Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7769498" data-attributes="member: 85555">I think there are two things going on here. One is you have the system developing over time. The other is unified mechanics became more of an accepted concept after 2000. I still don't think unified systems are always better. I used to think that, but then when I went back to the earlier editions to play them, I noticed my games felt and ran very differently (in a very good way). There were lots of reasons for this. But basically I had struggled to run a proper Ravenloft campaign using 3E. It just never felt the same as it had when I ran it in high school. I chalked that up to nostalgia. Then, almost half seriously, I started a 2E Ravenloft campaign again. That instantly felt to me, at least in the GM chair (can't speak for my players) just like the mood and atmosphere of my old campaigns. I believe part of it was the lack of unification of the system meant different features of the game actually felt different in a tactile way. You were not just rolling a d20 for everything in just about the same way (excepting things like weapon damage and such). Other aspects were lack of strong social mechanics and investigative mechanics. That stuff can be found in the supplements but in the core PHB (the 89 one) there is no bluff or intimidate. You have a NWP (which were optional) for Etiquette but that was essentially a knowledge skill (you were not supposed to roll it to determine an outcome but to determine what you knew so it could inform you playing the character in that situation). 3E also had more rules that were clear about how all characters interact with the environment (and they were unified). Some people may look at these things and see progress or development. But I genuinely don't believe game mechanics are as cut and dry as mechanical technology. Unified mechanics are a solution to a problem, but they also change the feel of the game in a substantial way IMO. I get that unified mechanics, having all rolls shoot for high results, and a mechanics for all occasions is more accepted these days. I just think there is value in going back and checking again to see how the system works. A lot of people may do what I did and decide they like the newer approaches (and that is fine). But I genuinely went in thinking I had remembered it being wonky, and came out really impressed with the result compared to what I was experiencing with 3E. That said, this is one of the problems the OSR has tackled already. There are lots of versions of OD&D and AD&D that are streamlined, cleaned up, more organized and less piecemeal than the originals. One of the values of the open license approach is people can essentially make the version of D&D they want to play. So a lot of the stuff people complain about when they look at 1E or OD&D has already been addressed by OSR designers.</blockquote>

Verification