Menu
Home
Post new thread
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Find Us!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
EN Live
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Biggest TTRPG Kickstarter Creators
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Chat/Discord
Podcast
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE!
Sickness and Health: New diseases for your 5E game!
Home
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacks With Two Weapons, Game Design, And the Evolution of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8263861" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>To be clear, I don't think anyone is being disingenuous, or lying, or even doing the typical internet, "If someone says something, Ima gonna be against it, 'cuz that's how it works ... no retreat, no surrender, no apologies!" </p><p></p><p>What I do think happens is, for a lot of people, there is a OD&D/1e/2e "Mandela effect," and that this is strongest with the late 1e/2e period. And it totally makes sense. </p><p></p><p>Think about it- the majority of people commenting about "AD&D" are doing so having never played 1e (just 2e) or having played just a little 1e before playing 2e - this makes sense just by looking at the grim math of an actuarial table. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>Even those olds of us who haven't died yet who started with OD&D and early 1e ... well, most of us here ... 1e <em>ended </em>in 1988. Arguably, the "classic" rules ended in 1985, when you have the UA split. Which means that people discussing 1e rules today are trying to remember what the rules were like, usually having not played it for more 30 years, and often having spent more time playing a very close variant (2e) and/or playing computer games based on 2e ... and that's before remembering that 1e had some famously opaque rules. </p><p></p><p>I tend to have less of that particular problem only because I never played 2e rules- so they stick out a little more to me; even so, my memory is such that I still have to go back and verify things against the text because sometimes my memory tells me I did things that just didn't happen. That's why I try to always source my points. </p><p></p><p>Our minds are funny like that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8263861, member: 7023840"] To be clear, I don't think anyone is being disingenuous, or lying, or even doing the typical internet, "If someone says something, Ima gonna be against it, 'cuz that's how it works ... no retreat, no surrender, no apologies!" What I do think happens is, for a lot of people, there is a OD&D/1e/2e "Mandela effect," and that this is strongest with the late 1e/2e period. And it totally makes sense. Think about it- the majority of people commenting about "AD&D" are doing so having never played 1e (just 2e) or having played just a little 1e before playing 2e - this makes sense just by looking at the grim math of an actuarial table. ;) Even those olds of us who haven't died yet who started with OD&D and early 1e ... well, most of us here ... 1e [I]ended [/I]in 1988. Arguably, the "classic" rules ended in 1985, when you have the UA split. Which means that people discussing 1e rules today are trying to remember what the rules were like, usually having not played it for more 30 years, and often having spent more time playing a very close variant (2e) and/or playing computer games based on 2e ... and that's before remembering that 1e had some famously opaque rules. I tend to have less of that particular problem only because I never played 2e rules- so they stick out a little more to me; even so, my memory is such that I still have to go back and verify things against the text because sometimes my memory tells me I did things that just didn't happen. That's why I try to always source my points. Our minds are funny like that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacks With Two Weapons, Game Design, And the Evolution of D&D
Top