Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7716263" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this is really the key point. If classic, &quot;gamist&quot; dungeon-crawling was ever the main way of playing D&amp;D, it seems to have lost that status some time in the early 1980s.The idea that a cultural development that is over 30 years old, in a hobby barely more than 40 years old, is somehow a &quot;new&quot; thing is not tenable.There is also a lot of projection going on in the characterisations of &quot;true&quot; or &quot;original&quot; D&amp;D. Eg [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] excludes DL from being &quot;truly&quot; 1st ed AD&amp;D, and likewise treats elements of Gygax's approach as purely idiosyncratic and not essential to &quot;true&quot; 1st ed AD&amp;D either. Is &quot;true&quot; 1st ed AD&amp;D, then, just whatever it is that Lanefan plays? Or played, back in the day? That's obviously not tenable.A final comment: in some domains of activity, relative &quot;toughness&quot; or &quot;hardcoreness&quot; is fairly easy to identify. Running a half-marathon is, in some objective sense, more gruelling than jogging 500 m. Climbing a mountain is, in some objective sense, more gruelling that climbing over the fence at the local park.But in what way is playing classic dungeon-crawling D&amp;D supposed to be more gruelling than, say, playing DL back in the day, or playing the final encounter of some WotC AP, or (to turn to a non-D&amp;D game) playing a session of DitV? There is a tone in some of the posts in this thread - with references to lethality, difficulty, etc - that clearly imply this is the case. But they don't explain what the nature of the gruelling-ness is supposed to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7716263, member: 42582"] I think this is really the key point. If classic, "gamist" dungeon-crawling was [I]ever[/I] the main way of playing D&D, it seems to have lost that status some time in the early 1980s. The idea that a cultural development that is over 30 years old, in a hobby barely more than 40 years old, is somehow a "new" thing is not tenable. There is also a lot of projection going on in the characterisations of "true" or "original" D&D. Eg [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] excludes DL from being "truly" 1st ed AD&D, and likewise treats elements of Gygax's approach as purely idiosyncratic and not essential to "true" 1st ed AD&D either. Is "true" 1st ed AD&D, then, just whatever it is that Lanefan plays? Or played, back in the day? That's obviously not tenable. A final comment: in some domains of activity, relative "toughness" or "hardcoreness" is fairly easy to identify. Running a half-marathon is, in some objective sense, more gruelling than jogging 500 m. Climbing a mountain is, in some objective sense, more gruelling that climbing over the fence at the local park. But in what way is playing classic dungeon-crawling D&D supposed to be more gruelling than, say, playing DL back in the day, or playing the final encounter of some WotC AP, or (to turn to a non-D&D game) playing a session of DitV? There is a tone in some of the posts in this thread - with references to lethality, difficulty, etc - that clearly imply this is the case. But they don't explain what the nature of the gruelling-ness is supposed to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification