Odhanan said:
Robert Fisher's website is shock full of interesting remarks. It makes for a (series of) good read(s). The
I used to think... article points out very simple and straightforward arguments. I'm not agreeing with everything (this part made me raise an eyebrow:
"A game of coöperation between players is often better when each player has more limited options. PCs created by the rules can be just as much fun (if not more fun) to play than my favorite book/movie character or munchkin idea."), but I think his remarks are insightful.
Yeah, I don't agree with everything he says, but I thought he made some good points.
As far as limited options go, I don't see classic D&D as limiting, so I wouldn't have said anything like Mr. Fisher's, statement, above. I think classic D&D gives you a selection of common archetypes (i.e. classes) that are typical, but I don't think that prevents other interpretations or classes. 3E isn't limited to the only the classes in the core books, and D&D isn't limited to only the classes in its basic rules. As to limitations from a lack of feats/skills, I find greater freedom in a coarse-grained system, where the skills and "feats" a PC can perform are decided by a combination of his class/archetype, his background, and the judgment of the players and DM (e.g. if it seems like an appropriate action for the chracter it could be handled by some sort of attribute check, modified by level, et cetera).
I like your remark about balance between rules and freedom. You fill in the blanks as you go. You can make the game your own easily. It leaves you room for imagination. All these points are very, very much true of OD&D, in my opinion.
Yes. I've played RPGs for decades, now, and I've gone through a lot of phases. Lately I've found myself coming "full circle" and taking a hard look at what I like about role playing games and what has been the most fun. Where I want to be on the rules vs. freedom scale is one of the central questions. Personally, I find fewer rules and more freedom to be more empowering and more fun. At least at this point.
Switching to "fewer rules/more freedom" in our main game is a relatively recent thing, for my group. But I've been very encouraged at how the game has picked up since we made that shift. That thing I said about players looking at their characters sheets to see what they can do is from direct, recent experience. They didn't realize how much they were tied to those lists of things on their sheets until they found themselves looking at sheets that were almost empty, by comparison.
It may not be to everyone's taste, but we've been loving it. (Actually, I'm not talking about an OD&D game, here, but rather a Castles & Crusades game. Same principles apply, though.) Incidentally, I don't subscribe to a "one system to rule them all" philosophy of gaming. There's still a place at my table for other systems, including d20; the C&C game is currently my main game, but not my only game.
Also the remark that the whole system is not really inter-connected is spot on, in the sense that you can take apart some parts of the system and replace them by something else that makes sense to you without being scared of destroying the whole game.
I thought that was a really good point, and one that I'd not considered until I read his site. That is, I knew there were various systems in classic D&D that didn't all work the same way, but I accepted the common criticism that cites that as a negative. I'm not so sure about that, anymore.