Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8605518" data-attributes="member: 7030755">The association, or not, of classic/old school play with combat and violence is interesting.&nbsp; On one hand, you have a prevailing attitude that dnd is about &quot;killing things and taking their stuff,&quot; and that this is all we did in earlier editions of the game.&nbsp; This is either a virtue or criticism depending on who you are talking to.&nbsp; On the other hand is the OSR analysis that concludes that combat in early dnd is a fail state.&nbsp; Because survival is low, encounters not balanced, and with low xp rewards, dungeon crawling was actually about taking stuff without getting into combat.&nbsp; I don't know what accounts for this divide, but it's either that different players played differently in all eras, or perhaps it refers to the original grognard/munchkin divide, with now very old munchkins remembering dnd as primarily a combat game.And yet, many of those settings were not very popular during the 2e era.&nbsp; Spelljammer lasted for what, two years?&nbsp; Planescape products are worth so much now in part because they had such a low print run to begin with.&nbsp; And dnd players at the time criticized both settings for not being &quot;classic&quot; dnd.&nbsp; Planescape was very whimsical and explicitly not about combat, because you couldn't fight every extraplanar being you came across.To me, Tasha's is the opposite of a simplification.&nbsp; Each class option adds so many more things to track and is a significant power creep compared to core 5e.&nbsp; The removal of short rest abilities seems more a corrective on the original design based on how people actually play (e.g. 2 combats and then long rest).Short adventure &quot;modules&quot; is as classic dnd as it gets.&nbsp; So it makes sense that Tales from the Yawning Portal is a compilation of older adventures.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8605518, member: 7030755"] The association, or not, of classic/old school play with combat and violence is interesting. On one hand, you have a prevailing attitude that dnd is about "killing things and taking their stuff," and that this is all we did in earlier editions of the game. This is either a virtue or criticism depending on who you are talking to. On the other hand is the OSR analysis that concludes that combat in early dnd is a fail state. Because survival is low, encounters not balanced, and with low xp rewards, dungeon crawling was actually about taking stuff [I]without[/I] getting into combat. I don't know what accounts for this divide, but it's either that different players played differently in all eras, or perhaps it refers to the original grognard/munchkin divide, with now very old munchkins remembering dnd as primarily a combat game. And yet, many of those settings were not very popular during the 2e era. Spelljammer lasted for what, two years? Planescape products are worth so much now in part because they had such a low print run to begin with. And dnd players at the time criticized both settings for not being "classic" dnd. Planescape was very whimsical and explicitly [I]not about combat,[/I] because you couldn't fight every extraplanar being you came across. To me, Tasha's is the opposite of a simplification. Each class option adds so many more things to track and is a significant power creep compared to core 5e. The removal of short rest abilities seems more a corrective on the original design based on how people actually play (e.g. 2 combats and then long rest). Short adventure "modules" is as classic dnd as it gets. So it makes sense that Tales from the Yawning Portal is a compilation of older adventures. [/QUOTE]

Verification