Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9003355" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>nobody has, or has claimed to have, anything beyond what is already known and at least parts of which can be accessed online quite easily. You are all latching onto some trivial aspect of my argument, blowing it up into some giant thing that it never was, and then using that to bury the REAL LOGIC, which is quite simple: Dave and Gary produced a LARGE QUANTITY of rules text! They clearly valued having this rules text, and this throws considerable shade on the idea that either of them was of the opinion that &quot;less is more.&quot; Nor am I an absolutist in this argument, as I've already stated several times. It is quite possible, probably even, that the opinions of these authors evolved over time, that they weren't consistent, and that they believed in BOTH the value of rules texts intended to codify and convey techniques, as well as an open-ended attitude towards play which is probably much closer to 'rulings over rules' than it is to 'invisible rulebooks' IMHO as someone who played D&amp;D in the 'early days' and is familiar with what was articulated back then.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9003355, member: 82106"] nobody has, or has claimed to have, anything beyond what is already known and at least parts of which can be accessed online quite easily. You are all latching onto some trivial aspect of my argument, blowing it up into some giant thing that it never was, and then using that to bury the REAL LOGIC, which is quite simple: Dave and Gary produced a LARGE QUANTITY of rules text! They clearly valued having this rules text, and this throws considerable shade on the idea that either of them was of the opinion that "less is more." Nor am I an absolutist in this argument, as I've already stated several times. It is quite possible, probably even, that the opinions of these authors evolved over time, that they weren't consistent, and that they believed in BOTH the value of rules texts intended to codify and convey techniques, as well as an open-ended attitude towards play which is probably much closer to 'rulings over rules' than it is to 'invisible rulebooks' IMHO as someone who played D&D in the 'early days' and is familiar with what was articulated back then. [/QUOTE]

Verification