Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3906045" data-attributes="member: 307">You keep saying this like it isn't total nonsense. Yet we know that it is complete and utter nonsense. We know how the AD&amp;D rules were written and the play conditions under which they were developed, and that the players in the original &quot;test group&quot; rotated DM duties among themselves. The rules were designed in an environment in which the players all knew the rules, even those rules that ended up in the DMG. So making some sort of argument about how the contents of the DMG were supposed to be sacred text forbidden to mere players is just silly. And every time you make the argument it just drops your credibility on any subject lower.We also have pretty good evidence that in most groups, the DM duties rotated. Which means that at any point in time, most groups had several people at the table who had seen and studied the inside of the DMG by necessity. And somehow they were able to make the game work and have fun - we know many of those people liked the game enough to keep playing even to this day, 25-30 years later. So your argument that the game is &quot;fun&quot; because it is like Calvinball just falls flat int he face of what evidence we have.The simple fact of the matter is that unclear rules and vague subjective decisionmaking are hindrances to the game, not benefits. If vague rules and subjective judgments were what made the game more fun, then there wouldn't be any reason to play anything with more specific rules than &quot;Cops and Robbers&quot;. The vast piles of house rules that 1e engendered to fill in these gaps and clarify the vaguness is a sign of the weakness of the system, and a sign that the Calvinball nature of the rules actually isn't where the fun comes from.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 3906045, member: 307"] You keep saying this like it isn't total nonsense. Yet we know that it is complete and utter nonsense. We know how the AD&D rules were written and the play conditions under which they were developed, and that the players in the original "test group" rotated DM duties among themselves. The rules were designed in an environment in which the players all knew the rules, even those rules that ended up in the DMG. So making some sort of argument about how the contents of the DMG were supposed to be sacred text forbidden to mere players is just silly. And every time you make the argument it just drops your credibility on any subject lower. We also have pretty good evidence that in most groups, the DM duties rotated. Which means that at any point in time, most groups had several people at the table who had seen and studied the inside of the DMG by necessity. And somehow they were able to make the game work and have fun - we know many of those people liked the game enough to keep playing even to this day, 25-30 years later. So your argument that the game is "fun" because it is like Calvinball just falls flat int he face of what evidence we have. The simple fact of the matter is that unclear rules and vague subjective decisionmaking are hindrances to the game, not benefits. If vague rules and subjective judgments were what made the game more fun, then there wouldn't be any reason to play anything with more specific rules than "Cops and Robbers". The vast piles of house rules that 1e engendered to fill in these gaps and clarify the vaguness is a sign of the weakness of the system, and a sign that the Calvinball nature of the rules actually isn't where the fun comes from. [/QUOTE]

Verification