Do you think anyone plays completely by the book?

[Dagger]

I periodically go through these phases where I re-evaluate my gaming and contemplate the rules I'm using and whether they are the best fit for what I'm trying to do. I'm in the midst of such a phase now and have been reading and re-reading my AD&D PHB and DMG. With that said, I've immersed myself in AD&D "by the book" lately and trying to make it all make sense.

Some disclosure is in order here: My current game is basically in the spirit of AD&D, but I'm using the classes and mechanics from C&C. I keep the AD&D DMG at the table and use it to rule for everything not covered by the C&C PHB.

I've had a gigantic realization as I've gone through this process of evaluation... I don't think I've ever actually run AD&D by the book and I don't think I've ever played in a game where it was run by the book. I think more often than not DMs sort of gloss over surprise/initiative/combat and run it similar to basic D&D. For example, I've never been involved in a game where segments were discussed; it was always roll initiative and if the good guys won they go first and everything sort of happened all at once.

The more I think about it, I think most DMs don't fully understand AD&D combat and the timing of it. There are plenty of forum goers that do, but the only person I've ever played with who read internet forums is DD himself. I think the average group uses the DMG as a toolkit and they use the bits and pieces they grasp and that is the extent of it.

Do you think anyone out there plays completely by the book? Is it even possible?

[SemajTheSilent]

Yes, it's possible... and yes, I'm sure there are many who do.

I've been involved in a situation where the rules were followed by the book... after some time, we loosened up because a lot of rules (weapon type vs ac, for example) hindered more than helped. I just plain ol' don't recommend it.

[thedungeondelver]

I don't think I make any secret of my feeling that everyone should play by the book. I think what needs to be done is for people to actually read the book first, then work downwards towards a comfort level with the rules they feel are right for their game versus the ones they think don't work for their group.

For example, a group of 10+ players, I would rigorously enforce the "helmet law" (I actually do it with my 6-7 player group). For three or four casual players? Probably not so much: the death toll would be too high. One person forgetting about it is a 25% casualty rate!

IOW, learn how to cook, then season to taste.

[DuBeers]

I originally played it by the book. As best I could anyway, there is some degree of conflict within the three core rulebooks, though nothing insurmountable.

After the players and I (all introduced to the hobby by the OD&D boxed set) were familiar with the canon version of AD&D I began paring down the rules used. Then came house-rules to tweak this or that.

I felt it important to do it this way since Gary's vision for 1e was to present a common set of rules for tournament play. As you can see, though, I never felt bound by EGG's ideas or the rulebooks--I took the game and, as I did with OD&D, I freely changed whatever I wished.

[Dagger]

It's been a really cool experience reading the books cover to cover again and thinking through all the rules. It's amazing the stuff I forgot was in there or in some cases just learned. In particular, the unarmed combat section seemed very foreign to me... as though I skipped it the times I read it in the past.

I'm really inspired to try and play in a game strictly by the book at least for a short time.

[Algolei]

It's amazing the stuff I forgot was in there or in some cases just learned. In particular, the unarmed combat section seemed very foreign to me... as though I skipped it the times I read it in the past.

I know exactly what you mean. Same thing happened to me about a week ago, when I was looking through the unarmed combat section.

I have a crypto-theory that the actual writing in the book changes when we're not looking. For instance, years ago, my friends and I all read the Monster Manual and saw the name "Juiblex" as "Jubilex." All of us. We were certain of the spelling.

The only plausible explanation is that the actual spelling in the books changed, in every book, everywhere, and only we noticed it.

[Benoist]

Anyone? Yes. Some people I'm sure play by the book.

I'm sure that many more don't absolutely play by the book.

[Mythmere]

Yes, definitely. At least, up to the limit of what the rules cover, at which point it's creativity from there on. I don't DM that way, but I've played with an excellent DM who did.

[genghisdon]

No, I don't think it's possible or desirable. There are contradictions in the system, judgements must be made & thus dispute on "completely BTB" is inevitable.

[cloak n' dagger]

I know our group plays as close to the rules as understandably possible. We don't house rule or remove anything from play and if we come to a point that seems confusing, the DM makes a call and we roll on.

[1stEditionRules]

I wish more people would play by the book. I became inactive largely due to rule changes when 2E was released but also because I had such a hard time finding lingering 1E groups that went by the book. I never liked house rules. I never liked them in Monopoly and I never liked them in A,D&D. The D&D basic rules allowed for a great deal of personal freedom in making your own rules, but it was always the intention of Gygax that A,D&D should be more structured. Why do you think so many hard cover manuals were released during the 1E era? If Gary didn't intend for there to be firmly established rules, he wouldn't have released so many books governing so many aspects of the game. 2E got stupid in this regard, but 1E still had plenty of material. One book, hell a pamphlet even, would have been sufficient for defining the entirety of the official rules if it was his intention to leave the majority of the rule making to the players.

[Falconer]

I am firmly in the “AD&D 1e is the one true game” camp, yet I don’t feel very strongly about by-the-book. The list of things I house rule is short enough that I can enumerate it, and otherwise the PHB and DMG are pretty solidly adhered to, and I don’t think it was ever Gary’s intent to eliminate “winging it,” as those situations that are not covered by the rules will forever continue to come up. So I guess that is more or less in the spirit of what most of you are saying.

[thedungeondelver]

This is why reading (and re-reading) the DMG, Monster Manual and Players Handbook are essential. The issue came up recently of parrying - I explained to a player they could attempt to parry a monster's blow, and the question was raised "How does that work?". I pointed out the rule, and as it turns out the folks playing had never heard of it.

Likewise, I just plain forgot about the age rules when kicking off the recent campaign. How wonderful it would've been to have had birthdays for all the characters, with appropriate aging effects (some detrimental, some not) as the campaign goes on.

We had a discussion here about the proper use of helms, and why that's important (50/50 chance an intelligent monster will take a swipe at the head of a helmetless character, maximum a/c of the character without one is, six? I believe), and on and on.

There's much by the book I'd like to do.

[1stEditionRules]

I am firmly in the “AD&D 1e is the one true game” camp, yet I don’t feel very strongly about by-the-book. The list of things I house rule is short enough that I can enumerate it, and otherwise the PHB and DMG are pretty solidly adhered to, and I don’t think it was ever Gary’s intent to eliminate “winging it,” as those situations that are not covered by the rules will forever continue to come up. So I guess that is more or less in the spirit of what most of you are saying.

I'm not saying that ALL house rules are bad, just where the subject is already covered in the books, then the books should be adhered to. There's a lot in the official rules that many people are not aware of so they make their own rules because they couldn't be bothered to look hard enough in the official rules to find what they were looking for or if they did find what they were looking for they simply disagreed with the rule and decided to make their own. No. Don't do that. If there is no official rule, then I hesitatingly say ok make a new rule but when something is clearly covered, don't make changes. When you play with more than one DM, having to go by vastly different rules with each one is a real pain.

Another thing, players should be made aware of house rules well in advance of the actual game. If I have to drive more than 2 miles to get to your house to play, then I would like a .pdf or .txt of your house rules sent to me before I make the trip. Don't drag me half way across the state to play and then spring 50 pages of house rules on me when I get there is what I'm saying. If I know about the house rules in advance and don't like something, then it can be addressed or I just won't play. Don't waste my time.

[Falconer]

Well, I can respect a DM who wants to really master the rules and play them exactly as printed, but a rules-lawyering player is just really annoying.

[DuBeers]

My stance is, as it has always been, play the game in a way that is fun and brings you and the rest of your group joy.

As for me? I'll change whatever I please. To my way of thinking they are guidelines; merely a starting place and not a destination. I intend no offense by this statement but neither do I offer apology for my views.

[Abacus Ape]

I probably couldn't figure out the rules "by the book" even if I cared enough to really try. I play the way I play, and the AD&D books are the books that sit beside me when I do. I will say that I have found that reading and even studying the Books is wealful even if you don't intend to attempt to play "by the book", because those books are just AWESOME. Ideas just pour out of them, and it seems that they would gush forth if you played "by the book" or not.