|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on May 16, 2015 10:47:39 GMT -5
Something that seems interesting to me, maybe those who have played OD&D since it's inception can tell me if it's true. I started back in the day in the early 80's with the Moldvay box set then moved on to AD&D after I found that version. Over the years I've DM'd both, mostly AD&D. Then back in the late 90's I happened upon a box set of OD&D and quickly snapped it up. It sat on my shelf a few years not being used. Finally one day I picked up and read my OD&D box set....
Flash forward to the present. Since I've spent time reading the booklets and the various OD&D forums as well as the fanzines there seems to have been a shift in focus in the game that started way back early in the games evolution. The sense that the original booklets give you is that the game is about exploration and that combat is more of an after thought.
You have one or two pages for combat while the majority of the others is wilderness exploration, dungeon exploration, etc... The feeling I get is "Oh here some combat. Lets get that out of the way so we can get back to playing". While not too long after that the gaming community at large seem to go with "This is all about killing monsters. Let's get this exploration garbage out of the way and get to killing stuff!"
And as a whole the gaming community seems to prefer combat focused game. Which seems to lead to more detailed and "realistic" combat rules in various incarnations of D&D and many other rpgs. Now most fantasy games seem to focus on combat and not so much exploration.
Now since this game was designed by war gamers and played by war gamers at first I may be wrong in what I'm seeing. So after my long ramble does my perception seem accurate?
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on May 16, 2015 11:42:13 GMT -5
I've seen and argued against the whole Exploration/Combat split before. Rob Kuntz, (I'm pretty sure, but it was in an interview with the Save or Die podcast) Tim Kask talks about the first dungeon he made which was a long hallway with 100 doors on each side. The party would open a door and the DM would randomly roll a monster that they'd fight. Likewise, the early game Rules to the Game of Dungeon doesn't even have exploration rules at all. Not even a mention of the passage of time. As this was written by a guy that had only played and never seen the rulebook it seems a more pure recording of how the game was actually played.
I'm not saying that there was no exploration, just that early D&D wasn't this ideal exploration game where combat was somehow seen as a lesser endeavor.
Also, you can't really use the ratio of rules to determine what a game is about. For example, OD&D has about six pages dedicated to Naval Combat. Far more than for man-to-man combat. But that doesn't mean that it was a naval combat game. It's just some things are more complicated and need more rules space. Exploration being one of those. Plus, since exploration was an entirely new concept it required a more detailed explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on May 16, 2015 12:20:19 GMT -5
True and I wasn't really trying to split the two I was just wondering if there was a change in focus. I know a lot of my early games and many games today seem to have a lot of combat. I just notice when gamers tend to want more "options" or detail it always seems to be combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 16, 2015 19:39:42 GMT -5
I've seen and argued against the whole Exploration/Combat split before. Rob Kuntz, (I'm pretty sure, but it was in an interview with the Save or Die podcast) talks about the first dungeon he made which was a long hallway with 100 doors on each side. The party would open a door and the DM would randomly roll a monster that they'd fight. Likewise, the early game Rules to the Game of Dungeon doesn't even have exploration rules at all. Not even a mention of the passage of time. As this was written by a guy that had only played and never seen the rulebook it seems a more pure recording of how the game was actually played. I'm not saying that there was no exploration, just that early D&D wasn't this ideal exploration game where combat was somehow seen as a lesser endeavor. Also, you can't really use the ratio of rules to determine what a game is about. For example, OD&D has about six pages dedicated to Naval Combat. Far more than for man-to-man combat. But that doesn't mean that it was a naval combat game. It's just some things are more complicated and need more rules space. Exploration being one of those. Plus, since exploration was an entirely new concept it required a more detailed explanation. It wasn't me in that podcast, nor is the example mine. As for the OP's initial Q, I will answer it succinctly as I have written it in my upcoming book: "The mode establishes the expression paths in design and play." The point being, if the design is crafted to exclusively root on combat, don't be surprised when that occurs. **** Back to "As this was written by a guy that had only played and never seen the rulebook it seems a more pure recording of how the game was actually played." That's quite an assumption; and one that is flat out wrong. The game was multi-dimensional and there was no proclivity for one slant or the other. I will kindly remind everyone of EGG's quote from A&E #15, 1975: "If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways." [emphasis mine] |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 16, 2015 22:44:01 GMT -5
That's quite an assumption; and one that is flat out wrong. The game was multi-dimensional and there was no proclivity for one slant or the other. I will kindly remind everyone of EGG's quote from A&E #15, 1975: "If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways." [emphasis mine]
I find this quote to be quite refreshing! No One True Way to Play! |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on May 17, 2015 9:41:33 GMT -5
It wasn't me in that podcast, nor is the example mine. My apologies, it was Tim Kask. saveordie.info/?p=53While true in extreme cases, I don't think you can accurately determine how a game is played based on comparing ratios of pages of rules for combat vs exploration vs social interaction. That line of thinking has led people to claim that because OD&D lacks any rules on role-playing, it isn't a role-playing game ( johnwickpresents.com/games/game-designs/chess-is-not-an-rpg-the-illusion-of-game-balance/ being among the latest). As the Tim Kask's example shows, it's more a function of adventure design and how the DM writes the adventure. If the dungeon is 100% filled with monsters that attack immediately, you'll have a different play experience than if only 10% are monsters and the rest are social encounters and exploration events. The point being that the distribution tables on Vol 3 pg 6 & 7 have more impact on play than the quantity of resolution mechanics. I do agree, however, that when a particular game's combat rules are so detailed and complex that a single combat takes much more game time to resolve, it will skew the ratio of game time spend in a particular subsystem away from the exact ratio of type of encounters. So if a particular game session has one combat encounter and three social encounters but that one combat encounter takes 10 times longer to resolve, it will seem like the game is mostly combat. [The solution is not, as most modern games do, to make social encounters long drawn out affairs i.e. social combat] |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on May 17, 2015 10:19:21 GMT -5
And as a whole the gaming community seems to prefer combat focused game. Which seems to lead to more detailed and "realistic" combat rules in various incarnations of D&D and many other rpgs. Now most fantasy games seem to focus on combat and not so much exploration. Ok, now that I've derailed the thread, I guess I should talk about the main topic. I see a culmination of various trends: Firstly, there was a move in the late 70s and early 80s towards more complicated and detailed rules. This is true in RPG, boardgames and, somewhat, miniatures games too. For example, Advanced Squad Leader is hundreds and hundreds of pages of dense rules for every conceivable situation. At a convention in the mid 80s, a guy from SJG was introducing GURPS and his main selling point was that it was more realistic. Secondly, when designing third edition, WotC said that their polls indicated that the player base wanted more "tactical" combat. I.E. more choices in combat. Possibly this was an overreaction to the perceived view that D&D combat was boring and nothing more than roll-to-hit, roll-to-hit, roll-to-hit, etc. Thirdly, and I think most importantly, was the shift towards the player knowing the rules. In OD&D and AD&D, there was the notion that the players didn't need to actually know the details of the game rules. So players were forced to describe their action in game-world terms, "I run to the table, knock it over, and hide behind it." As gamers began to expect to know all the rules there was more pressure for the rules to explicitly detail exactly how everything worked. Judgement calls became a flaw because the players don't have the authority to interpret the rules (which has led to narrative control but that's another topic). So now players aren't really thinking of their actions in real world terms but rather in game terms, "I use a half move to get to the table, use my free action to knock it over, and then take a change position action to duck behind it." In addition, with complete access to all the rules, the players can easily spot areas of imbalance which naturally leads to more rules to address this imbalance. Once you combine a desire for more tactical choice with a reliance on players knowing the rules in detail, you have a huge bloated set of combat rules and a need among the players for more combat encounters so they can show off their knowledge. That's how I see it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 17, 2015 10:27:31 GMT -5
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not comparing "pages of rules" but design intent of those rules as noted by their extended use in play--that is how one determines how a design is geared. In 3E's case it is obvious that the proclivity is geared to a combat-oriented game. The fan discussion over the years proves that, as well. if one were to look closely at the rules, as I have as a designer, you will find 11 pages written on combat initiative alone. Add in whole miniature lines by WotC, movement to CRPG and it goes beyond being obvious, in fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 17, 2015 13:42:19 GMT -5
bestialwarlust, I think I get what you are trying to get at in the OP. I agree with other posts that the relative presence or absence of mechanics in the LBBs does not represent, necessarily, their relative weight in actual play. Here are my two-cents: Chainmail is PART of the rules of the 0e. So there is a whole extra digest sized booklet for resolving combat. The subtitle is: fantastical medieval war-games campaigns. The thing was a war-game from the start. For the real difference in feel b/w 0e and the general development of RPGs I would not so much contrast exploration vs. battle as much as role-play + making rulings vs. mechanics and rule-following for every possible detail. Okay, I just dropped my 2cp!
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on May 17, 2015 18:30:21 GMT -5
I have no idea what you are talking about. My original response was in reference to comment in the original post of You have one or two pages for combat while the majority of the others is wilderness exploration, dungeon exploration, etc... The feeling I get is "Oh here some combat. Lets get that out of the way so we can get back to playing" So I don't think you and I disagree on any fundamental point. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 17, 2015 21:29:41 GMT -5
And as a whole the gaming community seems to prefer combat focused game. Which seems to lead to more detailed and "realistic" combat rules in various incarnations of D&D and many other rpgs. Now most fantasy games seem to focus on combat and not so much exploration. Ok, now that I've derailed the thread, I guess I should talk about the main topic. I see a culmination of various trends: Firstly, there was a move in the late 70s and early 80s towards more complicated and detailed rules. This is true in RPG, boardgames and, somewhat, miniatures games too. For example, Advanced Squad Leader is hundreds and hundreds of pages of dense rules for every conceivable situation. At a convention in the mid 80s, a guy from SJG was introducing GURPS and his main selling point was that it was more realistic. Secondly, when designing third edition, WotC said that their polls indicated that the player base wanted more "tactical" combat. I.E. more choices in combat. Possibly this was an overreaction to the perceived view that D&D combat was boring and nothing more than roll-to-hit, roll-to-hit, roll-to-hit, etc. Thirdly, and I think most importantly, was the shift towards the player knowing the rules. In OD&D and AD&D, there was the notion that the players didn't need to actually know the details of the game rules. So players were forced to describe their action in game-world terms, "I run to the table, knock it over, and hide behind it." As gamers began to expect to know all the rules there was more pressure for the rules to explicitly detail exactly how everything worked. Judgement calls became a flaw because the players don't have the authority to interpret the rules (which has led to narrative control but that's another topic). So now players aren't really thinking of their actions in real world terms but rather in game terms, "I use a half move to get to the table, use my free action to knock it over, and then take a change position action to duck behind it." In addition, with complete access to all the rules, the players can easily spot areas of imbalance which naturally leads to more rules to address this imbalance. Once you combine a desire for more tactical choice with a reliance on players knowing the rules in detail, you have a huge bloated set of combat rules and a need among the players for more combat encounters so they can show off their knowledge. That's how I see it anyway. Here is where I disagree. IMO OD&D has more tactical choices available to the players than is possible for the more complicated and detailed rules to ever have. The more complicated and detailed the rules are the fewer and fewer choices the players have. In OD&D if you can describe the action you are taking you can usually do it, in general if the actions you want your character to take would likely be possible at all in the world as I describe it then you can do it. No other game gives you that degree of freedom. The thinking that more complicated and detailed rules give players more choices is and always has been and always will be false. In OD&D the players do have the ability to interpret the rules, the referee is there to tell them that no your human fighter can not leap 30 feet straight up and no your elf can not see through solid stone in and of themselves. However, with magical assistance both might be true. If D&D combat is boring that is to the shame of the players and the ref. IMO and IME players are not all that concerned about the rules if they are having fun and their imagination is not being unduly and unjustifiably restricted and interfered with. |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on May 17, 2015 21:51:41 GMT -5
Ok, now that I've derailed the thread, I guess I should talk about the main topic. I see a culmination of various trends: Firstly, there was a move in the late 70s and early 80s towards more complicated and detailed rules. This is true in RPG, boardgames and, somewhat, miniatures games too. For example, Advanced Squad Leader is hundreds and hundreds of pages of dense rules for every conceivable situation. At a convention in the mid 80s, a guy from SJG was introducing GURPS and his main selling point was that it was more realistic. Secondly, when designing third edition, WotC said that their polls indicated that the player base wanted more "tactical" combat. I.E. more choices in combat. Possibly this was an overreaction to the perceived view that D&D combat was boring and nothing more than roll-to-hit, roll-to-hit, roll-to-hit, etc. Thirdly, and I think most importantly, was the shift towards the player knowing the rules. In OD&D and AD&D, there was the notion that the players didn't need to actually know the details of the game rules. So players were forced to describe their action in game-world terms, "I run to the table, knock it over, and hide behind it." As gamers began to expect to know all the rules there was more pressure for the rules to explicitly detail exactly how everything worked. Judgement calls became a flaw because the players don't have the authority to interpret the rules (which has led to narrative control but that's another topic). So now players aren't really thinking of their actions in real world terms but rather in game terms, "I use a half move to get to the table, use my free action to knock it over, and then take a change position action to duck behind it." In addition, with complete access to all the rules, the players can easily spot areas of imbalance which naturally leads to more rules to address this imbalance. Once you combine a desire for more tactical choice with a reliance on players knowing the rules in detail, you have a huge bloated set of combat rules and a need among the players for more combat encounters so they can show off their knowledge. That's how I see it anyway. Here is where I disagree. IMO OD&D has more tactical choices available to the players than is possible for the more complicated and detailed rules to ever have. The more complicated and detailed the rules are the fewer and fewer choices the players have. In OD&D if you can describe the action you are taking you can usually do it, in general if the actions you want your character to take would likely be possible at all in the world as I describe it then you can do it. No other game gives you that degree of freedom. The thinking that more complicated and detailed rules give players more choices is and always has been and always will be false. In OD&D the players do have the ability to interpret the rules, the referee is there to tell them that no your human fighter can not leap 30 feet straight up and no your elf can not see through solid stone in and of themselves. However, with magical assistance both might be true. If D&D combat is boring that is to the shame of the players and the ref. IMO and IME players are not all that concerned about the rules if they are having fun and their imagination is not being unduly and unjustifiably restricted and interfered with. Agreed it's up to the player. I think one of the bigger misconceptions is Hit Points. Like many others I related Hit Points to always mean wounds. After many years of game play some of the cobwebs on my rusty brain fell away after reading the great posts at ODD74 years ago. I saw the light so to speak. D&D combat was meant to be abstract. So for my games I use that interpretation to drive combat to not be boring from my side. I explained to my group that the combat and combat round is abstract. That HP damage doesn't always mean you're stabbed and bleeding it can represent whatever you want to have happened in that abstract round. HP is a "buffer" before the final mortal blow is struck. You can describe or narrate however you want or you can just do the " I rolled. I hit" When I attack a PC I might do something more along the line of "The angry orc charges at you striking at you with sword in a heated determination to remove your head from your shoulders * DM rolls die scores a hit, then rolls damage. looking back at the player* couple of close hits with his sword as he stabs at you, he strikes your jaw with his sword pommel driving you back a few feet. Sweat drips from you as you attempt to catch your breath. you loose 6 HP!" If the player was a higher level and had more HP I change the narrative to something less "Although the orc has some skill you parry most of his blows easily you only lose 5 HP." I try to highlight that Hit Points can be looked at more like Hero Points, the round is abstract so do what you want. Combat is only boring and non tactical if the players and DM make it so. Every group has their own play style. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 18, 2015 9:50:32 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer quoth: "The thinking that more complicated and detailed rules give players more choices is and always has been and always will be false. In OD&D the players do have the ability to interpret the rules..."
You'll make a top flight designer if you continue with those types of insights. And the reason related to your statement is: Finite states have been reduced to limited linear progressions, whereas conceptual states are always contingently granular unless you choose to limit them (paraphrasing some of the matter covered in my BOOKE).
Keep dreaming PD.
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 18, 2015 10:45:03 GMT -5
Now, see, I agree with PD.
In my opinion all extra rules do in actual play is create 'boxes of limitation' that (quite unfortunately) confine the imagination of those playing. Once you implement such nonsense as skill points for horse riding and rope use in a game that is not based on skill points (such as R. Talsorian's excellent Cyberpunk 2020)... You ALSO add in a chance for mechanical failure that is easily seen by the player. What I've experienced is, with this skill point scheme in place, that players quickly do the math in their heads and just decide to try nothing unless they have enough points to guarantee success.
But, with rules such as the 1974 D&D set, my players are far more willing to try things such as make rafts, jump a horse over a fence, and other fun stuff... Because they have far less fear of mechanical, dice-roll instituted failure of such activities. When the game is vague, far more neat stuff occurs at the table. At least this has been my experience.
I'm all for lighter rules sets that don't force you into rolling for everything under the sun... I tell my players, if you really want to do well in my game, the BEST THING you can possibly do is to describe your actions in such a way as to negotiate with me, the referee, to NOT ROLL A SINGLE DIE because of how well you worded things. Eliminate the random chance of failure by actively THINKING about the activity you're doing, and describing it well, not only ensures success in certain tasks of trivial or possibly median degree (say, making that raft or even disarming a trap) but also gets everyone at the table to actively participate more enthusiastically, because they aren't just sitting around tossing dice to produce every solution!!! HUZZAH.
They are getting good at basically 'talking' their actions into success. Of course, this doesn't happen in combat... But they are quickly learning that the approach to combat (placement, surprise attempts, dropping caltrops on an enemie's path, or simply reconnoitering and watching for a bit) is every bit as important as conducting it inside the framework of the (thankfully very light) rules system.
Heck, the above is the REASON I play the Original D&D rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 18, 2015 11:14:10 GMT -5
As simple, clean and clear a set of mechanics as possible in order to simulate the "realism" of a world independent from mere whim.
As few mechanics as possible that might constrict, limit or dictate players' imaginations, plans, tactics, strategies.
What game does that? Oh, yeah: Original Edition Dungeons and Dragons.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 18, 2015 12:54:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on May 18, 2015 13:06:44 GMT -5
IMO OD&D has more tactical choices available to the players than is possible for the more complicated and detailed rules to ever have. The more complicated and detailed the rules are the fewer and fewer choices the players have. Consider this fairly typical request: Player: "The ogre can't see me where I'm hiding so I'll wait for him to charge the fighter and then jump out behind him and stab him in the back." For me, resolving this situation is trivial, the ogre will act, then the fighter, then the thief. Using just common sense. However, if I were to enumerate exactly how I arrived at that decision, I'd need to talk about initiative order, delaying, when you can delay, how delaying affects the combat order, what you can delay for, the types of actions you can hold, etc. It's no wonder that 3e, a game that can handle this situation, needs 11 pages to describe their initiative rules. D&D 5e, in an effort to simplify the game, removes the option for holding actions, thus making this type of situation, one that I'd consider common, completely impossible by the rule. [In 5e you can ready one action so you can't both move and attack as you could in 3e] So just because a game is simple doesn't automatically mean that the players have more choice. Years ago I ran a campaign with Fantasy Hero, arguably one of the most complicated RPGs ever made, but as most of my players were complete RPG newbies, I simply let them describe their intended actions and I translated it into game terms in my head. As a result, the players were trying all sorts of crazy things based solely on the realities of the game world. The players were far more creative than any group of old school gamers I've ever played with. The difference, as I see it, was the player's lack of knowledge of the game. As soon as the players are expected to know the rules they are, themselves, constrained by the rules. Looking through a list of options for the most effective one. When the rules are available to the player you are forced to do one of two things: make a long list of combat options that are all roughly balanced with each other, or make a single mechanic, like DCC's Mighty Deeds, which uses the same resolution system for all tactical choices (removing the DM's judgement as to how difficult or easy the attempted action should be). |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 18, 2015 16:27:18 GMT -5
