Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4901140" data-attributes="member: 80487">The characterization is due to the ease -- both practical and psychological -- of playing that way. Both elements are inherited from the original game.With a collection of modular accretions upon a simple core, it is practically easy to choose which to add to one's own mix. With such selection a normative expectation, part of the convention of the DM as final word on what constitutes a rule in his or her own campaign, it is psychologically easy as well.In AD&amp;D, Gygax did not alter the practical; he did not make a thoroughly integrated &quot;system&quot; of D&amp;D. His attempt to create a psychological investment in conformity received responses ranging from enthusiastic embrace to immediate rejection (largely being simply ignored).The notion that &quot;everything is core&quot; goes even beyond Gygax at his most &quot;by the books or not AD&amp;D&quot; insistent. By the same measure, no game with what today is commonly considered &quot;support&quot; could qualify as &quot;rules light&quot;.The first four Gygaxian AD&amp;D works (including Deities &amp; Demigods as the fourth) were mostly compilations and revisions of material from the D&amp;D supplement volumes and magazine articles. (UA compiled material from AD&amp;D modules and The Dragon, plus some new bits, and MM2 included new as well as reprinted AD&amp;D monsters). Just being aware of that may be &quot;old school&quot;, but it is fact. In other words, most of AD&amp;D was first OD&amp;D -- so someone playing with just the original set (or any of the &quot;basic&quot; sets derived from it) is just as &quot;wrong&quot; to call it rules light. Apply that standard -- as WotC seems to suggest -- to 4e, and what will you have by the time of DMG3?Lump together a fraction of everything ever published for Risus and call the collection &quot;the rules&quot;, and of course you can call it &quot;rules heavy&quot;. That's not likely to fly with most actual players of the game, for the same reason that we don't buy it in the case of AD&amp;D.The psychological (and maybe even practical) ease may have been enhanced at the start of 2e, but by the end it had paved the way for the &quot;gotta use it; it's the rules&quot; attitude common in the WotC era.The perceived excesses of 3e and 4e are the really significant measure next to which AD&amp;D is considered &quot;rules light&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4901140, member: 80487"] The characterization is due to the [I]ease[/I] -- both practical and psychological -- of playing that way. Both elements are inherited from the original game. With a collection of modular [I]accretions upon[/I] a simple core, it is practically easy to choose which to add to one's own mix. With such selection a normative expectation, part of the convention of the DM as final word on what constitutes a rule in his or her own campaign, it is psychologically easy as well. In AD&D, Gygax did not alter the practical; he did not make a thoroughly integrated "system" of D&D. His attempt to create a psychological investment in conformity received responses ranging from enthusiastic embrace to immediate rejection (largely being simply ignored). The notion that "everything is core" goes even beyond Gygax at his most "by the books or not AD&D" insistent. By the same measure, [I]no game[/I] with what today is commonly considered "support" could qualify as "rules light". The first four Gygaxian AD&D works (including [I]Deities & Demigods[/I] as the fourth) were mostly compilations and revisions of material from the D&D supplement volumes and magazine articles. (UA compiled material from AD&D modules and The Dragon, plus some new bits, and MM2 included new as well as reprinted AD&D monsters). Just being aware of that may be "old school", but it is fact. In other words, [b]most of AD&D was first OD&D -- so someone playing with just the original set (or any of the "basic" sets derived from it) is just as "wrong" to call it rules light.[/b] Apply that standard -- as WotC seems to suggest -- to 4e, and what will you have by the time of DMG3? Lump together a fraction of everything ever published for Risus and call the collection "the rules", and of course you can call it "rules heavy". That's not likely to fly with most actual players of the game, for the same reason that we don't buy it in the case of AD&D. The psychological (and maybe even practical) ease may have been enhanced at the start of 2e, but by the end it had paved the way for the "gotta use it; it's [I]the rules[/I]" attitude common in the WotC era. The perceived excesses of 3e and 4e are the really significant measure next to which AD&D is considered "rules light". [/QUOTE]

Verification