To be honest method #2 was always my choice. No mechanic should come in front of my players natural play through an encounter. But #3 has me intrigued. Am I to infer that in this method the role play replaces the d20 toss? So that a well acted scene is treated as if the character had rolled high and a poorly acted scene as if they had rolled low? So someone with a poor diplomacy score say a -2 (typical of a min/maxed warrior) would find it difficult to act well enough to change any opinions and even if the player is a good actor that may only serve to consistently keep himself away from the gallows. While a less skilled actor with a very charismatic and charming character would be hampered by poor performances but high higher skill (+10 or more) may turn an average performance into a moving in game effect?
To be honest method #2 was always my choice. No mechanic should come in front of my players natural play through an encounter. But #3 has me intrigued. Am I to infer that in this method the role play replaces the d20 toss? So that a well acted scene is treated as if the character had rolled high and a poorly acted scene as if they had rolled low? So someone with a poor diplomacy score say a -2 (typical of a min/maxed warrior) would find it difficult to act well enough to change any opinions and even if the player is a good actor that may only serve to consistently keep himself away from the gallows. While a less skilled actor with a very charismatic and charming character would be hampered by poor performances but high higher skill (+10 or more) may turn an average performance into a moving in game effect?
Yes. The important part is to judge not only the quality of RP but also effort on the players part (e.g. socially skilled player evidently trying his best should be rewarded for his efforts).
This is often mixed with the fact that most players I play with, actually try to RP their character's social stats as well. (uh, my Fellowship 19% assassin in Dark Heresy game got to lead a cell of acolytes... this does not bode well. Certainly I wasn't able to sway that Scum into joining us. Thankfully refusing Inquisition wasn't an option for any of new recruits.)
|
others dispute that there isn't such a thing as "old school" vs. "new school" (and that's fine), I disagree
Yeah, same here...
While there may have always been as many different gaming styles as there were and are gaming groups, I just do not agree with the notion that there is no such thing (or difference between) "old school" and "new school" gaming...
I mean, the various publishers of the "old school" games and retro-clones (such as Goodman Game's DCC RPG and FGG's version of Sword's & Wizardry) and more importantly, the approach to gaming that these games take all seem to agree that there is indeed such a thing as "old school" gaming (with its implied differences between that and "new school" gaming)...
So maybe let everyone intersted in discussion writes what he thinks that "old school" and "new school" actually mean because while the terms are commonly used those who use them rarely see eye to eye and other discutants have hard time guessing what each of you actually mean when he refers to old/new.
To be honest method #2 was always my choice. No mechanic should come in front of my players natural play through an encounter.
Well my view is that the person should be roleplaying the character and not roleplaying what they, themselves, would do if they got to ride in a meat suit of the character. How do you differentiate between the player and the character they are roleplaying?
This is part of the reason I dislike puzzles in games. Puzzles are challenges for the players, not their characters.
|
Yes, older versions of D&D were a hodgepodge of rules, where in some cases you had to consult a table to determine what color your clothing was today (a hyperbolic metaphor, I am aware there is no such table) and in other cases where there were broad swathes of material where the rules were unclear and the GM had to make a call---or simply ignore the situation because there was no rule for it.And you know what? That last bit, where you didn't do it if there wasn't a rule for it? That was MY earliest experiences of playing D&D. From multiple GMs. That's how I used to think all GMs worked, until I met new ones. But that doesn't make the mechanics-driven GM any more "old school" than the adaptive, story-driven GM you and that essay describes.
I've more often seen the polar opposite. "New-school" players (and GMs) that encounter something that isn't explicitly covered by the rules just not having any concept of how to proceed. Whereas the "old-school" players/GMs are used to thinking beyond the rules.
|
To be honest, I've always been the same style of GM: regardless of game system or the time in which a game system was released.
So, whatever definitions you might have don't apply to me, don't mean anything to me and are virtually worthless when discussing gaming with me.
Maybe that's the problem with the terminology?
Described badly, I might add.
The Alexandrian is one of my favorite blogs but I think he was a little harsh on the Matt Finch old school primer booklet. I think the booklet served a purpose for people trying Swords & Wizardry or another retro-clone to get the most enjoyment out of a rules-light system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting to watch armies of straw men lined up on either side, ready for battle.
In my opinion, the notion that the "I'm the GM and what I say goes" attitude is some kind of dinosaur from the old school days is not only moot and not worth mentioning, but is also a kind of confirmation bias.
Bear with me one moment.
First of all, since the "Old School Days" were the days when EVERY play style began, of course the GM-is-god attitude is old school. But then so are permissive GMs, nice GMs, mean GMs, and pretty much every kind of bad GM and every kind of good GM you could think of. It's so stupid simple it doesn't bear mentioning. But I'll put it simply anyway:
EVERY SINGLE GM STYLE IS FROM THE OLD SCHOOL DAYS.
As to confirmation bias, a person who has the notion that old players have a particular attitude is going to yell "a-ha!" every time he sees a player of a certain age embracing it. But that does not preclude players of other ages engaging in, or embracing that same attitude. A casual observation of the boards reveals that there are players of all ages interested in all sorts of play styles.
Option #3: Roleplay adjusting roleplaying for mechanical traits.
The scene is roleplayed and GM adjusts NPC reactions depending upon the PC scores - high Diplomacy character is given some slack for player social inability, low Charisma character is dismissed regardless of the accuracy of his arguments, etc.
We often do this too. This way a player doesn't get punished for not being as Charismatic as his PC, but roleplaying still gets taken into account.
Usually that's in combination with the roleplay first, then roll the dice method. Sometimes if someone does an amazing job roleplaying they get a bonus to the roll -- and so while the character's abilities are taken into account vs the players (as above), if the player does an amazing job they also get rewarded for doing so.
I'd be interested in doing more of the roll then role method but I'm afraid it would keep someone from saying what they'd want to say--I'd rather them construct their argument and say it but then based on any subsequent roll--if it is deemed necessary--describe the result with both in mind. "While you argue vehemently and passionately, your passion causes you to stutter and ramble a little. Unable to follow you, the person only latches on to the one thing you said in the middle and misses the context of the rest, and thus thinks you support the faction you don't."
To be honest method #2 was always my choice. No mechanic should come in front of my players natural play through an encounter.Well my view is that the person should be roleplaying the character and not roleplaying what they, themselves, would do if they got to ride in a meat suit of the character. How do you differentiate between the player and the character they are roleplaying?
This is part of the reason I dislike puzzles in games. Puzzles are challenges for the players, not their characters.
No.
First if a player has a feel for role play then they will be in character as they act the scene out. No need to spell that out for them. BUT if I have a player who struggles with role play then I would much rather they act sort of as an alternate version of themself than to not role play at all. The more they practice and the more they are exposed to better role players the quicker they will pick up that love of true role play and start acting in character. So I avoid punishing this sort of thing beyond simply not giving them extra role play awards.
The second part surprises me to hear come from your mouth considering your stance on supporting any style your players like. Many players like puzzles, so many that some guides have a whole category just for them. If your players like puzzles why not add them? It doesn't detract anything from the rest of play and they aren't hard to add? It seems exactly contrary to your exposed position on GM power vs. player entitlement.
I tend to loathe puzzles, by the way.
I am here to play a roleplaying game, not sudoku.
It's interesting to watch armies of straw men lined up on either side, ready for battle.
To arms, to arms!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i do not see how a challenge to the player can be a bad thing. In the end the players are the one playing the game.
This is part of the reason I dislike puzzles in games. Puzzles are challenges for the players, not their characters.
There is a pretty weird double standard there though. If the players have to actually have to figure out a riddle rather than rolling on their character's knowledge skills (or whatever), why shouldn't they they have to fight a guy Mike Tyson's size, rather than just rolling on their character's combat abilities?
Because saying "you found a puzzle, roll Intelligence check, if you roll 20+ you succeeded. Thank you for game" is no fun, unlike the whole combat sequence.
I am not fan of puzzles myself, they rarely fit to story, anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I do with diplomacy and such is have them role-play out (or just describe in third person) what they want to say. Then I give them a DC based on whether the idea makes sense, is it believable, etc.
Then they roll the check.
So the investment in Cha, knowledge skills, ranks in diplomacy etc still stays relevant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Puzzles. I guess I would use them more if I was clever enough to come up with good ones and justify what they are doing there in the first place.
It's kinda hard for me to imagine some wizard locking his doors with logic puzzles anyone can figure out when he could just, you know... lock it for real.
I don't know how to write good puzzles really.
I never allow players to describe what they say in third person.
Oh I definitely do. I don't want to make any barriers to play, i want to grow the hobby. Some people are afraid of the bits of the game that feel like improv, they feel put on the spot. I let them use third person as much as they want and enjoy whatever aspect of the game they actually do enjoy. Then when I have a decent voice I like to use for an NPC or something I look right at them and say something (works better if it's something kind of funny usually) and sometimes they surprise you and come out of their shell and launch into first person banter.
I've only run a few puzzles, and usually only in pre-written stuff such as the Vanderboren Vault in Savage Tide. I'll let the players pick at it for a bit, then if it looks like they're stumped I'll start asking for rolls. If they figure it out before I ask, it seems to make them feel a bit more accomplished, but if it looks like they're getting frustrated I can let it fall back on the dice and not slow down the game.
|
|
I've only run a few puzzles, and usually only in pre-written stuff such as the Vanderboren Vault in Savage Tide. I'll let the players pick at it for a bit, then if it looks like they're stumped I'll start asking for rolls. If they figure it out before I ask, it seems to make them feel a bit more accomplished, but if it looks like they're getting frustrated I can let it fall back on the dice and not slow down the game.
I do the same.
Actually the last puzzle i did,(that i shamelessly stole from skyrim) incorporated four three-sided pillars with images on each side, an adamantine porticulis and four images above the doorway. Also, when you turn pillar number 2, first pillar turns as well. When you turn pillar number 3 pillar number 4 turns and when you turn pillar number 4 pillar number 2 turns. After 15 minutes of trying to make the puzzle work, i asked the players if they wanted intelligence checks to solve it and they refused. It took them another 30 minutes to crack it, but man were they satisfied.
The second part surprises me to hear come from your mouth considering your stance on supporting any style your players like. Many players like puzzles, so many that some guides have a whole category just for them. If your players like puzzles why not add them? It doesn't detract anything from the rest of play and they aren't hard to add? It seems exactly contrary to your exposed position on GM power vs. player entitlement.
I see how that could be a surprised. Let me give you a hint on how to think about my view. My personal dislikes need not be the only thing to consider when I run a game.
In other words, just because I personally dislike puzzles doesn't mean I refuse to put them in the game if the rest of the group enjoys them.
Now for GMs that consider only their own views matter and not their players. I would imagine my point of view would be a bewilderment to them. "You'd put something in your game that you personally don't like. MADNESS!"
Play by post is often written in third person. Refrencing yourself in third person could be a character quirk in ic text.
I see how that could be a surprised. Let me give you a hint on how to think about my view. My personal dislikes need not be the only thing to consider when I run a game.
In other words, just because I personally dislike puzzles doesn't mean I refuse to put them in the game if the rest of the group enjoys them.
Now for GMs that consider only their own views matter and not their players. I would imagine my point of view would be a bewilderment to them. "You'd put something in your game that you personally don't like. MADNESS!"
Interesting, I suppose that makes sense.
er... except for:
Now for GMs that consider only their own views matter and not their players.
That is quite the impressive straw man you built there. I couldn't name one GM who only considers his own preferences, not even one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is quite the impressive straw man you built there. I couldn't name one GM who only considers his own preferences, not even one.
If that was the case, then why was your immediate assumption, when I said I dislike puzzles, that I would not include them in the game? It doesn't follow logically unless one assumes that a GM should only consider their own likes and dislikes.
I certainly hope there are no GMs like that out there.
That is quite the impressive straw man you built there. I couldn't name one GM who only considers his own preferences, not even one.If that was the case, then why was your immediate assumption, when I said I dislike puzzles, that I would not include them in the game? It doesn't follow logically unless one assumes that a GM should only consider their own likes and dislikes.
I certainly hope there are no GMs like that out there.
Your defending your straw man?
Assuming a GM might ban something he doesn't like is FAR different than assuming a GM refuses to consider including anything his players like and want.
PS: At least I had the good grace to admit I was wrong in my assumption... you are actually defending your faulty assumption. That tells me it was deliberate. It was an attack on me for cheep points and lies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I use my player knowledge to remember the weakness of a monster, instead of rolling my character's knowledge skill, people call it meta-gaming.
How is using my player knowledge to solve a puzzle not meta-gaming?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is part of the reason I dislike puzzles in games. Puzzles are challenges for the players, not their characters.The second part surprises me to hear come from your mouth considering your stance on supporting any style your players like. Many players like puzzles, so many that some guides have a whole category just for them. If your players like puzzles why not add them? It doesn't detract anything from the rest of play and they aren't hard to add? It seems exactly contrary to your exposed position on GM power vs. player entitlement.
Your statement was wrong. I am sorry you now feel foolish for making it. Let's move on.
Your statement was wrong. I am sorry you now feel foolish for making it. Let's move on.
I think it telling that you refuse to acknowledge your attack let alone apologize for it.
If you felt you were attacked, flag it and move on.
First if a player has a feel for role play then they will be in character as they act the scene out. No need to spell that out for them. BUT if I have a player who struggles with role play then I would much rather they act sort of as an alternate version of themself than to not role play at all. The more they practice and the more they are exposed to better role players the quicker they will pick up that love of true role play and start acting in character. So I avoid punishing this sort of thing beyond simply not giving them extra role play awards.
This too. Because I'm big on making the game more approachable to new people. I don't want it to be a thing that puts a lot of pressure on people who are willing to try it.
others dispute that there isn't such a thing as "old school" vs. "new school" (and that's fine), I disagreeYeah, same here...
While there may have always been as many different gaming styles as there were and are gaming groups, I just do not agree with the notion that there is no such thing (or difference between) "old school" and "new school" gaming...
I mean, the various publishers of the "old school" games and retro-clones (such as Goodman Game's DCC RPG and FGG's version of Sword's & Wizardry) and more importantly, the approach to gaming that these games take all seem to agree that there is indeed such a thing as "old school" gaming (with its implied differences between that and "new school" gaming)...
See, there are Oldschool and Newschool GAMES. That is not the same as oldschool and newschool gaming. Dnd STARTED robust enough to support multiple styles of gaming. We didnt start with rigidly dm controlled games and then move to collective storytelling. Both were there from the start. DnD as a rule system didnt prevent one or the other. It empowered both. In my very first gaming group, playing adnd, players helped build the world. I actually drafted several gods working with my DM, and even made up house rules.
My own DM style has wavered back and forth between the two ideas as I do feel both have merits. And yes there are groups of people who have spawned 'retro' or 'oldschool' games to support one of those playstyles. But that is their own biased remembering of how things were when they first started. It has nothing to do with the actual collective experience at the time, because there wasnt such a collective experience until the advent of the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DnD as a rule system didnt prevent one or the other. It empowered both. In my very first gaming group, playing adnd, players helped build the world. I actually drafted several gods working with my DM, and even made up house rules.
Sure, but the rules didn't explicitly grant creative control or narrative to the players.
Rule 0 allows the DM/GM to do whatever they want, but the rules don't actually support the play style I was referring to, which were games that have rules that directly apportion that control or narrative to someone other than the DM/GM.
That said, I'm not trying to say that there aren't merits (or potential merits) to the "new school" play styles I was thinking of - I just don't want those codified to this particular type of game.
It has nothing to do with the actual collective experience at the time, because there wasnt such a collective experience until the advent of the internet.
Strongly disagree.
Communication on a wide scale happened amongst the gaming community, it just wasn't as instantaneous as the Internet-facilitated methods we have today.
Even prior to online services like AOL or independent bulletin board systems, the collective experience was facilitated by the convention circuits, the plethora of magazines, etc.
While I have never played an "old school game", I have read a Q&A thread with Gary Gygax that spanned several hundred pages. Here are a list of expectations I have come up with that are seen very differently in newer players and older players (in general), caused, as several clever people suggested, by a bias encoded in the structure of the rules:
1) My character deserves to survive, because if I die, it is not fun. Of course characters can die in a number of ways, depending on plot situations, tactical skill, bad luck, etc. It seems like the longer it takes to generate a character, the more attached you begin. As rules get more involved, it is more likely for people to become attached, even before they begin playing. This is probably the root of many of the "GM banned X, nerfed Y" problems.
2) If there is not a rule to cover it, it cannot happen. The more rules there are, the stronger the background system for coming up with rulings is. If there is a defined rule for how far you can jump based on your speed and acrobatics skill, then deciding how far you can jump if there is a strong wind behind you becomes much easier. If there is a rule for 15 different kinds of diseases, then the 16th one you create will have a much better chance of fitting in. That in no ways stops the GM from making up new rulings for situations, or new material. Similarly, if the GM finds there are rules that he does not like/understand, of course he can change it. This is how a complex game works. If he/she only does so to "beat the players", that is a separate problem.
3) Meta-gaming is cheating. For Gygax, it seemed what we call "metagaming" he considered a learning curve.
4) the DM is God. As much as it is painful to say it, the GM is god in the world. While players can decide not to show up or not, the GM will stay a god in the game world. If they want you to die, you will. If they want you to do something, they can make you. However! This is true in a rule-light system and rules-heavy system. This was true in the 70s and is true now. This is true in D&D and PF. The extent to which the GM exerts this power is different.
5) If your player has a low INT score (or any other), he/she cannot solve puzzles, read complex books, know trivia etc. INT has a very specific set of in game effects, but that should not apply to anything else. You will do worse on Knowledge rolls (for what your character knows but what the player does not), but it does not need to work bacwards. Using out-of-game knowledge to deliberately punish a player or GM is again a problem with the players, not with using OoC knowledge.