We aren't talking about Edwards philosophy, we are talking about who he was referencing with his original "brain damage" comment. I provided a direct quote and he clearly references games from the 70's... so what games are being referenced if not old school D&D and it's ilk??
Again what games from the 70's is he referencing then?
So expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against... am I wrong here?
Gimme the Edwards quote again please, I've not read this whole thread. I rem him calling something like Adventure Path type play brain damaging - training players to be passive I think. I guess Runequest or some linear Traveller modules could be run that way, but it only really started with Dragonlance and became dominant in the '90s. They never call pure Gamist play brain-damaging, that would make no sense within their own paradigm.
"expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against" - Yup, I think so. A high level Cook-Marsh Expert Set Fighter might conceivably pound a dragon to death over several rounds (taking tons of breath wpn dmg) but you can't kill a dragon in one blow within the bounds of Moldvay Basic D&D. You can't survive a red dragon at all, I'd say.