tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post449381565312138939..comments2024-03-29T09:18:29.382+09:00Comments on What a Horrible Night to Have a Curse...: System Matters, but System Familiarity Matters MoreDennis Laffeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03053699552003336733noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-74503427998300029192014-11-13T01:08:21.431+09:002014-11-13T01:08:21.431+09:002e was mostly an issue of presentation. How you e...2e was mostly an issue of presentation. How you explain the rules, the way they're organized (especially when split across multiple books), etc. can be just as important as the rules themselves. The 2e books downplayed and sometimes outright removed aspects of 1e, sometimes bringing them back in supplements, while emphasizing others. To bring things back to the issue of narrativism, the text often framed the game as an exercise in storytelling, especially if Douglas Niles had any involvement. My first D&D book was a 2e supplement (I was just a kid, and didn't know I needed the core books), and I definitely picked up on that, and it had some influence on my early play<br /><br />Editions 1-3 all share a pretty strong core (3e less so), which allows them to look pretty similar in the right light. It's very easy to overlook their differences if you want to (harder with 3.5, which was intent on removing what compatibility with older editions remained, and downright impossible with 4e), which can actually be a pretty big plusHolly Oatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703437987958922954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-52468769986138907672014-11-12T23:07:45.849+09:002014-11-12T23:07:45.849+09:00Alright, I may have misremembered, or conflated th...Alright, I may have misremembered, or conflated the rules as written with a Dragon article or something (it had been a while since I'd cracked open my 2E books), but I did find a short section on fudging "too difficult" encounters in the 2E DMG, p. 141 (black revised edition) in the Encounters section. I was thinking there was something more explicit, but a quick search didn't find anything more than that.Dennis Laffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03053699552003336733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-66712567712785965472014-11-12T18:44:53.402+09:002014-11-12T18:44:53.402+09:00I don't want to enter into a specific argument...I don't want to enter into a specific argument on a minor point, but you made a specific statement about 2e rules vs. 1e rules which doesn't seem to be supported by the rules as written. If your comment is based on how you played the games, that's another matter entirely.<br />@ProfessorOats: I agree about the 3e vs. 3.5 split; the latter just made worse the less palatable aspects of 3e. When I want to play some d20 D&D, it's always 3e core rules only; it works reasonably well.Antoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17258180992723371727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-43034699348948949492014-11-12T08:31:54.438+09:002014-11-12T08:31:54.438+09:00Once again, I do a poor job of articulating my tho...Once again, I do a poor job of articulating my thoughts and give completely the wrong impression. Sorry 'bout that<br /><br />My comment was meant as more of an aside than an actual counterpoint, which is why I kept it so short. I just saw an opportunity to contrast 3e and 3.5, and I can never pass one of those up, especially when they involve comparing 3e to a previous editionHolly Oatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703437987958922954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-22516272049921037002014-11-12T06:38:45.651+09:002014-11-12T06:38:45.651+09:00Replying to both Antonio and Prof. Oats:
That'...Replying to both Antonio and Prof. Oats:<br /><br />That's sort of my point. D&D doesn't easily get pigeon-holed into one Edwardsian type or another. But if you prefer to PLAY one type over another, what I'm suggesting is that certain editions of D&D may make your life easier in that regard (and I could be wrong, and I'm not going to be goaded into an argument over a minor point in my post). But if you're familiar enough with any edition, you can make it dance to your tune.<br /><br />My friend Dean runs a narrative-heavy, theater-of-the-mind game of 4E, and does it well because he knows 4E well.Dennis Laffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03053699552003336733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-45291192162737214252014-11-12T02:02:58.538+09:002014-11-12T02:02:58.538+09:00Sorry, just realized I replied to the wrong person...Sorry, just realized I replied to the wrong person. Re-posting here:<br /><br />3e could be pretty simulationist in a lot of ways, which was a major complaint from some people. 