Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rogueattorney" data-source="post: 3461732" data-attributes="member: 17551">There was a fairly large shift between the assumed play style of AD&amp;D and consequently how it was marketed in the mid-80's.&nbsp; That's one of the problems with arguing, for example, that &quot;1e adventures were this way&quot; or that &quot;the 1e rules were such and such.&quot;&nbsp; You definitely have people who are more fans of the early stuff than the later stuff, and vice versa.&nbsp; And that's how it should be.&nbsp; Early Greyhawk stuff like the GDQ series is a pretty different beast from the Dragonlance series, for example.&nbsp; It's just going to follow that not everybody who likes the former will like the latter.To me, viewing 1e as a monolithic entity is horribly over-simplifying about 12 years and hundreds of items of product with at least four major &quot;editorial voices&quot; concerning play style - Gygax, Hickman, Greenwood, and D. Cook.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rogueattorney, post: 3461732, member: 17551"] There was a fairly large shift between the assumed play style of AD&D and consequently how it was marketed in the mid-80's. That's one of the problems with arguing, for example, that "1e adventures were this way" or that "the 1e rules were such and such." You definitely have people who are more fans of the early stuff than the later stuff, and vice versa. And that's how it should be. Early Greyhawk stuff like the GDQ series is a pretty different beast from the Dragonlance series, for example. It's just going to follow that not everybody who likes the former will like the latter. To me, viewing 1e as a monolithic entity is horribly over-simplifying about 12 years and hundreds of items of product with at least four major "editorial voices" concerning play style - Gygax, Hickman, Greenwood, and D. Cook. [/QUOTE]

Verification