No. I have consistently referred to the Dungeons & Dragons boxed set published in 1974. That is just as much the precedent whether some "innovation" supposedly occurs a year later or half a decade later.Plus, you're picking and choosing this and that edition of both only when it's convenient.
The 5th Edition of T&T is the text at hand in this thread, but -- as I have noted -- I see no particular 'convenience' for your argument in choosing any one over the other.
That argument is really quite a puzzle. You are trying to argue that someone else's personal response to a work of art is "wrong", which one might think obviously nonsensical.
What is really bizarre is that you pursue this course by agreeing with actual facts that are sufficient to my opinion (which is, after all, an opinion!) ... and then offering such false and utterly irrelevant claims as this one of "picking and choosing"! And that following upon your own quibble that the language table arbitrarily "doesn't count".
1A) There appears to be general agreement to the claim that D&D did not stipulate a uniform method of dice-rolling for "everything except combat".
1B) It sure looks to me as if you agreed with me that T&T did not "explicitly" do so either. Difference? None I can see.
2A) However, you observed, it must have been pretty difficult to miss the fact that one could choose to work within such confines; one did not need to have it spelled out for one in the T&T rules-book.
2B) Which was my point, and again it appears that you agreed even to the precise point that what the T&T rulebook in the event did not offer was just as little needed before the book was even a twinkle in Ken's eyes. Difference? None I can see.
But somehow, despite all the paradox it seemingly entails, you must paint me as wrong for having the impression that Ken St Andre encouraged GMs to be flexible and to suit themselves, not to be bound by someone else's arbitrarily rigid rules.
Do you have some deep antipathy for D&D that requires T&T to be its antithesis?
Certainly I did not imagine, 30+ years ago, that people should someday be so bent on dressing up Ken St Andre as a champion of conformity!
Now, to the extent that (as opposed to my response to the work) is indeed a matter of fact, you could argue the matter with points of fact. Instead, you engage in the behavior noted, and cap it with this:
Hello? It takes two to tango! Well, actually, you seem able to do it by yourself.I don't know why you insist on being so argumentative ...
I observed that "I am a bit taken aback by some things that seem to blow many minds." The big to-do about how revolutionary SRs supposedly are had already been done.
So, when you keep trying to "prove me wrong" for not sharing an opinion, and using some pretty wiggly arguments ... I don't see how my response, addressing matters of fact, is especially 'argumentative'.
As I recall, the lowdown on time was sort of buried in the chapter on magic. Five combat rounds of two minutes each make up a full turn of 10 minutes -- during which a character gets back a point of ST. So, that's 6 points per hour. Right? (I might well be wrong, as it's been a long time!)
So (granting the above), if a spell cost a (single) wizard, say, 18 points, then it would take three hours to get those points back. If a wizard with ST 22 were doing that continually, then his or her average effective ST would be just 13 (with a low of 4 right after casting).
Fully charged, the wiz is just about crackling with "psychic energy". If one were to estimate the energy requirements of doing what spells do, I reckon it might come out to a lot of horsepower. Consider just a fraction of that channeled by default into something like psychokinesis.
It's not (by that interpretation) literal "muscle" a mage is packing -- it's raw power!