Col_Pladoh said:
Yes, those are some valid observations. OAD&D encouraged and in some instances facilitated innovation and had flexible rules that did not require an explanation for everything.
This is true, but the main flexibility of the rules was their nonexistence. 3e/d20 tries to give at least general guidelines that, in the hands of an experienced group of gamers, are as easy to access and use as house rules made on the fly, and which result in a more consistent game. I think the mistake could be made in believing that 3e/d20 fans slavishly devote themselves to making sure every rule is followed to the letter; that may occur on the internet, but in practice I don't see it happening.
I can tell you this - the OAD&D or 1e spirit is still alive and well in the games I play, no matter what system is used. It's all a matter of who is actually playing the game, not the system itself. Instead of trying to remember how we handled each and every occurrence of something not covered in the rules, we now have at least a self-consistent source to which we can refer, rather than relying upon sometimes arbitrary, sometimes conflicting, and often-changing house rulings.
I'm not trying to somehow "prove" one game or edition is better than another; that would be impossible, as games, like fiction, gain much of their resonance from being digested by the individual. I'm not one of the 3e bunch strutting and proselytizing. I'm just wanting to set forth what it is that I, a gamer from long back, like about the new game, and how it fits my needs. That doesn't mean the old game is crap or inferior. Quite the contrary; HackMaster, for example, has helped me remember what it was I loved about 1e back in the day.
Oh yeah, Gary - Necropolis kicks ass! I'm extremely pleased with this book! I'd love to see more like it from you.