Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9365436" data-attributes="member: 4937">Then I would encourage you to go read that thread again, because so many people were responding without listening to a single thing I said.&nbsp; I don't know how many people were going on and on about complex look up tables and other things irrelevant to my point.I mean I feel we're in pretty close agreement here on the existence of the problem, except that OSR tends to be mimicking BECMI or 1e/2e AD&amp;D rules when class constraints and narrowness of concept was at its worst.&nbsp; I mean these are frameworks that involved classes like Druid, Monk, Ranger, Cavelier, Thief, and Elf for crying out loud (and ultimately things like Bandit, Mariner, and Cook).Fundamentally you seem to be arguing that relying on GM fiat (while claiming GM fiat is a light resolution methodology!) allows for more player control over their character than a rules framework.&nbsp; While I'm not particularly happy with the impact of say &quot;weapon specialization&quot; on the AD&amp;D framework, at least it has some enforceable table agreement that &quot;my character is particularly good at this one thing.&quot;&nbsp; So while we seem to agree on the problem, we are proposing radically different solutions.&nbsp; Indeed, OSR to me is a complete non-solution.&nbsp; It's just ignoring the problem by pretending that what the system didn't have the foresight to explore it didn't need.Maybe we are thinking about different problems.&nbsp; To me OSR is loaded with this problem precisely because of the original materials lack of foresight.&nbsp; This is like the problem with defining &quot;climb walls&quot; as a siloed thief power.&nbsp; But even poorly designed modern systems lack that problem.&nbsp; So I don't think OSR lovers have much of a conundrum to raise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9365436, member: 4937"] Then I would encourage you to go read that thread again, because so many people were responding without listening to a single thing I said. I don't know how many people were going on and on about complex look up tables and other things irrelevant to my point. I mean I feel we're in pretty close agreement here on the existence of the problem, except that OSR tends to be mimicking BECMI or 1e/2e AD&D rules when class constraints and narrowness of concept was at its worst. I mean these are frameworks that involved classes like Druid, Monk, Ranger, Cavelier, Thief, and Elf for crying out loud (and ultimately things like Bandit, Mariner, and Cook). Fundamentally you seem to be arguing that relying on GM fiat (while claiming GM fiat is a light resolution methodology!) allows for more player control over their character than a rules framework. While I'm not particularly happy with the impact of say "weapon specialization" on the AD&D framework, at least it has some enforceable table agreement that "my character is particularly good at this one thing." So while we seem to agree on the problem, we are proposing radically different solutions. Indeed, OSR to me is a complete non-solution. It's just ignoring the problem by pretending that what the system didn't have the foresight to explore it didn't need. Maybe we are thinking about different problems. To me OSR is loaded with this problem precisely because of the original materials lack of foresight. This is like the problem with defining "climb walls" as a siloed thief power. But even poorly designed modern systems lack that problem. So I don't think OSR lovers have much of a conundrum to raise. [/QUOTE]

Verification