Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1906086" data-attributes="member: 23012">The difference is that the 1E Gygaxian books encouraged a particular kind of game and campaign style.  Indeed, the way that different classes and races were 'balanced' with each other was done in a manner that made certain assumptions about the kind of setting appropriate for AD&D.  Those Gygaxian assumptions were built into many campaigns, and can be seen in many of the 'classic' modules that people reminisce about even today.  Similar 'thick' assumptions about the nature of campaigns were built into most early fantasy RPGs (Runequest being the most obvious example here, but T&T and Dragonquest also had this feature). In contrast, d20 is flavourless -- it is like plain toast, not maple doughnuts.  This makes it much more versatile -- I can add jam to d20 (yum!), while you can use Nutella (yuck!).  But the system itself lacks the distinctive character and quirkiness of OAD&D.  (I think that this was also true of the 'de-Gygax-ized' 2E -- which probably explains why it has fewer adherents than 1E, and why most people remember the campaign settings with more fondness than the system itself.)Look, I am not saying that this is a bad thing about d20.  It is probably a very good thing, in that the system can satisfy a wider range of tastes.  But it means that the system itself will not inspire nostalgia and deep fondness as the decades progress.  (Or so I predict.)A fifth level OAD&D bard belongs to the College 'Mac-Fuimidh'.  A fifth level 3E bard ... well, whatever.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification