chongo@nsc.UUCP (10/13/83)
"The rules of AD&D are so ambiguous, there exists as many different
ways to kill Orcus, as there are GM's.
"I like a rules system where I know what the GM is allowed, and not
allowed, to do. This means that you will not have a technique/character/
/magic item/etc. varying as to the GM you are playing with. (This is
very important to the sanity of my characters)."
Well, this is a matter of taste. As a DM, I LIKE being able
to interpret the rules, so the ambiguities (yes, they exist) are
enjoyable opportunities for me to use my imagination; DM's like to
have fun, too, you know. The players understand this and so do not
expect things working in a consistent manner from DM to DM, and I
don't get whining complaints like, "But it SAYS on page 53 of the
DMG that ...!"
If AD&D were written so that all the possibilities were spelled out
(!), I'd just be playing the role of automaton, rolling dice and
reading the Holy Writ. Sounds dull, eh?
Perhaps this attitude against ambiguities is representative of a
Lawful outlook -- I'm a bit more Neutral than that ...
(PS -- there are things I don't like about AD&D, sure, but I certainly
feel free to make changes and I let the players know accordingly.
No hassle.)chongo@nsc.UUCP (10/13/83)
PPS -- The original "Re: D&D & Orcus" article was written by me, Gordon Moffett (..!proper!gam) and not chongo. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.