Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1619388" data-attributes="member: 151">And by 'you guys', I'm hoping you don't mean me, as I merely asked for clarification of what he was basing his example off of. Some folks tend to pull a number out of a hat and throw out outrageous examples: clearly Ourph didn't do that. It seemed like he had a specific idea in mind, so I wanted to hear about it.   That confused AD&D DM was me, at age 12, by the way. The example given was factual, but run at the segment level. You're right, if it had been run as a normal combat, then it probably should have played differently...but there are certainly no rules or suggestions as to exactly how. I just reread the AD&D PHB and DMG about combat, and was stunned how poorly organized and obtusely written it actually is. Few good definitions of information, data scattered all over the place and an example that really doesn't help much. In fact, the sample of play (as opposed to the sample combat) actually has a sequence where the rest of the party can't do anything for a solid minute while the one character has the spider land on her shoulder. The rest of the party has noticed the spider, but has to just stand around for a full round before they can do anything.   Of course, I also just discovered that you could actually attack multiple times per round, if you won suprise and initiative. I think. I freely admit that the confusing example and (IMHO) poorly organized information has led me to be sure that we probably didn't play according to the rules as written.  Of course, I never really met anyone who actually played AD&D as written.  Everyone had books of house rules, because they didn't agree with this rule or that.   All of which has little relevance on the topic at hand, of course. I'm not trying to convince anyone that AD&D couldn't sensibly handle situations. It could, because it was assumed that the DM would make things up on the fly. 3E also makes the base assumption that the rules aren't disassociated with common sense. Arguing over faults in either system is a butter-eating contest, as Homer Simpson might say.   None of which has a real bearing on whether or not D&D has 'lost it's way', a concept I'm still not clear on, frankly. Most gamers I know felt that D&D lost it's way with 2e, and didn't follow along for the ride. They left the hobby or went to other systems. Virtually every one I know felt that 3e was D&D 'returning to the fold', not the other way around. Heck, if D&D 3e hadn't been so well received, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  My group and players found that we had fun just fine with the game we played it...we just eventually realized that we had just as much fun with other systems as AD&D.  And quite honestly, the only wrong way to play D&D was to not have fun, and we had plenty.</blockquote>

Verification