Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jasper" data-source="post: 1080763" data-attributes="member: 277">3 D&amp;D started when table top and Avalon hill war gaming was the method so it took that as the baseline model. Today computer gaming is model so D&amp;D uses that method as a model. 1 Rule debates are fewer because the rules don’t conflict as much. Look at surprise for rangers in first edition. Or check out the page in the DMG where Gary says the dm can make adjustments for saving throws versus poison if the critter is fat. Then check how scattered the paragraphs about death and SSS rolls are.2. Socialized players depend on group. I would not play with the hormone arrogant whiny munchkins who disagree on comma splice I started with. 4. Monster could have levels back then for example see the original Ravenloft module.&nbsp; But I will agree with the statement about more work on character generation/tracking.5.&nbsp; I still get lost with first edition illusions spells and Psionics. But you don’t one core book contradicting another. But with any edition if we didn’t know right off we just winged and fixed later.I see no difference in roll play versus role play between editions. This depends on the gamers themselves. I have guys who rather talk with dragon while trying to steal that nasty hobbit’s ring. I have guys who just want to bash the nasty hobbit over the head and feed the poisoned body to dragon and collect the loot. Same players different editions same fun.Also have you read the new books cover to cover like you did the other edition? I know I haven’t. In fact this week I just finish reading&nbsp; the new DMG almost cover to cover. I skipped over some of charts and magic item descriptions. I didn’t do this with first edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jasper, post: 1080763, member: 277"] 3 D&D started when table top and Avalon hill war gaming was the method so it took that as the baseline model. Today computer gaming is model so D&D uses that method as a model. 1 Rule debates are fewer because the rules don’t conflict as much. Look at surprise for rangers in first edition. Or check out the page in the DMG where Gary says the dm can make adjustments for saving throws versus poison if the critter is fat. Then check how scattered the paragraphs about death and SSS rolls are. 2. Socialized players depend on group. I would not play with the hormone arrogant whiny munchkins who disagree on comma splice I started with. 4. Monster could have levels back then for example see the original Ravenloft module. But I will agree with the statement about more work on character generation/tracking. 5. I still get lost with first edition illusions spells and Psionics. But you don’t one core book contradicting another. But with any edition if we didn’t know right off we just winged and fixed later. I see no difference in roll play versus role play between editions. This depends on the gamers themselves. I have guys who rather talk with dragon while trying to steal that nasty hobbit’s ring. I have guys who just want to bash the nasty hobbit over the head and feed the poisoned body to dragon and collect the loot. Same players different editions same fun. Also have you read the new books cover to cover like you did the other edition? I know I haven’t. In fact this week I just finish reading the new DMG almost cover to cover. I skipped over some of charts and magic item descriptions. I didn’t do this with first edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification