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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raloc" data-source="post: 3283843" data-attributes="member: 28093"><p>I know this doesn't really answer your question, but I find it strange when people compare the "play styles" of 1e through 3e to eachother and say they are vastly different games.  I own some 1e books, but never had a chance to play it, as I started in AD&D2e before Skills & Powers.  All that considered though, as a DM I've always ran my games in such a way that mechanics of the system were secondary by far, with the main focus on RP and strategic combat/battles (though, not strategic in the sense that everyone was a rules lawyer, as is the case much of the time now).  If the rules detracted from this, or didn't make sense in a certain situation, they were ignored or fixed on the spot to facilitate play.  That's why it seems very strange to me to say "Make 3e more like playing 1e" and then suggesting mechanics changes.  If you want a 1e experience, I say get a DM that knows the style, and limit the player options to things that would be consistent with 1e.  Then put the rules themselves in the backseat to playing the game.  As far as I'm concerned, the game hasn't ever been about rules, which IMO are only there to give a consistent entropy to a wide range of actions so that the DM isn't too PC-biased.  I'd have to say that I think what you're perceiving as differences in play are largely due to nostalgia, or a focus on rules/mechanics.  I know that myself, my early D&D games make me feel very nostalgic, but quantifiably, they were far poorer in content and quality than the game I run today.  To me, the rules have always been merely the means to the end, which is to enact player-agents within a game world in a semi-realistic (or at least, internally consistent) manner.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification