Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 19:33:46 GMT -6
I made an argument that BTPbD was a draft over which Arneson had the last hand. Subsequent information has pointed more toward Gygax, at least for the typing of it, but It doesn't matter because ultimately it is a pre publication draft which, just as with the published game, springs from the input from both authors, and, as was mentioned, the weapon restrictions were a Gygax thing, not a feature of play in Blackmoor. I read your latest update on PATW eagerly. Frankly, BTPbD drives me crazy. It's not well written enough to be Gary but too well written to be Dave. Arg.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Apr 15, 2013 21:43:07 GMT -6
Not to speak for anyone else in the thread, but my feeling is that achieving a maximal level of the most strained, twisted interpretation of et cetera is (for one thing) useful insofar as it can suggest new possibilities of how to play the game. As a thought exercise, considering a hypothetical table where the game is played according to a very strict literal interpretation of the rules (that is to say, imagining that the players came to the table with that interpretation in mind rather than 40 years of accreted conventional D&D wisdom) can be very refreshing.
The issue at stake in this thread is a perfect example: Maybe a wizard armed with a sword represents a "strained, twisted interpretation" of the rules; on the other hand, it sounds like a lot of fun, and (as geoffrey pointed out) it's not like there aren't plenty of literary antecedents.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Apr 16, 2013 20:24:13 GMT -6
Well said, Zeraser. I really appreciate how WotE does these close readings of the text and comes up with all sorts of interesting things (like Fighters possibly being able to detect invisible creatures, for example).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2013 21:22:51 GMT -6
There is a world of difference between
1. we know this is what was meant when x was written, but what if we pretend it otherwise
and
2. the author didn't even play by the rules he wrote.
The first is reasonable and can be fun, the second is what is a gross twisting of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2013 6:25:03 GMT -6
There is a world of difference between 1. we know this is what was meant when x was written, but what if we pretend it otherwise and 2. the author didn't even play by the rules he wrote. The first is reasonable and can be fun, the second is what is a gross twisting of the rules. I'm confident most wouldn't disagree that DA's game differed substantially from what is described in the 3LBBs. Regarding the other author, there are numerous public discussions about EGG's D&D, including some he participated in himself. There's a neat summary of this material here, for example. So it is "widely known" to any who care to read about it that EGG didn't play exactly as OD&D appears in print. It's hardly surprising that his game developed over time while the printed rules stayed static. How acknowledging this could be construed as a "gross twisting of the rules" is, admittedly, a bit beyond my grasp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2013 15:54:48 GMT -6
Let's use a different rule to show what I mean. A roll of 71-80 means that a magic sword has the power to "Detect Meal & What Kind". Now at face value, swords with this ability will allow the wielder to find food in dungeons and in the wilderness. This is helpful because it allows the wielder to survive on the land instead of carrying iron rations. There is nothing wrong with having a magic sword that detects food, but the intention was never for that to be the ability. We know from later editions or from actual play reports that the text was meant to have a sword detect metal. Knowing what was intended and playing it differently for fun or whatever, is fine. To say that running the game with swords having the ability to detect metal is not playing by the rules is where interpreting the rules as written has gone awry. There is a world of difference between 1. we know this is what was meant when x was written, but what if we pretend it otherwise and 2. the author didn't even play by the rules he wrote. The first is reasonable and can be fun, the second is what is a gross twisting of the rules. I'm confident most wouldn't disagree that DA's game differed substantially from what is described in the 3LBBs. Regarding the other author, there are numerous public discussions about EGG's D&D, including some he participated in himself. There's a neat summary of this material here, for example. So it is "widely known" to any who care to read about it that EGG didn't play exactly as OD&D appears in print. It's hardly surprising that his game developed over time while the printed rules stayed static. How acknowledging this could be construed as a "gross twisting of the rules" is, admittedly, a bit beyond my grasp.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2013 17:00:48 GMT -6
Knowing what was intended and playing it differently for fun or whatever, is fine. To say that running the game with swords having the ability to detect metal is not playing by the rules is where interpreting the rules as written has gone awry. I agree with your sentiment, but would add that there's a distinction between playing by the rules as they're understood to be, and playing by the rules exactly as they're written. Playing with swords that detect metal is playing by the rules as they're understood to be, but is not playing by the rules exactly as they're written. In that particular case it's just a silly typo. In the case of mundane/magical weaponry, it's what's not said explicitly -- until later versions of the rules -- that's interesting. I'm well aware that the absolutely literal interpretation of the rules "as written" is just an academic curiosity. It's also a relatively unexplored version of game which, after 30 years of playing the rules as they're understood to be, is a fun diversion. Let's bear in mind that all this is a hobby -- it's meant to be for fun. If we take any of this too seriously, we've already missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Apr 18, 2013 8:01:50 GMT -6
I'm reminded of people playing the %liar as written, not knowing any better. So to me, playing the game literally is interesting as it gets at how some folks might play the game if they had just received D&D and had no outside influence or help in running it.
As I said, I think you do some really good work WotE with your analyses. Of course some of the stuff probably stretches the game beyond what was really intended, but it is interesting all the same.
|
|