Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cyberen" data-source="post: 6452449" data-attributes="member: 69074">Honestly, I don't believe there are real "direct player authorship" moments in AD&D. RAW, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are right, the Paladin mount quest is one, but I would guess the RAI is not as clear cut. I would say it is a strong advice, for Players and DM alike, about the strong flavour of the Paladin class : if there is a Paladin in a party (a special snowflake, really, as the required stats are nearly impossible to get), then "adventuring" should involve trials of honor, mettle, and moral quandaries. This is exactly the type of strong background promoted in OA, I guess, and quite a clear acknowledgment that the game, at a larger scale, is co-authored by the DM and the players. Concerning table adjudication in media res, I think Gygax's take on it is quite close to the 5e DMG disclaimer : the DM is in charge of the fun, and should roll with the players'(crazy) ideas when possible, while pretending absolute control of the situation. Presuming the presence of a bearded NPC or boxes in a back alley is contrary to *table etiquette* (we are knee deep in Forgist metagame considerations here !), and would be met with disapproval (and retaliation !), even if I am with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] (and Mearls !) when he says such an etiquette leads to a game of "DM may I" than to emotional investment (but this emotional investment was not really part of Gygax's agenda, I would guess). I don't believe in RAW, in the early editions, and I certainly believe table etiquette is something better left to the table. Certainly, Arneson's or Kuntz's were different...Going with the "Drawmij nonfiery meteors" example, the beard example could be adjudicated in a cheesy way : Player : DM, is this guy bearded ?DM, pretending to roll dice : Let us see... No, he is clean shavenPlayer : as I am ! How lucky I shaved this morning.as the DM gets to decide for the NPC, but has no say on the supposedly yet undecided state of the PC's beard !Welcome to Schrödinger's dungeon  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Also, one has to note how abstract AD&D can be : attacks, HP, saving throws, secret doors, and, yes, name level status are abstract subsystems meant to be invoked by the players or the DM, without needing a thorough description of the in-game fiction. I believe it is a good description of RM, RQ, and some later editions, to be a reaction against those (dissociated ?) systems. Of course, if a table wants to focus on the acquiring of status, it can be role-played more concretely, or some Fame system can be added, but the default presented is that, upon attaining 9th level, a Fighter is a Lord and is entitled his stronghold and followers. I think it really showcases how Player vs Character has never been clear-cut, and shouldn't be addressed by the rules but by mutual agreement.</blockquote>

Verification