Back in the day...

[MerricB]

You have sound reasoning in your posts. However my experiences differ from yours. I learned to play in the Basic D&D / 1st ed AD&D era, and our games were much more munchkinny, hack'n'slash and shallow than since then. Could it be that the players you've encountered are that way not because they started with 3E, but because they're younger (and thats why they learned with 3E)?

I'm sure that's part of it. Another factor is the style of the DM they originally play with!

If you have a DM who encourages role-playing over hack'n'slash (and assuming that your personal style is not biased totally towards hack'n'slash), then you become better role-player, regardless of system.

The converse is also true. If you have a Killer DM type, who you really need to be on top of the game rules to survive their dungeons, then your gaming habits are shaped that way.

Most beginning DMs are of the hack'n'slash school, because it's the easiest way to begin. (e.g. there's a room with an orc and a pie. Kill the orc!) There are examples, possibly from those with more literary, theatrical or maturer viewpoints, who will emphasise elements other than hack'n'slash.

Cheers!

 

[grodog]

Maybe. AD&D basically removed the spirit of invention from the game.

I disagree with this: AD&D, as you say below, provided a better framework from which it was easier to be creative, without having to wonder about just how rule X, Y, or Z worked. There was a lot more to work with, but AD&D still had that carefree and improvisational spirit (at least it did for me), something which 3e lacks because of the rigidity and deep interconnectedness of the rules---character levels balanced against mosnter levels balanced against treasure gained balanced against a quicker level progression balanced against, etc.... (again, for me).

What AD&D did was simply standardize the game, to use a better term.

[snip]

Everyone, the game rules has changed, but not the true spirit of D&D in it's creative aspect. The rules may be standardized, but you are still dealing with a melting pot of creativity. DMs can, using what ever version of the rules, create a game that is light hearted, hard-boiled, or dark and forboding. As long as everyone is having fun.

Well-said! Excellent points all-around

 

[FireLance]

To use an analogy (previously used in a different context in the novel "A Wrinkle In Time"):

Earlier editions of D&D were like free-form poetry - you could say whatever you want in whatever way you want, and you didn't even have to use words that rhyme if you didn't want to.

3.xe D&D is like a sonnet, or a haiku, or a limerick - you are constrained by meter, rhyme scheme, or even the number of syllables in a line, but that doesn't mean your work is any less creative.

 

[WizarDru]

My general experience with AD&D showed that most players enjoyed a large degree of freedom because of one of two things: there were few rules about certain topics (or inconsistent mechanics, sometimes) or because groups ignored or didn't understand whole chunks of the rules (and thus they didn't use them, much to everyone's relief).


To wit:

Rereading through the first edition books, I"m amazed how many things we just plain didn't use.

 

[diaglo]

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.



it had to be said

 

[hong]

My general experience with AD&D showed that most players enjoyed a large degree of freedom because of one of two things: there were few rules about certain topics (or inconsistent mechanics, sometimes) or because groups ignored or didn't understand whole chunks of the rules (and thus they didn't use them, much to everyone's relief).


To wit:

Rereading through the first edition books, I"m amazed how many things we just plain didn't use.

"Morning."

"Morning."

"What weapons have you got?"

"Well, there's swords and bows; swords, axes and bows; swords and glaives; swords, bows and glaives; swords, axes, bows and glaives; glaives, axes and glaives; glaives, bows and glaives; glaives, swords and glaives; glaives, glaives, swords and glaives; glaives, glaives, glaives, swords and glaives; glaives, glaives, glaives, glaives, guisarmes, glaives, glaives, glaives and glaives."

"Glaives, glaives, glaives, glaives, lovely glaives."

"Or a katana that goes up to eleven and can cut through tanks. With a fauchard-fork and a glaive."

etcetera.

 

[Aaron L]

I like glaives.

 

[WizarDru]

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

it had to be said

The same table in OD&D

Weapon Type: Modifier
Sharp Weapon -
Blunt Weapon -

NOTE: This table uses the optional Weapon Variants from Dave's notepad.

 

[Ranes]

"Right then. I'll take a glaive."

"They're a little rusty."

"Fear not. I have my trusty whetstone. Bring on les glaives."

"Actually, they're very rusty."

"Look, I don't care how rusty they are, just sell me a glaive!"

"Oh dear. The rust monster's eaten them."

"Has he?"

"She, sir."

If you go to the RPGA Living Greyhawk pages (and other Living campaigns), you'll find a great number of adventures written for tournament use.

Then I will set the controls for the heart of the RPGA!

Thanks.

 

[MerricB]

Grodog - you're correct. The Giants modules were adapted for Tournament play, not written specifically with them in mind.

Q: Were the "Giants" modules designed for use in the tournament, or were they adventures adapted for tournament play (being the first adventures released by TSR!)

Gary: The modules were adapred for tournament play.

Q: When were the "Giants" modules released to the public? At the tournament? After the tournament? Before the tournament?

Gary: IIRR, the modules were released about the same time as the tournament was held.

Q: Were the adventures used by the referees the actual modules, or part of a separate printing?

Gary: Again, IIRR, the dms used the regular printed modules.

(Thanks muchly to Gary for answering my questions!)

Cheers!