Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3758311" data-attributes="member: 22779">Actually, it's not a strawman.&nbsp; In your campaign, it might be a difference between live and death.&nbsp; In the game of D&amp;D, it didn't matter whatsoever.&nbsp; Mechanically, the game couldn't give a rat's petoot how much amateur thespianism you bring to the game.&nbsp; It was left entirely outside of the rules.To use your MU example.&nbsp; The rules certainly did not call for any actual play during training.&nbsp; You calculated the time, calculated the price, paid your money and moved on.&nbsp; As far as the rules were concerned, that was it.&nbsp; That you or I or anyone else chose to move beyond the rules is besides the point.&nbsp; We've stopped playing AD&amp;D and are now playing Korgoth's D&amp;D or Hussar's D&amp;D.&nbsp; And therein lies the huge disparity between play experiences.&nbsp; Amateur thespianism is certainly not the only way to role play.&nbsp; Yes, you can do it.&nbsp; I certainly have.&nbsp; This &quot;real life&quot; approach to the game is one way to do things.&nbsp; But, it was certainly not the only way and it was not mandated by the rules.&nbsp; There were reaction mechanics in 1e that could be used for example.&nbsp; Yes, 1e (and any edition) can be played this way.&nbsp; But, saying that it is the only way or that it is even suggested by the rules is mistaken.&nbsp; This approach to the game was certainly suggested in a number of modules.&nbsp; Isle of the Ape straight up tells you to browbeat your players into accepting the mission and has all sorts of Viking Hat DMing advice.&nbsp; Tomb of Horrors also heavily leans towards this idea - &quot;here's an adventure to screw your players with&quot; is the basic premise.&nbsp; Adversarial DMing was not the only way the game was played, but, it was played.Yup, because of the huge numbers of permutations of gameplay back in the day, it's pretty difficult to come to any sort of consensus as to what actually is meant by Old Skool play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3758311, member: 22779"] Actually, it's not a strawman. In your campaign, it might be a difference between live and death. In the game of D&D, it didn't matter whatsoever. Mechanically, the game couldn't give a rat's petoot how much amateur thespianism you bring to the game. It was left entirely outside of the rules. To use your MU example. The rules certainly did not call for any actual play during training. You calculated the time, calculated the price, paid your money and moved on. As far as the rules were concerned, that was it. That you or I or anyone else chose to move beyond the rules is besides the point. We've stopped playing AD&D and are now playing Korgoth's D&D or Hussar's D&D. And therein lies the huge disparity between play experiences. Amateur thespianism is certainly not the only way to role play. Yes, you can do it. I certainly have. This "real life" approach to the game is one way to do things. But, it was certainly not the only way and it was not mandated by the rules. There were reaction mechanics in 1e that could be used for example. Yes, 1e (and any edition) can be played this way. But, saying that it is the only way or that it is even suggested by the rules is mistaken. This approach to the game was certainly suggested in a number of modules. Isle of the Ape straight up tells you to browbeat your players into accepting the mission and has all sorts of Viking Hat DMing advice. Tomb of Horrors also heavily leans towards this idea - "here's an adventure to screw your players with" is the basic premise. Adversarial DMing was not the only way the game was played, but, it [u]was[/u] played. Yup, because of the huge numbers of permutations of gameplay back in the day, it's pretty difficult to come to any sort of consensus as to what actually is meant by Old Skool play. [/QUOTE]

Verification