I would rather play in somebody’s house rules, setting, and made up adventures than a published adventure or setting because I like rpg’s and games that encourage players to do those things. This d&d orthodox mentality just drives me nuts. It’s like players these days like playing in a straight jacket and there is shame in creativity for many gamers. It’s like a competitive sport to some where rules mastery is the pinnacle of play. Grognards can be the same way. But that playstyle was not common back then. Adherence to Rules were loosie goosie.
It didn’t feel like a competitive sport or anything, but we played by and referenced the rules all the time. This idea that things were loosie goosie is something I have only heard about for the last decade or so, but it does not match what I experienced growing up and playing throughout the 80’s and into the 90’s.
Greetings!
I agree, FingerRod. Both now, and as well as back in the early years, I would characterize a majority of DM's and players played by the rules and expected to, as well, but there was a sizeable minority that tended to be very "Loosey Goosey" with the rules applications. Of course, most every DM and campaign would typically have at least a few house rules, player additions, special races, and so on. Players and DM's alike loved greatly citing rules, after all. Some of the game-session arguments were epic, too, arguing over various interpretations, which was usually hilarious. It was all in good fun. Of course, also, most of the time, the players ultimately would submit to whatever the DM ruled--but there was some element of good-natured rules lawyering and debate, just to see how far a DM would allow you to exploit some rule interpretation, or some rule that was somewhat obscure in detailing its parameters.
Such debates were usually fun and interesting, and I must say, done so much of the time with genuine enthusiasm and real intent, as far as discussing problems, weird cases, applications and so on. there were more than a few such debates and discussions that resulted in some considerable campaign rules-changes, often adopted by more than one DM in coordination with other DM's in the groups involved. Crossbow damage, spells, whatever, that often did present realism conflicts, historical chomping, or other logical inconsistencies that had often bothered many people, but who seldom argued about it. Then, you'd have a player or two in the group say, "Yeah! What about this here, DM? A, B, and C!"--and oftentimes, the DM too had harboured their own doubts about whatever. So, a lot of the debates were actually constructive and worthwhile, while also most people held a strong degree of respect for sticking to the rules. changing the rules was done, though often accompanied by considerable thought as well as debate. It was usually very good to get three or four different people chewing on the same problem, beyond the DM. I know as a DM myself, so often, I usually learned a lot, and appreciated both the efforts to change rules interpretations, but also the basic respect for the DM, and the integrity of the game rules themselves.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK