Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5716366" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not dismissing it. I'm well aware of it, and remember reading injunctions from Lewis Pulsipher, Gygax and other about how the &quot;skilled player&quot; will play that sort of game.My only point is that it's not something I particularly enjoy. I don't enjoy it now, and I didn't enjoy it in the 1980s either. Back then, when I was under the impression that it was the &quot;right way&quot; to play, I tried to design and GM scenarios in the Gygax/Pulsipher mode. But to the extent that those scenarios were any fun for me and my players, it was because of the story/thematic elements that operated independently of, or even in spite of, the &quot;dungeon survival&quot; aspect.Oriental Adventures was something which, in its presentation of the game and how it would be played, clearly departed from the &quot;dungeon survival&quot; approach, and it was in GMing of my first OA game in 1986 that I began to develop what has remained my basic approach to GMing over the past 25 years - character-focused scenarios against a detailed historical and mythical backdrop.Also, as a bit of an aside, I think that - unlike both OD&amp;D and AD&amp;D - Basic D&amp;D (or at least Moldvay Basic) doesn't have quite the same &quot;dungeon survival&quot;/&quot;skilled player&quot; vibe. Or, at least, it doesn't come through as strongly. (For example, the scenario design advice in Moldvay Basic doesn't make dungeon exploration as high a priority as Gygax's advice to players at the end of his PHB.) Part of the &quot;right way to play&quot; vibe of Gygax and Pulsipher got its force, at least for me as a young player, because it seemed to be part and parcel of upgrading from Basic/Expert to the more serious world of AD&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5716366, member: 42582"] I'm not dismissing it. I'm well aware of it, and remember reading injunctions from Lewis Pulsipher, Gygax and other about how the "skilled player" will play that sort of game. My only point is that it's not something I particularly enjoy. I don't enjoy it now, and I didn't enjoy it in the 1980s either. Back then, when I was under the impression that it was the "right way" to play, I tried to design and GM scenarios in the Gygax/Pulsipher mode. But to the extent that those scenarios were any fun for me and my players, it was because of the story/thematic elements that operated independently of, or even in spite of, the "dungeon survival" aspect. Oriental Adventures was something which, in its presentation of the game and how it would be played, clearly departed from the "dungeon survival" approach, and it was in GMing of my first OA game in 1986 that I began to develop what has remained my basic approach to GMing over the past 25 years - character-focused scenarios against a detailed historical and mythical backdrop. Also, as a bit of an aside, I think that - unlike both OD&D and AD&D - Basic D&D (or at least Moldvay Basic) doesn't have quite the same "dungeon survival"/"skilled player" vibe. Or, at least, it doesn't come through as strongly. (For example, the scenario design advice in Moldvay Basic doesn't make dungeon exploration as high a priority as Gygax's advice to players at the end of his PHB.) Part of the "right way to play" vibe of Gygax and Pulsipher got its force, at least for me as a young player, because it seemed to be part and parcel of upgrading from Basic/Expert to the more serious world of AD&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification