I'd say the Gygax quote is mostly in-line with my experience and opinion on early vs. later D&D editions.

I like D&D with a very class/level/archetype kind of approach. I dislike general skill systems in D&D (including the ones introduced in late 1e, classic, and 2e), and other similar subsystems that cut across classes (e.g., feats and such). I dislike subsystems that dilute the class/level concept in D&D. I dislike attempts to apply the game rules as if they were "natural laws" which apply to the world as a whole, defining how it works (especially for monsters, NPCs, et cetera). I see things like class/level/XP as game mechanisms that are there for PCs: those mechanisms need not apply to the world as a whole (although sometimes it's convenient to describe an NPC or whatever using those mechanisms).

To me, it's also not necessarily about the quantity of the rules, but how those rules apply to the setting and within the game. The more the rules attempt to define "how the world works at large," as if they're "laws of nature" rather than conveniences to facilitate play, the less I'm inclined to like them. For example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting at when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."

Of course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing. It's a matter of taste, I suppose. I know that, initially, I thought that sounded like a good idea. Running with those rules made me realize it wasn't a good thing for the kind of D&D that I enjoy. As always with opinions, mileage may vary.

Edited to correct typo

1E. It's where I started actually playing; whereas with Basic I did some playing, but not much. 1E had so many more gizmos and stuff.

QuoteRemember in the 80's when moms were scared that DnD was Satanic, because players could fight devils? Well now they'd actually have more reason to think that, since you're now playing as the devils.  (Tieflings)  Again, WTF?

Dude. Primo tieflings are not devils. Tieflings are mortal races with some lower plane ancestor once upon a time. Second tieflings are a thing thanks to your favourite 2 edition, whole Planescape vibe. In popular cRPGs based on 2e 20 years ago you had Anna and Haer'daelis - tieflings both and Fall-from-Grace literal succubus as NPCs.

QuoteHalf-orcs can now be Paladins. (WTF?)

Tieflings too

QuoteLast thing about Rimemaiden, it really jarred me to see portraits of NPCs in the book, of creatures that looked like Satan, or anthropomorphic dragons, just living in the town of mostly humans like it was perfectly normal. (I'm not religious by the way, I just don't like the idea of tieflings and the dragonfolk or whatever they are)

You had various races living along more or less since old time of D&D. And it was usually not that realistically described in D&D.
But seriously tieflings are old as Hell, and dragon humanoids are around at least since Dragonlance. This is all inheritance of 2 edition - people liked it so it become more prominent. If it was me, you'd get goblins, hobgoblins and orcs as core races in a way of Eberron

QuoteThat's right. Wallow in the mud, crushed in poverty and oppression of every kind. Racism, sexism, hatred, war, corruption and brutality everywhere. *Laughing*

Play Warhammer.

Quoteracial class limits

Racial class limits are the worst. Elves and dwarves should clearly be superior to man as Professor Tolkien taught.

QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."

Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.

QuoteOf course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing

Well I agree as simulationist I like certain uniformity of rules for PCs and world. Especially since it well makes PCs less special snowflakes.
In terms of DMs desires, I think well I'm definitely in "DM is obliged by rules just as players" basket. However I find rules of any D&D editions to be extremely wide and giving large freedom for DM to craft world for players. But having monsters work like PC's give me sort of more fun when running encounters with my PCs. (Now of course on the other side - rules of 3,5/PF can make crafting those encounters a terrible chore - that's another problem.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM

QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."

Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.

I don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.

I pretty freely modify monsters and NPCs. I consider MM entries to be "some sage's idea of what a typical example might be" rather than a perfect, set definition for the game world. And with NPCs, I give them the abilities I want them to have. For example, there could be a 0-level NPC shopkeeper who has learned to throw knives with the ability of a 7th level fighter. Or a 0-level high priest who is not a cleric, but can cast raise dead if the appropriate ritual and sacrifices are performed within the temple. And so on.

When rules to govern such things exist, there's an expectation that the DM will apply those rules. That's why (in the 3e era) you'd see reviews of adventure modules which criticized the product for not giving such-and-such monster the right number of skill points, or calculating the template wrong, or not using the template at all when one was available, etc. I prefer to avoid all of that, and don't see that I lose anything by avoiding it. On the other hand, I gain by not having another set of rules to apply and worry about.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM

QuoteOf course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing

Well I agree as simulationist I like certain uniformity of rules for PCs and world. Especially since it well makes PCs less special snowflakes.
In terms of DMs desires, I think well I'm definitely in "DM is obliged by rules just as players" basket. However I find rules of any D&D editions to be extremely wide and giving large freedom for DM to craft world for players. But having monsters work like PC's give me sort of more fun when running encounters with my PCs. (Now of course on the other side - rules of 3,5/PF can make crafting those encounters a terrible chore - that's another problem.

I agree that there needs to be some degree of uniformity to the rules -- it's a question of which rules should apply universally and which rules need not. The reason I draw a distinction between how PCs are "built" vs. how monsters (and many NPCs) are "built" is because the monsters and NPCs don't need a system for tracking advancement, etc. (This is probably why D&D started off with the separation between class/level on the one hand vs. just hit dice on the other). They need game numbers and such that "make sense" in the framework of the rules (e.g., for running encounters), but I don't think they need defined rules for building and advancing those numbers. A good DM can give them what they require without any of that. For me, that's way faster and easier.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 27, 2021, 07:18:29 PM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM

QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."

Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.

I don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.

I pretty freely modify monsters and NPCs. I consider MM entries to be "some sage's idea of what a typical example might be" rather than a perfect, set definition for the game world. And with NPCs, I give them the abilities I want them to have. For example, there could be a 0-level NPC shopkeeper who has learned to throw knives with the ability of a 7th level fighter. Or a 0-level high priest who is not a cleric, but can cast raise dead if the appropriate ritual and sacrifices are performed within the temple. And so on.

When rules to govern such things exist, there's an expectation that the DM will apply those rules. That's why (in the 3e era) you'd see reviews of adventure modules which criticized the product for not giving such-and-such monster the right number of skill points, or calculating the template wrong, or not using the template at all when one was available, etc. I prefer to avoid all of that, and don't see that I lose anything by avoiding it. On the other hand, I gain by not having another set of rules to apply and worry about.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM

QuoteOf course, some people see things like "everything in the game is defined according to the same set of rules" or "less leeway for the DM to do whatever the DM desires" as a positive thing

Well I agree as simulationist I like certain uniformity of rules for PCs and world. Especially since it well makes PCs less special snowflakes.
In terms of DMs desires, I think well I'm definitely in "DM is obliged by rules just as players" basket. However I find rules of any D&D editions to be extremely wide and giving large freedom for DM to craft world for players. But having monsters work like PC's give me sort of more fun when running encounters with my PCs. (Now of course on the other side - rules of 3,5/PF can make crafting those encounters a terrible chore - that's another problem.

I agree that there needs to be some degree of uniformity to the rules -- it's a question of which rules should apply universally and which rules need not. The reason I draw a distinction between how PCs are "built" vs. how monsters (and many NPCs) are "built" is because the monsters and NPCs don't need a system for tracking advancement, etc. (This is probably why D&D started off with the separation between class/level on the one hand vs. just hit dice on the other). They need game numbers and such that "make sense" in the framework of the rules (e.g., for running encounters), but I don't think they need defined rules for building and advancing those numbers. A good DM can give them what they require without any of that. For me, that's way faster and easier.

The idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics.  No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one.  But they can make good DMs worse...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 08:51:32 PM
The idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics.  No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one.  But they can make good DMs worse...

They can also be tools to be sure the GM knows what they're doing.

As a GM I am absolutely free to throw Demogorgon at a bunch of 1st level PCs. BUT I want to know ahead of time that I am throwing Demogorgon at the PCs, not have rules so unclear that you could accidentally throw something just as unbeatable for 1st level PCs at your party while thinking you were throwing something they'd easily overcome.

While GMs will eventually get a feel for what PCs can and cannot handle and which monsters cause more problems than they're worth, a good set of monster building mechanics (i.e. ones that allow you to easily judge performance relative to the PCs) are an ideal way to impart that information to new GMs who are just getting started and don't have that ability to go off their gut yet.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 27, 2021, 09:22:59 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 08:51:32 PM
The idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics.  No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one.  But they can make good DMs worse...

They can also be tools to be sure the GM knows what they're doing.

As a GM I am absolutely free to throw Demogorgon at a bunch of 1st level PCs. BUT I want to know ahead of time that I am throwing Demogorgon at the PCs, not have rules so unclear that you could accidentally throw something just as unbeatable for 1st level PCs at your party while thinking you were throwing something they'd easily overcome.

While GMs will eventually get a feel for what PCs can and cannot handle and which monsters cause more problems than they're worth, a good set of monster building mechanics (i.e. ones that allow you to easily judge performance relative to the PCs) are an ideal way to impart that information to new GMs who are just getting started and don't have that ability to go off their gut yet.

There's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters must follow the same building rules as players."  One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run.  Screw that!

Edit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything.  You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...

I prefer OD&D and Basic as a GM. I told my group at the end of our last campaign that I have "retired" from running 5e. That was about a year ago.

Nothing wrong with it, and I still play 5e as a player, but it has been well over half a decade now and I have done all I want to with it as a GM.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 27, 2021, 07:18:29 PM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 27, 2021, 04:51:56 PM

QuoteFor example, I don't want (or need) general rules for advancing monsters, or applying a skill system to monsters. I certainly don't want someone to argue that a monster I include isn't built according to such rules. I suspect that's the kind of thing Gary was getting it when he talked about "too rules intensive" and the DM being demoted from "master of the game."

Well I generally like those rules - especially templates, they give world nice flow of organicism - like vampirism is template, and you can add it to some dwarven barbarian and he won't be just random vampire 1 from Monster Manual. But as you are not obliged to show players your notes - I think as long as you're honest and do not tweak monsters you built because suddenly they are too easy or too hard.

I don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.

Exactly, my feeling is who needs a template, just use your brain.

However clearly some do prefer the more rigid template approach.

No doubt I'm oversimplifying but my (fairly limited) experience of the 3.5E style of play is that players do (a significant amount of) their gaming in advance by optimising character build. The goal of this is to achieve success within the framework of the game's mechanics. In that case, you want monster builds to be tightly defined because that is "fair". If the DM just makes something up, that's like moving the goalposts.

The OSR style of play is that players do their gaming at the table, reacting to the DM's description of the world and submitting to on-the-hoof but (hopefully) broadly fair and reasonable adjudication where the course of events isn't obvious from common sense.

Not saying you can't play OSR style using 3.5 rules or vice versa, of course, although I wonder why you would want to. 

My read of the Gygax quotation is that he was criticising a drift towards the style of play I'm characterising above as 3.5. Which I file under "different strokes for different folks".

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:29:07 PM
There's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters must follow the same building rules as players."  One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run.  Screw that!

Edit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything.  You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...

No disagreement with you then, but I've run into a number of old school GM's over the years who rail at even having something like CR to "restrain" them (something to do with the rules mentioning that you shouldn't throw more than CR X at a party of level Y and expect them to survive keeping them from being able to use what they want).

Basically there are some GMs out there who hate build guidelines because those keep them from being able to disguise their passive aggressiven dick behavior. "Oh, I had no idea that monster would TPK the party... curse these shoddy rules!"

That's where CR/build rules can be useful too. Because dick GMs at least have to be honest that they know they're deliberately TPKing their party rather than hiding behind shoddy rules.

As for my preferred monster building... in terms of D&D I prefer 4E by a wide margin. They aren't built like PCs and you can pretty much build the monster however you want.

Yes, there are limits on things, but those are tied to the monster's level. If you want it stronger just up the level until you can give it the stats you want*, but you can't pretend that you don't know you're throwing a level 10 monster at a level 1 party.

That's pretty much the system I use for my own game system. You pretty much just pick whatever you want the critter to be and use the level you select to determine its hit points and damage.** There's an optional set of rules for GMs who want to build opponents just like PCs are built, but those are really recommended only for opponents you intend to be recurring characters and want a little more complexity for them outside of combat... the screaming cult priest who goes down in the same encounter you meet him should just be a standard critter.

* This also works pretty well in reverse too... set your monster's abilities wherever you want then compare it to the level guidelines and either take the average (ex. Comparing says its a level 5 for damage, a level 4 for defenses and a level 6 for hit points... call it level 5 and you're done) or tweek the numbers a little to fit (ex. the monster is mostly a level 7, but it's defenses are in line with a level 10... so drop those a couple points so they're more like level 8 and call it good).

** My system is deliberately very flat on to-hit and defenses since its built with mass combat in mind where you don't need to make any conversions to use PCs and big monsters for it... attack modifiers range from about 4-10 and defenses from about 10-20 (though most fall towards the middle of those).

