Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rob Kuntz" data-source="post: 8255489" data-attributes="member: 7015759">Heh.&nbsp; &quot;By the book, for the book and nothing but the book!&nbsp; So help me.... WotC.&quot;&nbsp; I will not post my &quot;Three Stooges Paradox&quot; I had distilled from past to present DMing, through the editions, here.&nbsp; That said I have stated and staked my position clearly and will add only this.&nbsp; Having followed the first link was but a reminder, nothing new. I've watched since the beginning and very closely so there was no surprise.&nbsp; What is forsaken by Player-Only agency is a worn topic at this point.&nbsp; It's been condensed to entertainment only, i.e., only having fun; and everyone is a winner of &quot;fun&quot;.&nbsp; Fun has been defined as an irrefutable output by winning, not by playing or by any other measures that may, even incrementally, lead to mastery of anything sub to the point of winning.&nbsp; So if the system is devised up front to ensure winning occurs in each and every case, there cannot be (in the design philosophy so engineered/applied) interpreted DM agency of the finite system.&nbsp; The latter DM agency morphs into administrative roles in ensuring that the engaged system is working to its proper output from the designed-in inputs.OD&amp;D/AD&amp;D are what they are due to overall system-capable elasticity.The latter editions are what they are for the opposite reason.&nbsp; They are the finalized median view of the market.&nbsp; The market is about quickest throughput in all cases, from A to B to C.&nbsp; Elasticity is its polar opposite as that creates uncertainty in output.&nbsp; Is this a cynical view by WotC?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; It is a straight up market view and no one should be surprised by it in the least.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rob Kuntz, post: 8255489, member: 7015759"] Heh. "By the book, for the book and nothing but the book! So help me.... WotC." I will not post my "Three Stooges Paradox" I had distilled from past to present DMing, through the editions, here. That said I have stated and staked my position clearly and will add only this. Having followed the first link was but a reminder, nothing new. I've watched since the beginning and very closely so there was no surprise. What is forsaken by Player-Only agency is a worn topic at this point. It's been condensed to entertainment only, i.e., only having fun; and everyone is a winner of "fun". Fun has been defined as an irrefutable output by winning, not by playing or by any other measures that may, even incrementally, lead to mastery of anything sub to the point of winning. So if the system is devised up front to ensure winning occurs in each and every case, there [B]cannot [/B]be (in the design philosophy so engineered/applied) interpreted DM agency of the finite system. The latter DM agency morphs into administrative roles in ensuring that the engaged system is working to its proper output from the designed-in inputs. OD&D/AD&D are what they are due to [B]overall[/B] system-capable elasticity. The latter editions are what they are for the opposite reason. They are the finalized median view of the market. The market is about quickest throughput in all cases, from A to B to C. Elasticity is its polar opposite as that creates uncertainty in output. Is this a cynical view by WotC? No. It is a straight up market view and no one should be surprised by it in the least. [/QUOTE]

Verification