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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Odhanan" data-source="post: 2648266" data-attributes="member: 12324">I understand your point much better now, Bastoche. Thanks for clearing everything up! <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=":)" />Weird. I see what you mean but for me, back in the day when playing OD&D and/or AD&D it was sort of implied for me. But then, I've never been a huge advocate of RAW. I hinted at my conception of D&D/RPGs (running, playing and/or designing them) as a craft(s), or a metacraft using bits of other crafts, or both and more. For me, the rules of game always have been tips as to "how to run the game as we (the game's designers) think it's supposed to be played". After you come up with houserules and whatnot, with the idea that things are presented and organized in a rulebook/rules system in some way that's supposed to make sense. So you can modify things by looking at how the system works carefully. Bottom line, I think most of the RAW arguments ought to be much shorter than they are on most D&D fora, because there should be this assumption that people aren't playing exactly the same game. This is the nature of RPGs to empower players and GMs as co-designers of the game. What you get with a rulebook is the tool to achieve the finished product (game sessions), never the finished product itself.</blockquote>

Verification