Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenjib" data-source="post: 1408546" data-attributes="member: 530">I think it's a matter of player perceptions, and I do see it in the system because the system has rules that establish your expectations.1eDefault:&nbsp; We won't likely survive very long.DM goes easy:&nbsp; Man, we're lucky we all survived.DM goes hard:&nbsp; Aw, we all got killed, but thems the breaks.&nbsp; The system is tough.3eDefault:&nbsp; We can expect that most encounters will deplete 25% of our resources and not kill anyone.DM goes easy:&nbsp; There was no risk of dying.DM goes hard:&nbsp; DM screwed us over.This is of course an oversimplification, and not universal to all people, but I really believe that the statement that the system just doesn't make a difference since you can always play it differently is not accurate.&nbsp; Expectations matter, and the rules establish the baseline.&nbsp; When you deviate you will be compared against the baseline.A more tough and deadly baseline lets you fudge in the player's favor more while still keeping the expectation and suspense of deadliness.&nbsp; On the flipside, if you play it straight, you will have lots of meaningless deaths, because 1e AD&amp;D was not as much about telling a story as 2e and 3e were.&nbsp; It was more of a game because it was still closer to it's wargaming roots.&nbsp; Characters were more expendible.&nbsp; That's a difference in mindset.Whether or not you like this is preference, I think that the difference really is there.&nbsp; This thread isn't about which is better, but what the differences are.&nbsp; I think this is clearly a difference, even though lots of people (I would say most) like the new way much better.This also ties into the much quicker character creation of 1e.&nbsp; You aren't as much invested because you can whip up a new level X character in 1/10 the time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenjib, post: 1408546, member: 530"] I think it's a matter of player perceptions, and I do see it in the system because the system has rules that establish your expectations. 1e Default: We won't likely survive very long. DM goes easy: Man, we're lucky we all survived. DM goes hard: Aw, we all got killed, but thems the breaks. The system is tough. 3e Default: We can expect that most encounters will deplete 25% of our resources and not kill anyone. DM goes easy: There was no risk of dying. DM goes hard: DM screwed us over. This is of course an oversimplification, and not universal to all people, but I really believe that the statement that the system just doesn't make a difference since you can always play it differently is not accurate. Expectations matter, and the rules establish the baseline. When you deviate you will be compared against the baseline. A more tough and deadly baseline lets you fudge in the player's favor more while still keeping the expectation and suspense of deadliness. On the flipside, if you play it straight, you will have lots of meaningless deaths, because 1e AD&D was not as much about telling a story as 2e and 3e were. It was more of a game because it was still closer to it's wargaming roots. Characters were more expendible. That's a difference in mindset. Whether or not you like this is preference, I think that the difference really is there. This thread isn't about which is better, but what the differences are. I think this is clearly a difference, even though lots of people (I would say most) like the new way much better. This also ties into the much quicker character creation of 1e. You aren't as much invested because you can whip up a new level X character in 1/10 the time. [/QUOTE]

Verification