Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quasqueton" data-source="post: 648496" data-attributes="member: 3854">I have a theory.I'll start the basis for this theory with AD&D1. AD&D1 had its roots deeply in war gaming. The core rule books of the time (PHB, DMG, MM) had no substantial mention of playing a role or character in the game. No guidance or hints or examples of playing as a character. The rule books were all game mechanics. The adventure modules of the time were often full of mix-and-match creatures with only stat blocks and no real characterizations for the DM.Now, there were sometimes a note or two on some creature's behavior pattern or likely motivations, but these were the exception, not the rule. And most of these referred to how the creature may engage the PCs in battle or try to escape a fight.Many of the AD&D1 adventures were meant as challenges to players rather than the characters. There were tons of examples of riddles, traps, encounter set-ups, etc. that the writer expected the players to solve without regard to their characters' mental abilities.With these rules, players were basically left to play themselves with warrior or wizard game stats.To put out just a few examples:The "slavelord" leader in the adventure Slave Pits of the Undercity had only game stats listed. The written material gave no hint as to his motivations, personality, or even a name.The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth was a big dungeon complex of random monsters, with no rhyme or reason for genies and myrads being in rooms "next door" to a behir or piercers.White Plume Mountain was full of tricks and riddles meant for the players personally. The numbered golem riddle, the suspended glass balls trick, etc. No info or hints were given as to how the characters might solve the problems; it was up to the players thinking and figuring.AD&D2 went into some detail on role playing. Actually, AD&D2 went so far as to make most all the rules "optional" and subserviant to the role playing aspect. I personally don't have nearly as many AD&D2 adventure modules as I do AD&D1 modules, but from what I've seen, these had more than plenty information on the individual creatures encountered. I've seen multiple paragraphs giving the name, motivations, and personality for creatures that really won't last more than a few rounds of combat anyway. Contrast the old (BD&D) Keep on the Borderlands with the AD&D2 Return to the Keep on the Borderlands.In all my conversations with other players and DMs, I seem to have found a pattern. Those who started playing with AD&D1 more often see this hobby as a war game in which you play a character. Those who started with AD&D2 more often see this hobby as a role-playing forum in which action is resolved as a game.Note that in both versions of the game, most of the time, physical action was resolved with dice rolling and game rules, and mental and social action was resolved with the player's words and ideas bounced off the DM. [Charisma truly was a dump stat in both editions, but for different reasons.]Players from AD&D1 are more likely to enjoy the mechanics and tactics of the game. They *want* to roll dice as part of their hobby. Players from AD&D2 are more likely to enjoy the deep role playing aspects of the game. They consider a session without a single die rolled as perfection.Have you noticed this as a pattern?QuasquetonAnd for the record, I'm not holding either method as "better" than the other. I personally cut my teeth with AD&D1 (actually BD&D first) and played little of AD&D2. Now, I want a strong mix of game and role play. I don't want to be a thespian, but neither do I want to play a simple board game. But I admit I am more comfortable with the war game aspect than the acting aspect. I hope I managed to write the above impartially and without offending anyone.</blockquote>

Verification