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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 6409108" data-attributes="member: 3887">Well, yes, they helped!The one you used is inaccurate and leads the discussion down a well-worn, unhelpful, and inevitably partisan path. You could just as easily say old-school DM's allowed for a greater amount of PC freedom *because* more of the game existed outside of the purview of the codified rules. That's *also* true of many people's experiences, and it's certainly the lesson I learned by DM'ing AD&D 1 and 2. "The rules don't cover this -- just roll something (often under a stat on a d20) was very common -- also, a really fast way of resolving an action.But the biggest problem with generalizations like yours -- offered without even a personal anecdote -- is that they bury the fact that old-school D&D was *many different, varied, and frequently contradictory* experiences. Thus the truest generalization you can make is "people played a lot a different ways with the same base rules". I've found "explicitly against the rules" isn't a helpful concept here. Rules-illegal rulings could be made for the player's benefit or against it, they could be beloved by group, or a constant irritation. Or anything in-between. So not seeing the inherent benefit of following "the rules" re: dealing with prat DMs. The only way to deal with prat DM --who isn't willing to listen to their players -- is to find another group. I'd say it's easy to sell a group on something when they trust the DM. Without that trust -- which is always personal, IMHO, and not systems-derived -- it's going to be a hard sell.</blockquote>

Verification