Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8156542"><p>I really don't think this position holds a lot of water. There is clearly an idea that you play your character and are not in control of the setting in the way the GM is in the 1E DMG and in OD&D. You've taken a few edge cases, in areas of the game that were quite specialized (like castle building). But to take that and then apply it to the game generally, I think is faulty logic. In fact, they seem to be exceptions to the overall rule of you playing just your character (and I also think your reading of some of these rules is a bit anachronistic any possibly wrong-----I would need to comb over my 1E DMG again to see for sure, which I am not going to do as I would much rather read In Those Dark Places today than prove a point online). But this just isn't resonating with me. It is like when people pointed to Barbarian rage to show that daily martial powers were cool in earlier D&D: these were exceptions and the issue of taking an edge case and making it a much bigger part of the game, is it totally changes how the game feels (just like taking a particular reading of a few edge cases can totally change what Gygax meant). I don't think anyone would seriously argue that Gygax meant D&D to be a game that gave narrative control to players. Again, that is anachronistic of course, because narrative control hadn't crystalized as a concept. But it seems way outside the playstyle and GMing advice of the man.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification