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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9589695" data-attributes="member: 7045072">I find it a bit telling that this thread is most talking about mechanics... specifically combat mechanics and character builds. This strikes me as a very particular framework for looking at older editions of D&D, and one with a very contemporary inflection.The fundamental difference for me between D&D editions is not found in the mechanical bits and bobs attached to it - and stuff like prestige classes start in the Greyhawk supplement to OD&D - but in the locus of play.  Where does the edition expect players to spend most of their time? Dungeon exploration, combat, domain building (this isn't found much in D&D) etc.  Then beyond that what version of the locus is important - how is it framed.  Many people argue that OD&D as designed was intended as sort of a skirmish wargame focused on tactical combat between groups of 10 - 100 or so "figures", and while 3.5 - 5E are also very combat focused the design of tactical combat is very different.  In more contemporary editions tactical combat predominates, but it is generally between sides of 1-6, far more complex "figures".  It's a very different game, evoking a heroic team rather then warband. This is both the result of and challenges players fundamental conception of what the game is about even while it may share many mechanics.That said, the intended loci and actual nature of play aren't always the same.  I'd argue that OD&D evolved in play (even before publication perhaps) rapidly from its skirmish game intent to an exploration focused game with procedural and referee facing support for dungeon crawling but still a base mechanical focus one combat. This seems to me just one example, because rules review doesn't actually get us to how editions were played or can be played. To me the idea of stable concepts, especially at the granular level of specific rules evolution seems far less interesting then goals of campaign/adventure design, the play cultures they give rise to and the division or similarities between designer goals and play cultural ones.  To discuss how something like Saving Throws evolved, or their purpose one needs to first have a shared set of ideas about the history of saving throws that explains not just how they change over time, but both what the designer goals in changing them were and how they actually were used by players.</blockquote>

Verification