Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cad.cs.cmu.edu
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cad.cs.cmu.edu!mjc
From: mjc@cad.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Soliciting Opinions on AD&D Style
Message-ID: <391@cad.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 29-Nov-85 02:25:35 EST
Article-I.D.: cad.391
Posted: Fri Nov 29 02:25:35 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Dec-85 03:32:20 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 31

I think you, the poster you responded to, and I would all have trouble
playing in the same campaign.  My philosophy on what should be "allowed" is,
roughly:
	- the fact that it's in an "official" rule book doesn't make it ok
	- the fact that it isn't in an "official" rule book doesn't make it
	  unreasonable

I won't detail the changes I've made in the AD&D rules in my campaign; it
would take too long.  (Send me mail if you're really interested.)  No rule is
above scrutiny; if it looks bad to me or to a player I'll look it over and
rule on it.  The game ORIGINALLY was meant to be "a set of guidelines that
could be modified"; only *after* original D&D (and the early days of AD&D?)
did TSR and EGG start handing down judgements from On High that only their
rules were real and if you didn't use exclusively their rules, you weren't
playing D&D.

As an aside, I refer to my campaign as "variant AD&D".  I would like to meet
a player or DM who does AD&D *strictly* by the published rules; I don't think
such a person exists.

One question: Did you have permission from the other person involved in the
exchange to post that mail?  If not, you should have at least deleted names
and sites.

							-Dragon


-- 
UUCP: ...seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc  or if that doesn't work:
      ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg