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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3738096" data-attributes="member: 30001">Dagnabbit!   <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />   This has to happen on every single 1E thread I suppose.  A few sentences after the "illustrations" that you're talking about are given, the statement is made that you may "mentally visualize the situation" using the grids as a guideline.  Repeatedly in the rules, including the part you cite, judgement is given priority, or at least equal weight, with any kind of static tool.  The best example:  the combat rules start out with - "Envision if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match".  IMO the nature of the ADnD game was judgement and flexibility, which is at odds with the precision required for 3E-type rules like 5 ft steps, AoOs, and the other things that IMO a "battlegrid system" seems to imply.So the implication of a "static relationship between attacker and defender" that you see in the grid system, to me, is counteracted by numerous and repeated statements in the combat rules that suggest the opposite.I have a theory that's based on no actual facts but sounds nice and is similar to what you're saying.  When the 1E books came out there were two types of people.  One were kids that were ages 9-13 (see the poll on ages if you don't believe me).  Those kids probably had a copy of the Basic set (Holmes or later Red Booklet) and piece-wise incorporated ADnD rules into their game.  The other type of DnD'er was an old-schooler who learned DND from the ODnD booklets, had probably worked out their own house systems for some aspects combat, and adapted (like the kids) the ADnD rules to their existing game as appropriate - grabbing the cool stuff first ("hey, different weapons do different damage").  I think the fact that there were at least 3 sets of rules (and probably a few variant systems in magazines) that you could have learned DnD combat from would account for the differences that I see nowadays when people talk about their 1E games.  I don't think the bulk of the people playing DnD at the time had the patience (the kids) or the interest/need (the ODnD guys) to work out/understand the more arcane rule subsystems.  Which I think leaves the impression of 1E as a "rules light" game because it was ok to throw out 50% of the RAW.    Of course my avatar always takes his life in his hands when he makes these claims because the existing grognards who are most vocal about 1E these days are the most likely persons to have played 1E RAW.  FWIW, I actually love the 1E rules like a fondly remembered first wife who died and left me a million dollars in her will, so all of this is meant respectfully.Just for old times sake I'd like to see the description of a battle between a 1E monk, dark elf thief-acrobat, and a chimera (don't forget all of the armorclasses!)</blockquote>

Verification