Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5917573" data-attributes="member: 92511">This is a fun (odd, but fun) truthful observation. The fact that they work together...somehow, and I really can't fully express how but they do work in tandem, is one of those colorful oddities that makes D&amp;D...D&amp;D and not some other fantasy RPG.And i wasn't gonna reply..but what the heck, I will too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Well, that's something of a mistaken precept. How can something be intrusive to something that never existed before? AD&amp;D, yes, set the rules. It set the &quot;standard&quot; that, still, all of these years later, many of the hobby are acknowledging as the &quot;birth&quot; of the hobby. It was, quite literally, &quot;writing the proverbial book&quot; on D&amp;D.Yes. Yes it did. But that didn't exist before. So it wasn't &quot;changing it&quot; it was &quot;introducing it.&quot;Uhhhh...no. It's not. In Basic (the red box) D&amp;D, there is ,mention of &quot;deities&quot; and their use &quot;as one explanation for clerical spells&quot; (I'm para-quoting, but it's in there). Things like Thor and Zeus are mentioned, though it is stipulated that such &quot;beliefs&quot; are not supposed to come into play. So deities for clerics was not &quot;new&quot; for AD&amp;D. That was an &quot;elaboration&quot;, if you will, in AD&amp;D and reinforced with the introduction of Deities &amp; Demigods. But, again, it established a &quot;baseline&quot; of the game. It wasn't really &quot;changing&quot; anything...just reinforcing &quot;this is how clerics work/what clerics are supposed to be&quot;...for AD&amp;D. They do, indeed. Yes. Again, an elaboration. I belieeeeeve, the AD&amp;D PHB was out before the Basic &quot;Companions&quot; set...so the introduction of the Druid, there, was actually behind the AD&amp;D rules...and attempting to incorporate them in a BD&amp;D way...same with &quot;Mystics&quot; being introduced to have AD&amp;D-style &quot;Monks&quot; in the BECMI game.Again, I find this...mistaken. AD&amp;D is the baseline. BECMI and/or OD&amp;D preceded this (or, at least B/X-BE preceded this), yes. But &quot;2e&quot; was AD&amp;D, &quot;3e&quot; was AD&amp;D (minus the &quot;A&quot;), as was 4e and as will be 5e. None of these editions were meant as a continuation of BECMI or OD&amp;D. They are the progression of AD&amp;D...of which AD&amp;D 1e is the progenitor...not &quot;changing&quot; anything that preceded it.So, no...for establishing the core setting in the first place?! AD&amp;D was not &quot;intrusive.&quot;[EDIT] and just as a somewhat unrelated aside to anyone from WotC watching these threads, If the Great Wheel ain't broke....and it ain't...DON'T &quot;FIX&quot; IT![/EDIT]Humbly yours (and possibly mistaken with his timeline),--SD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5917573, member: 92511"] This is a fun (odd, but fun) truthful observation. The fact that they work together...somehow, and I really can't fully express how but they do work in tandem, is one of those colorful oddities that makes D&D...D&D and not some other fantasy RPG. And i wasn't gonna reply..but what the heck, I will too. ;) Well, that's something of a mistaken precept. How can something be intrusive to something that never existed before? AD&D, yes, set the rules. It set the "standard" that, still, all of these years later, many of the hobby are acknowledging as the "birth" of the hobby. It was, quite literally, "writing the proverbial book" on D&D. Yes. Yes it did. But that didn't exist before. So it wasn't "[I]changing[/I] it" it was "[I]introducing[/I] it." Uhhhh...no. It's not. In Basic (the red box) D&D, there is ,mention of "deities" and their use "as one explanation for clerical spells" (I'm para-quoting, but it's in there). Things like Thor and Zeus are mentioned, though it is stipulated that such "beliefs" are not supposed to come into play. So deities for clerics was not "new" for AD&D. That was an "elaboration", if you will, in AD&D and reinforced with the introduction of Deities & Demigods. But, again, it established a "baseline" of the game. It wasn't really "changing" anything...just reinforcing "this is how clerics work/what clerics are supposed to be"...for AD&D. They do, indeed. Yes. Again, an elaboration. I belieeeeeve, the AD&D PHB was out before the Basic "Companions" set...so the introduction of the Druid, there, was actually behind the AD&D rules...and attempting to incorporate them in a BD&D way...same with "Mystics" being introduced to have AD&D-style "Monks" in the BECMI game. Again, I find this...mistaken. AD&D is the baseline. BECMI and/or OD&D preceded this (or, at least B/X-BE preceded this), yes. But "2e" was AD&D, "3e" was AD&D (minus the "A"), as was 4e and as will be 5e. None of these editions were meant as a continuation of BECMI or OD&D. They are the progression of AD&D...of which AD&D 1e is the progenitor...not "changing" anything that preceded it. So, no...for establishing the core setting in the first place?! AD&D was not "intrusive." [EDIT] and just as a somewhat unrelated aside to anyone from WotC watching these threads, If the Great Wheel ain't broke....and it ain't...DON'T "FIX" IT![/EDIT] Humbly yours (and possibly mistaken with his timeline), --SD [/QUOTE]

Verification