Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8241215" data-attributes="member: 7023840">There is no "my argument." I was just pointing out that you are using odd assumptions. Let me explain.On the internet, no one knows you are a dog. For all I know, you could be a grognard who gamed with Gygax in the 70s. Or you could have picked up the game in the late 80s, primarily playing 2e, and are backdating your knowledge. Or you never played the game, and are looking stuff up in order to argue points (as opposed to discuss them). The reason I say this is, going to what I said earlier-That said, individual experiences could differ. With all the house rules, and regional and table differences, not to mention the prevalence of Monty Haul campaigns, it was certainly possible to play 1e on "easy mode" (just like you could really hammer a party in 5e by putting some effort into it). It's just not how the game is normally set up.In other words, much moreso than later editions (especially 3e on), OD&D and 1e varied a great deal based on table differences, regional differences, and differences in time. When I see someone casually insist a default that 1e used weapon specialization (a rule that was not even introduced until 1e was at the end of the lifecycle, and hardly prevalent) I generally believe that the person likely wasn't playing 1e through the majority of the lifecycle of the edition; it would be similar to insisting that ability scores were not static, because every table had a Cavalier/Paladin, or that of course tables were using comeliness. I did not say that no one used Unearthed Arcana, or no one used any of it, ever. Making any type of sweeping generalization of 1e is notoriously difficult. But it is true that just based on the date alone (publication in Dec. 1985, with widespread availability in 1986, and 2e published in 1989), it was certainly not core 1e. Moreover, many tables that played 1e IME quickly rejected most or all of UA, given that it was a cashgrab that was wildly unbalanced and made little sense in toto. Importantly, I was only pointing out that it was odd for someone to mix and match arguments about the G series (and the core 1e) with assertions that came from UA. YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification