Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Valiant" data-source="post: 3761824" data-attributes="member: 54792">Key here isn't sharing the exact combat system, thats just a way to see who hits who&nbsp; and is meaningless as far as &quot;correct way to play&quot; which is something better defined broadly.&nbsp; These rule debates at DF are between people obsessed wtih small details, ignore them.&nbsp; They all basically play the same way.&nbsp; The critical things to be playing 1E are: 1. D6 roled to see who goes first, and role each round&nbsp; (and PCs as 1 role vs. Monsters).2. DM uses tables to determine who hits who and what you need to save.&nbsp; &nbsp; Saves were often determined by the DM (like falling into a pit, do you role petrification,&nbsp; &nbsp; something else.&nbsp; That was up to the DM). 3. 100% power of the DM.&nbsp; There wasn't any bickering about rules, it was the DMs game.&nbsp; &nbsp; If you didn't like it, leave.&nbsp; And we players did just that with 2 DMs over the years. There is nothing worse then a player who is into rules lawyering.&nbsp; What this did was A) give a reason for the DM to play and B) freed up the player to just experiance the immersion (without worrying about mechanics). 4. Large Dungeon Focus (This was lost esp. in 3E).&nbsp; Most of the game took place in the dungeon.&nbsp; Any story was just a way to get to the dungeon entrance.&nbsp; Every module was really about the same thing, killing monsters and taking stuff.&nbsp; Outside adventuring was important, but the meat and potatoes took place underground. 5. 1E Role Play.&nbsp; This term has been miss-used to refer to thespian acting.&nbsp; It is not that at all. What it represents in Gygaxian terms is the interaction of players and DM in an imaginary setting.&nbsp; In this setting only a few things are standardized (the chance to hit with a weapon, or to save from magic or poisons) everything else the DM determines (impartially).&nbsp; This made the game fluid, players had to think there way through things (describing to the DM how they did this or that) rather then rolling some arbitrary dice (which in 3E became known as the &quot;video button effect&quot; (dodge, bluff, etc).&nbsp;&nbsp; These 5 factors are shared by all 1E players.&nbsp; At least those that prefer the 78-81 AD&amp;D experiance.&nbsp; After that point, Gygax pretty much was out of the picture, and you got into sagas like Dragonlance, a precurser to 2E (Romance novel time).PS. a possible 6 would be &quot;Fantasy Logic&quot;.&nbsp; That is, in 1E logic wasn't that big of a factor.&nbsp; If you found a room with 10 trolls sitting in it (with no food, no reason to hang out etc.) you just accepted it (afterall this is a magical land with spell casters and gods, why should the player understand the logic of monsters as wierd as trolls anyway).&nbsp; If the DM (or module writer) focused too much on explaining this logically, they actually made the game less &quot;magical&quot; feeling.&nbsp; However, some plot and logic was nice just to keep the game from getting stupid.&nbsp; Striking the balance was the art of a good DM or Module writer (as the poster above alluded to in the Giant Series example).Oh, and the game was &quot;idiot proof&quot;.&nbsp; To play, all a person had to do was sit his butt down and role a dice when told (and have an imagination of course).&nbsp; The player didn't have to know any of the rules (the DM did everything) and infact it was more fun when they didn't know their chance to do this or that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Valiant, post: 3761824, member: 54792"] Key here isn't sharing the exact combat system, thats just a way to see who hits who and is meaningless as far as "correct way to play" which is something better defined broadly. These rule debates at DF are between people obsessed wtih small details, ignore them. They all basically play the same way. The critical things to be playing 1E are: 1. D6 roled to see who goes first, and role each round (and PCs as 1 role vs. Monsters). 2. DM uses tables to determine who hits who and what you need to save. Saves were often determined by the DM (like falling into a pit, do you role petrification, something else. That was up to the DM). 3. 100% power of the DM. There wasn't any bickering about rules, it was the DMs game. If you didn't like it, leave. And we players did just that with 2 DMs over the years. There is nothing worse then a player who is into rules lawyering. What this did was A) give a reason for the DM to play and B) freed up the player to just experiance the immersion (without worrying about mechanics). 4. Large Dungeon Focus (This was lost esp. in 3E). Most of the game took place in the dungeon. Any story was just a way to get to the dungeon entrance. Every module was really about the same thing, killing monsters and taking stuff. Outside adventuring was important, but the meat and potatoes took place underground. 5. 1E Role Play. This term has been miss-used to refer to thespian acting. It is not that at all. What it represents in Gygaxian terms is the interaction of players and DM in an imaginary setting. In this setting only a few things are standardized (the chance to hit with a weapon, or to save from magic or poisons) everything else the DM determines (impartially). This made the game fluid, players had to think there way through things (describing to the DM how they did this or that) rather then rolling some arbitrary dice (which in 3E became known as the "video button effect" (dodge, bluff, etc). These 5 factors are shared by all 1E players. At least those that prefer the 78-81 AD&D experiance. After that point, Gygax pretty much was out of the picture, and you got into sagas like Dragonlance, a precurser to 2E (Romance novel time). PS. a possible 6 would be "Fantasy Logic". That is, in 1E logic wasn't that big of a factor. If you found a room with 10 trolls sitting in it (with no food, no reason to hang out etc.) you just accepted it (afterall this is a magical land with spell casters and gods, why should the player understand the logic of monsters as wierd as trolls anyway). If the DM (or module writer) focused too much on explaining this logically, they actually made the game less "magical" feeling. However, some plot and logic was nice just to keep the game from getting stupid. Striking the balance was the art of a good DM or Module writer (as the poster above alluded to in the Giant Series example). Oh, and the game was "idiot proof". To play, all a person had to do was sit his butt down and role a dice when told (and have an imagination of course). The player didn't have to know any of the rules (the DM did everything) and infact it was more fun when they didn't know their chance to do this or that. [/QUOTE]

Verification