Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 1993802" data-attributes="member: 3586">1e didn't have a framework. You had to build the entire edifice yourself (except for simple combat and adventuring!)It is probably important to realise that 1e had an asymmetrical framework: the DM and players were using different sets of rules.3e has a symmetrical framework, which allows easy porting of elements from one side to the other.Thus, in 1e or 2e, to have Ogre Rogues of level 3, 6 and 9 required the DM to invent the rules themselves, and they wouldn't necessarily correspond to what other DMs would do.Ignoring 1e (which really didn't have anything in the way of supplements), you reach 2e, which uses supplements which build on the more robust framework that 2e provided. However, if you discarded the proficiency system, you also threw out a great deal of the supplemental material. 3e begins from the assumption that people want supplemental material and the ability to differentiate their characters and monsters. This is as opposed to 1e's assumption that people just want to play the game with cookie-cutter characters and monsters. (or that rules need not be portable between games).Yes, variation was achieved in 1e, by the individual DM changing the rules. This doesn't matter so much with the monsters, but it did make variant characters less portable from one game to another...Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 1993802, member: 3586"] 1e didn't have a framework. You had to build the entire edifice yourself (except for simple combat and adventuring!) It is probably important to realise that 1e had an asymmetrical framework: the DM and players were using different sets of rules. 3e has a symmetrical framework, which allows easy porting of elements from one side to the other. Thus, in 1e or 2e, to have Ogre Rogues of level 3, 6 and 9 required the DM to invent the rules themselves, and they wouldn't necessarily correspond to what other DMs would do. Ignoring 1e (which really didn't have anything in the way of supplements), you reach 2e, which uses supplements which build on the more robust framework that 2e provided. However, if you discarded the proficiency system, you also threw out a great deal of the supplemental material. 3e begins from the assumption that people [i]want[/i] supplemental material and the ability to differentiate their characters and monsters. This is as opposed to 1e's assumption that people just want to play the game with cookie-cutter characters and monsters. (or that rules need not be portable between games). Yes, variation [i]was[/i] achieved in 1e, by the individual DM changing the rules. This doesn't matter so much with the monsters, but it did make variant characters less portable from one game to another... Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification