| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno; I've been playing various rpgs for >ahem< more years than I care to admit, with a variety of different groups, different age-range in said groups, etc.
I think that, on the whole, there has been a trend to increasing customizability -- which tends to increase player agency, imo -- in the bulk of game systems across the board. Whether it's the (growing) pool of feats available in Pathfinder, or the various Background/Merit options in World of Darkness (don't get me started on Exalted backgrounds!) or the Aspect system out of Fate games (like Dresden Files) wherein if you want a mysterious haunted house to live in, you can write it into the story as one of your character's Aspects.
I don't think the distinction between "old school" and "new school" is a real dichotomy. It's unfortunate that people are flinging those titles back and forth as shorthand for "ur doin' it wrong," on both sides of this (illusory) divide.
Then again, I've been pretty fortunate in my gaming groups, with GMs who are (mostly) enthusiastic when players come up with fun, novel additions to their gameworld, and players who are (usually) pretty mellow about accepting the basic framework set forth by the GM... I don't think we're really set on the spectrum between old and new school play; it depends on what game we're playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have said this before: Having played DnD in every iteration (Moldvay/BECMi/ADnD1e/2e/3e/3.5/4e/5e), since 1981, I have never seen the playstyle differences (Player-centric/DM-centric) ascribed to different editions as detailed on this or other messageboards.
I just don't see that the rulesets directly affect who has the power or control or limelight. Of course that may just be the various groups I have played with...
How dare you insinuate that it is individual people that make up personality types, and not game editions OR generations.
How else am I supposed to consider myself better than other people, if not through assimilation into a group of people through no merit of my own other than chronological happenstance?!
A GM who wanted to allow players agency has always been able to do so.I wonder if Mark Hoover's point might be that the "old school" paradigm is like your statement here, where the built-in paradigm is the assumption that the GM gets to decide how much player agency will be in their game. Meanwhile, "new school" is perhaps the paradigm that high player agency is part of the built-in, default assumption all on its own.
Thus, when a GM with the "old school" mentality of "the GM decides how much player agency there will be in the game" encounters players with the "new school" mentality of "this game is obviously written with player agency in mind", the latter's actions are getting interpreted by the former as "entitled".
I think that's what he's saying. But hey, I'm not him. :)
Thank you for capturing it so eloquently Jigsaw; that's exactly what I meant.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's the case. I don't think that is the paradigm shift. There does seem to be a common assumption that the changes in optimization and the build game somehow also change the level of player agency or the essential balance of power between GM and player, but they really don't. The GM still runs the world. The GM can still run a railroad, if he chooses.A GM who wanted to allow players agency has always been able to do so.I wonder if Mark Hoover's point might be that the "old school" paradigm is like your statement here, where the built-in paradigm is the assumption that the GM gets to decide how much player agency will be in their game. Meanwhile, "new school" is perhaps the paradigm that high player agency is part of the built-in, default assumption all on its own.
Thus, when a GM with the "old school" mentality of "the GM decides how much player agency there will be in the game" encounters players with the "new school" mentality of "this game is obviously written with player agency in mind", the latter's actions are getting interpreted by the former as "entitled".
I think that's what he's saying. But hey, I'm not him. :)
Just because the GM still theoretically can do a given thing, does not mean that the default assumptions haven't changed.
In one paradigm, the game gives you the skeleton of a generic character, with few tools for further customization/agency. If a player wants to have more agency/customization, they have to reach outside the ruleset and make a social request of the GM. (Ex: Can I have some kind of mutant power or something?) The game puts the player at a starting point of having next to nothing, and getting more requires asking the GM. (And if the player assumes they can have more, then they're being "entitled".)
In the other paradigm, the tools of customization/agency are granted by the rules themselves, laid out for you to choose from. If the GM wants to exert any influence over what the players have access to, then they have to reach outside the game itself and make a social request of the players. (Ex: How about if nobody plays X class, eh?) The game puts the players at a starting point of already having the tools, and it's primarily the reduction of options that requires a social contract.
In shorter terms, it's the difference between and
Or so I'm currently speculating. ;)
There does seem to be a common assumption that the changes in optimization and the build game somehow also change the level of player agency or the essential balance of power between GM and player, but they really don't. The GM still runs the world. The GM can still run a railroad, if he chooses.
Tabletop RPGs have a lot more competition now. If I have a tyrannical GM, I can look for a new GM on the internet, or switch to an Indie RPG with no GM, or I can play Fallout 4 or World of Warcraft, or join a boardgames club... In the 1980s, it was D&D or Pac-Man or Choose Your Own Adventure gamebooks.
Which means GMs have to work harder to give players an experience that they can't get anywhere else. A blatant railroad isn't likely to achieve that.
Well, a complex character build reliant system assumes that the PCs will have access to the mechanical functions they've selected for their character, regardless of GM play-style, right?
(I can clarify if that doesn't make sense.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@thejeff — We might be meaning different things by the term "player agency" in this thread.Apparently, but I don't really see much use in the term if it only applies to character building and it seemed to me that Mark went beyond that, suggesting that actually playing the game was changed by the paradigm he was talking about.
I think the Character-build focus results in a significant difference as to how the game is played (or it does at our table, anyhow). I have predominantly oldschool preferences but my players really like the PC-build games, so we generally play more modern games until they feel sorry for me and give AD&D/S&W a go for a bit.
It seems to me that when they don't have many written-down and spelled-out options, they play very differently than when they have loads of skills/feats/class abilities or whatever. If they have all of those things, I feel obligated to let them use them (and they feel much less able to look outside them). When they don't have anything written down in black and white, they will just announce what they're trying and see how I tell them to resolve it.
Hence, the way we play anyhow, the player-power they're given when creating their characters translates into a lot of player agency "downstream". If we play AD&D or something, they don't have much to do when building a character beyond choosing spells and they also have much less expectation of stuff working in a particular way (if at all) - they're far more willing to leave it up the the DM.
I think degree of player agency can have an impact at the tactical level (which is where I think Jiggy is focussing) and at the storytelling level (which is what I think you're talking about).
Personally, I think "player agency" as it applies to plot is somewhat illusory in most 'sandbox' games anyhow (for example - people often talk about recycling encounters your players choose to avoid. One could argue that's no less railroady than an AP - it's merely the illusion of player choice as they can make the cosmetic decision about which order things happen in from time-to-time but they don't really deviate much from what the DM has laid out for them in the long run).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@thejeff — We might be meaning different things by the term "player agency" in this thread.Apparently, but I don't really see much use in the term if it only applies to character building and it seemed to me that Mark went beyond that, suggesting that actually playing the game was changed by the paradigm he was talking about.
Ideally, character-building and narrative and gameplay experiences are inextricably linked. I think where you and I are miscommunicating is not that I'm focused on character-building and you're focused on gameplay; rather, it's that I'm talking about the whole package and you're trying to limit "agency" to just one piece of the pie.
Let me see if I can illustrate:
There's a fighter named Thyra in a game I'm running. She's brave, stalwart, loyal, and protective of her friends. From her we get stories like jumping into a pit full of monsters to protect an ally.
Meanwhile, I've recently created a fighter named Ander for a (still-ongoing) recruitment. He's a commoner with a great passion and talent for swordsmanship, eager to push his abilities further and further. His stories haven't been made yet, but would likely be things like dancing across the battlefield in a whirlwind of steel or challenging a general to solo combat to turn away an army.
These are very different characters, who will be roleplayed in very different ways and produce vastly different narratives.
But what if their character sheets were identical?
What if Thyra isn't actually any more capable of protecting anyone than Ander is? What if Ander isn't actually any more skilled with a sword than Thyra is?
Thyra is able to interpose her shield in front of an ally to protect them. That was part of character building, but it also affects the narrative because it reinforces her protective personality while also having a direct impact on decisions, actions, and consequences; the things that make up a narrative. Ander can't do that.
Meanwhile, Ander can quickly and effectively feint an opponent then come in for a nasty cut, and he can perform last-second parries that can turn solid blows into grazes (or even into misses). This was part of character building, but it also affects the narrative because it reinforces his identity as a swordsman/duelist while also having a direct impact on decisions, actions, and consequences; the things that make up a narrative. Thyra can't do that.
So here we have two fighters who have/will create very different narratives, and the differences in their builds directly contribute to the difference of narrative.
Now, let's go back to "old school" and "new school". In the "old school" (as I've been describing it), all the player can bring to the table is the basic fighter capabilities and an idea. In the player's hands, there's no such thing as "Thyra" and "Ander", there's just Fighter #348 and Fighter #349. The players can ask the GM to give them things to help set them apart (like advanced shield or dueling abilities), but it's the GM who decides what, if any, differentiations there will be, and that decision impacts the narrative because it determines the ways in which the characters are able to interact with the world. The reduced level of player agency in character creation directly contributes to a reduced level of player agency in the narrative.
In the "new school", there are all these class options right there at the players' fingertips. They have, by default, the ability to choose whichever options best help them define their unique characters; it's only if they agree to a limitation suggested by the GM that any options are off-limits. The baseline, however, is the assumption that their two fighters will be different, and the assumption that they get to decide how to make that happen. The players are empowered to decide what tools they will have available to engage the narrative. The increased player agency in character creation directly contributes to an increased level of player agency in the narrative.
So you see, the reason I spoke so much of character creation is not because I was focusing only on one aspect of the game, but rather because I recognize that character creation is where the players make their first contributions to the shared narrative, and helps determine the toolset they will be using to impact that narrative for the entire game.
When one speaks of narratives and roleplay while dismissing mechanics and character builds, one demonstrates a restricted understanding of the true potential of the roleplaying experience.
|
In the "new school", there are all these class options right there at the players' fingertips. They have, by default, the ability to choose whichever options best help them define their unique characters; it's only if they agree to a limitation suggested by the GM that any options are off-limits. The baseline, however, is the assumption that their two fighters will be different, and the assumption that they get to decide how to make that happen. The players are empowered to decide what tools they will have available to engage the narrative. The increased player agency in character creation directly contributes to an increased level of player agency in the narrative.
So you see, the reason I spoke so much of character creation is not because I was focusing only on one aspect of the game, but rather because I recognize that character creation is where the players make their first contributions to the shared narrative, and helps determine the toolset they will be using to impact that narrative for the entire game.
While options to have varied mechanical character choices it is not unique to "New School" gaming. It started at the end run of 1st ed with specializations and went big with kits in 2nd ed (26 years ago - so still, somewhat old school)..so, not really buying this as a New School over old school improvement. More options nowadays - yes, so it could all be judged on a scale.
The counter point to unique characters though is that New School heavily enforces point buy, so your distinct Ander and Thyra argument about being unique is undermined when more than likely Ander and an Thyra HAVE THE EXACT SAME STATS AS EVERY OTHER FIGHTER - aka clones. Even if they didn't due to mechanical stat requirements, an Ander fighter type would still have the SAME EXACT STATS as every other Ander fighter, as would the Thyra fighter type would share the same stats with everyone pursuing the same build. So unique only goes to style - actual stats that make the character distinct from other are thrown out the window and everything becomes optimal cookie-cutter stat block.|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
While options to have varied mechanical character choices it is not unique to "New School" gaming. It started at the end run of 1st ed with specializations and went big with kits in 2nd ed (26 years ago - so still, somewhat old school)..so, not really buying this as a New School over old school improvement. More options nowadays - yes, so it could all be judged on a scale.In the "new school", there are all these class options right there at the players' fingertips. They have, by default, the ability to choose whichever options best help them define their unique characters; it's only if they agree to a limitation suggested by the GM that any options are off-limits. The baseline, however, is the assumption that their two fighters will be different, and the assumption that they get to decide how to make that happen. The players are empowered to decide what tools they will have available to engage the narrative. The increased player agency in character creation directly contributes to an increased level of player agency in the narrative.
So you see, the reason I spoke so much of character creation is not because I was focusing only on one aspect of the game, but rather because I recognize that character creation is where the players make their first contributions to the shared narrative, and helps determine the toolset they will be using to impact that narrative for the entire game.
Sounds like a fair assessment. Remember that when I said "old school" and "new school", I was referring to my speculations on what Mark Hoover might have meant. I don't really care what you call the two mindsets I was discussing. If "old/new school" feels imprecise, call them something else.
The counter point to unique characters though is that New School heavily enforces point buy, so your distinct Ander and Thyra argument about being unique is undermined when more than likely Ander and an Thyra HAVE THE EXACT SAME STATS AS EVERY OTHER FIGHTER - aka clones. Even if they didn't due to mechanical stat requirements, an Ander fighter type would still have the SAME EXACT STATS as every other Ander fighter, as would the Thyra fighter type would share the same stats with everyone pursuing the same build. So unique only goes to style - actual stats that make the character distinct from other are...
So you want to counter my point by making (wrong) assumptions about my own example—an example that consists of actual characters that I've seen and you haven't—and then using your (wrong) assumptions like some kind of evidence of guilt that I'm supposed to defend myself from? Do you have any idea how terrible that is?
|
|
So my gaming friends and I were chatting the other night about old school versus new school. It was the same old; we all ranted about kids these days... video games... get off my lawn, that kind of thing.
Somewhere in the middle of it all I went quiet. My one buddy mentioned that the GREAT thing about all these old school systems is that there were a LOT of rules, but not for players. The DM handled everything. Players just rolled some dice and got their little package of class stuff and went along with the plot.
Right there it hit me: I HATED that.
I think the mistake your are making with your premise is DM rules vs. Player rules argument.
The biggest distinction between Old School and New School is this: Old School rules were focused on facilitating adventure play while New School rules focus on chargen and character plotting, with a de-emphasis on actual adventure play. A majority of the rules are not on maintaining a campaign and running a game (compare the size of the 1st ed DMG vs PHB) but instead as they directly affect the PCs (feats, archetypes, player focused spells and building such around the combat rules).I don't want to get my old school card revoked but I gotta admit that there were tons of games of D&D when I was a kid where I tried different things to make MY fighter different from other ones. I'm not talking "this one carries axes" different but like asking the DM if I could have a mutant power, or a combat tail, or be super-acrobatic or something.
With the exception of new races, I'm not seeing how PF vs. say 1st ed provides you with the option of a mutant power or combat tail? As to super-acrobatic - you could have been in 1st ed as much as in PF - the distinction is that in 1st ed it would be based off of your class and Dex and DM saying yes/no, vs. being quantified in task DCs in 3/X games. Not sure if this is fair comparison though since this could be more of an argument about evolving mechanics versus game design or attitude. Having DCs for task was something that was introduced (on a obscure way) in 1st ed and quantified via proficiency in 2nd ed (roll under associated stat, plus or minus difficulty). The big difference of course is that is was stat dependent vs. skill rank.
The other thing I always hated about back in the day was that EVERYTHING was on me when DMing. If a player wanted his character to throw a grappling hook and swing out dramatically, there weren't a lot of rules for it and no skills. So... I'd just make up an arbitrary number. It was a ton of "mother may I" situations and I ended up being the biggest "mother" of them all if you catch my drift.
Again, I don't see it as purely intentional and more of "where the game was at" in its evolution, mechanic-wise. The funny thing though, is that nowadays there is an attitude that exist between these play types. IDK, this goes towards personal preference. I ran PF for years, went back to 2nd ed for a one-off and after that I decided that I would never run PF again - because I feel that it doesn't do well what my gaming group wants - and that's to play adventures.
PF is very good at player customization, and providing player options - there comes a trade-off with that. To run the game, everything takes longer - from fights (huge time sink out of a session) to character customization and all that entails (buying or building gear, etc). So when I can run a short adventure in one night (2nd ed) vs. running that same adventure under PF over a few sessions it makes a difference. What is the point of running a specific RPG? Why does a given group get together - for my group its to play adventures, for other people it may be to play characters.
So I have to admit that I LOVE Pathfinder. I loved Marvel Super Heroes back in the day for the same reason: player agency. Sure the villains are left up to the GM but the rules and customizing the PC is ALL you!
Please tell me that there's a way for me to be a little old school, a little new at the same time. Do any of you guys play the same way? Help me out here.
Old School is a little more about mentality than it is system, though there are some things in PF that would hinder Old School style games - WBL and CR being huge (CR being the biggest). When I ran PF I ran it Old School, but the system was too slow for the amount of work put in. So why emulate Old School via PF when I have all the Old School books in print?
It can be done Hoover, but it sounds like you don't really want to be and Old School DM - so I'm not getting why you would want to based on everything you posted here?So, once this meeting is over head down to the desk in the lobby and turn in your Old School DM card. Thank you.
|
|
So you want to counter my point by making (wrong) assumptions about my own example—an example that consists of actual characters that I've seen and you haven't—and then using your (wrong) assumptions like some kind of evidence of guilt that I'm supposed to defend myself from?
I made the assumption of point buy because that is what dominates PF character design, and when you start talking about specific builds it lends itself to the notion that the player (you) had to make some attribute point buy build choices when designing these characters. If these were 100% rolled up PCs and built around what stats you actually rolled then I apologize. If it used stat point-buy, my observation and argument stand.
Also, this isn't a personal attack against you Jiggy, so please don't go down "that road". I'm going by what I know, New School or at least New School with Character Builds/Archetypes in mind = PB vs. rolled characters.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So you want to counter my point by making (wrong) assumptions about my own example—an example that consists of actual characters that I've seen and you haven't—and then using your (wrong) assumptions like some kind of evidence of guilt that I'm supposed to defend myself from?I made the assumption of point buy because that is what dominates PF character design, and when you start talking about specific builds it lends itself to the notion that the player (you) had to make some attribute point buy build choices when designing these characters. If these were 100% rolled up PCs and built around what stats you actually rolled then I apologize.
Neither of them are actually even Pathfinder characters (remember, this is the broader "Gamer Talk" subforum). As for stat generation methods, one was rolled while the other was made using point buy.
If it used stat point-buy, my observation and argument stand.
The point-bought one is actually using a less-obvious stat array than what would first jump to mind for such a concept, which is pretty hard on your "point buy means identical builds" argument. Sorry.
I'm going by what I know, New School or at least New School with Character Builds/Archetypes in mind = PB vs. rolled characters.
I'm curious, when you refer to "rolled" characters, are you talking about rolling stats in order, or do you mean rolling a set and then putting the scores in the stats you want? If the former, then yes, there's a difference in character generation because the lack of choice in stats forces a "mechanics first" approach (i.e., "What can these stats support?") while other methods enable a "concept first" approach (i.e., "How can I manifest this person into the game?").
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The biggest distinction between Old School and New School is this: Old School rules were focused on facilitating adventure play while New School rules focus on chargen and character plotting, with a de-emphasis on actual adventure play.
This statement demonstrates a lack of awareness of the role that character builds serve in "actual adventure play". When a player creates a character, they are defining the set of tools they're allowed to use to interact with the world. Interacting with the world is what "actual adventure play" is, so anything that helps set the parameters of how that happens is, by definition, central to "actual adventure play". You're forcing an artificial division between two parts of a whole.
When one speaks of narratives and roleplay while dismissing mechanics and character builds, one demonstrates a restricted understanding of the true potential of the roleplaying experience.
It's all actually really simple.
Older people are old school.
Younger people are new school.
That's all, we all want the same thing, to have fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's all actually really simple.
Older people are old school.
Younger people are new school.
That's all, we all want the same thing, to have fun.
What if I'm somewhere in between, do I not get to play at all or do I have to be both schools simultaneously or choose one or what? What if on my birthday I age out of new school or into old school, do I have to change how I play? What if a mixed group of old and young players are all playing together happily in a single game, are they old school or new school? What if somebody's older but was only recently introduced to RPGs and picked up the newest stuff on the market? What if somebody's younger but was introduced to RPGs by happening across some old AD&D books? What if your name is a temporally-relative paradox that defies age?
;)
Well I guess then you're middle school:-D
I've played with a group ranging in age from 18-50, everyone gets along just fine.
I'm a little tired of the old school is this new school is that, and that is that merry go round is all.
D&D 1-5 and PF all seems pretty old school to me compared to things like Fiasco, Fate, and Apocalypse World. Most of the subtle distinctions people are talking about seem to me the difference between old school 77 and not quite as old school 85.
It's all actually really simple.
Older people are old school.
Younger people are new school.
That's all, we all want the same thing, to have fun.
I don't think age is the only determining factor here. I have known players much younger than me who are fond of very old game systems that I would just as soon leave behind.
But some of these older ideas can be fun if it is a matter of "We haven't done this in a while, why not try it now?" as opposed to "Let's go back to this clunky system from way back when nobody had figured out how to streamline such things."
|
|
The biggest distinction between Old School and New School is this: Old School rules were focused on facilitating adventure play while New School rules focus on chargen and character plotting, with a de-emphasis on actual adventure play.This statement demonstrates a lack of awareness of the role that character builds serve in "actual adventure play". When a player creates a character, they are defining the set of tools they're allowed to use to interact with the world. Interacting with the world is what "actual adventure play" is, so anything that helps set the parameters of how that happens is, by definition, central to "actual adventure play". You're forcing an artificial division between two parts of a whole.
No, flat out no. First off, I never mentioned "roleplaying", I stated "adventuring" as in actual game play. Also, pro-tip: your collection of feats and archetype are not "role-playing", they are a collection of mechanics and features to facilitate play.
Since you want the discussion to go down "that road" then you require me to call out your "early quote" is not a rule, just a poor observation by someone who does not understand the fundamentals of gaming and balancing complexity vs. play.--
"Character builds", character focus and character maintenance both add and detract from gaming. This may be a complex concept but let me try to lay it out. While players may gain some form of extra narrative with their extra detail offered for their characters, the actual detail, time, investment and even yes "distraction" it causes takes away "game time", that is from actual game play.
If you have 4 hours to game each week and a % of that time is taken away because of the large time investment spent focused on "build" or progress - then you have less time to "game" - where "game" is defined as playing an adventure/plot. That's a fact and trade-off for any system that makes more options available for players.
This is a personal preference, not a right-wrong (as you are framing it).
If your group concludes that the time spent on character maintenance and considerations as "gaming" then they are playing the game. If people who game had infinite time to play (make characters or actually play) then it wouldn't be an issue. With finite game time, the more complex character creation and maintenance is - the more it takes away from actually playing the game.
Again, some people consider character maintenance as actual gaming, my group does not.
Gaming, gaming time in relation to complexity of play (for whatever reason, complex combat to hyper-customized PCs) is a zero sum game. The less complex the aspects of the game are, the more you get to run the actual game. The more you add, the less you get to play. Added mechanical potential to facilitate enhanced role-playing is great, but you have to actually be able to play the game to use them.
So again, a trade-off on Complexity versus Actual Play.
|
|
Bringing this back to the point of OS vs. NS - I stand by my assessment that Old-School is more about the adventure while New School is about the stats associated with the character. These are a few other OS vs. NS package arguments (with a focus on adventure-type gaming with character advancement):
OS: DM had most narrative control, players have contributing narrative
NS: Players have same contributing narrative, but an increased personal narrative. Some games also give players more narrative control. The specifics may vary with the degree with different systems but the New School design mentality is more player control (re: power) - be it narrative, mechanical, overall power of PCs vs. threats in the game (a huge shift in power levels).
OS: Focus is on playing the game (completing adventure modules) and rules that facilitate that. Characters have options but they are mechanically limited.
NS: Focus is on character mechanics, build, and class balance
OS: No sense of inherent "fairness" in encounter design. Design has level guidelines, but anything can happen and player choice can lead to success or quick death. Deadlier and harder game with more PC turnover (as a general rule).
NS: Built-in progression scheme (beat X encounters = level), and creatures are hard-guided into into Challenge Ratings with strong suggestions to not go beyond +4 CR vs. APL. Players have powers that are player mutable (DC boosting) with many options and tools to keep characters from dying. Permanent PC turnover is less than Old-school games.
D&D 1-5 and PF all seems pretty old school to me compared to things like Fiasco, Fate, and Apocalypse World. Most of the subtle distinctions people are talking about seem to me the difference between old school 77 and not quite as old school 85.Hell, they all seem pretty old school compared to things like Amber Diceless or Vampire. You know, 25 year old games. :)
Part of the problem is that, once you get outside of D&D (and the OSR & close d20 variants) there's a lot more than 2 schools. I've linked this before as an earlier attempt to categorize RPGs. It's about a decade out of date, putting it near the 3.x D&D revival, but it's already got 9 styles.
He classed what we're calling "Old School" as "Explorational Wargames" and "New School" as "Crunchy Challenge".
While I definitely agree that there are multiple schools, it always felt to me that 3.X/Pathfinder, and especially the way Paizo writes adventures, is the evolution of the "Hickman Revolution", (not so much the short adventures part, but the "a player objective more worthwhile than simply pillaging and killing; an intriguing story that is intricately woven into the play itself".
Which is the type of play I learned when I started in '84.
I definitely think most players are heavily influenced by their first set of modules. I definitely leaned more toward Palace of the Silver Princess and Rahasia than Tomb of Horrors as the blueprints to adventure.
But I've also played a lot of other games, from diceless to gmless, so to me the different "schools" of D&D derived play are still much closer together. And there's been a lot of cool stuff in the last decade with the growth of indie publishing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
First off, I never mentioned "roleplaying", I stated "adventuring" as in actual game play.
I never said you mentioned roleplaying. I did re-post something I'd written earlier about roleplaying that seemed related to the topic at hand, but my words that I actually composed as a reply to you said nothing of "roleplaying", and in fact repeatedly referenced your exact words of "actual adventure play".
Please don't put words in my mouth—especially in an attempt to suggest I've done the same to you.
Also, pro-tip: your collection of feats and archetype are not "role-playing",
Again, this is something I never said.
your "early quote" is not a rule,
Again, never said it was.
I'd be happy to have an actual conversation with you, but it's going to require a good-faith effort on your part to digest what's actually being said and respond to it thoughtfully, not just make more and more assumptions of what I probably mean and then rage at me for saying things that I didn't actually say.
If you decide to do that, I'll resume responding to you, with no hard feelings. I'm very interested in actually having discussions on these kinds of topics, but that requires more two-way communication than has been happening thus far.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My argument is that more build options don't really shift the balance of power from GM to player. At best they remove a few of the less effective tools. The GM still has the narrative control, because he controls the world. That's what I meant by player agency.
Suppose that you build a superawesome machine that allows you to split yourself into thisjeff and thatjeff, existing in parallel dimensions. Then, bothjeffs invent time machines and go back to when J. K. Rowling is preparing to write the Harry Potter series, and hold her at gunpoint.
BothRowlings are informed that the primary characters—Harry, Ron and Hermione—are going to be written by three different co-authors. Rowling still gets to design the world, write the side characters, and so forth; but the co-authors have total control over what the Main Three say and do, and Rowling must narrate the results of their actions with internal consistency in relation to how the world is established to work.
Now, thisjeff's instructions end there. However, thatjeff adds some more stipulations: thatRowling's co-authors not only get to control the Main Three, but they also get to decide what they're capable of, what their physical/magical characteristics are, and what their backstories are like. ThatRowling must incorporate all that into her internally-consistent story as well.
Now, I have two questions for you:
1) Do thoseRowlings "still have the narrative control, because she controls the world"?
2) Do the extra stipulations on thatRowling "shift the balance of power from [Rowling] to [co-authors]"?
"Character builds", character focus and character maintenance both add and detract from gaming. This may be a complex concept but let me try to lay it out. While players may gain some form of extra narrative with their extra detail offered for their characters, the actual detail, time, investment and even yes "distraction" it causes takes away "game time", that is from actual game play.
What are you defining as "actual play"? If I'm performing actions necessary to the game, isn't that playing the game? I would consider doing anything necessary to play the game as part of "actual play" as long as it's directly related, and not indirect (driving to the session isn't part of play). I'd put this to include anything described within the rules. Therefore character creation is in fact "actual play" as it's a necessary and required element of the game.
For me, the standard definition of "actual play" is anything from a real session, not a theoretical session. For example, "actual play" podcasts are ones which are recordings of a session being played. This is a pretty standard definition in the community.
|
|
I don't really disagree, but I think part of the distinction is that the build time doesn't have to take away from gaming time in most circumstances. Usually people have more available personal time than time for the whole group to meet and play, so if the group has 4 hours of gaming time a week, most players will be able to do all (or most) of the build stuff outside of that time. Build time doesn't directly cut into playing time.
Many people actually enjoy it as a solo adjunct to actual gaming.
Part of the problem for me and running PF (re:my game, no one else here) was the buying and trading of gear to get both the PCs and NPCs in their group up to snuff took a chunk of time - way too much time. Also, again this is just my group - most of my players don't have a lot of down time to work on characters outside of gaming sessions. So when they level up, its a session event. When they need to get new gear (to stay on path) it becomes a session event and took over several sessions. Sometimes fun, often times just book keeping sessions.
Character management at mid to high level became a chore - just looking for every and all to squeeze out a +1 to get an effect.
Each of these added levels of detail took more time away from actual gaming. Focusing on the character, picking the best option - took time. This from a game where we would be lucky to get more than one fight in per session.
Down to basics - I look at what an RPG is designed to facilitate - for me and my group it's memorable adventure gaming. PF and 3/X function in that capacity, but the complexity doesn't match in ratio to positive or desired output, so for me and my group it fails as a system.
This goes beyond the other issues like the game being less challenging, a loss of a sense of mystery and magic - just talking pure mechanics and how their effect on actual game "play" time. Those are other problems (also tied to mechanics), but not directly tied to chargen/char-management mini game that is PF.
|
|
What are you defining as "actual play"? If I'm performing actions necessary to the game, isn't that playing the game? I would consider doing anything necessary to play the game as part of "actual play" as long as it's directly related, and not indirect (driving to the session isn't part of play). I'd put this to include anything described within the rules. Therefore character creation is in fact "actual play" as it's a necessary and required element of the game.
This makes zero sense. So by that logic, while I'm writing up an adventure I am running the game as a GM? Sorry, that's absurd. That is called gaming prep, just like writing up or updating a character who has leveled as gaming prep for the player. Can player gaming prep mix with an "actual play" session - prior to or at the end - yes they can. The act on it's own is not actual play to me - I could give a damn about the standard definition of this non-existent "community".
Recording a podcast of a bunch of people sitting around working on characters =/= actual play. Recording people gaming, making decisions, role-playing = actual play.
Actual play is exactly that - actual game time where the GM describes the "last we left off" to the players making decisions, GM reacts/Players react..all that goes in between to finally calling it for the night.
Maybe we need to redefine what "actual play" because the words in of themselves are too obvious?
It's not the fault of the term. It's a fault of how the game is designed, because the game incorporates aspects that you don't like.
Just like you're not a fan of gear shopping in PF (neither am I). I don't redefine what qualifies as "part of the game", I just recognize that this is a required part of the game that detracts from the things I do like.
As for pre-session play, it happens and can be a problem. Like the player who shows up with 20 pages of backstory that is so finely detailed, there's no possible way anyone else can remember it, let alone reference it in any meaningful way during the session.
Don't get mad at the term. Let it help you realize what you do and don't like about games.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd say by far the biggest difference in narrative control would be simply the existence of these co-authors.
Then doesn't that make it a bit inaccurate to say "But the GM still has the narrative control"? Remember, way back at the root of this branch of the discussion, you'd been saying that part of why there's no meaningful distinction in the paradigms I described is because at the end of the day, the GM is the one with all the power/control anyway. But if the "co-authors" are making a major shift there, then doesn't that remove one of the pillars upon which you'd built your summary of the topic?
All that is already implicit in the "old-school" paradigm.
The "new school" adding more complexity to how they define those capabilities and physical/magical characteristics isn't really a fundamental change at that point.
Isn't it, though? Remember, the original set of paradigms that I was contrasting were these:
• The GM decides what/how many defining characteristics a character has.• The options for how to define the character are given directly to the player without having to go through the GM first.
In the first paradigm, Harry only gets to have a backstory where he's "the boy who lived" if the GM says so. Ron only gets to have ties to the Ministry of Magic via his father if the GM says so. Hermione only gets to have access to a timeturner if the GM says so. Ultimately, the GM decides which (if any) of those things are going to be a part of the campaign and, therefore, influence the narrative.
In the second paradigm, the rules let the players pick some background traits. Harry's player gets to decide for himself whether to have been "marked as [the BBEG's] equal" in his infancy, and if he picks that, then the story is impacted and the GM has to adapt. Ron's player can decide for himself whether his father works at the Ministry, and if he picks that, then that's going to impact the narrative as soon as the PCs need to interact with the Ministry, and the GM has to adapt. Hermione gets to decide for herself whether the boon she gets at level X will be a timeturner, and if she picks that, then the story is impacted and the GM has to adapt.
That seems like a pretty significant difference in the narrative's "balance of power" to me. Does it really not to you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adventure is an extension of character.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Except that's not the way either the old school or new school paradigms work: If the old school was "GM builds characters, including not just powers, but personalities & backstories" and new school let players build not just those things, but also narrative concepts like "I am the Chosen One" or any other backstory elements without GM approval, then the parallel would be clearer. I haven't seen any rules allowing you to buy things like "King's heir" or "Child of BBEG" - a GM could accept either of those and run with it, but PF certainly doesn't push it on him. Some narrative mechanic systems might, but that's a far cry from what we're talking about.
Well, 5E lets the player decide their character is a noble, which includes effects like "commoners generally assume you have the right to be wherever you are, and will try to avoid displeasing you" and "you can secure an audience with a fellow noble if you need to". Heck, that's even stronger than Ron's "my dad works in a government office". And the player can just pick it. Standard option.
Another option is that your character is a folk hero, such that the commoners love you so much they'll hide you from the law (or other pursuers, like... Death Eaters?) or let you crash at their place if you need to rest/recuperate. It also lets you decide what your big "moment" was, such as standing up to a tyrant or leading a militia against an army.
I don't have them all memorized, but they've all got some serious narrative power, both in determining what has happened in the history leading up to the campaign and in determining how the characters can change the story in the future.
In Pathfinder it's less pronounced... which is what we should expect since Pathfinder is older than 5E, right? Though even in Pathfinder there are feats/traits/class features that let you declare things about the past, and other things (sadly, mostly spells) that let you seriously alter the nature of how you can respond to the narrative in the future. And they're all just menu options you can pick (whether at character creation or upon leveling up). To me, there's a big difference in narrative agency between filling your spellbook with what the GM planted scrolls/NPCs for, and filling your spellbook with what you picked from your class list whenever you leveled up.
Other example for that paradigm: Is it Harry's player who decides that the Death Eater who's escaped Azkaban is his godfather? Or the GM who decides that his wrongly imprisoned godfather escapes prison?
That's not the kind of thing any D&D based game I've heard of would put mechanically into the player's hands.
Maybe you should go read the backgrounds in the 5E PHB. I'd be fascinated to hear your responses to them. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd expect any of the 5E backgrounds to need consultation with the GM to flesh out - sure you're a folk hero and you can choose the basic event, but you need to work out who the tyrant was and everything else that goes along with it.
Sure, but there's still a LOT of narrative power in the declaration of having these backgrounds even before you get to the finer details. Once a PC claims the Folk Hero background, the GM can't decide that you're just a nobody and require high-DC social checks to get the guy at the tavern to talk to you. Once a PC claims the Noble background, the GM can't decide that you're not highborn enough to be allowed to talk to Baron von Knowstheplot and you have to find some other way to proceed. Once a PC claims the Outlander background, the GM can't decide that it's too easy to get lost in the woods forever so you'll want to bring this NPC guide who may or may not have ulterior motives. Once a PC claims the Guild Artisan background, the GM can't decide there's nobody who will vouch for you in this courtroom in the face of these false allegations.
Even not counting the details that would need to be worked out, just the bare-bones "this is explicit to having this background" stuff has serious narrative power.
More generally though, it all falls apart far earlier and simpler than "buying backgrounds". Once you don't have the studious Muggle-born know-it-all and the poor wizard kid with the big friendly family (including replacement mother figure and love interest to be) to go along with the Chosen One (orphaned and raised by abusive Muggle relatives), all the dynamics fall apart and the story goes off in a different direction anyway. And even the oldest of old school games lets the players set up that much background.
I was working under the impression (based largely on Mark Hoover's descriptions) that you could say that XYZ happened in your background, but couldn't "back it up" unless you asked the GM for a favor. I.e., you could say you're from a noble family but the GM can still have everyone treat you like a nobody unless he hands you something extra. Same with the folk hero or whatever else. My impression was that unless the GM said "That sounds fun, let's give you X" then your backstory was just intangible daydreams that don't actually have to power to influence what happens in the game.
Edit: That players can impose somethings on their backgrounds by mechanic - by PF traits or 5E backgrounds, doesn't mean that without those mechanics GMs just wrote backstories for their players.
I didn't mean that the GMs wrote the backstories, I meant that the players couldn't claim any effects without explicit GM dispensation.
The difference is this:
If my being a noble is going to impact how the narrative plays out, is it because the GM said so or because I said so?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks to me like you guys are arguing about whether players should have 10% narrative control or 20% narrative control, when I've played indie/story games where players have up to 100% narrative control, and could literally spend a resource point to establish things midgame like "wrongly imprisoned godfather escapes prison".
5E added a hint of narrative mechanics that have been in story games for at least a decade.
It looks to me like you guys are arguing about whether players should have 10% narrative control or 20% narrative control, when I've played indie/story games where players have up to 100% narrative control, and could literally spend a resource point to establish things midgame like "wrongly imprisoned godfather escapes prison".
5E added a hint of narrative mechanics that have been in story games for at least a decade.
I was amused when Monte Cook was blogging about Numenera and all the "cool new mechanics" it had, but it was all similar to games that were about 5-6 years old.