Some of the insights he shared here, I had never thought of before. The idea that levels for instance were indicative of the number of men your character represented, from the old Chainmail days. How did I miss that? I mean, I'm currently going through a little project where I am rewriting the entire corpus o the little brown books and supplements to get a better grasp on the nature of the game. Somehow I totally missed that.
 |
| Conan, 6th level i.e. the equivalent of 6 Fighters |
The thing was, I never really knew this stuff back in the day. Am I biased to say it makes a difference now?
Well, I can say that when I read Benoist's note and other such insights he has offered up say, here
What I realize is that Benoist is capturing something that feels very familiar to me. This is the beauty of writing about games. Sometimes commentators are able to capture something that we didn't even realize ourselves. AD&D is what it is because of its rules and assumptions. And when we play that game those assumptions, mechanics and spirit come out in our play, define it, and give shape to the experience. That is what I'm talking about when I say I prefer this game. Yes its mechanics can be stilted and appear somewhat baroque or even "baroken" :-) but they are not. The mechanics are there to give spirit and feel to the game. AD&D is what it is and you have to appreciate it for what it is.
I play 5e currently, and the fact is, as Scott Anderson pointed out to me a couple of posts ago, 5e confounds me because it presents itself as something it is not. It is a very different game, with a very different feel. You have to accept it on its terms, not another's. The facts also speak clearly now, that 5e will never be what I want it to be. No matter how much Mike Mearls or I try and AD&D-ify 5e it will never be AD&D. If you want the AD&D feel you have to play AD&D.
And Mr. Poire is doing an awfully good job of explaining what that feel is about and from whence it comes. Thank you sir.
Not arguing, but seeking understanding. I hear people say things as you did "No matter how much ...I try and AD&D-ify 5e it will never be AD&D" and I just don't really understand the statement. Can you give me an example of what AD&D does that you cannot do is 5E?
ReplyDelete1. You will never learn as much about D&D as you learn writing your own edition. There's no teaching tool like pulling a mechanic apart and putting it back together again.
ReplyDelete2. Don't mess with something until you know what it's good for. That goes for game mechanics and for life. Level limits, alignment, etc.
3. Gary and Dave were not making LotR! Not even a little. Dave pulled even more from 3H/3L than Gary did! The FFC players actually tumbled through spacetime into their campaign just like Holger does.
Furthermore LotR was the gateway drug for SF/F and Gary considered it kid stuff. He was a hipster and of course too cool for that.
If you read the intro to Men and Magic he cites a list of influences, and conspicuously leaves out Tolkien. In the Hobbit/Halfling text, he speaks dismissively about playing one. He was trying to avoid the tropes from LotR, not emulate them!
4. Speaking to the question of what is "wrong" with 5e: nothing. It's a really good game.
The design issue for the Ref to overcome is the primacy of the action economy. If you give one side or the other a big advantage in the action economy, it's hard for the deficient side to overcome that. The deficient side loses the battle of attrition slowly but surely in a majority of cases.
In older games (3.5 and before), the action economy was important but but not central. There were more ways to get leverage over your opponents and therefore combats could be swingier.
I don't know why this is. I think it has to do with bounded accuracy coupled with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. But I really don't know. I have not had enough discussions with people who know the new game well to make any conclusions.
5. Thanks for the recognition, everybody come to my blog now: treasurehuntershq.blogspot.com !
Steven, thanks for taking the time to comment not to mention stopping by my blog. I think I've done a poor job of getting at that very thing myself. Lots of my posts talk around the issue, but I think this post comes closest with Benoist's explanations of why AD&D enforces level limits and the like. But mechanically Scott explains a huge issue in his comment above. I have talked about this, as well as other factors, that make editions that came after AD&D different games than 1st and 2nd edition. But here is a brief run down:
ReplyDeleteThe d20 mechanic introduced by WotC with 3e is, while an improvement in mechanical efficiency, different enough from the older games to give a different feel and play to the game. 4e introduced powers that made the game strongly tactical in a way that, while harking back somewhat to the game's wargame roots, played very differently than AD&D ever did. 5e introduced the concept of bounded accuracy which removed improvement to hit with level and instead adjusted playstyle to reflect what Scott above called "the action economy". This makes the game play a certain way that also is very different from the older games. A DM can certainly play with certain old school tropes like 3d6 straight down the line, roll HP at 1st level without enforced minimums, even include things like weapons speed, armor adjustments and old school initiative a la Mike Mearls--but what I've found is that it doesn't bring back the feel of AD&D. Hope that helps explain why, though you can play with some rules tweaked to "seem" more like AD&D, it is still not like AD&D. But then again, as Scott Said, it's a great game for what it is. Heck even 4e was a well designed game, I just didn't like it much.
Thanks again!
Chris
Very helpful as usual Scott! Thanks for your insight. And yes, I have worked at a few rules systems, but have yet to see a project through to the end--partially because of the very reasons you mention. And the idea of action economy frames what I've been driving at very nicely.
ReplyDeleteI will indeed stop by your blog! I have been wanting to get into treasure hunting for some time now, so I look forward to your thoughts on the topic.
As always, thanks for taking the time to read and comment :-)
Chris
Chris
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
For me, AD&D was always "one-of-many" games I played (along with Boot Hill, EPT, Runequest, Fantasy Trip, etc) so I really don't seem to have an internalized iconic AD&D feel to play towards.
Keep up the good blogging!
Steve W