Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 4975094" data-attributes="member: 3586">Oh my, yes. During a "Greyhawk Ruins" 3e campaign (which had a pretty high death count), the other players really started paying attention to what my cleric was doing. I had a much better survival sense than some of them. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm not quite sure if it's true in general of the 3e/4e players that they're more interested in the fiddly stuff than what early D&D was like in the day; if the bulk of players who still play AD&D are less interested in the fiddly stuff that just talks about those who remained with AD&D (rather than moving on to something else).There is a fascinating tension in early D&D design between those interested in making it a good game and those interested in making it a good simulation - things like the weapon vs armour tables, the positioning of attackers vs. shield, the grappling table and so forth are extremely fiddly (and don't, IMO, add much to the game). I occasionally wonder how much Len Lakofka was on the simulationist side of things, because his Dragon articles tended towards the arcane.Cheers!</blockquote>