What is the essence of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

I was going to make a comment similar to this. I have had this experience.
I learned to play by myself, with the Mentzer Red Box in 83. I was 10 years old at the time. I joined with other kids who also learned it the same way in the school yard in elementary school. We moved on to AD&D, but never really used everything in those books.

I always have to look up which basic set is which. At 13 I played the Holmes, I guess - blue cover, mentioned AD&D a few times - Basic Set with my friends for a while, we did not 'get it,' and they lost interest faster than I did. So I dived into AD&D (read cover to cover, repeatedly), and, with considerable effort to overcome innate shyness, started playing it at the local hobby shop, primarily with adults, because that's who was playing, then it was home games and conventions, and I was, for lack of a better term, mentored in how to be a DM by a remarkable young lady only 4 years my senior, who, at the time, with the technicality of minor/adult between us, seemed a huge difference.

When I rediscovered old school D&D, I delved into the rules as an adult and I also sought references and advice from those who played it originally or learned from those who have. I sought opportunities to play the game with people who were experienced with it as adults.
This effort and experience has created an appreciation for the depth of the classic game that may be missed by those who have not put in such effort.

I never left the hobby, I drifted from D&D in the mid 90s, to return with 3.0, but AD&D remained my favorite ed - and burned into my little brain where a good high school education should have been.

Even similar experiences can be quite different.

Look, I'm not trying to be a dink (really). But there is SO MUCH OUT THERE in the old stuff that isn't combat. Really.

There is so much of anything Gygax wrote that was just... verbiage. I mean, I think I can be long-winded and wall-of-text in a forum context, but...

...what have you got for resolving a 'social scene?' Reaction adjustments for CHA & Race? Exploration? A few roll 1 on a d6 this or % for that thief skill, and a lot of cool ideas on how to befuddle your players, ruin their maps, and screw with their characters... and who does engage with the DM to resolve those scenes? Much as in 3e or 5e today, it's one player. In AD&D, he's even given a label the "Caller."

So why do we hear these varied impressions of D&D, that it was a wargame, all about combat, that it was exploration and combat was just something to get through quickly, that it was all about the RP and the character? Well, the nice way to put it is every DM ran it differently, everyone's experience was different.

But, I'm starting to suspect a component of it is /which/ kind of player were you, playing which kind of character?

"Hey, everyone, I looked at AD&D, and I determined that it's really an IKEA! Because ... there's a lot of tables."
You're welcome. Catch me at the Poconos next week!

Most worthwhile thing you've said in a reply to me in a while, it feels like.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, there is an easy way we can deal with that.

I like it better when we're exchanging jokes, in general.

 

[Garthanos]

No one was commenting about morality?

Oh, wait. LOL. Better?

All good

But remember the best way to get awesome at fighting remained never ever fight

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

My experience with most versions of D&D* is that the amount of time spent in combat varies widely by group. I just had a game the other day where most of the day was just social and exploration based.

I remember in OD&D just doing dungeon crawls where a lot of time was spent figuring out how to kill things the most efficiently.

It seems to be more influence by style and preferences of the group than the version of the game. Except for the version that shall not be named, of course.

*I'll just leave it at most versions because if I get any more specific the whole thing will get derailed again about whether or not a certain unnamed version was "real" D&D

 

[Garthanos]

I'd say that it allowed for a much more ambiguous game, and did not lend itself, necessarily, to a straight-up heroic narrative.

Release your game shortly after a hugely un-popular war and write the rules so that fighting bad guys didnt work too well probably not a conscious thing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Release your game shortly after a hugely un-popular war and write the rules so that fighting bad guys didnt work too well probably not a conscious thing.

That's a new twist on "Fantasy Vietnam."

...y'know, it was pointed out to me by an even-older-timer that, initially, 0D&D gave pretty juicy exp for killing monsters, but that it was significantly reduced, and emphasis switched to treasure-hunting, with Greyhawk Supplement I.