Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4887784" data-attributes="member: 80487">The association of older rules sets in some minds with distasteful (or simply less &quot;sophisticated&quot;) play may be due in part to &quot;how we played when we were x years old&quot;.The 1970s-80s did indeed see a proliferation of rules-heavy games, both published &quot;systems&quot; and house-rules sets. Chivalry &amp; Sorcery (1977) comes to mind as an early example of the drive to detail that could exceed the complexity of 3E.Along the way, &quot;dungeon ecology&quot; went from being an often useful tool in service of the game to a sort of ideology. D&amp;D originally was presented quite unabashedly as a game; the simple reason for a dungeon's existence was to provide challenge and fun. That game-focused (which is not the same as rules-focused) philosophy might be more common in &quot;old-school&quot; dungeons. &quot;Why is there a chasm in the Death Star?!&quot; is the sort of question raised when one chooses to ignore the obvious answer: so Luke and Leia can swing across it.My impression, though, is that on average the games have not become much (if any) more &quot;naturalistic&quot;. Both the pure &quot;funhouse&quot; and &quot;dour realism&quot; remain outliers.A steady diet of modules might well shape players' impression of the scope of the game -- sometimes in &quot;new school&quot; ways to which designers of later modules and rules-sets responded in a reinforcing cycle, but more generally perhaps in ways suggesting only a narrow range of variation. A judgment of &quot;old school&quot; on that (maybe very common) basis may be one cause for taking special note of trends in the 2e era.Not having much experience with modules -- offhand, I think B1, G1-3, UK2-3 (?) and Dark Tower were the only ones I owned (or at least used) prior to 1987 -- I may have been more influenced by the books themselves, by The Strategic Review and The Dragon, and by interaction with other players similarly informed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4887784, member: 80487"] The association of older rules sets in some minds with distasteful (or simply less "sophisticated") play may be due in part to "how we played when we were x years old". The 1970s-80s did indeed see a proliferation of rules-heavy games, both published "systems" and house-rules sets. [I]Chivalry & Sorcery[/I] (1977) comes to mind as an early example of the drive to detail that could exceed the complexity of 3E. Along the way, "dungeon ecology" went from being an often useful tool in service of the game to a sort of ideology. D&D originally was presented quite unabashedly as a game; the simple reason for a dungeon's existence was to provide challenge and fun. That game-focused (which is not the same as rules-focused) philosophy might be more common in "old-school" dungeons. "Why is there a chasm in the Death Star?!" is the sort of question raised when one chooses to ignore the obvious answer: [I]so Luke and Leia can swing across it[/I]. My impression, though, is that [I]on average[/I] the games have not become much (if any) more "naturalistic". Both the pure "funhouse" and "dour realism" remain outliers. A steady diet of modules might well shape players' impression of the scope of the game -- sometimes in "new school" ways to which designers of later modules and rules-sets responded in a reinforcing cycle, but more generally perhaps in ways suggesting only a narrow range of variation. A judgment of "old school" on that (maybe very common) basis may be one cause for taking special note of trends in the 2e era. Not having much experience with modules -- offhand, I think B1, G1-3, UK2-3 (?) and [I]Dark Tower[/I] were the only ones I owned (or at least used) prior to 1987 -- I may have been more influenced by the books themselves, by The Strategic Review and The Dragon, and by interaction with other players similarly informed. [/QUOTE]

Verification