Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8806116" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Fundamentally, I think pre-2e TSR-era D&D is a great example of the thread topic. EGG definitely wanted the game to be more problem-solving than combat, and may well have played that way with his inner circle. But then outside his circle a whole swath of gamers grabbed his game, looked squarewise at it, and went on to use it to play LotR and Star Wars at the Ren Fest and all the other things they wanted from an RPG, designer intent be damned. And while the core game loop (GP=XP, combat mostly just depletes resources) incentivized the cautious heist game, very little else of the communication really forced the subject.My own initial experience we had one of those situations. While we had started playing with 'the big kids' (10 year olds) with their Holmes/BX /AD&D hybrid, by the time we could purchase books, they were the 1st printing Mentzer B and E sets. That including the choose-your-own-adventure style scenario with Bargel and Aleena. It did a great job of explaining basics like initiative, attacks, saving throws, and so forth. Missing from it, however, was any of the procedural dungeon-crawling rules, the reaction chart, or any monster morale checks. As such, even though we read those parts, their value never resonated and we were spotty at best at using them. Add to that a bunch of modules where sneaking past to get treasure really wasn't an option*, and the whole 'avoid combat' style of play didn't gel with us (not that we would have wanted to play that game anyways, since when do you play a knight in shining armor or wizard who can knock out a whole room of guards or shoot fireballs and choose to creep down dungeon corridors like frightened mice?).*we did align with various factions of the Caves of Chaos against each other (and then turn on our allies at the end), but honestly we thought we were breaking the intended playstyle by doing so.</blockquote>

Verification