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2021, 09:00:29 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:29:07 PM
There's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters must follow the same building rules as players."  One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run.  Screw that!

Edit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything.  You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...

No disagreement with you then, but I've run into a number of old school GM's over the years who rail at even having something like CR to "restrain" them (something to do with the rules mentioning that you shouldn't throw more than CR X at a party of level Y and expect them to survive keeping them from being able to use what they want).

Basically there are some GMs out there who hate build guidelines because those keep them from being able to disguise their passive aggressiven dick behavior. "Oh, I had no idea that monster would TPK the party... curse these shoddy rules!"

That's where CR/build rules can be useful too. Because dick GMs at least have to be honest that they know they're deliberately TPKing their party rather than hiding behind shoddy rules.

As for my preferred monster building... in terms of D&D I prefer 4E by a wide margin. They aren't built like PCs and you can pretty much build the monster however you want.

Yes, there are limits on things, but those are tied to the monster's level. If you want it stronger just up the level until you can give it the stats you want*, but you can't pretend that you don't know you're throwing a level 10 monster at a level 1 party.

That's pretty much the system I use for my own game system. You pretty much just pick whatever you want the critter to be and use the level you select to determine its hit points and damage.** There's an optional set of rules for GMs who want to build opponents just like PCs are built, but those are really recommended only for opponents you intend to be recurring characters and want a little more complexity for them outside of combat... the screaming cult priest who goes down in the same encounter you meet him should just be a standard critter.

* This also works pretty well in reverse too... set your monster's abilities wherever you want then compare it to the level guidelines and either take the average (ex. Comparing says its a level 5 for damage, a level 4 for defenses and a level 6 for hit points... call it level 5 and you're done) or tweek the numbers a little to fit (ex. the monster is mostly a level 7, but it's defenses are in line with a level 10... so drop those a couple points so they're more like level 8 and call it good).

** My system is deliberately very flat on to-hit and defenses since its built with mass combat in mind where you don't need to make any conversions to use PCs and big monsters for it... attack modifiers range from about 4-10 and defenses from about 10-20 (though most fall towards the middle of those).

That's pretty much how I see it, too.  I just don't think any mechanics can rein in a dick GM.  So CR, build-rules, whatever, doesn't matter if the DM is going to be lousy.

Though I will say that not every encounter should be a combat one.  I run monsters the players can't beat all the time.  I lament that most 5e wandering monster tables are based on level/CR and not terrain.  Sometimes the fun is in the negotiating (with intelligent critters) or the escape...

My favorite is BECMI

I really loved 5th edition as well, before WOTC pandered to social justice warriors and started changing everything, now in the new Unearthed Arcana they even said that from now on races will be built using Tasha's rules.

I grew up in Italy with Becmi and AD&D II: theese are the games that I like best (Becmi, in particular).
Anyway, I recently played BX (Old School Essentials, actually) and 5E.

BX is good, but the differences with Becmi are so minimal that they're the same game.
5E is somewhat ok, I just find the manual so boring.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2021, 11:11:49 AM
I just don't think any mechanics can rein in a dick GM.  So CR, build-rules, whatever, doesn't matter if the DM is going to be lousy.

I agree. Individual DMs may find other forms of value in such things or not, but no set of rules will shield players from a poor DM.

QuoteI don't find much value in things like templates. I have no problem at all with making a vampiric dwarf barbarian, but I'd just give it the abilities I want it to have without following a template for doing so. That's what I mean by not needing such rules: for me, they're just extra weight for no real benefit.

For me benefit is coherence. That's maybe because I'm more worldbuilder than gamist or narrativist - while I agree with OSR crowd about railroading and storytelling being problematic, too much abstraction is also bad for me. Consistency is a virtue upon itself for me, a having clear rules is good for me.
I can mod template, housre-rule it to form I prefer - too for instance move 13 clans of Masquerade to D&D world, though making 13 subtly different vampire templates - but homemade or original I just want to have clear notion - not just "it will be a fun to do it".

Quote
And with NPCs, I give them the abilities I want them to have. For example, there could be a 0-level NPC shopkeeper who has learned to throw knives with the ability of a 7th level fighter. Or a 0-level high priest who is not a cleric, but can cast raise dead if the appropriate ritual and sacrifices are performed within the temple. And so on.

Which would be no problem in any skill based setting. Damn in skill-based setting you could easily play shopkeeper who is excellent knife-thrower without caring a little bit about fitting it into class/level concept.

QuoteWhen rules to govern such things exist, there's an expectation that the DM will apply those rules. That's why (in the 3e era) you'd see reviews of adventure modules which criticized the product for not giving such-and-such monster the right number of skill points, or calculating the template wrong, or not using the template at all when one was available, etc. I prefer to avoid all of that, and don't see that I lose anything by avoiding it. On the other hand, I gain by not having another set of rules to apply and worry about.

Imagine caring about authists reviewing of D&D adventures.

QuoteThe idea of "binding" DMs with rules is an attempt to fix a personal problem with game mechanics.  No amount of mechanics can make a bad DM a good one.  But they can make good DMs worse...

I definitely disagree. That's maybe because in my group like half of group DM's one after another, but overall as much as I like to joke about God syndrome, I consider DM to be "master of a game" in applied role sense, not in hierarchy role. This is like you know social contract in philosophy - my position is based on agreement between members of my group. I may be in position of power, but there is still Law, still Constitution, or maybe I should say - still Logos without which my position means nothing.

And if we agree to play narrativist drama, simulationist survival, gamist dungeon crawl, or do we agree between strict rules on inventing things on spot - one way or another, we are bound by mutual agreement. Some rules can be unspoken - but they are still there, whether party members know it or no, and if there are no rules, then there is Chaos which ends with players leaving bullshiting DM, DM throwing asshole players from table. Sometimes it's unavoidable personal conflict - sometimes it could be solved, if players and DM have prep-session or mail discussion rather than just go with "let's play whatever" attitude.

Now also reason why I like templates and monster rules and so on is because I often make random encounters using some Excel made monster/class/template combinations - and I like being surprised with results - which would be well impossible if I base it just on my imagination. Same way why I prefer random character generation TBH - brick build monster nature is more consistent with it I'd say.

QuoteThere's a huge difference between "monster building mechanics" and "monsters must follow the same building rules as players."  One of the reasons I refuse to ever GM PF again is the insistence of some players that I spend the 30 hours of construction necessary for every new monster I want to run.  Screw that!

Thankfully my players are rather oblivious to that (and well I often randomly pick pre-made beings which makes things easier) - I'd say problem with PF is not it's uniformity of rules, but more that rules are so complex it can turn to a chore. I mean even playing non-casting PCs of high levels from PC perspective can be sometimes like a chore in PF.

QuoteEdit: Plus, CR as a concept does not bind anyone to anything.  You can build tools to help a new GM understand the power level of the monsters without a single "restriction" on the GM...

I mean it does not bind anyone in 3,5 as well. Otherwise you'd not have this hilarious table of proposed XP reward which included reward for 1st level party for defeating CR 20

QuoteExactly, my feeling is who needs a template, just use your brain.

Well it's easier generally. And uniform - so allows for better consistency.
I mean I'm all for tweaking and hruling templates don't get me wrong - I'm not like - game needs to be in slavery towards officially published templates.

But as you have a game with vampires and have a few templates for let's say "reinfields", "spawn", "vampire" and "vampire lords" then it's just simple matter of using them on basic creature.
Which is also quite sensible - as vampirism is sort of template within world - added to some being, right?

QuoteIn that case, you want monster builds to be tightly defined because that is "fair". If the DM just makes something up, that's like moving the goalposts.

I think as long as reward in XP is proper there is nothing unfair in creating challenges that are not best CR crafted. I mean party can always avoid such challenges.
Unless you drop Demon Lord on them...

QuoteNot saying you can't play OSR style using 3.5 rules or vice versa, of course, although I wonder why you would want to.

To have more rounded tacical elements in challenge - when it cames to fight. And eventually to split Fighting / Exploring / and Social elements of Class by adding skills - this way you're 10 level Fighter can be Urban Detective in Exp side of game, and he can be Bully Intimidator in Social situation, or he can be Sailor Captain in Exp and Dashing Bravo in Social, bit different than Old School which AFAIR assumed certain more specific for instance social adjustments for leveling in Fighter.

QuoteI agree. Individual DMs may find other forms of value in such things or not, but no set of rules will shield players from a poor DM.

That I generally agree. I find templates and stricter rules more useful from my perspective as GM than as a shield for players.