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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 4667572" data-attributes="member: 463">"7) The Simulation-Game Tightrope: While EGG states AD&D isn't a simulation in the introduction to the DMG, the game is chock full of what we'd call "simulationist" elements, ranging from monster frequency to castle construction costs to rules for disease. At the same time, there's a great deal of material built specifically for the "gamist" experience of play, largely informed by the wargaming roots. Combine these two and AD&D allows us to play a game that creates a world."I agree strongly with this - it's an important reason why AD&D works so well.  This was de-emphasised somewhat in 3e and pretty well eliminated from 4e.  You can still play 3e like this, but the difficulty of rapid creation of 3e materials makes simulation much harder IME, while 4e seems to have abandoned simulation as a design goal.  Contrary to threefold model and GNS theory, I think the creative tension between simulation and game is the heart of D&D's success.Edit:  I've been enjoying playing OSRIC and 1e AD&D online recently, but I prefer running Castles & Crusades using 1e materials; notably the 1e Monster Manual and Fiend Folio.  C&C runs a lot more smoothly due to the unified 'Siege' mechanic, and I find the classes and races better balanced against each other.  Eg it tends to produce ca 80% human parties, which was supposed to be the default in 1e but the design encourages mostly demihuman PCs at low-mid level.  Another issue I have with 1e is that the random magic item tables tend to produce a lo of very powerful stuff, such that mid level PCs often have +5 weapons or vorpal swords.  I think BECMI works better there, with its different item tables for each level tier.  And I like C&C's "add level to roll" default, which makes higher level PC feels heroic but is not overwhelming within the 1-12 core level range.Unlike some, I love the writing style of the 1e rulebooks.  OSRIC does show how much clearer the presentation can be though; I think I would rather run OSRIC and keep the original books for reference.</blockquote>

Verification