Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Odhanan" data-source="post: 2875965" data-attributes="member: 12324"><a href="http://robert.infogami.com/Classic_D&D" target="_blank">Robert Fisher's website</a> is shock full of interesting remarks. It makes for a (series of) good read(s). The <a href="http://robert.infogami.com/Classic_D&D:_I_used_to_think..." target="_blank">I used to think...</a> article points out very simple and straightforward arguments. I'm not agreeing with everything (this part made me raise an eyebrow: "A game of coöperation between players is often better when each player has more limited options. PCs created by the rules can be just as much fun (if not more fun) to play than my favorite book/movie character or munchkin idea."), but I think his remarks are insightful.I like your remark about balance between rules and freedom. You fill in the blanks as you go. You can make the game your own easily. It leaves you room for imagination. All these points are very, very much true of OD&D, in my opinion. Also the remark that the whole system is not really inter-connected is spot on, in the sense that you can take apart some parts of the system and replace them by something else that makes sense to you without being scared of destroying the whole game. This is the part I'm talking about:I used to think: Classic D&D isn’t consistant enough mechanically.Now I think:   1. Different things deserve different mechanics. One size does not always fit all.   2. Classic D&D is so mechanically simple, consistency wouldn’t really buy you much. There aren’t very many subsystems, they are all dead simple, & only a few make up the bulk of play.   3. See <a href="http://robert.infogami.com/Unified_mechanic" target="_blank">Unified mechanic</a></blockquote>

Verification