Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5439044" data-attributes="member: 42582">I had a look last night at the fireball text from the original D&D booklets, from Moldvay/Cook D&D, from the BECMI Rules Compendium, and from the AD&D 1st ed PHB.Only the last-most talks about igniting all combustible materials. None of the other three do- they simply tells you that the spell does 1d6 per level to all creatures in it area of effect - almost identical text to 4e. Yet I've never heard it suggested that original, basic or RC D&D are creativity-killers. In fact, they're normally referred to as creativity inspiriers, precisely because of their sparse rules text!The notion that 4e has narrow or restrictive rules text in contrast earlier editions is, in my view, simply not borne out when one makes comparisons. Heck, even the 1st ed AD&D PHB, in the introductory text on character classes, talks about different classes having roles - like clerics doing some fighting but being mostly supportive. There are similar comments in the individual class descriptions also (including a comment that most thieves tend towards evil). There is no radical difference, in my view, between this text and the 4e text.Now, this is not to deny that there are difference between AD&D, Basic D&D and 4e! Any review of my posting history will reveal that I have always asserted that there are differences - if there were, I wouldn't play 4e, because it's a long time since I've really wanted to play those other versions of D&D. But the differences are not to be found in the restrictiveness of rules text, or the alleged narrowness of the game's focus. Roughly speaking, they're to be found on the GM side, in the way the game approaches encounter and adventure design, and on the player side, in the way the game approaches the relationship between mechanics and gameworld.</blockquote>

Verification