| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A very good point, but now I'm thinking. I've been playing more like option 2 since I started with a group that used a 1"=5' scale battle mat. It starts to feel like you try to do the 1st, which is more interesting, but then you HAVE to do the 2nd, because you need to make sure all the rules are accounted for to ensure that the first is even possible. And then, somewhere along the way, the description never happens and you do your move, and the next guy does his.If you're saying, "Brian the Black leaps forward clashing his axe to his shield roaring, 'Lamh-laidir abu. Let those omadhauns come! None shall pass the ax of this Dalcassian prince without tasting the whetted steel! Come, a ripe feast for the crows you'll be.'" You're doing it with the essence of old AD&D
If you say, "I'll move my character here to block the bridge it should slow any creature larger than small size unless they make a throw vs acrobatics to get past me. I'll brace my shield for defense. I should get a +3 to resist an contests of strength. You'll still have to watch for the reach weapons but since they'll be on a corner most won't be able to pass through the square." You're not in fact doing it with the old school essence of D&D.
Emphasis mine. That's the point where I viciously reduce the rules of an RPG to the point where they're easier to account for ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Amen. Some of my 1e games had quite a bit of "epic". Those "epic" combats just took up WAY less time looking stuff up and adding a zillion modifiers (stuff that is decidedly not "epic", quite draggy and boring, actually).That's where rules bloat gets in the way of the story. AD&D wasn't anywhere close to perfect, but there wasn't a lot of mechanics to get in the way of an epic story. If the 1st level gamer wanted to throw acid at the roof of the building to weaken the rafters to smash a rampaging basilisk that he has no chance of beating in a traditional "grid-based" combat, that's a whole lot more epic than stopping play and flipping to page 2xx to argue the relative hardness of each rafter, much less finding the rules for "cave-in" once, if ever, the ceiling falls. This may simply be a matter where a DM steps in, adjudicates "normally the acid splash is too weak to do real damage to treated wood, but termites have been working on the building along with some exposure to weather over the years. The ancient rafters give a creak and groan...you'd better think about finding something to hide under..."
There's also something non-epic about being engaged in the middle of battle with the Death Knight Lord Sinister who has razed the local church atop his flaming nightmare steed, and stopping play to recount "...ok so I get a +1 from bless, a +1 from prayer, a +2 from blessing of fervor, a +1 from (oops, that's a morale bonus, doesn't stack with bless, scratch that), a +1 from haste, a -2 because of the shaken effect, did I count that +4 for the Potion of Bull Strength, (no wait, that should only be a net gain of +2 because of my strength already)...so I hit AC 30. No wait, I forgot that I had activated a swift action to gain a temporary +2, I think that's a class bonus so it counts...(and now another player indicates his abilities grant a bonus so long as they're in proximity), and was bard song playing? What's that grant again? Hold on, I lost my count on...
Ok, let me stop you right there. To each their own right? My own experience with this sort of thing went like this back in AD&D:
I'm DMing: yes, the rafters collapse! I reward your creativity; it's a LIGHT world!
One of my buddies are DMing: Make a to hit roll. You missed (arbitrary since no AC was given); the acid falls back in your eyes. That was an epic waste of your actions. On the plus side you can't be turned to stone. It's a DARK world.
Now, a couple sessions ago my players entered a ruined tomb. One of them said "I look at the ceiling" and I know he has knowledge: engineering. I promptly told him about the buckling crossbeam overhead. "How bad is it?" I had him roll and he did pretty well, so I told him it had the Broken condition and then some; it's one good hit from total collapse.
No sooner did they discover that then a zombie otyugh revealed itself from a sewer under the floor. The stench was so gross that the PCs were Shaken; eyes watering, gagging on bile - you get the idea. The party realizes upon it's first grapple attack that even as a zombie this thing will probably kill one of them.
They instantly formed a plan. The paladin would cut the cleric free of the grapple. The cleric in turn would hit the crossbeam with a Firebolt. The magus would time a Ray of Frost for the same moment and the ranger would lay down cover from the doorway. By RAW should the 2 energy weapons have set off the collapse? I have no idea; I didn't look it up.
The rules are there, yes, and you're right that sometimes they get in the way. But they are guidelines that set a basis for my decisions as GM; they can be bent or broken on occasion. It even says so somewhere in either the CRB or the Gamemaster book (I'm not looking it up so if you guys want to prove me wrong that's totally cool - I'm lazy).
Anyway, the 1-2 punch took out the beam but of course this brought down the roof. I began counting while the party called out their actions on their initiatives. Once I got to 30 whoever was left would be paste. They all made it out but the cleric had to make a save which he just barely made landing him in the slide zone (3d6 damage) instead of the crush zone. It was fun, epic and there was some cheering afterwards.
Bottom line: epic scenes aren't due to rules, rules bloat, or whatever. Despite my earlier snark they're not even because of mechanics. If the GM and their players are firing on all pistons it doesn't matter what the rules and mechanics are, it's just fun! It could've been just as much fun in Dungeon World, AD&D, Marvel Super Heroes or Rifts. Just own your fun dangit, and don't rely on rules or systems or whatever to govern it for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are there, yes, and you're right that sometimes they get in the way. But they are guidelines that set a basis for my decisions as GM; they can be bent or broken on occasion. It even says so somewhere in either the CRB or the Gamemaster book (I'm not looking it up so if you guys want to prove me wrong that's totally cool - I'm lazy).
When we're talking the essence of AD&D, or of Old School, this in particular comes to mind to me as the essence of not only that but of all RPGs. The fact we have a GM that can deal with the things the rulebook isn't equipped for, either because of omission, preferring to house rule it, or flat out just feeling the printed rule doesn't feel right in this particular case.
On the other hand, I also know that system only works for a small number of players lucky enough to have a GM they can trust, so I'm okay with a general move towards heavier systems that allow more people to enjoy the game, as long as I can still rip half of that heavy system away in my own games :)
Ok, let me stop you right there. To each their own right? My own experience with this sort of thing went like this back in AD&D:
I'm DMing: yes, the rafters collapse! I reward your creativity; it's a LIGHT world!
One of my buddies are DMing: Make a to hit roll. You missed (arbitrary since no AC was given); the acid falls back in your eyes. That was an epic waste of your actions. On the plus side you can't be turned to stone. It's a DARK world.
Now, a couple sessions ago my players entered a ruined tomb. One of them said "I look at the ceiling" and I know he has knowledge: engineering. I promptly told him about the buckling crossbeam overhead. "How bad is it?" I had him roll and he did pretty well, so I told him it had the Broken condition and then some; it's one good hit from total collapse.
No sooner did they discover that then a zombie otyugh revealed itself from a sewer under the floor. The stench was so gross that the PCs were Shaken; eyes watering, gagging on bile - you get the idea. The party realizes upon it's first grapple attack that even as a zombie this thing will probably kill one of them.
They instantly formed a plan. The paladin would cut the cleric free of the grapple. The cleric in turn would hit the crossbeam with a Firebolt. The magus would time a Ray of Frost for the same moment and the ranger would lay down cover from the doorway. By RAW should the 2 energy weapons have set off the collapse? I have no idea; I didn't look it up.
The rules are there, yes, and you're right that sometimes they get in the way. But they are guidelines that set a basis for my decisions as GM; they can be bent or broken on occasion. It even says so somewhere in either the CRB or the Gamemaster book (I'm not looking it up so if you guys want to prove me wrong that's totally cool - I'm lazy).
Anyway, the 1-2 punch took out the beam but of course this brought down the roof. I began counting while the party called out their actions on their initiatives. Once I got to 30 whoever was left would be paste. They all made it out but the cleric had to make a save which he just barely made landing him in the slide zone (3d6 damage) instead of the crush zone. It was fun, epic and there was some cheering afterwards.
Bottom line: epic scenes aren't due to rules, rules bloat, or whatever. Despite my earlier snark they're not even because of mechanics. If the GM and their players are firing on all pistons it doesn't matter what the rules and mechanics are, it's just fun! It could've been just as much fun in Dungeon World, AD&D, Marvel Super Heroes or Rifts. Just own your fun dangit, and don't rely on rules or systems or whatever to govern it for you.
That sounds like a lot of fun and cooperative game play. A great GM can make a game fun with any system. Some systems are tougher to GM than others.
