so many examples of TSR being completely inept at communicating with their audience that I honestly can't say that this shows anything. Regardless, whatever Gary or TSR intended, there's a huge portion of an entire generation of gamers who didn't play the game that way based on the rules to which they were presented.

[Jason]

The 1st edition hardbacks Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide both had specific rules about non-thieves climbing things, making it clear that thieves are just better at it but other classes can do it too. Of course, those were late entries into 1st edition (post-Gygax) and not very good sellers.

[Willie the Duck]

The 1st edition hardbacks Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide both had specific rules about non-thieves climbing things, making it clear that thieves are just better at it but other classes can do it too. Of course, those were late entries into 1st edition (post-Gygax) and not very good sellers.

You are correct. despite mentioning TSR the entity as well, because of the general thread topic I was using Gary leaving TSR as my line of demarcation.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

From what I've read, there's no actual proof this is the case. It seems to be a modern interpretation of how,to run the Thief "correctly".


The 1st edition hardbacks Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide both had specific rules about non-thieves climbing things, making it clear that thieves are just better at it but other classes can do it too. Of course, those were late entries into 1st edition (post-Gygax) and not very good sellers.

The reason there's no mention of Thief Skill percentiles interacting with any other form of check in the PHB or DMG is that there were no hard rules for how non-Thieves would do various things at that point, which is why I phrased it as "any check the DM might require" and "if the DM required a check for hiding."

The whole idea of specific checks was a houserule, albeit a common one, until roll-under-ability-score-on-d20 was canonized in Player Options (and the Rules Cyclopedia); the DMG recommended several different approaches for resolving tasks from which a DM could extrapolate, from pure DM arbitration for secondary skills ("simply assume the role of one of these skills, one that you know a little something about, and determine what could be done with this knowledge.") to d6 rolls for secret doors ("You may designate probability by a linear curve, typically with a d6. Thus, a secret door is discovered 1 in 6 by any non-elf, 2 in 6 by elven or half-elven characters,[...]This also allows you to have some secret doors more difficult to discover, the linear curve being a d8 or d10."), but didn't have a single consistent system until near the end of 1e as Jason mentioned.

As for the bit about Thieves being able to roll their percentile skills in lieu of describing what they're doing in detail, there's no verbiage in the DMG regarding penalizing a skill roll or ignoring it entirely if a Thief's player fails to go through the usual "Here's how I try to do this" description needed for finding secret doors and such (though there are the usual Gygaxianisms about declaring certain languages automatically indecipherable and saying that "If the thief insists on trying [to Hide in Shadows while being actively observed], allow the attempt and throw dice, but don't bother to read them, as the fool is as obvious as a cool pile in a ballroom.").

[Jason]

The reason there's no mention of Thief Skill percentiles interacting with any other form of check in the PHB or DMG is that there were no hard rules for how non-Thieves would do various things at that point, which is why I phrased it as "any check the DM might require" and "if the DM required a check for hiding."

The whole idea of specific checks was a houserule, albeit a common one, until roll-under-ability-score-on-d20 was canonized in Player Options (and the Rules Cyclopedia);

Oriental Adventures, which was a Gygax product, was the first to introduce non-weapon proficiencies, but they weren't in the roll-under attribute format. They had a specific target number that you had to exceed on a d20 and weren't tied to attributes at all. Dungeoneer's Survival Guide included rules for attribute checks and proficiencies that were tied to attributes and that you rolled under to succeed on.

[Tanarii]

However, you are correct, there's no real game rule or to my knowledge even Dragon magazine article support suggesting that this was specifically was what EGG expected people to do.
What I meant was it is a theory popularized on the Internet by based on 1 guys interpretation of the way he thought it should work. And its since become commonly intedpreted to instead be the actual way it was intended.

[Willie the Duck]

The whole idea of specific checks was a houserule, albeit a common one, until roll-under-ability-score-on-d20 was canonized in Player Options (and the Rules Cyclopedia);
As mentioned, the roll-under-attribute rule was implemented on page 51 of the Cook Expert.

What I meant was it is a theory popularized on the Internet by based on 1 guys interpretation of the way he thought it should work. And its since become commonly intedpreted to instead be the actual way it was intended.
Yes, I know. And I stated that this interpretation isn't codified in the rules or supplementary articles, leaving it as an (after-the-fact) interpretation.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Oriental Adventures, which was a Gygax product, was the first to introduce non-weapon proficiencies, but they weren't in the roll-under attribute format. They had a specific target number that you had to exceed on a d20 and weren't tied to attributes at all. Dungeoneer's Survival Guide included rules for attribute checks and proficiencies that were tied to attributes and that you rolled under to succeed on.

When I said "canonized" I was thinking in terms of major subsystems, since NWPs were basically the default in 2e and showed up in tons of books (despite, like kits, officially being an optional rule) instead of 1e's handful of late-edition variants, but yes, they did show up in those books first.


As mentioned, the roll-under-attribute rule was implemented on page 51 of the Cook Expert.

You're right, I mixed up Moldvay with Mentzer and said RC when I meant B/X. :smallredface:


What I meant was it is a theory popularized on the Internet by based on 1 guys interpretation of the way he thought it should work. And its since become commonly intedpreted to instead be the actual way it was intended.

Yes, I know. And I stated that this interpretation isn't codified in the rules or supplementary articles, leaving it as an (after-the-fact) interpretation.

