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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bormun" data-source="post: 6517370" data-attributes="member: 6777478">...mostly"The thing to remember is this: lots of people in the 80s didn't really play <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?3-D-amp-D-and-Pathfinder&prefixid=dnd1e" target="_blank">AD&D 1st edition</a> as written"This is very true. The 1ed group I joined refused to move to 2ed specificaly "because it would require them to re-do all the house rules" they had developed over the previous 10 years. But 2ed was very much a new edition of the same game, whilst 3ed was different enough to be a new (but similar) game: you now get to fight non-monster challenges using your non-combat skills, a concept that used to be the preserve of the thief. (The domains were also new, and allowed for all manner of cleric variants, but it made less difference that you might have thought, since you still needed to pick a priest who had the Healing domain.) ...And then late 3ed (Bo9S etc.) made it into an even more different game, which lead into 4ed, a progression that made total sense in the minds of the developers (who considered Bo9S to be normal) but which was a long way from where most of the players were (3ed core)...[Personally, I am very glad 4ed came out, as it made me realise that I really was not enjoying fundamental parts of earlier D&D, but that is just me.] 5ed looks like it is turning into a toolbox, where each group will have its own house rules because the design allows, encourages, and helps it; rather than the 1ed situation were each group had its own house rules because the actual rules didn't work properly. Sadly, I've had far too many experiences over the years of DMs (including myself <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" />) who were not nearly as good at house rules as we thought we were...</blockquote>

Verification