On the other hand, I also know that system only works for a small number of players lucky enough to have a GM they can trust, so I'm okay with a general move towards heavier systems that allow more people to enjoy the game, as long as I can still rip half of that heavy system away in my own games :)
The rules are there, yes, and you're right that sometimes they get in the way. But they are guidelines that set a basis for my decisions as GM; they can be bent or broken on occasion. It even says so somewhere in either the CRB or the Gamemaster book (I'm not looking it up so if you guys want to prove me wrong that's totally cool - I'm lazy).
Honestly, sometimes the trouble can simply come from an inability to find a consistent GM. Local/Organized play, online play, or simply moving can make this extremely difficult. I played in at least one campaign every semester of college. It's been hard to find a game or group of players that has lasted as long since then.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're saying, "Brian the Black leaps forward clashing his axe to his shield roaring, 'Lamh-laidir abu. Let those omadhauns come! None shall pass the ax of this Dalcassian prince without tasting the whetted steel! Come, a ripe feast for the crows you'll be.'" You're doing it with the essence of old AD&D
If you say, "I'll move my character here to block the bridge it should slow any creature larger than small size unless they make a throw vs acrobatics to get past me. I'll brace my shield for defense. I should get a +3 to resist an contests of strength. You'll still have to watch for the reach weapons but since they'll be on a corner most won't be able to pass through the square." You're not in fact doing it with the old school essence of D&D.
So the essence of AD&D was a bunch of hullabaloo?
It's a cute example, but it's a bit of a straw man. In the latter example, there's no way the player would need to go into such detail. Most GMs already know how acrobatics or reach weapons work. The player would simply need to move into position and announce any further actions (draw a weapon, ready an action, etc.). Any additional explanation is optional.
Likewise, in the first example, the player moves into position and ...well, nothing! If the passage is wide enough, I'm not sure there was anything in the old AD&D rules that would allow Brian the Black to stop a foe or even take a swipe at them as they ran past. Although colourful, the player's description doesn't really accomplish much of anything in the game. Once again, any additional explanation is optional.
Yes, there were DMs who would allow a detailed description to translate into real game effects, and of course they'd be more inclined to do so if the description were colourful and in character. Or if they were friends with the DM. Or if they had brought the pizza. Or if they were a girl and wore something tight or low-cut. Or if they were funny and knitted up their eyebrows at the DM in that really cute way that puppies do. See, that was part of the problem.
Again...I can say I roll an acrobatics check to flank the ogre avoid the AOO and sneak attack...or I can say The halfling rogue dives through the ogre's legs, springs into the air,and plunges his daggers into the giant's kidney, and still roll the dice and follow the same rules...
...on the other hand I DO think that many players especially those who are videogamers have seen so much and read so little that their descriptive powers are weak at best...such is the I swing, I hit, I do 6 points of damage
If you're saying, "Brian the Black leaps forward clashing his axe to his shield roaring, 'Lamh-laidir abu. Let those omadhauns come! None shall pass the ax of this Dalcassian prince without tasting the whetted steel! Come, a ripe feast for the crows you'll be.'" You're doing it with the essence of old AD&D
If you say, "I'll move my character here to block the bridge it should slow any creature larger than small size unless they make a throw vs acrobatics to get past me. I'll brace my shield for defense. I should get a +3 to resist an contests of strength. You'll still have to watch for the reach weapons but since they'll be on a corner most won't be able to pass through the square." You're not in fact doing it with the old school essence of D&D.
So the essence of AD&D was a bunch of hullabaloo?
It's a cute example, but it's a bit of a straw man. In the latter example, there's no way the player would need to go into such detail. Most GMs already know how acrobatics or reach weapons work. The player would simply need to move into position and announce any further actions (draw a weapon, ready an action, etc.). Any additional explanation is optional.
Likewise, in the first example, the player moves into position and ...well, nothing! If the passage is wide enough, I'm not sure there was anything in the old AD&D rules that would allow Brian the Black to stop a foe or even take a swipe at them as they ran past. Although colourful, the player's description doesn't really accomplish much of anything in the game. Once again, any additional explanation is optional.
Yes, there were DMs who would allow a detailed description to translate into real game effects, and of course they'd be more inclined to do so if the description were colourful and in character. Or if they were friends with the DM. Or if they had brought the pizza. Or if they were a girl and wore something tight or low-cut. Or if they were funny and knitted up their eyebrows at the DM in that really cute...
If a DM couldn't understand or clarify what a character's action meant in game terms well he should ask questions or get help. If you don't have room for 'Brian the Black' at your table, honestly I don't know what to say. Hardly a strawman since I was commenting on a post that was even more mechanical and sad it wasn't even close to being a 'strawman'.
The very fact you are literally looking to the rulebook to figure out the proper way to describe what 'Brian the Black' was doing rather than finding a way to roleplay it speaks volumes.
In addition, if you consider wearing a tight sweater and having a nice bust or actually bribing the DM or flat out cheating to be the functional equivalent of roleplaying again that speaks volumes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-The truth is always somewhere in the middle-
A tabletop RPG will always have the advantage in that a DM can adjust rules to fit almost any tactical situation...DM's are not supposed to ever say "no you can't do that".
-The fact that there are indeed rules to describe what Brian the Black is doing is not, by itself, a bad thing.
-The role of the DM is to know the rules well. Very well. If a player wants to know how to do something, say hit more than one enemy at low levels, (cleave) explain it to him, ideally at character creation.
-but the fact that we have rules, and MORE rules means a DM can give a valid explanation to his rulings (which might even be open to interpretation after the session) rather than appearing to be operating on simple capriciousness.
-As others have pointed out, a fair DM could run an exciting rule-less story game. In reality, I've seen the opposite happen (non d&d) when the DM did operate on caprice, giving magic abilities to his friends, and shafting the people he looked down on.
-In other words, when a DM tells you "no you can't sneak attack" but "yes my friend's elf can shoot his bow 1000m with no range penalties", you know you are playing with a power tripping idiot, and not a mature adult. Rules help.
|
I've been playing more like option 2 since I started with a group that used a 1"=5' scale battle mat. It starts to feel like you try to do the 1st, which is more interesting, but then you HAVE to do the 2nd, because you need to make sure all the rules are accounted for to ensure that the first is even possible. And then, somewhere along the way, the description never happens and you do your move, and the next guy does his.
I think that's where it began for me, but not because of the grid map (which in some ways has been around since the Gold Box computer games were conceived). Players want to make sure they're not missing advantages, so they spend their limited turns describing the bonuses and modifiers rather than the actual action. It's not necessarily their desire to avoid description. Rather, it's necessity to avoid delay while maximizing your turn. Got soft cover +2, a flanking bonus +2, higher terrain +1, fighting defensively this turn? Rather than "I climb up on the table behind the guard while Garr has him occupied and look for a seam in his armor. Difficult with the high-back chair between us but I can do it," the player confirms his modifiers because the mechanics insist.
-The truth is always somewhere in the middle-
A tabletop RPG will always have the advantage in that a DM can adjust rules to fit almost any tactical situation...DM's are not supposed to ever say "no you can't do that".
-The fact that there are indeed rules to describe what Brian the Black is doing is not, by itself, a bad thing.
-The role of the DM is to know the rules well. Very well. If a player wants to know how to do something, say hit more than one enemy at low levels, (cleave) explain it to him, ideally at character creation.
-but the fact that we have rules, and MORE rules means a DM can give a valid explanation to his rulings (which might even be open to interpretation after the session) rather than appearing to be operating on simple capriciousness.
-As others have pointed out, a fair DM could run an exciting rule-less story game. In reality, I've seen the opposite happen (non d&d) when the DM did operate on caprice, giving magic abilities to his friends, and shafting the people he looked down on.
-In other words, when a DM tells you "no you can't sneak attack" but "yes my friend's elf can shoot his bow 1000m with no range penalties", you know you are playing with a power tripping idiot, and not a mature adult. Rules help.
Agreed rules can help. Rules cannot help with cheating. Cheating is cheating. I despise cheaters, roleplaying like any game requires rules. If someone makes a mistake because they don't understand the rules that's one thing. If someone does the same action because they are cheating, I am done playing with them. A DM shafting someone they don't like is cheating. I'd no more play an rpg with them than cards or baseball.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...If you're saying, "Brian the Black leaps forward clashing his axe to his shield roaring, 'Lamh-laidir abu. Let those omadhauns come! None shall pass the ax of this Dalcassian prince without tasting the whetted steel! Come, a ripe feast for the crows you'll be.'" You're doing it with the essence of old AD&D
If you say, "I'll move my character here to block the bridge it should slow any creature larger than small size unless they make a throw vs acrobatics to get past me. I'll brace my shield for defense. I should get a +3 to resist an contests of strength. You'll still have to watch for the reach weapons but since they'll be on a corner most won't be able to pass through the square." You're not in fact doing it with the old school essence of D&D.
So the essence of AD&D was a bunch of hullabaloo?
It's a cute example, but it's a bit of a straw man. In the latter example, there's no way the player would need to go into such detail. Most GMs already know how acrobatics or reach weapons work. The player would simply need to move into position and announce any further actions (draw a weapon, ready an action, etc.). Any additional explanation is optional.
Likewise, in the first example, the player moves into position and ...well, nothing! If the passage is wide enough, I'm not sure there was anything in the old AD&D rules that would allow Brian the Black to stop a foe or even take a swipe at them as they ran past. Although colourful, the player's description doesn't really accomplish much of anything in the game. Once again, any additional explanation is optional.
Yes, there were DMs who would allow a detailed description to translate into real game effects, and of course they'd be more inclined to do so if the description were colourful and in character. Or if they were friends with the DM. Or if they had brought the pizza. Or if they were a girl and wore something tight or low-cut. Or if they were funny and knitted up their
I'm just saying there was a lot of stuff in the old AD&D that was arbitrary as heck and was nearly impossible for a DM to judge impartially. That's why even back then we were adding additional rules to govern miniatures and movement and stuff. I'd rather play a game system governed by rules. *shrug*
You know what, maybe I'm the wrong one to talk about it. The "essence of AD&D" wasn't all that great when you think about it.
Do you think we need a thread called "The Essence of oldskool feel?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
* Seen so many lacklustre and unimaginative "I swing again without changing tactics every round" players in every edition. But they were there, and they were part of the game. So I accept them and (selfishly) attempt to get them to give me more, whether I am a DM or a player. I've also seen my share of Brian the Blacks that needed to be taken out the back and soundly beaten, or worse, sent to Amateur Drama.
* As for extra rules, I enjoy them as a starting point. Pretty sure I said this upthread - card carrying Grognard here, been playing since circa 1982 (so, a latecomer). Even then I was tinkering with the "system", even if it was more mechanical than plot driven. Nowadays, I find the mechanics an interesting nexus from where plot spins off, whether it be strange synergies (of theme, not power) in builds, monsters or items etc... When it is my character's turn, I do look at my character sheet to see what I can do, fully realising that is merely the beginnig. I'm a firm believer in improvisation, and often my characters will try something that there is no exact rule for per se... I'm not trying to game the system, wouldn't really know how. Just trying to keep the game exciting, heroic, cinematic. Much more memorable than "I throw two more daggers." Which is fine. Just not for me personally.
I've played in PbP's where there is little leniency for deviation from the rules, and it completely sucks. Nothing heroic ever happens because everyone is too scared to try something unaccounted for, and when they do the GM "smells" metagaming, takes a dim view of it and applies an unbelievable penalty and waters down what you were trying to do in the first place. Not fun.
Next time I'm able to DM I think there will be a lot more decisions on the fly. And a tacit encouragement of the players to think big (or tiny) and be courageous, whatever that means within the character's concept. If the character is shy, retiring and cowardly then be courageously, mind-blowingly shy and retiring and cowardly. Or not. But he offer is there...
* If you have an essence of what ADnD was, then intersperse it into your game. This essence is not universally recognised. Go well, step lightly nd carry a big bastard sword.
Do you think we need a thread called "The Essence of oldskool feel?"
If you like. Personally, having been there (if somewhat late) and with all the definitions posted here I don't think you will get an less variety than here, nor one definition I personally would agree with. I like Mark Hoover's posts. ;) Karl was there too, but his Brian the Black still leaves me shellshocked, and I was born in Belfast. Dr Deth is of the oldest school, but his posted experience is so far removed from mine and Steve Geddes (particularly on the save or dies - maybe it's an Australian thing Steve?).
Why is there no essence?
Why can't it be agreed upon?
I mean the essence of NASCAR is hoping a car crash happens. Nobody really watches cars go in circles over and over
The essence of American Italian cooking is Basil, Tomato, and Cheese
The essence of Russian Literature is a dark brooding over moral questions, or at least serious ideas
The essence of Chinese Painting was a taoist belief system, where humans were little and mountains were big
Do you think we need a thread called "The Essence of oldskool feel?"If you like. Personally, having been there (if somewhat late) and with all the definitions posted here I don't think you will get an less variety than here, nor one definition I personally would agree with. I like Mark Hoover's posts. ;) Karl was there too, but his Brian the Black still leaves me shellshocked, and I was born in Belfast. Dr Deth is of the oldest school, but his posted experience is so far removed from mine and Steve Geddes (particularly on the save or dies - maybe it's an Australian thing Steve?).
Sorry, my grandparents were from Ballyhaunis. And I read too much RE Howard growing up.
Why is there no essence?
Why can't it be agreed upon?
I mean the essence of NASCAR is hoping a car crash happens. Nobody really watches cars go in circles over and over
The essence of American Italian cooking is Basil, Tomato, and Cheese
The essence of Russian Literature is a dark brooding over moral questions, or at least serious ideas
The essence of Chinese Painting was a taoist belief system, where humans were little and mountains were big
NASCAR essence noise, remove the sound and you'll get zero tv viewers. Some people like watching the 'left hand turns'. Take away the sound and people simply walk away. Studies have been done. It's science.
American Italian Cooking? I'm guessing you hit it very close here but you forgot the plastic grape vines and faux Italian decor.
Russian Literature - Good call. Wonder how popular it is in Kyiv right now?
Chinese Painting - Was I a mountain dreaming I was a man or a man dreaming I was a mountain? The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
D&D? Among other things, it gave a big scary looking solitary kid whose only social outlet was a dojo someway to express himself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, my grandparents were from Ballyhaunis. And I read too much RE Howard growing up.Do you think we need a thread called "The Essence of oldskool feel?"If you like. Personally, having been there (if somewhat late) and with all the definitions posted here I don't think you will get an less variety than here, nor one definition I personally would agree with. I like Mark Hoover's posts. ;) Karl was there too, but his Brian the Black still leaves me shellshocked, and I was born in Belfast. Dr Deth is of the oldest school, but his posted experience is so far removed from mine and Steve Geddes (particularly on the save or dies - maybe it's an Australian thing Steve?).
It is universally accepted that one cannot actually ever read too much of REH. There was that one time where my brother found the same action scene in two books where REH had merely substituted the protagonist's name and signature weapon. Pretty sure it was Solomon Kane and Conan.
BTW I'm enjoying your posts in this thread too...
Why is there no essence?
Why can't it be agreed upon?
I mean the essence of NASCAR is hoping a car crash happens. Nobody really watches cars go in circles over and over
The essence of American Italian cooking is Basil, Tomato, and Cheese
The essence of Russian Literature is a dark brooding over moral questions, or at least serious ideas
The essence of Chinese Painting was a taoist belief system, where humans were little and mountains were big
I didn't day there was "no essence". I did say finding a universal definition would be impossible. Happy to be proved wrong.
Just like the examples you provide - most of them do not work for me personally.
A thread is the perfect place to talk about it though...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is universally accepted that one cannot actually ever read too much of REH. There was that one time where my brother found the same action scene in two books where REH had merely substituted the protagonist's name and signature weapon. Pretty sure it was Solomon Kane and Conan.
BTW I'm enjoying your posts in this thread too...
Note: This isn't something Howard did personally. It's something a lot of people trying to sell REH stories do to sell them, since Conan stories sell very well, and other REH stories tend not to do quite as well.
Just to be clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NASCAR essence noise, remove the sound and you'll get zero tv viewers. Some people like watching the 'left hand turns'. Take away the sound and people simply walk away. Studies have been done. It's science.Why is there no essence?
Why can't it be agreed upon?
I mean the essence of NASCAR is hoping a car crash happens. Nobody really watches cars go in circles over and over
The essence of American Italian cooking is Basil, Tomato, and Cheese
The essence of Russian Literature is a dark brooding over moral questions, or at least serious ideas
The essence of Chinese Painting was a taoist belief system, where humans were little and mountains were big
They missed one... Its an easy sport to follow when you're hammered.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if there's no essence of old school what precisely are we debating? Again, I come back to newness.
I don't know about you guys, but I had some awesome games as a kid. It didn't have much to do with the rules system. We made up a lot, got silly, and spent most of the session laughing, screaming and high-fiving. I've been banned from a lot of basements because of those HS games...
But nowadays the "essence" I'm trying to recapture has little to do with the rules. I'm trying to be silly, laugh more than narrate, and earn some high fives from my players.
Maybe that's what's missing in our games? We're not kids. We want to be: we play pretend on a semi-regular basis. But the reality is we've all grown up and our games have gotten more mature.
It might not be the same for all of you, but that's what's happening with me. My "old school AD&D" was stuff like one guy putting just his head into the black hole on the wall of the Tomb of Horrors; racing in a head-long charge right at an ancient red dragon while flying, hasted and carrying 2 artifact swords; riding magic surfboards with machine guns mounted on them across the Nyr Dyv.
Now my games are "I move here and attack. +2 for flanking... I hit an AC 22?" If I played AD&D it would be the same, just with different math. If I played Rifts it would happen with percentiles.
I'm not lamenting being a grown up. I love being married, I love my kids and its really nice having the life I've been able to provide. But the trade off is my thinking has subtly shifted, gotten mature and jaded even.
One of my players put it best. They came into a hall and I was trying my best to make it epic and grandiose; I even put down a custom mini on a molded base made to look like the female statue at the end of the great hall. My player looks at the rest of the team and smirks "don't go near the statue boys. You KNOW a statue in a dungeon is always a trap or a monster." Yeah, I know; metagaming. But y'know what? He's right - it did have a trap on it.
Anyway, that's the essence of AD&D for me. Its youth, plain and simple. I'm trying with every game to get a little of it back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And frankly a lot of the time you're not doing something that interesting. You're standing toe-to-toe with the bad guy, swinging at him three times. Or shooting at him from 40' away, like you did last round. No need to move and you'd lose your full attack if you did. It gets difficult to come up with cool creative ways to describe the same action.
I'll generally start off the fight scenes with flair, but it deteriorates to "I swing, I miss. Next?"
That is a good point. While Karl's descriptive action for Brian the Black was evocative it is unlikely that anyone would do that for all (or even most) of their actions. It would be difficult to come up with that off-the-cuff at the table. That would be something you might see more of in a PbP game where players have lots of time to craft such an action and I suspect Karl took some time coming up with it himself. Personally, I would actually start to get a little annoyed if someone did that for EVERY turn as it would feel like they are just hogging the spotlight.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The essence of AD&D that made is so amazingly wonderful was this, simply this...
I was 12
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course you're all right about the statue, but it's part and parcel to a larger problem with my 40-something year old gamers. ANY detail I hand out is something for the game in their opinion. If it isn't, they waste time investigating and get frustrated. If it is, they were right all along.
"You come into a hall; the floor here is black and white checkerboard." When I was 12, I wouldn't know what that meant. Now as a grown up my mind immediately begins working:
Is it trapped?
Are they disintegration pieces?
Are chess pieces going to appear?
Can I only move a certain way?
If it's then revealed that the dungeon designer was into art deco, then why bother telling me about the floor in the first place? This is the mindset of my players, for better or worse. I try to add detail for the sake of aesthetics and nothing more, but as I said it vexes them. Not looking for advice, just explaining.
You know, I read through this and agreed with mots of it as I went and was almost persuaded for a bit. Then I let it settle for a little while and realized that it seemed to be treating the wrong problem.
I agree that a lot of GMs have trouble rolling with unexpected player creativity (or unexpected player stupidity), but I find that far more often than not it's not a rules issue. It's the party grabbing a red herring and chasing off in a direction you didn't expect, figuring out an important plot element long before they should have, angering (or befriending) a crucial NPC, anything else that derails what you expected for the evening. Or as you said, the ever dreaded quick defeat.
Almost every time I've seen it, more rules wouldn't help, because the things that really throw most GMs aren't the clever burn the beams with acid ideas, but the narrative derails. Those are the ones where you need to rewrite the whole evenings adventure (and probably the following ones, but you've got time for that) on the spur of the moment without letting them know what they've done.So I came back to my original stance: You're going to need a GM who can do that anyway. He's going to have to learn. And he'll make mistakes along the way. But having more rules doesn't change that.
I agree that narratively a gm will have to learn to adapt. But what I mean is in terms of fair adjudication of things not directly covered by rules. In Adnd the dm had to do ALOT of rulings at the table because most things were either not covered, or covered by rules so obscure/unclear that they were pretty much not usable. Some dms can do this fairly, many others cannot.
Basically what I am talking about is this.
Player: I want to swing on the chandalier to get across the ballroom without fighting the guards and attack the evil lord directly.
Adnd:
DM: Ok roll a d20, if its high enough (awhat high enough means will change based on how much the dm doesnt want you to do this) you succeed, otherwise you fall prone amongst the guards.
Pathfinder:
DM: Oh well you have the chandaleer swinger feat, so go ahead and roll a dc X acrobatics check.
I am not saying one is better then the other. But in the first situation it is up to the dm to figure out what is fair, in the second, the rules cover the situation entirely. Obviously, the player needs to have taken that feat/ability/ whatever, and its more 'stuff' to remember, but there are no snap judgment calls on mechanics. Something I find relatively few dms can do fairly and consistently.
Again I do believe both methods have benefits and drawbacks, but there is a reason to codify everything that makes things while not strictly easier, (remembering rules can be difficult) require less 'dm skill'.
Basically what I am talking about is this.
Player: I want to swing on the chandalier to get across the ballroom without fighting the guards and attack the evil lord directly.
Adnd:
DM: Ok roll a d20, if its high enough (awhat high enough means will change based on how much the dm doesnt want you to do this) you succeed, otherwise you fall prone amongst the guards.Pathfinder:
DM: Oh well you have the chandaleer swinger feat, so go ahead and roll a dc X acrobatics check.I am not saying one is better then the other. But in the first situation it is up to the dm to figure out what is fair, in the second, the rules cover the situation entirely. Obviously, the player needs to have taken that feat/ability/ whatever, and its more 'stuff' to remember, but there are no snap judgment calls on mechanics. Something I find relatively few dms can do fairly and consistently.
Again I do believe both methods have benefits and drawbacks, but there is a reason to codify everything that makes things while not strictly easier, (remembering rules can be difficult) require less 'dm skill'.
Of course, what really happens is no one takes the "Chandelier swinger" feat, because it's so situational as to be useless, so a perfectly good genre trope never gets used.
Or, dropping the feat requirement, no Acrobatics DC is listed for "Swing on Chandelier", so the GM says essentially the same thing he did in AD&D. It's based on Acrobatics, but he sets the DC just as arbitrarily.
Exactly the same kind of snap judgement rules call. Just phrased differently.
That was a fairly extreme example, and was more meant to illustrate my point more then provide a concrete example. And like I said it has flaws. It means you actually have to use these rules, or else end up back at the same place. The difference is the play CAN take the chandaleer swinger feat (or some other ability that encompasses acrobatic movement) and thus relieve the need for the dm to make a moment to moment judgement call.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could also say that the DM can simply make a judgment call, freeing the player from taking the chandelier feat. It's a matter of whether you prefer rules-heavy (as you clearly do) or rules-light, and slant your argument to subtly or not-so-subtly favor one over the other.
I certainly agree that a dm could make the call, but I dont think it is as simple as you make it out to be. The d20 system at least gives a very poor framework for such calls. Something more abstract and story telling based, like fate, or fantasy flights edge of the empire system lend themselves more to this. You have a game structured on taking basic mechanical elements and turning them into narrative elements. The binary nature of d20 to me at least makes such things very difficult.
I also have played a number of games with both the kind of dm I trust implicately and who gets excited when the players do awesome or crazy things, and the kind of dm that is easily frustrated and can get resentful over such things and make it harder to trust his judgement calls. I think the first kind of dm thrives in a system that requires alot of judgement calls, and the second kind functions better in a highly codified system.