Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Silverleaf" data-source="post: 2399818" data-attributes="member: 30790">Not quite, at least not from my perspective.&nbsp; I like D&amp;D a lot, it's even my favorite all-time FRPG.&nbsp; But when I say that, I'm referring to the original rules up to and including the '81 Basic/Expert sets (with possible inclusion of some of Mentzer's stuff as well).&nbsp; After that, things started getting out of hand, and the game lost touch with its roots more and more.I don't like AD&amp;D that much, neither 1e or 2e.&nbsp; And I like 3e even less, since it even further departed from the game I known and love.&nbsp; Keep in mind I'm talking holistically here, I do like some individual aspects of AD&amp;D and d20.Anyway, over the years the class archetypes have become more and more diluted in favor of a system of detailed mechanical options.&nbsp; One's ability to roleplay within the confines of a strong archetype has been replaced with gobs and gobs of rules that provide detail, at the expense of greater complexity.&nbsp; At first, more classes were added and given their own distinct mechanics.&nbsp; Spells, monsters and combat were given much more detail and procedures.&nbsp; People were advised that following the Official Rules was the correct and only way to play D&amp;D.&nbsp; A skill system was introduced, albeit as an option.&nbsp; Not content with more classes, an entire series of &quot;kits&quot; books were published, in order to make sure each and every PC could be mechanically different even if they all played the same class.&nbsp; Then another skill system was introduced, but this time it was made mandatory, along with its twin sister feat system, and these two became intertwined in every single aspect of the game, from combat to monsters to spells...Of course, the page count of the rulebooks has increased dramatically because of this.&nbsp; A game that once could fit in three small pamphlet-size books (1974) or even two 64-page books (1981) has now ballooned up to nearly 1000 pages, for just the core rules.I'm in this purely for the imagination, the fantasy.&nbsp; I'd rather not spend a lot of time thinking about rules or trying to run some kind of detailed simulation in my head.&nbsp; I'd much rather use a computer for that sort of thing.&nbsp; But that is what D&amp;D has become, and that's why I still play an old edition that hands the reigns squarely over to the DM &amp; players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Silverleaf, post: 2399818, member: 30790"] Not quite, at least not from my perspective. I like D&D a lot, it's even my favorite all-time FRPG. But when I say that, I'm referring to the original rules up to and including the '81 Basic/Expert sets (with possible inclusion of some of Mentzer's stuff as well). After that, things started getting out of hand, and the game lost touch with its roots more and more. I don't like AD&D that much, neither 1e or 2e. And I like 3e even less, since it even further departed from the game I known and love. Keep in mind I'm talking holistically here, I do like some individual aspects of AD&D and d20. Anyway, over the years the class archetypes have become more and more diluted in favor of a system of detailed mechanical options. One's ability to roleplay within the confines of a strong archetype has been replaced with gobs and gobs of rules that provide detail, at the expense of greater complexity. At first, more classes were added and given their own distinct mechanics. Spells, monsters and combat were given much more detail and procedures. People were advised that following the Official Rules was the correct and only way to play D&D. A skill system was introduced, albeit as an option. Not content with more classes, an entire series of "kits" books were published, in order to make sure each and every PC could be mechanically different even if they all played the same class. Then another skill system was introduced, but this time it was made mandatory, along with its twin sister feat system, and these two became intertwined in every single aspect of the game, from combat to monsters to spells... Of course, the page count of the rulebooks has increased dramatically because of this. A game that once could fit in three small pamphlet-size books (1974) or even two 64-page books (1981) has now ballooned up to nearly 1000 pages, for just the core rules. I'm in this purely for the imagination, the fantasy. I'd rather not spend a lot of time thinking about rules or trying to run some kind of detailed simulation in my head. I'd much rather use a computer for that sort of thing. But that is what D&D has become, and that's why I still play an old edition that hands the reigns squarely over to the DM & players. [/QUOTE]

Verification