Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 5665105" data-attributes="member: 3586">I think that's a very good way of doing it. As I get more and more familiar with oD&amp;D, AD&amp;D, Basic D&amp;D and the relationship between them, the more I become convinced that the staff at TSR didn't have a clue what they were doing.Heh. That's actually too harsh - they had a clue, but they didn't really have enough of an understanding of what was going on.Look at the Monk, for instance. What's going on with that class? AC 10 and no Dex adjustment??? TSR might have a Rules Editor, but certainly not much of a developer. There's a lot of clutter in the AD&amp;D rules (and the oD&amp;D supplements). There's great material there - and the core of the game is amazingly solid - but you've got all this stuff which seems to be there because someone thought it a good idea at the time.So, if you go through the AD&amp;D + oD&amp;D rules and just take the best bits -which I think you've done - you get a really good game. I hope my game will end up something like that.There's one edition of early D&amp;D that I thought was properly developed: Tom Moldvay's Basic D&amp;D. (The matching Expert book I don't know well enough). It does a superb job of cutting through all the stuff that isn't needed and concentrating on the core of what makes D&amp;D the best game in the world. The only thing that really stops me from making it the core of my new game is that I prefer the races and class combinations you can get in AD&amp;D. I rather expect a few mechanics will change to Moldvay's take on them.Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 5665105, member: 3586"] I think that's a very good way of doing it. As I get more and more familiar with oD&D, AD&D, Basic D&D and the relationship between them, the more I become convinced that the staff at TSR didn't have a clue what they were doing. Heh. That's actually too harsh - they had a clue, but they didn't really have enough of an understanding of what was going on. Look at the Monk, for instance. What's going on with that class? AC 10 [i]and no Dex adjustment[/i]??? TSR might have a Rules Editor, but certainly not much of a developer. There's a lot of clutter in the AD&D rules (and the oD&D supplements). There's great material there - and the core of the game is amazingly solid - but you've got all this stuff which seems to be there because someone thought it a good idea at the time. So, if you go through the AD&D + oD&D rules and just take the best bits -which I think you've done - you get a really good game. I hope my game will end up something like that. There's one edition of early D&D that I thought was properly developed: Tom Moldvay's Basic D&D. (The matching Expert book I don't know well enough). It does a superb job of cutting through all the stuff that isn't needed and concentrating on the core of what makes D&D the best game in the world. The only thing that really stops me from making it the core of my new game is that I prefer the races and class combinations you can get in AD&D. I rather expect a few mechanics will change to Moldvay's take on them. Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification