Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 7537294" data-attributes="member: 23716">This.&nbsp; So much this.&nbsp; While I appreciate Gygaxian D&amp;D for the unique flavor and innovation it had at the time, not to mention the more low magic, sword &amp; sorcery feel it engendered (I say 'feel' because in practice it ended up being quite high magic, though that magic was usually in the form of items &amp; DM fiat), the constant switching to disparate subsystems and Baroque rules made it hard to model anything other than Gygaxian D&amp;D.&nbsp; Sure, things like a wandering prostitute table, removing your helmet to listen at doors (and the subsequent penalties), flanking, weapon vs AC charts sound all well and good, but end up being impractical and --dare I say it--immersion breaking in play due to the book-keeping and stop-start overhead they tend to engender.&nbsp; In short, I think the system reads more immersive than it plays, whereas more modern versions of the game can be the opposite.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gadget, post: 7537294, member: 23716"] This. So much this. While I appreciate Gygaxian D&D for the unique flavor and innovation it had at the time, not to mention the more low magic, sword & sorcery feel it engendered (I say 'feel' because in practice it ended up being quite high magic, though that magic was usually in the form of items & DM fiat), the constant switching to disparate subsystems and Baroque rules made it hard to model anything other than Gygaxian D&D. Sure, things like a wandering prostitute table, removing your helmet to listen at doors (and the subsequent penalties), flanking, weapon vs AC charts sound all well and good, but end up being impractical and --dare I say it--immersion breaking in play due to the book-keeping and stop-start overhead they tend to engender. In short, I think the system [I]reads[/I] more immersive than it [I]plays[/I], whereas more modern versions of the game can be the opposite. [/QUOTE]

Verification