Thank you for illustrating my point.If you took XP for gold out of your 1E AD&D game, decided XP was only for monster kills, did not raise the amount of XP for killing a monster, and ignored the rules on reaction and morale, it is NOT Gary Gygax's fault that your game is a bloodbath.
That the extremes -- wizards should be dropping major spells 24/7 or wizards should do one thing a day and then sit in the corner for the rest of the game -- are both bad choices.Sorry I misunderstood, then! My bad.
What WERE you saying?
The rulebooks were eccentrically organized back in the day, and lots of rules were scattered throughout the books, rather than being placed together and explained clearly, as they typically are today in games like OSE.it is NOT Gary Gygax's fault that your game is a bloodbath.
I get what you're saying here, but at the opposite end of the spectrum, I recall more than a few people saying that it was WotC's fault that the clause about monsters' alignments not being set in stone in the 5E Monster Manual apparently flew under the radar for so many people, despite how clearly that book was laid out. (Though I certainly think there's something to be said for reintroducing 3E's "often/usually/always" tags.)The rulebooks were eccentrically organized back in the day, and lots of rules were scattered throughout the books, rather than being placed together and explained clearly, as they typically are today in games like OSE.
The state of the art for presentation and clarity has advanced a lot since the late 1970s, to be sure, due in part to the desktop publishing revolution, but if it's not Gary's fault that plenty of people missed some or all of what he was saying, whose fault is it? Even if it's unfair to expect the old books to be OSE-level in clarity, they could certainly have been more clear than they were.
Ah! Agreed.wizards should do one thing a day and then sit in the corner for the rest of the game -- are both bad choices.