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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5362898" data-attributes="member: 3192">I think the OP is pretty spot on as to 3E's design philosophy.  4E is pretty clearly taken straight from the current trends in skirmish wargames and indie game theory.  OD&D is designed with a nearly entirely forgotten game design philosophy.  The inverted THAC0, race/class combos, dice roll tables, and natural language descriptions with number, ratios, and dice distributions attached make more sense when it is viewed therein.  It was a cooperative simulation wargame with the rules hidden from the players and played as a situational puzzle behind a screen.  It asked for strategizing / pattern finding from the players just as many hardcore wargamers were used to.  AD&D and 2E were the time when these rules came out from behind the screen.  Moreno and role theory were forgotten and the military inspiration for the game renamed itself roleplay simulation to try and distance itself from the hobby.  Role playing was forgotten to be playing a class role and instead became playing a personality type other than one's own.  Almost every DM only used the rules more or less to their liking and then improvised everything else. This normally came in the form of NPC conversation, which was no longer scripted.I think in terms of complexity d20 and 3.x hit the high water mark, even though they were trimmed down from their inspirations like Rolemaster.  4E is extra-heavy in its' combat simulation encounter game and advice heavy with everything else.  2E published almost as many books as 3E, but most were description heavy and rules light.  I see OD&D as sort of code/rules medium with 1E a heavy suggestion set stated as being "real D&D" in order to get all the convention goers playing the same puzzle/game.D&D has never been rules light IMO, but it can be for the players depending on the design.</blockquote>

Verification