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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9653396" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Well, you've never played them, so it's no surprise that you don't understand them.  It does surprise me that you'd express such strong negative opinions about games you've never played, though.  It seems that you're basing these opinions on secondhand misinformation.1E AD&D is not broken or busted or "anything goes" just because it makes characters more powerful and durable than OD&D, and gives more character options than OD&D.  Which it does.2E AD&D (especially with the Players Option books) is not broken or busted or "anything goes" just because it gives more powerful character options than 1E AD&D.  Which it does.The 1991 D&D Rules Cyclopedia is not broken or busted just because it introduced the concept of a death save at 0HP.3E is not is not broken or busted or "anything goes" just because it makes characters more powerful and durable than AD&D, and gives more character options than AD&D.  Which it does.There have been several broad ongoing trends through the various editions and versions of D&D.  One is that healing gets faster and characters tend to be less easy to kill.  Another is that additional races and classes and options are added, so players have more variety available to them.  These have been ongoing trends literally since the beginning of the game.Characters in AD&D are tougher than characters in OD&D, but the monsters and challenges are also tougher.  So to some extent that power is illusory, and no matter how tough the PCs, the DM ALWAYS has tougher monsters available and can challenge and kill them easily enough.  Same in 4E and 5E, just as in literally every other edition.  If you have a competent DM, any edition is balanced and challenging.  I have run them all, and killed PCs in them all.  There are no all-powerful PCs. I didn't write anything about Halflings carrying giant weapons. I did not advocate for that.If you want to reference an interview, please quote it and cite it.  Publication, date and page.   Here's one, from D&D book I: Men & Magic, 1974, by Gary Gygax:[ATTACH=full]404814[/ATTACH]And here's an <a href="https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2021/01/individualistic-and-imaginative.html" target="_blank">excerpt </a>from a <a href="https://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?cache=1&f=10&t=12598" target="_blank">letter he wrote </a>into fanzine Alarums & Excursions, in the summer of 1975:Gary LATER decided he wasn't in love with "anything goes".  He wrote some pretty pessimistic things about monster PCs in the 1979 DMG for example.  But the game was ORIGINALLY loose and open to all kinds of crazy character types.  And many players played that way in the 1970s, before Gary decided he wanted to limit the craziness and creativity.  The game became a success in the anything goes days of the 70s.So you're simply mistaken, again.</blockquote>

Verification