Dragons at Dawn, przyległości

Wrzucam, bo czemu nie, efekty researchu pod kątem grania w Dragons at Dawn (notabene, nie wiem czemu, ale wdrukowałem sobie pogląd że tytuł tej gry brzmi Dragons at the Dawn, well). Granie raczej nie wyjdzie, przynajmniej nieprędko, ale ile czasu straciłem na czytanie OSR-like zasobów to moje. Dzielona na dwie części (chociaż niektóre rzeczy powinny się znaleźć w obu) - (1) lulz i (2) zasoby, ciekawostki, fragmenty warte powtórzenia oraz to, co powinno się znaleźć w podręczniku, ale oczywiście nikomu nie chciało się tego napisać.

1. Lulz:

Well there is almost no such thing as "have to be" in Dragons at Dawn. Its Arnesonian gaming, meaning you can do whatever is fun for you. [sauce]

However, Dragons at Dawn is a concise, no nonsense set of guidlines, and has little of the padding and redundant, seen it a thousand times before content that is often part and parcel of RPGs. I don't spend half a dozen pages explaing what an RPG is or how to play, for example, or fill ten pages with monsters and long winded character descriptions. [sauce; bold mój]

It becomes clearer and clearer to me that the true manifestation of oldskool spirit, whatever the rules, are the weird things that happen when you just let players do whatever they want, constrained only by the lack of rules. [sauce]

2. Ważne Rzeczy:

I'll also echo the reviewer and say this game has about zero overlap with the retro D&D-clone rulesets. It is its own beast. At the same time, it does share with the retro clones that sense of old school wizard & warrior dungeon spelunking. [sauce]

(...) in those first couple of years rules in Blackmoor were in a constant flux and Arneson was trying more than one way of doing things. [sauce]

 .pdf Supplement II - Blackmoor, oryginalnie z 1975 r., w środku Temple of the Frog i dużo lulzowych grafik.

Dice - that would be a good question to pose to some of the original players. I am fairly sure he rolled behind the screen. He also never told players exactly what number they needed.
Fudge - Almost certainly, I would bet my life on it. "story" came first in Arnesons games.
Character death - I think it was about average. It does seem that some characters were given a "lucky break", but others were killed or turned into monsters so I don't think Arneson was afraid to let low level characters be killed. On the other hand he remarked (I think in an interview) that "You can't keep a good character down" in reference to a character who had been killed but was then played again later. Possibly the character was ressurected or else they just decided to ignore the death. [sauce]

 Don't ask me what you need to hit, roll and I'll tell you what happens. [fraza w tej lub podobnych formach przypisywana jako Arnesonowi jako swego rodzaju motto]