Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 3156855" data-attributes="member: 26473">QFT - and thank you for saving me the trouble of answering this myself.I understand that some gamers never read the rules when they learned to play 1e AD&amp;D, or perhaps read them and misunderstood some of what they read, or have simply forgotten many of those rules over time, and together this colors the views of some gamers toward the game. Some of these gamers go on to make erroneous claims about what was in (or wasn't in) those rules based on incomplete knowledge or faulty recollection - that's a simple mistake, one readily corrected by reference of the rule(s) in question.Misrepresenting or distorting the rules to support a misleading conclusion is something else altogether.I've heard all sorts of mistaken and misleading statements offered about 1e AD&amp;D here on ENWorld, and I have tried to correct them where I can - I have no problem with valid criticism for any edition of Dungeons and Dragons, but it's annoying to see abundant errors or deliberate disinformation served up as fact over and over again.I think experience as a miniatures war gamer offered a huge leg-up on understanding the nuanced tactical combat system of 1e AD&amp;D - unfortunately gamers who say that 1e combat was nothing but &quot;trading swings&quot; missed out on a great game, IMHO, and I think a lot of 3e players would benefit from knowing how much of the tactical game they know and enjoy is built upon foundations set down in 1e AD&amp;D.I'm not trying to make converts out of anyone, or suggest that one edition as better than another - I don't have a horse in this race, unless that horse is Accuracy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but can we all agree that informed criticism is preferable to erroneous assumptions or misleading arguments?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Shaman, post: 3156855, member: 26473"] QFT - and thank you for saving me the trouble of answering this myself. I understand that some gamers never read the rules when they learned to play 1e [i]AD&D[/i], or perhaps read them and misunderstood some of what they read, or have simply forgotten many of those rules over time, and together this colors the views of some gamers toward the game. Some of these gamers go on to make erroneous claims about what was in (or wasn't in) those rules based on incomplete knowledge or faulty recollection - that's a simple mistake, one readily corrected by reference of the rule(s) in question. Misrepresenting or distorting the rules to support a misleading conclusion is something else altogether. I've heard all sorts of mistaken and misleading statements offered about 1e [i]AD&D[/i] here on ENWorld, and I have tried to correct them where I can - I have no problem with [u]valid[/u] criticism for any edition of [i]Dungeons and Dragons[/i], but it's annoying to see abundant errors or deliberate disinformation served up as fact over and over again. I think experience as a miniatures war gamer offered a huge leg-up on understanding the nuanced tactical combat system of 1e [i]AD&D[/i] - unfortunately gamers who say that 1e combat was nothing but "trading swings" missed out on a great game, IMHO, and I think a lot of 3e players would benefit from knowing how much of the tactical game they know and enjoy is built upon foundations set down in 1e [i]AD&D[/i]. I'm not trying to make converts out of anyone, or suggest that one edition as better than another - I don't have a horse in this race, unless that horse is Accuracy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but can we all agree that [u]informed[/u] criticism is preferable to erroneous assumptions or misleading arguments? [/QUOTE]

Verification