What was "player skill"?

[JRRNeiklot]

Yet it was.

Yet you did.

And you continue to post incendiary and bashing comments, even when asked by the OP to stop. Isn’t that the definition of a troll? (Not that I'm meaning to call you a troll.)

It seems that the answer to any question about 1E/2E/OD&D is, “D&D3 sucks.” At least that’s where such threads always go. It is an unfortunate aspect of the self proclaimed “grognards” – they can’t talk about the older editions without insulting the newer. It’s sad.

Quasqueton

I find this post much more inflammatory than the above.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am shocked, absolutely shocked that the player with more years and game systems under his belt proved more able to handle a tricky situation than the newer players.

The only possible explanation is that there is something wrong with 3e.

 

[Finster]

I think the text on the back of those old modules that said something like: "For experienced Gamers Only", was a marketing ploy. If you bought, played in, and survived the module you were obviously an "Experienced and Skilled" player. It said so right on the back of the module.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I am shocked, absolutely shocked that the player with more years and game systems under his belt proved more able to handle a tricky situation than the newer players.

The only possible explanation is that there is something wrong with 3e.

Classic.

 

[merelycompetent]

It seems that the answer to any question about 1E/2E/OD&D is, “D&D3 sucks.” At least that’s where such threads always go. It is an unfortunate aspect of the self proclaimed “grognards” – they can’t talk about the older editions without insulting the newer. It’s sad.

Please be careful with that broad paintbrush, there. As one of those old timers, I've often expressed my appreciation of newer editions, and the people who design and play them. Including in this thread.

Edit: A more useful version of the term, "grognard", can be gained here (with apologies for my lack of skill embedding links in my post. Senility, y'know.): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grognard

 

[Quasqueton]

I have changed my wording in the above post (and added a note to another) from “grognard” to what I meant: “gamer curmudgeon”.

Often, when I see someone claim to be a “grognard”, the next statement they make is something along the lines of “the old games/ways were better, the new games/ways are lesser”. (They never seem to realize or accept that the more things change, the more they stay the same.) So the people I’ve seen make these kinds of statements have been misusing the term, and I took their intended meaning at their value.

It seems that gamer curmudgeons consider themselves grognards, but not all who consider themselves grognards are gamer curmudgeons.

Quasqueton

 

[Geoffrey]

The philosophy when ToH was written was very different... quite often, people didn't bother to give first level characters names. (You'd call the character "Jerry's dwarf" or "Sandra's fighter.") And when they did get names, they were often sequential. (Okay, Erac's dead; let's call this one "Erac's brother." And when he dies, I'll move on to "Erac's cousin"...)

That's pretty much still the case with my group. We do name our characters (though often the game starts before the character gets named), but usually we don't even remember our characters' names. "Humh? My name? It's, uh <looks at character sheet, squinting a bit at the sloppy writing> Chakmool. Whatever."

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Tuppence to add to this discussion:

The thinking was much like that of troops such as rangers might use when in combat.

What some refer to as metagaming was considered as essential background knowledge for entering the field. Training before active duty means knowing as much about everything pertenant to the coming action as possible.

Veteran adventurers were not afraid to retreat, in haste if necessary, so as t come back better equipped to deal with the enemy.

Indeed, knowledge, experience, good judgement, thought, and innovation were the components of assumed to be what constituted a skilled player.

Performance as an amateur thespian was not included in the mix.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Tuppence to add to this discussion:

The thinking was much like that of troops such as rangers might use when in combat.

What some refer to as metagaming was considered as essential background knowledge for entering the field. Training before active duty means knowing as much about everything pertenant to the coming action as possible.

Veteran adventurers were not afraid to retreat, in haste if necessary, so as t come back better equipped to deal with the enemy.

Indeed, knowledge, experience, good judgement, thought, and innovation were the components of assumed to be what constituted a skilled player.

Performance as an amateur thespian was not included in the mix.

Cheers,
Gary

You realize that last line is surely going to set some people off...

 

[Col_Pladoh]

You realize that last line is surely going to set some people off...

The truth sometimes hurts Just kidding

Compare the popularity of hack & slash with yack & yack, and is is evident that the majority of gamers prefer the former over the latter. That said, there is in my mind absolutely nothing wrong with playing a yackking campaign and loving it. Who can dispute individual taste, and in regards games there can be little in the way of value judgements made regarding such matters. I do not. I merely object to yakkers giving themselves airs about "more mature" or "proper RPG play." that is nonsense, of course.

Finally the question posed was in regards to what the meaning of "skilled palyers" was in the AD&D works cited, and I am the single authority on that matter here on these boards. What I states is essentially the case when the term was printed in those modules, and I initially put it on all of them other than Slave Pits

Cheers,
Gary