Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="johnsemlak" data-source="post: 391208" data-attributes="member: 7233">Yeah, I know all that <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, I was joking anyway. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> LOL I agree 3e is technically superior.However, I do feel the race/class restrictions did help encourage players to create characters that conform to popular archetypes, and that is very much what attracted players to D&amp;D in the first place.&nbsp; Halfling paladins and dwarf wizard/clerics just seem stupid, they don't make the fantasy world work for me.&nbsp; Of course the DM can disallow them, but I think the 1e rules did a better job of creating the setting which attracted may people to the game.Of course, some people are bound to have different ideas than Gygax on what races could cast spells and so forth (CS Lewis's Narnia series features a spellcasting Dwarf).&nbsp; Many of use were also duly annoyed by the level limits and the fact that certain class/race combinations were disallowed--thus we ignored the rules we didn't like.My theory: 3e is superior technically, but it wouldn't draw people to the game the way that 1e did.&nbsp; 3e is popular because it is an improvement on the 1e game, but as a stand alone product it wouldn't create the cult following 1e did.On a separate and blatently off topic note to MerricB:Have a good time watching the Grand Final on Saturday.&nbsp; I'll be up bright and early at 8:00 am in Moscow for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="johnsemlak, post: 391208, member: 7233"] Yeah, I know all that :), I was joking anyway. :D LOL I agree 3e is technically superior. However, I do feel the race/class restrictions did help encourage players to create characters that conform to popular archetypes, and that is very much what attracted players to D&D in the first place. Halfling paladins and dwarf wizard/clerics just seem stupid, they don't make the fantasy world work for me. Of course the DM can disallow them, but I think the 1e rules did a better job of creating the setting which attracted may people to the game. Of course, some people are bound to have different ideas than Gygax on what races could cast spells and so forth (CS Lewis's Narnia series features a spellcasting Dwarf). Many of use were also duly annoyed by the level limits and the fact that certain class/race combinations were disallowed--thus we ignored the rules we didn't like. My theory: 3e is superior technically, but it wouldn't draw people to the game the way that 1e did. 3e is popular because it is an improvement on the 1e game, but as a stand alone product it wouldn't create the cult following 1e did. On a separate and blatently off topic note to MerricB: Have a good time watching the Grand Final on Saturday. I'll be up bright and early at 8:00 am in Moscow for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification