IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME,
NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES,
WHICH IS IMPORTANT.
NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN,
NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE "QUOTATIONS" FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU.
IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME.
AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL,
ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS.
WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES,
YOU ARE CREATOR && FINAL ARBITER.
BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE,
THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST,
YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT,
AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER,
YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE.
MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!
Originally Posted by Jdvn1
After considering this idea, what do you think it is that makes the spirit in each of the games different? Is it just the language of the text?
It is most difficult to pin down what gaves a game soul, and that's a major part of its spirit.
the ability of the game designer and his dedication to the game are likely main components in giving a game soul.
The way the subject is treated, the language in the text, the rules and mechanics form the spirit.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with a rules lawyer when he's the DM!
You might better have quoted these parts of my post, with applicable emphasis added
You remind me of the kid that argued with me in a big seminar I was conducting at a GenCon.
I told him that I didn't give a hop in hell about what was written in the book.
If something better came to mind, it was in and the text was out...at the DM's discretion, of course
It should be obvious that I have found something that I consider better and more logical than what I originally wrote, something akin to the effect of Harry Potter's cloak as Deogolf mentioned.
Use it or not in your campaign and tell the rules lawyers to buzz off
Rules lawyers are a pain in the butt
How often I have ignored
my own in the PHB, DMG,
and more recent systems' core rules books would make a rules lawyer's head
As if one can not amend one's thinking due to ( experience ) and to simplify the complicated
*chuckles* Isn't it BtB though when it says 'think for oneself and come up with answers that work for the particular game group.' ?
Quoting that rather negates the need to quote rules, so those that are into rule-playing tend to gloss over such things
Rules lawyers are a pain
in the butt
As to DMPrata, the statement
is nuncupatory. It's only rules-lawyering if it's at the table - if it's
knowing the rule beforehand so you can decide whether to use it or not
- that's good DMing, not rules lawyering.
Possibly so, but...
To adhere to rules that do
not further the game enjoyment is contrary to the purpose of the whole.
The game must be entertaining and enjoyable.
Absolutely so! Knowledge of the rules and rigid adherence to them are different beasts.
The first is highly beneficial, the second is a straitjacket.
To know when to ignore the
rules in favor of the game is problematical for
many GMs it would seem.
The axiom, circumstances alter cases, is quite beyond those who do not understand the reason for the play of an RPG.
Originally Posted by BOZ
amen to that! we have a guy who loves to call out on the DM "but the rules say..." when the DM makes a decision... i just want to slap the guy. the rest of us usually have to talk him out of arguing it, while he grumbles and mumbles and flips through the rulebooks to try to prove his point, and then if he finds what he was looking for he brings it back up again several minutes after we have moved on, and if he doesn't find it he says something like "but you've let me do that before"
...oy. i'm kinda glad he hasn't shown up in a month or so.
That calls to mind the incident that occurred when I was giving a seminar on AD&D to a large audience of dedicated players at a GenCon. Someone asked me howI'd handle a specific situation, and I responded. One fellow in the crowd objected, "but that isn't what the DMG says..."
To that I respnded to this effect: "I don't care what the book says. I wrote it, and I am not infalable. In the case just before us the material in the DMG is wrong--as it is anytime the DM over-rules it."
Originally Posted by tenkar
Wow... that was... wow
It might not have been illegal, and it certainly wasn't in the spirit of the rules, but wow...
Reminds me that when I first gamed, we didn't have the MM, so all monster stats came from the back of the DMG... we thought HD and HP were interchangeable. A 4HD +1 HP Ogre always had 5 HP. Dungeons got much tougher, and expo flowed much slower, when we realized this mistake
With a competant DM only that which he declares beyond the pale is illegal
As a matter of fact campaigns were there is al talk and no action are well outside the spirit of the game. Nonetheless, not a few folks really enjoy that sort of play, so it is right for them.
Originally Posted by Quasqueton
Others and you have stated numerous times that the "soul," "spirit," and "heart" of D&D has changed from and since the first AD&D.
What do you consider the soul/spirit/heart of D&D as you wrote it? Can you explain or describe the soul/spirit/heart of OAD&D (as you abbreviate it) without reference to or play off of AD&D 2nd edition or D&D 3rd edition? I'm not asking for you to explain how you think it has changed, just what you think the original soul/spirit/hear of D&D was/is.
I'll ask everyone else to refrain from giving their own answer to this question.
In as few words as possible:
Absolute authority of the DM, rules lawyers given the boot
Rule books seldom used by a competant DM
Action and adventure in play
Swords & sorcery, not comic book superhero genre material
Group co-operation paramount for success
Freedom to extemporize and innovate for all participants
Reliance on architypical models for characters
Fellowship of those participating
... and the strategic employment of mules.)
Death to all rule-players and rules lawyers