Quote from: mightybrain on January 03, 2021, 02:12:15 PM
I always took that as tongue in cheek. He didn't say they should not have access, he said any player reading it was "less than worthy of honorable death." It's clearly a joke. He wasn't suggesting you should actually kill your players to stop them from becoming DMs.

I know it was a joke except too many would have used it as an excuse to make sure no one else had access to the DMG. Many also took what he wrote as gosepl truth on how to run a game. Much of it was useful much was just way too DM vs player style kind of advice to my liking.

Another thread of "you are doing it wrong" when it comes to make believe fairies and elves. Doesn't this forum get sick of this tired old conversation?

Also add me to the bridge group- started out LBB'ing in  77.

I used to be a wargamer. 

(at the risk of writing for someone else) I think what Eirikrautha is trying to explain about the era was the recognition that rules could not simulate reality.  Simply by knowing what the mechanics involved, the systems could be "gamed" in a manner which did not realistically represent the military action being simulated, which is where arbitration came in.
(E.g. in a real battle, nobody decides what to do based on their relative Initiative Modifiers) 

Sidenote: Actually, the original purpose of the referee was hidden enemy movement/location/lack of perfect intelligence, but it grew from there.

Remember these were played competitively (players were trying to Win).  "Spirit of the game" often was cast out of the window.

Some wargames did try to create rules for EVERYTHING, so that no arbitration would be needed (see ASL and it's encyclopedic rules).

So why use any rules at all?  Because without ANY rules, you are in no way attempting to simulate the action being represented.  You are just asking the referee what they think would have happened.  But without any arbitration, your stuck within the limits of whatever rules the game has.

Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 02:21:36 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 03, 2021, 01:09:50 PM

Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:39:55 PM
There are no "better" rules.

That's objectively false. Our desires and motives are subjective, but rules are means of achieving those ends. So given a certain set of preferences, some rules are better than others. And some rules don't help achieve any reasonable set of goals.

It's fine to talk about the subjectivity of preferences, and there's plenty of room for interpretation on the effectiveness of different rules, but rules can nonetheless be graded based on how they help meet different sets of preferences.

You've lost me.

You claim my statement is objectively false, then go on to explain how it is true, except for your imposition of "reasonable set of goals" ... which is in itself a subjective standard.

Pretend for a second that your taste and desire deviates from mine, and that you are not the authority of what is "reasonable"; What makes a rule "better"?

Give a specific example, please.  And keep in mind the OP, with it's foundation of "why choose rules that require arbitration/abandonment-at-will" when making your selection.

It's objectively false because while your goals are subjective, we can objectively talk about what rules meet those goals better. For instance, if one of your major goals is to have fun, and you find being hit not fun, then a rule that involves you being punched by the person next to you is, objectively, poor at meeting your goals. (If it's not obvious, that's a deliberately over the top example because it illustrates the point more clearly. With more reasonable rules, there's a wider range of interpretation.)

You're correct that there's a degree of subjectivity in anything that touches on human preferences. But that doesn't erase objectivity entirely. We just have to couch our discussions of the rules in terms of meeting certain goals, instead of being better/worse in some absolute sense.

Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 02:38:56 PM
I used to be a wargamer. 

(at the risk of writing for someone else) I think what Eirikrautha is trying to explain about the era was the recognition that rules could not simulate reality.  Simply by knowing what the mechanics involved, the systems could be "gamed" in a manner which did not realistically represent the military action being simulated, which is where arbitration came in.
(E.g. in a real battle, nobody decides what to do based on their relative Initiative Modifiers) 

Sidenote: Actually, the original purpose of the referee was hidden enemy movement/location/lack of perfect intelligence, but it grew from there.

Remember these were played competitively (players were trying to Win).  "Spirit of the game" often was cast out of the window.

Some wargames did try to create rules for EVERYTHING, so that no arbitration would be needed (see ASL and it's encyclopedic rules).

So why use any rules at all?  Because without ANY rules, you are in no way attempting to simulate the action being represented.  You are just asking the referee what they think would have happened.  But without any arbitration, your stuck within the limits of whatever rules the game has.

That's not exactly what I was addressing, but I agree with what you have said above.  No one expected a set of rules to adjudicate every circumstance, hence the accumulation of edge-case rules.

Quote from: sureshot on January 03, 2021, 01:59:32 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 01:39:00 PM
But you can make your own rules out of any edition of D&D or any other game system. I used to have tons of rules and options based out of AD&D 2e, to the point where my game became unrecognizable from the original. OD&D/BX isn't unique to that, but it still gets held as the gold standard for some insane reason, like early RPG designers not knowing how to write a game is somehow a good thing because "I like to make my own rules", which is a completely unrelated point to whether a rule is well written or good, and isn't even unique to OD&D.

Its like in many older products from Palladium books where Kevin would essentially say "Remember all rules are optional!" and no longer does so because it's an excuse at least on his end to hide all the flaws of the Palladium ruleset and kind of defeats the purpose of someone buying the rules in the first place. I am not spending money on rpg to be told to make it up. Note many newer fans who like 4E and 5E tend to do the same thing and can be very vocal. The D&D Grognards always seem to have the same counter arguments as to why pre-#E was golden age.

"You obviously have not read let alone understand the rules"
"You don't get OSR rpgs and the movement in general"

and so on. It was the same in the other thread as it is in this one. I houserule when I need to and I hate it. I like using RAW as possible and it's not my fucking job to fix any issues or flaws with an older set of rules.

I enjoyed and still enjoy D&D as it was my first rpg to this hobby and with the right DM would still join and maybe ever run a campaign. I can also acknowledge that the Pre-3E D&D is far from perfect. Looking at the 1E DMG much of what Gary gave as advice was very adversarial style of approaching DMing and making very much as DM vs player Not to mention that the Players should not have access to the DMG in the introduction to the DMG was fucking epic levels of stupid imo. How is a player going to ever learn how to be a DMG without the book on how to run the game in the first place.

In any case I expect to be told "You simply don't get the OSR or learn to read" etc..

I actually like making up my own rules and it's turned into a side hobby of mine I engage on even when I don't play regularly, sometimes just as a thought experiment. But I don't always have time to rewrite every rule I don't like and some rules would take too much effort to revamp entire sections of the rules or are more trouble than they're worth. Having too many house rules can also create inconsistencies, and even when the rules work for what you've set them up, they can still create confusion with players that are more familiar with the RAW.

Plus I shouldn't have to rewrite a game if I want the rules to make sense--at that point, then WTF is the point of paying for the manuals if I have to do all the real work? I can do that on my own. And just because I like fiddling with the rules that doesn't mean everybody else will too, or that a badly written rule is good because "I like to make my own rules". That's the kind of logic that doesn't follow, yet I see it come up every time someone praises OD&D.

Incidentally, Palladium games are also one of those systems I wouldn't be able to play without house ruling the hell out of them. There's so much clunky crap I haven't had to deal with in ages, I wouldn't even know where to start. Actually, MDC being SDC x 100, would be the first thing to go--I'd probably drop it to just SDC x 10 as a precondition for me to even consider running those games. But there's so much other crap that also doesn't work it's mentally staggering to even contemplate.

As for Pre-3e vs Post 3e D&D, I think all editions suck for different reasons, but all editions also have bits I would use if I were to make my ideal version of D&D. Older editions got certain things right that went off the rails in later editions (such as capping HD after a certain level, which in retrospect I think was the right call), but lack of options or poorly written rules so you could insert your own or squint your eyes till you saw what you wanted to see wasn't one of them.

I run original D&D (as well as 1e AD&D, in separate campaigns).

To me, the appeal of original D&D is that it provides a base foundation for the game without the decades of build up and later assumptions and clarifications. As DM, I can build on that foundation (or not build) as I like. I can emphasize the rules and approaches that I prefer. I can avoid things I don't like as much (especially if those things were made part of the game in later years/editions). In short, I use original D&D as a foundation for "my own" D&D.

That's not to say you couldn't do the same thing with a different edition of D&D: you certainly could. But for me, original D&D is the cleanest, firmest foundation or starting point. I don't have to "swim against the current" or "cut away" as much, and so on. Other DMs might find another edition to be a better starting point for the games they want to run.

Over the years, I've also found that playing and understanding original D&D has helped me understand (or make judgments about) rules and additions in later editions. For example, there are things in 1e AD&D that made a lot more sense to me after I played Chainmail and Swords & Spells and original D&D.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2021, 02:54:58 PM
In short, I use original D&D as a foundation for "my own" D&D.

LOL!  I think that's true for everyone who's ever played OD&D or AD&D (probably more AD&D).  The rules are so convoluted that I don't think anyone ever played RAW.  Even now, if I reread carefully, I can find something that totally contradicts what we did at the table back then.

Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:24:58 PM
Also, just how many OD&D players are on this website?

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's and I don't think I've met enough people who actually played pre-1st Ed AD&D to play Bridge with.

I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2021, 03:08:17 PM
I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.

I started with the Holmes Basic Set and moved into 1e AD&D from there. However, I'd say that our early games were a chaotic mix of Holmes, 1e AD&D, original D&D little brown books (there was one guy who had these), and (once they came out) the B/X boxed sets. At the time, we didn't draw any lines between them. Later, that evolved into mostly just 1e AD&D. I played 2e when it came out, but found it to be less to my taste than earlier editions. Played 3e when it came out. I was initially enthusiastic, but after playing it for a while I grew disillusioned and abandoned it. Looked at 4e and gave it a brief shot. I thought it was well-designed, for what it is, but it wasn't anything like what I wanted from a set of D&D rules. Looked at 5e and gave it a brief shot. Again, not really what I wanted from a set of D&D rules; it didn't give me any reason to switch. I never bought the rules for 3.5, 4e, or 5e. I guess I well and truly got off the edition carousel when I abandoned 3e. I've been doing my own thing with my preferred editions ever since.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 06:49:39 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.

I guess the problem lies somewhere between enough rules and too many rules.

I remember having a few pages of extra house rules back in the day to try and get the game running the way I wanted it too.

Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D--or wargames from before. Wargames, whether boardgame types or the ones using miniatures, are great fun! As for OD&D, it was--and is--a simpler, streamlined game set of D&D because it was the original, and the first essential RPG. None of the additions, changes, and tomes of expansions from the last 40 years had been made yet. Have there been some improvements made by numerous designers and authors and DM's since then? Certainly! However, there are also problems and flaws through all of this "advancement". Many of which have led to unforeseen downsides or problems, to be sure. Going back to an older rule set--such as OD&D, or BX, or whatever, or even AD&D/OSRIC can be immensely fun, and exhilarating. There's much less "superstructure" to deal with, and the fewer rules, fewer technical doodads and so on to remember or keep track of. And yes, telling the DM to "wing it" or make "Rulings, not Rules!" is a big part of it, and also liberating--yes, it's a feature, not a flaw, but I suppose it requires a different attitude and mind set to see it that way. In more modern rule sets, there can often be a tendency for there to be rules for everything. In older rules, there are many aspects of modern games that were not necessarily touched upon, because the older games also embraced a different emphasis and set of priorities.

I'm enough of a Grognard to remember when there was no rules for adventuring in towns or cities or mostly so. The game was largely focused on conquering dungeons and exploring the wilderness. I remember well many of the early debates through letters and mail in Dragon Magazine--as well as White Dwarf later--going on and on about new rules for city adventures, new rules for social stuff, "deeper characters" and developing campaigns that weren't just about "Hack and Slash!" I think some folks have forgotten just how crazy and new playing a game about exploring dungeons and fighting Orcs and Dragons really was back then. It was very wild, and totally new. There were no boardgames about it, there weren't lots of other RPG's, no computer games, none of that. It was like a game that put you into the Lord of the Rings or Conan novels, or Knights of the Round Table.

I started as a wargamer as well, cutting my teeth on Avalon Hill's Russian Campaign, Squad Leader, Panzerblitz, and Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. Having rules for simulating the terrain, battlefield conditions, supply lines, reconnaissance, equipment, troop quality, morale, besides engaging in combat, was where it was at! All of those basic elements were essential, and the main priorities. Awesome times!

I'm also remined of how being an adult with professional and domestic responsibilities, and so on, has also impacted the game culture and people's attitudes towards rules. I know many people that also love the older games like AD&D because they are fatigued out about homework and rules for everything. They want something simpler, faster, sier to deal with--less homework and people burying their face in a book or on a device to "look something up" and more time laughing, and killing monsters and looting cool treasure. This consideration even cascades into what they want the DM to do--even if they aren't forced to do homework, they don't want the DM to need to consult this or read that, or look this up--they want the DM to make a quick judgment and get rolling the dice.

I love 5E. I know some people here hate 5E, but I appreciate its virtues, and a much streamlined and simplified approach. I also love AD&D, and OD&D too. All of these games and different rule sets have merits and flaws alike, with different ordered priorities and emphasis with each. Open your mind, and enjoy them. There really is no need to be hostile or mean-spirited.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 03:54:06 PM
I love 5E. I know some people here hate 5E, but I appreciate its virtues, and a much streamlined and simplified approach. I also love AD&D, and OD&D too. All of these games and different rule sets have merits and flaws alike, with different ordered priorities and emphasis with each. Open your mind, and enjoy them. There really is no need to be hostile or mean-spirited.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You dont understand SHARK, this is serious business.

Quote from: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 03:54:06 PM
I love 5E. I know some people here hate 5E, but I appreciate its virtues, and a much streamlined and simplified approach. I also love AD&D, and OD&D too. All of these games and different rule sets have merits and flaws alike, with different ordered priorities and emphasis with each. Open your mind, and enjoy them. There really is no need to be hostile or mean-spirited.

I agree with the sentiment. While I have my preferred editions, and might reject this or that edition for various reasons, I don't *hate* any of the editions and certainly see no need to berate people for choosing to play them, or argue that my preferences are superior (objectively or subjectively). They're just my preferences. The way I see it, we should play what we enjoy.

This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.