How we experienced the game, in totally different and incompatible ways

[Doug McCrae]

I don't trust a lot of what I read from fellow grognards regarding the issue

"Never trust a hippy" - Johnny Rotten

 

[Raven Crowking]

Quasqueton,

Very interesting question, I suspect that there is more than a grain of truth to some of the answers so far.

I played 1e in Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, and Louisiana, mostly as DM, always using the same subset of rules and assumptions. I played 2e in California and Toronto, but as the system evolved so did the rules I was using (esp. once the Option books came out). I've largely rewritten 3e.

Even 3e, clearly written as it is, suffers from the problem of the "reader filter". When the reader reads it, he filters what is written through what he would have meant if he had written the same thing. This is not too dissimilar with the problems one can encounter on Internet messageboards, where a message as read means something completely different from what the message as written was intended to mean. I think that this is a big determinant in how one approaches rpgs, especially certain early rpgs with their stream-of-consciousness writing style.

People houseruled 1e because they thought some of the rules were too complicated, or unfun, or because they wanted rules that better reflected the campaign flavour they desired. I don't think, now that the blush is off the rose, that this is any different for 3e. Many people I know no longer play 3.0 or 3.5, but rather an amalgam of the two, with other houserules thrown in, including material from compatable sources like Arcana Evolved.

So maybe some of our arguments about 3.X come about because we're not really playing the same game here, either?

Just something to think about.

RC

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The recognition of what was and wasn't a related topic wasn't necessarily there yet. When the game was first invented people didn't even know it was a role playing game. Sure lycanthropy could have been in a different section but what section was that?

That's not the sort of problem present in 1E. Rules on how combat and spells worked were scattered ALL OVER both books. In some cases, sweeping rules applicable to many spells were described only in the description of one spell.

 

[RFisher]

Even 3e, clearly written as it is, suffers from the problem of the "reader filter".

That's true. I remember that there were a number of things in the 3.0 PHB that I interpreted differently than the designers intended. If I hadn't learned more of their intentions through the net & Dragon, I would've just played my interpretation. As it is, though, I've mostly forgotten that I ever had a different interpretation.

(& how much of that would've been changed by 3.5, I don't know. Then again, if it weren't for the net & the SRD, I might never have played 3.5.)

 

[JDJblatherings]

That's not the sort of problem present in 1E. Rules on how combat and spells worked were scattered ALL OVER both books. In some cases, sweeping rules applicable to many spells were described only in the description of one spell.

and this is a problem only if people don't read "as per the spell x". I do know plenty of games were played paying no attention to the spell notes in the DMG and this could impact play experiences but other then that I don't think having to flip to another section of a book (as directed) is all that much of a problem. And there is ceratinly plenty of precident in refernce manuals for "see X for information on Y" sort of organization.