Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6728523" data-attributes="member: 3192">That's what some did and still do, improvising rules on the spot. But maybe the player is telling you something not covered or covered only algorithmically. If the game code doesn't cover it at all, then like any dynamic situational puzzle it's "irrelevant, so okay" If it is possible within the game, then the DM clarifies until they hit design specifics. This could be broad or narrow. (I remember we've gone over this before) P1: "I combat these hairy barkers!"Ref: "How do you do that exactly?"P1: "We go up and swing our swords into their gullets"Ref: "You mean into the 'hairy barker' stomachs specifically? Where do you think this is on them? P1: "No, just anywhere I can hack them into pieces"Ref: "Okay, which of the three do you move to so...I agree with part of what you are saying, but certainly not Gary wanting players to "just make stuff up" after working at extraordinary length to create a balanced game system for players to play. To break the game. D&D for many long years since its inception used the Human scale as the template for the game. That's because it assumed humans would be playing it. They could then ascertain instinctively what scores given to measures of underlying designs meant and what general relative deviations scores could plausibly mean during play. This allowed them to understand and have reasonable predictions of behaviors like in any game from the DM's descriptions.This is why the 3-18 bell curve of Ability Scores refers to the span of adult human abilities the player can use. It's why Common is "Human". Why Humanity is the dominant race. And why all the classes in the game are human classes and have no limit for humans. Their infinity is the game's infinity, while Demi-human's infinities top out earlier when they attempt to role play human classes (normally top out). I don't know if you recall, but Ability scores not being Attributes was a big debate when I joined the hobby in the mid to late 1980s. The diehards in Milwaukee were adamant that Ability Scores were in no way attributes. It never matters if you pretend a personality or not (many then players didn't and still don't -"That's not what role playing is!"), so players never needed to act according to the listed ability scores as attributes. If you roll low INT or WIS or CHA, a player is playing with weaker game abilities. They are just like every other ability on the record sheet. No one has to play stupidly, foolishly, or meekly. Such play has a history of interfering with those trying to play the actual game. Most every old schooler gets this. That D&D is a game to be treated like a game is surviving evidence of what I'm relating to you of my own experiences.Now When it comes to NPCs, suggested mechanics covering their behavior were growing in the D&D game as books were published until the early/mid-80s. That's when Gary was gone frequently and eventually left TSR. There are suggested answers to how existing rules worked in The Dragon and other places. That lots of DMs simply hand-waved whole swaths of the game away or were confused by the rules or didn't know they had to make the rules was common when I started. But these things were still supposed to be done to make D&D a functional game. 2e as a matter of fact screwed it all up by telling the players the "rules" (enabling rule lawyering).I feel I could go on, but I'm guessing you won't give up on your "the whole history of D&D is as an improv story making game, not a strategy game like wargames". As if.</blockquote>

Verification