Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8591643" data-attributes="member: 6877472">People who played AD&amp;D quickly worked out for themselves how to run and play the game.&nbsp; Whether they realize it or not, they have accrued tons of rulings and &quot;house rules&quot; that they insist &quot;everyone plays by&quot; or even attribute them to the system itself.I've been playing since the 80's, and I read the same rulebooks as a lot of my older gamer friends, yet they still argue with me about what the rules say.&nbsp; When people pine for the fjords of OD&amp;D, I often just take screen shots of my books or PDF's and point out &quot;this is what the rulebook actually says, btw&quot;, and get told &quot;well, if you look on page XX of this other book, or if you have issue 31 of Dragon Magazine, you'd know that's not how it worked.&quot;And most people didn't own all the books back in the day.&nbsp; A lot of DM's just wanted to dive into telling stories, not reading about how to tell stories.&nbsp; I've read the 1e DMG cover to cover scores of times, but every time I look at the thing I go, &quot;oh would you look at that, rules for games of chance!&quot;Now when most people played with the same circle of friends, a sort of &quot;rules consensus&quot; developed.&nbsp; Or if one DM insisted that magic missile was an area of effect spell due to misunderstanding the spell layout, we just said &quot;ok, in his campaign, that's how that spell works&quot;.But if you traveled and encountered other groups of gamers in the wild, you ran into some pretty crazy stuff.&nbsp; My personal favorite was when I encountered a group that insisted that Fighters got extra attacks with both weapons when two-weapon fighting.&nbsp; Didn't even think it was unbalanced at all, just that's how the game was, and anyone who used a shield or two-handed weapon was just dumb (I mean, sometimes that still the case, but I digress).&nbsp; So when I pointed them at the exact rule that states you get one extra attack and that's all, they looked at it, shrugged, and said &quot;we don't play it that way&quot; and continued having their Elven Fighters get hasted for 10 attacks a round.It's a lot like Monopoly really.&nbsp; Most everyone &quot;knows&quot; how to play it.&nbsp; Almost everyone plays it wrong, but for them, it's more fun that way.&nbsp; Or some years back when the makers of Uno posted official rules online, and had people who had played the game with their families for years tell them that they were wrong!&quot;Death of the Author&quot; in game design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8591643, member: 6877472"] People who played AD&D quickly worked out for themselves how to run and play the game. Whether they realize it or not, they have accrued tons of rulings and "house rules" that they insist "everyone plays by" or even attribute them to the system itself. I've been playing since the 80's, and I read the same rulebooks as a lot of my older gamer friends, yet they still argue with me about what the rules say. When people pine for the fjords of OD&D, I often just take screen shots of my books or PDF's and point out "this is what the rulebook actually says, btw", and get told "well, if you look on page XX of this other book, or if you have issue 31 of Dragon Magazine, you'd know that's not how it worked." And most people didn't own all the books back in the day. A lot of DM's just wanted to dive into telling stories, not reading about how to tell stories. I've read the 1e DMG cover to cover scores of times, but every time I look at the thing I go, "oh would you look at that, rules for games of chance!" Now when most people played with the same circle of friends, a sort of "rules consensus" developed. Or if one DM insisted that magic missile was an area of effect spell due to misunderstanding the spell layout, we just said "ok, in his campaign, that's how that spell works". But if you traveled and encountered other groups of gamers in the wild, you ran into some pretty crazy stuff. My personal favorite was when I encountered a group that insisted that Fighters got extra attacks with both weapons when two-weapon fighting. Didn't even think it was unbalanced at all, just that's how the game was, and anyone who used a shield or two-handed weapon was just dumb (I mean, sometimes that still the case, but I digress). So when I pointed them at the exact rule that states you get one extra attack and that's all, they looked at it, shrugged, and said "we don't play it that way" and continued having their Elven Fighters get hasted for 10 attacks a round. It's a lot like Monopoly really. Most everyone "knows" how to play it. Almost everyone plays it wrong, but for them, it's more fun that way. Or some years back when the makers of Uno posted official rules online, and had people who had played the game with their families for years tell them that they were wrong! "Death of the Author" in game design. [/QUOTE]

Verification