Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JonnyP71" data-source="post: 7625781" data-attributes="member: 6788862">Abiding by a rule is NOT removing player agency.&nbsp;[MENTION=6999115]Ohmyn[/MENTION] - that's not how the 1E rules were written, you're trying to apply the modern approach to D&amp;D rulebook writing to a 40+ year old game in which was still very much evolving up until the release of each rulebook (which were spread over a number of years).. the DMG in particular is very much stream of consciousness in its lack of organisation.&nbsp; Lowkey described the way the rules were written much better in I ever can several pages back.The reason a Druid could not wear metal armour in 1E was because, in 3 places, the rules said they cannot... without ever giving any instances in which they can.... plus the DMG training costs were not for PCs who broke the rules, they were for character who acted outside their general roles - there is a difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JonnyP71, post: 7625781, member: 6788862"] Abiding by a rule is NOT removing player agency. [MENTION=6999115]Ohmyn[/MENTION] - that's not how the 1E rules were written, you're trying to apply the modern approach to D&D rulebook writing to a 40+ year old game in which was still very much evolving up until the release of each rulebook (which were spread over a number of years).. the DMG in particular is very much stream of consciousness in its lack of organisation. Lowkey described the way the rules were written much better in I ever can several pages back. The reason a Druid could not wear metal armour in 1E was because, in 3 places, the rules said they cannot... without ever giving any instances in which they can. ... plus the DMG training costs were not for PCs who broke the rules, they were for character who acted outside their general roles - there is a difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification