Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 3394457" data-attributes="member: 16574"><p>Original D&D in play tends to be almost entirely freeform and negotiation-based, with DM fiat (perhaps augmented by an ad-hoc die roll, perhaps not) serving as the primary resolution mechanic. The rules of the game are so minimal (and so vague and open to interpretation even where they exist -- "[Dexterity] will indicate the character's ... speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc." (vol. I, p. 11) -- how? the rules don't say...) that pretty much anything a player attempts to do in-game is going to require some kind of player-level negotiation culminating in a DM judgment call. With contentious players, a bad DM, or a lack of trust (in either direction) this can be disastrous with every decision being argued and second-guessed and nothing getting accomplished. Cross-campaign compatability is also very dodgy, since every group is likely to have wildly different assumptions, procedures, and house-rules, requiring a player who switches groups to essentially learn an entirely new game from the ground up. However, in the right circumstances, this version provides the most freedom for players and DM alike -- as long as the players are willing and able to state their case, trust the DM to make a fair judgment, and are willing to abide by it, they can do absolutely anything.</p></blockquote><p></p>