AD&D: There and Back Again - a Role-Player's Tale

[lumin]

So, an out-of-context quote written by an anonymous internetter is your support for your assumption about designer intent?

That's funny because you just described yourself along with several others posting on this thread. Your entire opinion of D&D seems to be based off of your personal experience, not the intention of the author of the game, the rules of the game, or TSR.

I'm the only one pulling quotes off of Wikipedia (backed by reference outlines) and Gary Gygax's intention for a more structured game. It really is comical to watch someone refer to the words of Gygax and WoTC as an "anonymous internetter".

 

[Fifth Element]

Hello??? How many times do I have to quote this?

Wikipedia

You can quote it all you like, but it's just the opinion of some anonymous person on the internet, and it's not necessarily being written in the context you're using it in.

Heck, since it's Wikipedia, for all we know you could have written it.

Let me know when you have something in an AD&D rulebook that states actions not covered by tables should be disallowed.

 

[IronWolf]

I'm the only one pulling quotes off of Wikipedia (backed by reference outlines) and Gary Gygax's intention for a more structured game. It really is comical to watch someone refer to the words of Gygax and WoTC as an "anonymous internetter".

And we are the ones pulling the words Gary Gygax actually wrote from the DMG which you seem to continue to ignore.

 

[Fifth Element]

That's funny because you just described yourself along with several others posting on this thread. Your entire opinion of D&D seems to be based off of your personal experience, not the intention of the author of the game, the rules of the game, or TSR.

Exactly. My interpretation does not depend on any assumptions about designer intent. Yours does.

I'm the only one pulling quotes off of Wikipedia (backed by reference outlines) and Gary Gygax's intention for a more structured game. It really is comical to watch someone refer to the words of Gygax and WoTC as an "anonymous internetter".

Those aren't the words of Gygax or WotC. The only words of Gygax being quotes here are those from the DMG, which contradict your assertions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I almost never agree with Fifth Element, but he could not be more right in this instance if he was hit on the head with a correctness stick.

 

[lumin]

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was designed to create a tighter, more structured game system than the loose framework of the original game.

-Gygax; "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" in The Dragon #26

The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be internally consistent and less restrictive than previous editions of the game, allowing players more flexibility to create the characters they wanted to play.

-Johnson, et al.; 30 Years of Adventure, pp. 255-263

(Harold Johnson is a game designer and editor, and an author of several products and articles for the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game from TSR.)

Yep, those are surely "anonymous internetters".

 

[Raven Crowking]

AD&D 1e is tighter and more structured than OD&D =/= AD&D 1e is tighter and more structured than 3e.

Flexibility in character creation =/= flexibility in play.

You are, effectively, arguing that 5 must be greater than 10, because we have demonstrated that 5 is greater than 1, and 10 has a 1 in it.

Sorry, it just doesn't follow.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

I think there is a lot of bias coming from some of you because you don't want to be proven wrong here.

The same could just as easily be said of you, which demonstrates how pointless a comment like this is. Address the arguments presented to you, not what you assume about the arguer.

You've spent years of your life being told that 1E is a free-for-all game and 3E is the UBER tight, strict system.

Sorry, I reached those conclusions myself from playing both systems for years. No one's told me this.

The facts are the facts, and I think I have presented them pretty well. There really can be no other conclusion.

Obviously there can be, since so many others (who have experience with both systems) have reached another conclusion.

It's fine if you have your own interpretation of things. But don't tell us that your interpretation is the only possible one. That's quite insulting and condescending, especially since plenty of evidence has been provided against your position. That you have not addressed much of this evidence does not lend credence to your conclusion.

 

[Fifth Element]

I almost never agree with Fifth Element, but he could not be more right in this instance if he was hit on the head with a correctness stick.

You'd love that, wouldn't you?

C'mon people now, smile on your brother...

 

[lumin]

AD&D 1e is tighter and more structured than OD&D =/= AD&D 1e is tighter and more structured than 3e.

Flexibility in character creation =/= flexibility in play.

You are, effectively, arguing that 5 must be greater than 10, because we have demonstrated that 5 is greater than 1, and 10 has a 1 in it.

Sorry, it just doesn't follow.


RC

The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be internally consistent and less restrictive than previous editions

The rules themselves are less restrictive than previous editions. The antonym of Restrictive is "unconditional, unlimited, unqualified, unrestricted".

In other words, AD&D was less unconditional, unlimited, unqualified, unrestricted than 3E. Get it?