Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9450697" data-attributes="member: 7023840">One of the problems I have with people in the more modern OSR movement is that they try to read back intent in the old rules that often isn't there.&nbsp; I wrote a relatively brief (for me) piece on <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/on-powerful-classes-1e-and-why-the-original-gygaxian-gatekeeping-failed.679623/" target="_blank">Gygaxian gatekeeping before</a>. But the basic issue, as I see it, is that there just wasn't a lot of &quot;balance&quot; concern in early D&amp;D. There were basically two modes-1. Big Power, Big Drawbacks. This is everything from &quot;demi-humans and level limits&quot; to &quot;magic users at lower levels&quot; to &quot;Paladins and the ethos of Lawful Stupid&quot; to the later takes on Barbarians and Drow and Cavaliers.You want something really cool? Awesome! You also get something that truly sucks. Of course, this usually wouldn't work at most tables, because no one likes things that suck, and those would get ... elided.2. To be really really awesome, you first must be really awesome. D&amp;D (and especially AD&amp;D) was chock full of bonuses for being really really good at something. From XP bonuses to chances for psionics to the ability to be a class ... the game continued to add bonuses when you were already good. Which is truly perverse from the modern point of view, but made sense from the wargaming mind set.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9450697, member: 7023840"] One of the problems I have with people in the more modern OSR movement is that they try to read back intent in the old rules that often isn't there. I wrote a relatively brief (for me) piece on [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/on-powerful-classes-1e-and-why-the-original-gygaxian-gatekeeping-failed.679623/']Gygaxian gatekeeping before[/URL]. But the basic issue, as I see it, is that there just wasn't a lot of "balance" concern in early D&D. There were basically two modes- 1. Big Power, Big Drawbacks. This is everything from "demi-humans and level limits" to "magic users at lower levels" to "Paladins and the ethos of Lawful Stupid" to the later takes on Barbarians and Drow and Cavaliers. You want something really cool? Awesome! You also get something that truly sucks. Of course, this usually wouldn't work at most tables, because no one likes things that suck, and those would get ... elided. 2. To be really really awesome, you first must be really awesome. D&D (and especially AD&D) was chock full of bonuses for being really really good at something. From XP bonuses to chances for psionics to the ability to be a class ... the game continued to add bonuses when you were already good. Which is truly perverse from the modern point of view, but made sense from the wargaming mind set. [/QUOTE]

Verification