Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 5744201" data-attributes="member: 66434">The age old debate that never goes away.  This is a difficult subject to pin down largely because it deals with defining the rules of play for so many different group dynamics.  D&D was originally a kit with which a DM built a game for his/her group to enjoy. The mechanics were sparse, the intent being that most of the game, being one of imagination ,would come from the participants. The rules were very flexible and were intended to serve a relatively stable group over the course of campaign play for extended periods.  Today we have a lot more public play, and shorter spans of time to run campaigns  (on average) and the rules have become more defined at least in part due to the need for the kind of uniformity that Gary was going for when he went about crafting AD&D. The goal of making D&D rules more standardized and suited to impromptu play was well intentioned but brought with it some unforseen consequences.  Too much codified RAW and the imaginative aspect of play gets relegated to a secondary role. Not enough codification of the rules and players become fearful of playing with DMs they do not know well. Its really tough if not impossible to construct a single set of rules to satisfy all the differences between the various types of group dynamics.  Perhaps different product lines that aim on different sides of this divide is the only answer.</blockquote>