Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Garnfellow" data-source="post: 4589869" data-attributes="member: 1223">The premise of the OP isn't simply flawed, it's ridiculous. Poor little Mike Mearls isn't given any more flack than any other designer from the hoary past. As many others have already pointed out, there was just no forum for readers to express their disagreement.Tons of players and DMs I knew back in the eighties chaffed mightily at the Gygaxian pronouncements of official AD&amp;D orthodoxy that became more common and more strident toward the end of 1983 *. Your quote is a perfect example of something that would drive people bonkers. This fiat against firearms, coming from the same guy who made Murlynd, the six-gun toting quasi-deity?You could find plenty of disagreement with EGG in the pages of Dragon magazine, or even better, in White Dwarf or other magazines like Space Gamer.In fact, many of the design principles behind second edition were pretty much an explicit rejection of this one-true-wayism. It's ironic that you picked one of the very few examples in the 2e core rules that did not follow this permissive philosophy. Generally, the 2e rules were only presented as suggestions and guidelines, giving DMs arguments both for and against particular rules._____* EGG's insistence on AD&amp;D rules heterodoxy was a curious and relatively short-lived phase. See &quot;Poker, Chess, and the AD&amp;D System&quot; for one of the best expressions of this impulse. However, the intro to the DMG certainly calls for DMs to make the game their own, and certainly after he left TSR he frequently stated that individual DMs could and should feel free to do their own thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Garnfellow, post: 4589869, member: 1223"] The premise of the OP isn't simply flawed, it's ridiculous. Poor little Mike Mearls isn't given any more flack than any other designer from the hoary past. As many others have already pointed out, there was just no forum for readers to express their disagreement. Tons of players and DMs I knew back in the eighties chaffed mightily at the Gygaxian pronouncements of official AD&D orthodoxy that became more common and more strident toward the end of 1983 *. Your quote is a perfect example of something that would drive people bonkers. This fiat against firearms, coming from the same guy who made Murlynd, the six-gun toting quasi-deity? You could find plenty of disagreement with EGG in the pages of Dragon magazine, or even better, in White Dwarf or other magazines like Space Gamer. In fact, many of the design principles behind second edition were pretty much an explicit rejection of this one-true-wayism. It's ironic that you picked one of the very few examples in the 2e core rules that did not follow this permissive philosophy. Generally, the 2e rules were only presented as suggestions and guidelines, giving DMs arguments both for and against particular rules. _____ * EGG's insistence on AD&D rules heterodoxy was a curious and relatively short-lived phase. See "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D System" for one of the best expressions of this impulse. However, the intro to the DMG certainly calls for DMs to make the game their own, and certainly after he left TSR he frequently stated that individual DMs could and should feel free to do their own thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification