Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 5578107" data-attributes="member: 21169">Its gamism is extreme, swamping all simulationism to a greater degree than other modules of the period. Ie it makes no sense from a game world perspective, it exists merely to challenge the players. Acererak doesn't exist. There is no such character, he has no attributes. He's just a stand-in for the module writer. In this respect, ToH hearks back to the even more old school mega-dungeon, which was the same - purely gamist, makes no game-world sense, exists only to challenge the players. The 'mad wizards and insane geniuses' who constructed the OD&amp;D mega-dungeons were likewise mere conduits for the will of the DM.I think Crothian is wrong to suggest that ToH is typical. Although gamism is the primary mode of play in D&amp;D texts of the 70s, it's usually less extreme. ToH is an outlier, while remaining on the same spectrum.Another unusual feature of ToH is that it's extremely linear.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doug McCrae, post: 5578107, member: 21169"] Its gamism is extreme, swamping all simulationism to a greater degree than other modules of the period. Ie it makes no sense from a game world perspective, it exists merely to challenge the players. Acererak doesn't exist. There is no such character, he has no attributes. He's just a stand-in for the module writer. In this respect, ToH hearks back to the even more old school mega-dungeon, which was the same - purely gamist, makes no game-world sense, exists only to challenge the players. The 'mad wizards and insane geniuses' who constructed the OD&D mega-dungeons were likewise mere conduits for the will of the DM. I think Crothian is wrong to suggest that ToH is typical. Although gamism is the primary mode of play in D&D texts of the 70s, it's usually less extreme. ToH is an outlier, while remaining on the same spectrum. Another unusual feature of ToH is that it's extremely linear. [/QUOTE]

Verification