I don't see why "anyone can hide, be quiet, climb things, etc., but only thieves can be near-invisible in shadows, be completely silent, climb sheer walls, etc." would be a retroactive or unintended interpretation. The 1e DMG mentioned things like the effect of noise and light on stealth in several places while emphasizing that thieves and people wearing cloaks of elvenkind were "completely silent," mentioned climbing ropes and underbrush and such in non-Thief contexts while equating magical effects to Climb Walls, and similar--including a section on Listening at Doors (DMG p.60) that goes over how non-Thieves can, well, listen at doors, that is then referenced in the commentary on Hear Noise in that the Thief used it "just as any other character" as far as obstructive headgear.

Later 1e books explicitly called out non-Thieves being able to do Thief-y things but with lower success chances, like the WSG clarifying that anyone can climb all sorts of surfaces but Climb Walls is the only way to climb sheer walls or UA adding several new skills for the Thief-Acrobat which include definitions of what non-Thief-Acrobats can do in those areas.

Certainly some of the Thief skills are obviously meant to be exclusive like Find/Remove Traps and Read Languages, but (A) they have explicit usage limits where the other ones don't, (B) there's no obvious lesser function a non-Thief could attempt (aside from Accidentally Spring Trap and Guess Languages, I suppose), and (C) there are no mentions of similar capabilities for non-Thieves anywhere, in the DMG or otherwise, so lumping both kinds of skills together and claiming that Gygax intended that non-Thief PCs shouldn't be able to hide at all or climb at all or the like despite evidence to the contrary is ridiculous.

[Tanarii]

I don't see why "anyone can hide, be quiet, climb things, etc., but only thieves can be near-invisible in shadows, be completely silent, climb sheer walls, etc." would be a retroactive or unintended interpretation.
Because it was posited by a popular blogger, and then became an internet meme (viral thought on the matter).

I'll see if I can the original.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

So an appropriate way to bake the Thief/Rogue stuff into all adventurers is not to get rid of the Thief/Rogue class entirely but to build in whatever stealth and shanking and bluffing and suchlike into the base system that you want and then make a Thief/Rogue that's superheroicly good at those things, in the same way that e.g. any martial type can be good at mounted combat but Paladins get special mounts which make them better than the rest in that arena without obsoleting non-Paladin mounted combatants.
Just throwing some ideas out there, but on those lines, what about giving all classes access to the thieves skills list (maybe some or possibly all skills), but the thief gets some/all of them at a much higher level (say level +3, so starting out they're at level 4 for the thieves skills, but still only 1 hit dice's worth of hit points, attack at level 1 and so on), although maybe a multi-class thief gets a lower level modifier (+1 perhaps) to reflect that they're not concentrating on those skills as much.

Certain classes may need to have negative level modifiers on certain skills (if they're actually allowed access to them) - I can't really see the average Paladin wanting to pick locks except in very exceptional circumstances, for example. And whilst I don't want to complicate it even more, I could see an argument for situational modifiers - a Ranger or Druid in the wilds trying to listen for noises and/or move silently is likely to be a lot more successful than if they're in a city.

[Jay R]

I cling affectionately to my theory that Gygax's next additions to the game would have included more complicated tables, more options with unique game mechanics, new kinds of curses, and a three-axis alignment system of Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, and maybe Individualist / Team-oriented.

[Anonymouswizard]

Of course Gygax's eventual fifth edition would have included six axis alignment. Law/Chaos, Good/Evil, Individual/Group, Open/Secret, Strange/Charm, and Theist/Antitheist.


But honestly it sounds like TSR2e had the same thoughts as Gygax in the broad strokes (barring 'four books is ideal'), but differed in execution to a significant degree. And I'm honestly quite a fan of AD&D 2e, although I'd still rather play Rules Cyclopedia Basic.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I cling affectionately to my theory that Gygax's next additions to the game would have included more complicated tables, more options with unique game mechanics, new kinds of curses, and a three-axis alignment system of Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, and maybe Individualist / Team-oriented.
Likely combined with another regional expansion akin to Oriental Adventures - given Dieties and Demigods had a Native American mythos section, perhaps a Americas civilisations one also covering Mayan, Inca and Aztec.

[nick_crenshaw]

When I originally asked that question it was in relation to this alternate history (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-hippie-in-the-house-of-mouse-jim-henson-at-disney-1980.489210/post-21365916) timeline where Disney (through Marvel) buys TSR (in 1985/86).

This purchase at this time resulted in Kevin and Brian Blume retiring from TSR while Gary Gygax will manage the creative efforts and his sister Lorraine Williams will handle the financial interests.

Under these circumstances who at TSR could correct all those issues mentioned above and how they would go about it.

Is there a way to inspire Gygax to do a complete rewrite of the rules to something similar to Dangerous Journeys and/or Lejendary Adventures?

[Willie the Duck]

When I originally asked that question it was in relation to this alternate history (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-hippie-in-the-house-of-mouse-jim-henson-at-disney-1980.489210/post-21365916) timeline where Disney (through Marvel) buys TSR (in 1985/86).

This purchase at this time resulted in Kevin and Brian Blume retiring from TSR while Gary Gygax will manage the creative efforts and his sister Lorraine Williams will handle the financial interests.

What strange error they made in that article. Lorraine Williams is not Gary Gygax's sister, she is sister to screenwriter and developer Flint Dille (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_Dille), and took over TSR from Gary in a hostile takeover.