Interesting article on what made old AD&D great
Jump to content
Posted 18 July 2014 - 08:46 AM
I've played 1e about once and the DM kinda kept fudging stuff. I don't mind fudging of the rules, but I want stuff to be consistent. He kept changing what was required for similar rolls and things. Was very off putting for me. I'm running an Adventures in the East Mark (Basic Clone) and sticking with many of the restrictions. My wife kinda balks at the lack of ability to be able to play exactly what she wants, but is enjoying herself enough. Also, even though save or die gets a lot of flak, as long as it's something the party should be wary of to begin with, I like them. A giant scorpion's venom should kill, not just make you a little sucky for a bit. You don't want to risk death, don't go out and adventure.
Posted 20 July 2014 - 02:25 PM
Hmm. I played 1st edition a lot for about a year and a half because the 2nd ed books cost twice as much (and it took me a couple of months to save up my pocket money for each of the 1st ed books). The author of this article does seem to be focussing a little bit too much on the randomness of dice rolls but he does have some good points about respect for the gm, respect for the dangers inherent in threats. These modern players clamouring for their "wands of cure light wounds" and other crutches to let their brand new characters achieve far more than they should be able to and keep pushing the limit without actually knowing their capabilities don't seem to appreciate danger as much as their forebears once did.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users