Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 9540939" data-attributes="member: 3400">Is it really any different to say that for the earliest editions D&amp;D's most detailed subsystems are literally miniature based tactical combat power fantasy? I don't think so. It certainly describes 1e AD&amp;D. Grid based vs miniature-friendly sand table is pretty much a wash. And people have been complaining about combat being the most detailed D&amp;D subsystem throughout its life.As someone who has played D&amp;D for over 40 years, from the Holmes Basic set through 5e, I can point to a number of differences in how the game plays but there's also a lot of continuity as well. Characters in 5e bounce back a lot more readily than Basic/1e character - that's indisputable. And the game is a lot friendlier toward avoiding PC deaths. Spellcasters have magical endurance without having to resort to backup weapons thanks to cantrips. And yet, if a group of 1st level PCs rush into the Caves of Chaos with 5e rules thinking they can bash through everything, they're still going to end up dead. 1e adventures translate into 5e quite well, and although PCs have more defined abilities and skills than their Basic/1e counterparts (which serves to sidestep a lot of the tedious pixel-auditing of prior editions), the system gives DMs plenty of leeway in adjudication as well as simple adjudication rules (&quot;make an &lt;attribute&gt; check&quot;). Adventure design and table play style still have a LOT to say about what PC behavior will be rewarded or penalized... as they always have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 9540939, member: 3400"] Is it really any different to say that for the earliest editions D&D's most detailed subsystems are literally miniature based tactical combat power fantasy? I don't think so. It certainly describes 1e AD&D. Grid based vs miniature-friendly sand table is pretty much a wash. And people have been complaining about combat being the most detailed D&D subsystem throughout its life. As someone who has played D&D for over 40 years, from the Holmes Basic set through 5e, I can point to a number of differences in how the game plays but there's also a lot of continuity as well. Characters in 5e bounce back a lot more readily than Basic/1e character - that's indisputable. And the game is a lot friendlier toward avoiding PC deaths. Spellcasters have magical endurance without having to resort to backup weapons thanks to cantrips. And yet, if a group of 1st level PCs rush into the Caves of Chaos with 5e rules thinking they can bash through everything, they're still going to end up dead. 1e adventures translate into 5e quite well, and although PCs have more defined abilities and skills than their Basic/1e counterparts (which serves to sidestep a lot of the tedious pixel-auditing of prior editions), the system gives DMs plenty of leeway in adjudication as well as simple adjudication rules ("make an <attribute> check"). Adventure design and table play style still have a [B]LOT[/B] to say about what PC behavior will be rewarded or penalized... as they always have. [/QUOTE]

Verification