MShipley88 wrote:An interesting exercise in selective memory. To be fair...and to be accurate....AD&D was not exactly a three book game.A list of the 1st edition hardbacks might include:Monster ManualMonster Manual IIFiend FolioPlayers HandbookDungeon Master's GuideUnearthed ArcanaGods and Demi-godsWilderness Survival GuideDungeoneers Survival GuideManual of the PlanesOriental AdventuresDragonlanceGreyhawk AdventuresThese books were commonly supplemented in D&D games by:Dungeons and Dragons (Holmes Boxed Set)The Arduin Grimoire (All three original publications)Dragon Magazine (With hundreds of pages of photocopied text with alternative classes and new rules that eventually required the publication of four (4) Dragon compendiums and Unearthed Arcana. The game was also commonly infected with notions from Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls and many other D&D imitators. (This is the same forum that includes interesting memories of some of the nutty things that happened in David Hargraves' games...and that is remembered as a good thing.)Gamers also mixed in adventures and bits of rules garnered fromall four (4) Mentzer Dungeons and Dragons boxed sets....which culminated in a silly boxed set featuring lliterally god-like characters that were so high level they had to go adventuring in their underwear.When one factors in the monsters, spells, magic items and special rules hidden in the pages of the umpteen million modules......It is simply dishonest to remember "back in the day" when there were "only three books." It is just not true.Worse, Unearthed Arcana and the million-and-one new "NPC Classes" (yeah, right...NPC) and special rules sets made 1st Edition AD&D into one of the most confusing mazes of house rules and local compromises that modern society is likely to ever see in a game set. Each of these new rules was designed to sell magazines and books...and game balance be damned.By comparision, the 3.5 game system is incredibly clean and well considered. When one considers just the 3.5 core rules published by WOTC, the system seems remarkably compact compared to 1st Edition AD&D.Further, the "wierd" mix of character races that is commonly cited on this forum is a distortion of actual game play. It no more represents actual game play than Mazes and Monsters represented AD&D. Ironically, the derisive comments posted here sound very much like the sarcastic comments about AD&D one might have expected from non-gamers BITD. It sounds like jokes that a standup comedian might have made BITD...and you would have been outraged.In practice, the 3.5 system is incredibly strong and balanced....especially compared to AD&D. Characters can and do rise to high level in 3.5 just as they did in AD&D. The difference is that the monsters themselves are powerful enough and flexible enough to challenge higher level characters.Hey, fun is fun. I like making extreme statements about "youngin's" or "kids these days" just as much as the next grownup. Dis on the new game all you want. Just remember that you are being pig-headed.
AdderMcOne wrote:Oh and just to be really controversial: who wants to be the cleric?
bclarkie wrote:I have said before and I will say it again, I really have nothing against today current D&D game, but the truth of the matter is that the current game is Dungeons & Dragons in name only. The only similarities that they share are thethat they are both FRPGs, they both revolve arounds PCs fighting monsters, and both use a few similiar terms and there is not much else similiar about them. Comparing 3.5 D&D to 1e AD&D is like comparing apples and oranges, they are different games entirely.
Badmike wrote:Another interesting point is that the rulebooks in the old days were a lot of times not used by players. The DM was the one with all the books, and the players might have an odd PHB or MM or DMG, but when I gamed in the late 70's as the DM I was the only one bringing all the books to a game.
bbarsh wrote:One of my favorite releases was the long awaited Greyhawk folio and maps.
It is simply dishonest to remember "back in the day" when there were "only three books." It is just not true.
The new generations need updated enterainment to fit in with there own unique needs.
One of the goals of 2E was to reduce the number of books required for play. It's safe to say that plan failed.
By contrast, you have probably over 100 splat books now. BITD you simpley didn't NEED all that crap. You wanted to run a fighter who was an ex gladiator? You said your fighter was an ex gladiator. You wanted to run a type that used a lot of missile weapons? You got your fighter a lot of arrows. You wanted a brooding, hard ass ex soldier who killed silently in the night? You simply RAN one of those. We came up with stuff on the fly. One of my brothers ran not one, not two, but THREE dwarven fighters. All were completely different without the aid of kits, feats, powers, etc. One fighter had an 8 Int and 9 widsom so he played him as a battle happy moron who was always rushing into combat, sticking his hands in chests, bags, holes, etc and getting fingers eaten, chopped off or in one case colored permanently blue when he stuck his hand in a Jar of Dyeing. One fighter had a 15 wisdom to go with his 16 str....he was played as a reluctant fighter who was an intellectual at heart (always taking books from ruined libraries, etc). For some reason he favored priest weapons (my brother said he had wanted to be a priest but never made the grad) like the mace and flail. The other fighter had an exceptional strength and high Con...he was a powerhouse traditional dwarven fighter, loved killing but was cautious also, and had a soft heart...he once saved a half orc baby (?) who he raised as a fighter (became his henchman eventually) and always carried a teddy bear named Pookie (Seriously). No kits, feats, or crapola necessary to play three completely different characters.
Another interesting point is that the rulebooks in the old days were a lot of times not used by players. The DM was the one with all the books, and the players might have an odd PHB or MM or DMG, ... If there was a rules question, the DM looked it up. I think in a lot of ways the uniformity of the game helped it there...if you were working a fighter, everyone knew what a fighter was and what he did. Ditto for a cleric....the spells were the same game to game.
Mr Shipley, I am surprised by your mis-perceptions of what I said. Kindly note the date--1974!!! We were playing DUNGEONS & DRAGONS; not AD&D, not Basic D&D, not D&D for Anal Retentives or anything else that came after. The game was originally three books. Hate to burst your balloon, but lots of us had tons of fun and wasted hundreds of hours with ONLY THREE BOOKS--Men & Magic, Monsters & Teasure and Underground (or whatever the Book 3 was formally titled.
On the other hand, way back in 1974 wan't too long before there was Greyhawk, if indeed it was published in February of 1975. How long did you guys really play with just 3 books?