Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8831154" data-attributes="member: 29398">OK, [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] - here's the points list.  Here's what he gets wrong, IME:Wrong.  Most people - DMs at least - knew about it, but intentionally chose to ignore it.They did both; most commonly starting with a dungeon or two and then expanding from there as needed until suddenly it's a world - or enough of one to support a long and diverse campaign, anyway.Wrong.  In the DMG Gygax points out how cool it can be if DMs connect their worlds such that characters can jump from one to another; and this was fairly common among groups where some players overlapped.  But all D&D games taking place in one shared world?  Hell no!This one's true sometimes, but doesn't square with the one at 4:55.Players came and went, sure, but IME there would usually be a core of two or three who stuck with a given DM.Completely wrong; and doesn't agree with the point at 3:15.  Weekend-warrior games existed, no question there, but they were far from universal.  Most games already worked as they do today, where you pick up next session right where you left off this one - same in-game time, place, etc. - even if the players were a bit of a rotating cast (the PCs of no-shows became party NPCs for that session)This is almost a repeat of the point at 2:58, just phrased differently.  It's still wrong.</blockquote>