Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9590413" data-attributes="member: 7045072">This is a good observation - except I think it undervalues a lot of &quot;what you can do&quot;, especially in early editions. When one looks purely at the mechanics of combat (or exploration here - skills being mentioned) one is looking from a contemporary position that focuses on mechanical character abilities and then projecting that onto a style of play and system that in at least some of its incarnations relies more on meta-game knowledge and player actions without mechanical frameworks - especially in exploration.AD&amp;D of course is a tricky one, because it's both a shambling Frankenstein of a system and was to some degree designed to facilitate highly structured play via tournaments (Also... Yes. I know AD&amp;D psychos, it's a perfect beautiful system. Just as St. Guggylax intended - and by not loving it I defame him, the hobby, the Western canon and everything good or just ... blah blah blah).&nbsp; That is AD&amp;D particularly starts moving towards limiting player actions to mechanically supported abilities (as one can see with the scoring systems provided for things like the Slavelord's adventures) while at the same time in the larger RPG community it was often used to supplement OD&amp;D and B/X play with higher level or more complex content without fundamentally breaking down the various emergent late 1970's play styles associated with early D&amp;D or replacing them with tournament D&amp;D. These playstyles were varied and many didn't rely on mechanical limitation. Of course regardless of play style AD&amp;D also firmly lodges the practice of more complex character creation, or at least more options, into D&amp;D (not new at the time of course ... but very much key to making AD&amp;D a distinct game).I also think it's important to look at how a system's published adventures believe the game will be played.For early D&amp;D you have a lot of variety - take Palace of the Vampire Queen, Temple of the Frog, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and Caverns of Thracia and while all use roughly the same system (OD&amp;D + supplements/Holmes/AD&amp;D) they all have distinct authorial emphasis that suggest differing kinds of play.&nbsp; Palace is a boardgame style hack n' slash, Frog is a Braunstein with added dungeon layer, Steading a Gygaxian commando raid and Thracia an archeological exploration.&nbsp; Each expects a different player relationship to mechanics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gus L, post: 9590413, member: 7045072"] This is a good observation - except I think it undervalues a lot of "what you can do", especially in early editions. When one looks purely at the mechanics of combat (or exploration here - skills being mentioned) one is looking from a contemporary position that focuses on mechanical character abilities and then projecting that onto a style of play and system that in at least some of its incarnations relies more on meta-game knowledge and player actions without mechanical frameworks - especially in exploration. AD&D of course is a tricky one, because it's both a shambling Frankenstein of a system and was to some degree designed to facilitate highly structured play via tournaments (Also... Yes. I know AD&D psychos, it's a perfect beautiful system. Just as St. Guggylax intended - and by not loving it I defame him, the hobby, the Western canon and everything good or just ... blah blah blah). That is AD&D particularly starts moving towards limiting player actions to mechanically supported abilities (as one can see with the scoring systems provided for things like the Slavelord's adventures) while at the same time in the larger RPG community it was often used to supplement OD&D and B/X play with higher level or more complex content without fundamentally breaking down the various emergent late 1970's play styles associated with early D&D or replacing them with tournament D&D. These playstyles were varied and many didn't rely on mechanical limitation. Of course regardless of play style AD&D also firmly lodges the practice of more complex character creation, or at least more options, into D&D (not new at the time of course ... but very much key to making AD&D a distinct game). I also think it's important to look at how a system's published adventures believe the game will be played. For early D&D you have a lot of variety - take Palace of the Vampire Queen, Temple of the Frog, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief and Caverns of Thracia and while all use roughly the same system (OD&D + supplements/Holmes/AD&D) they all have distinct authorial emphasis that suggest differing kinds of play. Palace is a boardgame style hack n' slash, Frog is a Braunstein with added dungeon layer, Steading a Gygaxian commando raid and Thracia an archeological exploration. Each expects a different player relationship to mechanics. [/QUOTE]

Verification