Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8952246" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Hi! I appriciate your long reply! You are presenting a couple of historical notes I feel like I should expand on to prevent confusion.Some of the mechanics was taken from wargames, but from what I have heard about the designer's games they were very much dungeon crawls. Gygax is legendary for his dungeons, and it appear Arneson also was focusing heavily on that style around the inception of D&amp;D (<a href="https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/40495/roleplaying-games/reactions-to-odd-the-arnesonian-dungeon" target="_blank">Reactions to OD&amp;D: The Arnesonian Dungeon</a>) The dmg focus on dungeons also should be a quite strong indicator. And maybe the strongest evidence that the game indeed has a strong design for that style is that those actively seeking out this style of play still flock to this ancient system despite decades of attempts of improving on it. On the flip side I have never heard of anyone going to D&amp;D to experience a single figure wargame..What the Hichman revolution did was making it more apparent that the game was more fun for most when not played the way it was designed to be played, and that was what most of my post was about <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, 2ed absolutely tried. But it was a weird experience, as the core system (essentially unchanged from the first publication) really weren't made for it. 3ed was designed from the ground up with this as a primary focus.I think there was a clash before as well. The thing with 4ed was that that clash was so obvious, especially when contrasted with 3ed. I think a large part of 5eds runaway success is that it managed to identify and remove a lot of the stuff that clashed with the storytelling style of play from the editions before 4ed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8952246, member: 7039850"] Hi! I appriciate your long reply! You are presenting a couple of historical notes I feel like I should expand on to prevent confusion. Some of the mechanics was taken from wargames, but from what I have heard about the designer's games they were very much dungeon crawls. Gygax is legendary for his dungeons, and it appear Arneson also was focusing heavily on that style around the inception of D&D ([URL="https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/40495/roleplaying-games/reactions-to-odd-the-arnesonian-dungeon"]Reactions to OD&D: The Arnesonian Dungeon[/URL]) The dmg focus on dungeons also should be a quite strong indicator. And maybe the strongest evidence that the game indeed has a strong design for that style is that those actively seeking out this style of play still flock to this ancient system despite decades of attempts of improving on it. On the flip side I have never heard of anyone going to D&D to experience a single figure wargame.. What the Hichman revolution did was making it more apparent that the game was more fun for most when not played the way it was designed to be played, and that was what most of my post was about :) Yes, 2ed absolutely tried. But it was a weird experience, as the core system (essentially unchanged from the first publication) really weren't made for it. 3ed was designed from the ground up with this as a primary focus. I think there was a clash before as well. The thing with 4ed was that that clash was so obvious, especially when contrasted with 3ed. I think a large part of 5eds runaway success is that it managed to identify and remove a lot of the stuff that clashed with the storytelling style of play from the editions before 4ed. [/QUOTE]

Verification