3.5 really dumbed things down, though, and was the more gamist versionHolly Oatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703437987958922954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-27899242606871019502014-11-12T01:00:53.960+09:002014-11-12T01:00:53.960+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Holly Oatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703437987958922954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-54624774244542028572014-11-12T00:55:54.482+09:002014-11-12T00:55:54.482+09:00In general I agree that familiarity is important, ...In general I agree that familiarity is important, at least when one is getting older :) <br />Seriously, I have started playing 5e, and while I do like the system, the fact that I must throw away some assumptions I have from old editions of (A)D&D means I must devote time to learn anew...something I enjoyed 20 years ago, but with a full-time job and a family (and only so much time allowed to play) I simply can't do that as easily anymore.Antoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17258180992723371727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-67753476059871095142014-11-11T22:56:26.960+09:002014-11-11T22:56:26.960+09:00The 1e DMG is also pretty adamant about rewarding ...The 1e DMG is also pretty adamant about rewarding playint to types, with the assignment of performance scores (DMG p.86). Quoting: "Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang bock from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating. [etc.]" Since you mention the rules should support a type of game (e.g. the Karma of MSH wouldn't be good for your purposes) the same is true for AD&D--all versions. I have ran 1e settings with 2e rules and vice-versa, and things hardly changed; all the cool fluff in the 1e DMG is just that: fluff. <br />Care to quote the "rules about fudging results"?Antoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17258180992723371727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-48297997503212069722014-11-11T22:04:06.133+09:002014-11-11T22:04:06.133+09:00A good question, and here's my answer, which i...A good question, and here's my answer, which is probably not what you are hoping for.<br /><br />2E is NOT a "narrativist" game. 1E is NOT a "simulationist" game. For that matter, 3E is NOT a "gamist" game (although 4E is, but you'll notice I left that out). <br /><br />But when you're considering the differences in each:<br />1E sure is good at simulating many things. Don't mistake simulation for realism, though. Realism is only one facet of simulationism. Look at all the various tables and subsections within the 1E DMG. Look at all the proscriptions on character building in the PHB. Look at the Gygaxian naturalism of the MM. The game gives you lots of tools to use to simulate a certain fantasy adventure milieu. There's a random harlot table. What is that for, if not to simulate encounters in a seedy part of town? Also, the XP system of some XP for fighting monsters but lots of XP for gathering treasure simulates pulp fantasy adventure tropes in that it drives players to fight when they must but outwit when they can.<br /><br />2E has a more narrativist bent, in that the XP system was revised to try to reward playing to type. Clerics get XP for healing the sick and protecting their flock, Thieves get XP for disarming traps and opening locks, along with gathering treasure, M-Us get XP for casting spells to aid the party, Fighters get XP for fighting monsters. The reward system is designed to try to get you to play in character - which if pulled off properly would lead to better narrative. Also, look at the rules about fudging results to match the outcome you desire (1E is more of a let stupid players face the consequences sort of game). Look at the plethora of richly detailed settings which are designed to give you story ideas rather than hard simulation of the world (lots of fluff, not so much crunch).<br /><br />3E, on the other hand, was designed to offer players a "balanced" set of options for characters, with lots of open options for customization, yet with a "rules mastery" aspect of trial and error or rules scrutiny to find out which options are useful and which are not. The authors of the game admitted as much publicly. Also, the XP system really only rewards combat, which is where the game mechanics are most heavy. <br /><br />None of these systems is purely one or the other, all have aspects of all three of Edwards's aspects of play in them. But each leans closer to one of the nodes than the others in my opinion.Dennis Laffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03053699552003336733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5255299705122830812.post-84438870982664491262014-11-11T19:14:48.092+09:002014-11-11T19:14:48.092+09:00How is 2e narrativist and 1e simulationist? The ga...How is 2e narrativist and 1e simulationist? The game mechanics are practically the same. And I'd argue about 1e being simulationist, if by "simulation" we mean "reproducing reality." That's something that GURPS attempts to do, but D&D was never good at simulating anything, I think.Antoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17258180992723371727noreply@blogger.com