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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1575500" data-attributes="member: 151">There have been more than a few threads where gamers have identified themselves here, and a large number (what relation to the whole of ENWorld, let alone most D&D gamers is unknown) of posters have indicated a simliar stance to myself and others.  I started playing in 1980, and played Basic and 1e for several years.  I then grew increasingly dissatisfied with AD&D, and moved on to other games in 1987.  It took 3E to bring me back to D&D, and I haven't left it's side since.  I recently cracked open the AD&D books to feed a little nostalgia, and realized that nostalgia governed a large part of my emotions about the game.  I had forgotten how many rules we ignored or didn't use, due to unneeded complexity, difficulty of use or inconsistency.  I had forgotten, until I examined my notes, how often we used house-rules and alternate systems to shore up the game's deficiencies, such as the previously mentioned ICE supplements like Arms Law and so forth.  Thinking back, I don't remember ANYONE who actually played the game as written.  I'm sure there were plenty, but I've never met them.  As for the modules, some were classics, and others...not so much.  The G-Series are fun, and all, but dramatically lacking in depth or scope, to me.  Many of the 1e modules had great style, presence and flavor, but were still just gussied up mazes laden with traps and monsters to cut up.  I mean, Tamoachan's plot isn't really that radically different from Tsocjanth or Tharizdun, now is it?  Lots of twists on the individual formula, but at the 1000 foot level, not really that different at all.  Many of the AD&D modules were classics, particularly ones like Saltmarsh and the Slaver series...but let's not forget they had their bad moements as well as good (remember the 'you wake up with all of your stuff gone' railroad?).  Sure, high-level 3.x requires some work to make interesting villains, that's a small price to pay for making truly unique and interesting creatures.  Under AD&D, I just made things up with no guidelines.  Under 3e, I have a framework to start from, with an idea of the ramifications of crossing a fire-elemental and a beholder.  An orc is not an orc is not an orc, and I think that's swell.</blockquote>

Verification