Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3770216" data-attributes="member: 3192">I'm not sure whether you are serious here.&nbsp; Is your argument that uniformity means absolute sameness?&nbsp; And that I am contradicting myself by suggesting playstyles are conforming to styles that actually function under the current ruleset?&nbsp; If so, for clarity, I'm using the 'conforming to a pattern' definition vs. 'unvaried sameness'.&nbsp;Well, I've found that rule-thinking removes players from being immersed in their characters.&nbsp; You can always decide what to do as all options are always available.&nbsp; You can always try and track, to forge papers, to cast a spell when you're a fighter, etc.&nbsp; You learn by playing the game, not by reading the rules.&nbsp; (there are no &quot;rules&quot; in the real world either).&nbsp; Strategies are built upon what you know.&nbsp; It tests the Players ability to think like a person living in the real world (though hypothetical) instead of the Players' knowledge of the rules.&nbsp; It isn't a game where one knows what will happen at any given point and time.&nbsp; But the world is consistent and the reasons can be determined.&nbsp; These are in game reasons as long as the rules are sufficiently simulating what they were designed for.Fantasy works extraordinarily well for this type of game as characters don't start with vast amounts of knowledge nor have internet amounts of knowledge as a quick resource.&nbsp; As I've played 1AD&amp;D and am now playing a lot of OD&amp;D, I can say that this is exactly how the game can and often was played.&nbsp; Go over to Dragonsfoot and ask there.&nbsp; They should be able to confirm this style as valid and very much D&amp;D.&nbsp;The character starts with the ability to cast magic, but neither they nor the player knows &quot;the rules of how magic truly works&quot;.&nbsp; There are simply theories.&nbsp; Just like Gods are theories.&nbsp; Are they true?&nbsp; Well, the only way to find out is to keep learning and testing what you think you know.&nbsp; Also, what magical theories(/Gods) do you start with?&nbsp; Whatever the player prefers.P - &quot;I cast Detect Magic&quot; DM - &quot;around the chair appears an orange aura with streaks of cascading darkness or blackness intermittently coming out&quot;P - &quot;What's that mean?&quot;The DM knows and the Player/Character has the ability to find out.&nbsp; Same as discovering fireballs expand in small spaces.&nbsp; And that their fire burns.&nbsp; Or that magical electrical bolts bounce.&nbsp; Etc. Etc.These particulars aren't &quot;the way D&amp;D is&quot;.&nbsp; They are houserules made up in Gary's old games.&nbsp; Being in Advanced D&amp;D doesn't make the &quot;the true way&quot;.&nbsp; I prefer the ability to make our own designs true without requiring the old hat, known by everyone options.&nbsp; What I call &quot;setting design&quot;.&nbsp; This was/is D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3770216, member: 3192"] I'm not sure whether you are serious here. Is your argument that uniformity means absolute sameness? And that I am contradicting myself by suggesting playstyles are conforming to styles that actually function under the current ruleset? If so, for clarity, I'm using the 'conforming to a pattern' definition vs. 'unvaried sameness'. Well, I've found that rule-thinking removes players from being immersed in their characters. You can always decide what to do as all options are always available. You can always try and track, to forge papers, to cast a spell when you're a fighter, etc. You learn by playing the game, not by reading the rules. (there are no "rules" in the real world either). Strategies are built upon what you know. It tests the Players ability to think like a person living in the real world (though hypothetical) instead of the Players' knowledge of the rules. It isn't a game where one knows what will happen at any given point and time. But the world is consistent and the reasons can be determined. These are in game reasons as long as the rules are sufficiently simulating what they were designed for. Fantasy works extraordinarily well for this type of game as characters don't start with vast amounts of knowledge nor have internet amounts of knowledge as a quick resource. As I've played 1AD&D and am now playing a lot of OD&D, I can say that this is exactly how the game can and often was played. Go over to Dragonsfoot and ask there. They should be able to confirm this style as valid and very much D&D. The character starts with the ability to cast magic, but neither they nor the player knows "the rules of how magic truly works". There are simply theories. Just like Gods are theories. Are they true? Well, the only way to find out is to keep learning and testing what you think you know. Also, what magical theories(/Gods) do you start with? Whatever the player prefers. P - "I cast Detect Magic" DM - "around the chair appears an orange aura with streaks of cascading darkness or blackness intermittently coming out" P - "What's that mean?" The DM knows and the Player/Character has the ability to find out. Same as discovering fireballs expand in small spaces. And that their fire burns. Or that magical electrical bolts bounce. Etc. Etc. These particulars aren't "the way D&D is". They are houserules made up in Gary's old games. Being in Advanced D&D doesn't make the "the true way". I prefer the ability to make our own designs true without requiring the old hat, known by everyone options. What I call "setting design". This was/is D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification