Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 9164828" data-attributes="member: 4348">My view of AD&amp;D is probably going to be unpopular as well.&nbsp; AD&amp;D was not a drastic change from OD&amp;D.&nbsp; I mean, if you went straight from the LBBs only to the AD&amp;D core, it would be drastically shocking, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of those who got all the supplements and magazine articles and such, it wasn't that massive of a shock.AD&amp;D basically gathered all the various additions and made a greatest hits volume...and then Gygax added some more stuff on top of that which were not vital to the core gameplay (much of the various stuff that is non-necessary to play, but interesting to use in the DMG for example).&nbsp;&nbsp; AD&amp;D is basically OD&amp;D and all it's additional material gathered up into one spot.&nbsp; I DID see that they tried to codify stuff a lot more strongly with a stronger hand (and iron hand?) with AD&amp;D, especially at the conventions and official playing of it.&nbsp; That is probably the biggest change in how AD&amp;D was approached than OD&amp;D.&nbsp; That's more of a cultural way of doing things rather than rules though.&nbsp; I suppose in a way, that could be similar to what 2e did for 1e, and what people are trying to summate.&nbsp; Their area had a cultural difference in how 2e (and especially probably 90s 2e with all the extra rules and other things that were added as it progressed as a game) played vs. how 1e played.&nbsp; It was more a cultural thing than a rules thing in many instances...at least when dealing with core rules.&nbsp; Even that wasn't as strict as the rulings got under 3.X (IN MY OPINION...stating this because for this, it really is MY opinion of the matter) and later 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 9164828, member: 4348"] My view of AD&D is probably going to be unpopular as well. AD&D was not a drastic change from OD&D. I mean, if you went straight from the LBBs only to the AD&D core, it would be drastically shocking, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of those who got all the supplements and magazine articles and such, it wasn't that massive of a shock. AD&D basically gathered all the various additions and made a greatest hits volume...and then Gygax added some more stuff on top of that which were not vital to the core gameplay (much of the various stuff that is non-necessary to play, but interesting to use in the DMG for example). AD&D is basically OD&D and all it's additional material gathered up into one spot. I DID see that they tried to codify stuff a lot more strongly with a stronger hand (and iron hand?) with AD&D, especially at the conventions and official playing of it. That is probably the biggest change in how AD&D was approached than OD&D. That's more of a cultural way of doing things rather than rules though. I suppose in a way, that could be similar to what 2e did for 1e, and what people are trying to summate. Their area had a cultural difference in how 2e (and especially probably 90s 2e with all the extra rules and other things that were added as it progressed as a game) played vs. how 1e played. It was more a cultural thing than a rules thing in many instances...at least when dealing with core rules. Even that wasn't as strict as the rulings got under 3.X (IN MY OPINION...stating this because for this, it really is MY opinion of the matter) and later 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification