Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7536178" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think the problem is that for the grognards that first got into the game in the late 70's or early 80's (I'd been exposed by older friends and relatives by 1979 and was playing by 1981), there is no single 1e/2e experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; Indeed, I think it is a misnomer to describe one.&nbsp;&nbsp; Each table had a separate AD&amp;D experience that grew organically from their exposure and understanding of the rules, and each table developed its own style and procedures of play based on what their DM did and wanted.&nbsp;&nbsp; So it's easy for that group to talk about 1e/2e as a single era because while they might not have been using exactly the same rules in 1995 that they were using in 1985, and may have had a different process of play, the maturation between being say 15 and being 25 was probably at least as important to how their game changed as any rules changes.Where I think you can have this conversation is with players who first came into the game as new 2e players without having their perceptions and expectations set by 1e.&nbsp; That group of players I think does have a distinct experience and one which is likely to be strongly influenced by both the RAW of 2e, and 2e's unique description of the processes of play as described in the rule books, presented in the supplements, and exemplified by the modules of that era.&nbsp;&nbsp; They are much more likely to have received all this as 'gospel' and tried to play the game as it was described to them, rather than the way they were used to playing or had evolved to playing.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you already had 10 or 12 years of play experience though, it's highly unlikely that the 2e rule changes can be said to have revolutionized how you play or that your style of play was &quot;strongly influenced by the rules&quot;.I think it is a mistake to look at a rules set and say, &quot;Well it produces this sort of play.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; I think you would have to actually document what groups actually did with those rules - how they actually played rather than a theoretical prediction of how they should play based on perceived or actual designers intent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7536178, member: 4937"] I think the problem is that for the grognards that first got into the game in the late 70's or early 80's (I'd been exposed by older friends and relatives by 1979 and was playing by 1981), there is no single 1e/2e experience. Indeed, I think it is a misnomer to describe one. Each table had a separate AD&D experience that grew organically from their exposure and understanding of the rules, and each table developed its own style and procedures of play based on what their DM did and wanted. So it's easy for that group to talk about 1e/2e as a single era because while they might not have been using exactly the same rules in 1995 that they were using in 1985, and may have had a different process of play, the maturation between being say 15 and being 25 was probably at least as important to how their game changed as any rules changes. Where I think you can have this conversation is with players who first came into the game as new 2e players without having their perceptions and expectations set by 1e. That group of players I think does have a distinct experience and one which is likely to be strongly influenced by both the RAW of 2e, and 2e's unique description of the processes of play as described in the rule books, presented in the supplements, and exemplified by the modules of that era. They are much more likely to have received all this as 'gospel' and tried to play the game as it was described to them, rather than the way they were used to playing or had evolved to playing. If you already had 10 or 12 years of play experience though, it's highly unlikely that the 2e rule changes can be said to have revolutionized how you play or that your style of play was "strongly influenced by the rules". I think it is a mistake to look at a rules set and say, "Well it produces this sort of play." I think you would have to actually document what groups actually did with those rules - how they actually played rather than a theoretical prediction of how they should play based on perceived or actual designers intent. [/QUOTE]

Verification