Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7769588" data-attributes="member: 29398">That might have been what he wanted, but it wasn't what he got.Is there anyone out there - anyone - who played non-RPGA 1e by RAW?&nbsp; Gygax, despite his stated desire to have everyone playing the same game, gave us a wonderfully modular system just perfect for tweaking and kitbashing to suit a particular table or playstyle by any DM willing to spend the time - and many were.&nbsp;&nbsp; And oddly enough, I suspect this malleability helped make the game overall more popular rather than less.And, later, the RPGA and organized play; a conflict in design requirements that still plagues the game today.I wouldn't go so far as to say &quot;heavy&quot; simulation, if only because there's so many ways simulation can be enhanced even in 1e.&nbsp; But at least there was a nod toward simulation.I see late-era 2e and early 3e as middle school.This is very true...as far as it goes.But after people have learned the game there comes a time where a unified mechanic morphs from a feature into a bug.&nbsp; It main feature - ease of learning - is no longer required as the learning phase has passed, bringing the bug part to the fore: having too many aspects of the game shoehorned into the unified mechanic, aspects that would have been better served by having their own unique means of doing what they do.Now if these unique mechanics are placed or forced mainly to the player side (a NS thing, at least in D&amp;D) this can become a headache for the players; but if the mechanics are kept on the DM side (as per OS) then only one person per table has to do the heavy learning while the rest just need to know some of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7769588, member: 29398"] That might have been what he wanted, but it wasn't what he got. Is there anyone out there - anyone - who played non-RPGA 1e by RAW? Gygax, despite his stated desire to have everyone playing the same game, gave us a wonderfully modular system just perfect for tweaking and kitbashing to suit a particular table or playstyle by any DM willing to spend the time - and many were. And oddly enough, I suspect this malleability helped make the game overall more popular rather than less. And, later, the RPGA and organized play; a conflict in design requirements that still plagues the game today. I wouldn't go so far as to say "heavy" simulation, if only because there's so many ways simulation can be enhanced even in 1e. But at least there was a nod toward simulation. I see late-era 2e and early 3e as middle school. This is very true...as far as it goes. But after people have learned the game there comes a time where a unified mechanic morphs from a feature into a bug. It main feature - ease of learning - is no longer required as the learning phase has passed, bringing the bug part to the fore: having too many aspects of the game shoehorned into the unified mechanic, aspects that would have been better served by having their own unique means of doing what they do. Now if these unique mechanics are placed or forced mainly to the player side (a NS thing, at least in D&D) this can become a headache for the players; but if the mechanics are kept on the DM side (as per OS) then only one person per table has to do the heavy learning while the rest just need to know some of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification