This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Which Way, OSR Gamer?

Started by RPGPundit, August 17, 2021, 11:44:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Lunamancer

Quote from: Jaeger on August 27, 2021, 09:05:06 PM
This is why I felt that all the talk of RAW AD&D was a bit of a red herring...

There's a snipe I take at people who take BtB/RAW too seriously. But a corollary of that exact same snipe also implies an important role for BtB/RAW.

The question I ask is, By which book or books? Rules as written where? Back in the day, it was said any rule that Gary authors was considered "official" for 1E. It could very well be the case that Gary wrote a really great 1E rule on a cocktail napkin that is buried somewhere in his archives, unseen. No one could possibly be expected to be playing by that rule.

And so it does matter where the rule is written. Not just that it's written. It needs to be a rule accessible (not in the same sense Jeffro uses the word) to the people playing it. What's accessible to the group could vary from table to table. Not every table is going to have Unearthed Arcana at it. But almost all of them are going to have the PHB and DMG. Most tables aren't going to have access to the full catalog of Polyhedron and Sage Advice columns where answers are given to rules questions with an air of authority.

The point is BtB/RAW is not a monolith, but it does have a center. We all have our own individual plays of playing the game, but there's enough in common where we can pick up a Fiend Folio or an adventure module or a setting book, and it's familiar enough to be usable. There are gamers out there who hold as their highest priority that there be a single objectively correct answer to every rules question. They invoke BtB/RAW as a cudgel. And if you point out that the rule book literally says the DM can change the rules, they'll quickly dismiss THAT rule. When it comes right down to it, the one correct answer is more important than actual text.

QuoteYes, you can do it.

Yet by Jeffro's own admission:

"AD&D is the definitive expression of all things Gygaxian. It's a landmark work, epochal even. There was nothing like it before in history and there can never be another work that even approaches its influence and significance. It is staggeringly awesome. But it is not accessible. "
https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149712026412785665

I've definitely heard that sort of thing stated. Alignments don't make sense. Illusions in 1E don't make sense. Initiative is 1E's Kobayashi Maru. There is no consistent encumbrance system.

And I look at it like this. If I have a problem with my car, and I take it to a mechanic, if one mechanic looks under the hood and says, "None of this even makes sense," and a different mechanic says, "Okay, I see what's going on here. And I have a solution to fix it," I'm going to have more confidence in the second guy. I'll give him a try. If he's a total whack job, I'll find that out quick enough. But it almost always works out.

So I'm not sure why gamers allowed themselves to get snowed by people who don't know the answer and choose to say there is no answer rather than just admit they don't know it? We're talking about a game that was played by millions of teenagers without internet access to get their questions answered on demand.

Quote"The Holmes, Molvay, and Mentzer box sets were accessible. Original D&D and first edition AD&D were not. They were #EliteOnly and required #WinningSecrets in order to be mastered!"
https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149807845434515456

He then goes around telling everyone that is not playing D&D with 1:1 time that they are playing FAKE D&D.

To support his 1:1 Time = The Standard;  He then cites the selfsame AD&D rule set that he had described as: "not accessible"...

At the very least I think he communicates his position poorly.

There's the monolith. And he claims it's in the Bible, but it's written in a language only the priesthood can decipher. As I posted earlier, the example given in the DMG on tracking time contradicts what he says regarding 1:1 time.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

mightybrain

I heard (second hand) that Gary was pretty flexible at his gaming table. If you wanted to do something outside of the commonly understood rules, he'd turn the question around and ask you how you'd rule it. Then he'd consider your answer for a moment. And usually he'd just say "yes, that sounds about right."