But, with rules such as the 1974 D&D set, my players are far more willing to try things such as make rafts, jump a horse over a fence, and other fun stuff... Because they have far less fear of mechanical, dice-roll instituted failure of such activities. When the game is vague, far more neat stuff occurs at the table. At least this has been my experience. I'm all for lighter rules sets that don't force you into rolling for everything under the sun... I tell my players, if you really want to do well in my game, the BEST THING you can possibly do is to describe your actions in such a way as to negotiate with me, the referee, to NOT ROLL A SINGLE DIE because of how well you worded things. Eliminate the random chance of failure by actively THINKING about the activity you're doing, and describing it well, not only ensures success in certain tasks of trivial or possibly median degree (say, making that raft or even disarming a trap) but also gets everyone at the table to actively participate more enthusiastically, because they aren't just sitting around tossing dice to produce every solution!!! HUZZAH. I would play in your game anytime!  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 18, 2015 16:37:26 GMT -5
IMO OD&D has more tactical choices available to the players than is possible for the more complicated and detailed rules to ever have. The more complicated and detailed the rules are the fewer and fewer choices the players have. Consider this fairly typical request: Player: "The ogre can't see me where I'm hiding so I'll wait for him to charge the fighter and then jump out behind him and stab him in the back."
For me, resolving this situation is trivial, the ogre will act, then the fighter, then the thief. Using just common sense.However, if I were to enumerate exactly how I arrived at that decision, I'd need to talk about initiative order, delaying, when you can delay, how delaying affects the combat order, what you can delay for, the types of actions you can hold, etc. It's no wonder that 3e, a game that can handle this situation, needs 11 pages to describe their initiative rules. The part I placed in bold is OD&D, that is all you need to do. The part that starts with However and continues on is the part that IMO is completely unnecessary and unneeded in the game. The bold part is FUN, the However and so on is UNFUN IMO. Great essay Rob! So just because a game is simple doesn't automatically mean that the players have more choice. Years ago I ran a campaign with Fantasy Hero, arguably one of the most complicated RPGs ever made, but as most of my players were complete RPG newbies, I simply let them describe their intended actions and I translated it into game terms in my head. As a result, the players were trying all sorts of crazy things based solely on the realities of the game world. The players were far more creative than any group of old school gamers I've ever played with. The difference, as I see it, was the player's lack of knowledge of the game. As soon as the players are expected to know the rules they are, themselves, constrained by the rules. Looking through a list of options for the most effective one. When the rules are available to the player you are forced to do one of two things: make a long list of combat options that are all roughly balanced with each other, or make a single mechanic, like DCC's Mighty Deeds, which uses the same resolution system for all tactical choices (removing the DM's judgement as to how difficult or easy the attempted action should be). I am sorry your experience with "old school gamers" is not one of creativity and unbounded imagination. Bitd when I started, all of the players that were not refs never read the rules. Out of all 30 of us, only the two that were refs ever saw or read the rules. Everyone else just played and they were highly creative and their imagination ran wild. |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 18, 2015 23:22:42 GMT -5
I can totally see Hedgehobbit's point about new players and not knowing the rules. I've experienced that, too, albeit far too rarely. The eager ones are just bursting with crazy ideas to try!!
But from a certain perspective, that just solidifies my point: They don't know the rules, and thus the limitations of such, and are thus wonderfully unbound.
To my mind, that the referee still handles the rules behind the scene is moot as I generally expect all but the most new ref to be competent at their preferred rules set.
My point above was one of seasoned players either being confined by rule calculations most seasoned players do at least a little, or for those seasoned players to be free once more by a smaller, lightweight set of rules.
Still, any system can be fun if each person enjoys it. I've looked at fantasy hero... champions is beautifully complicated! I never got good at it. Everyone I knew ran in fear of it, haha... still wish I could have tried it out. Same with fantasy games unlimited's Aftermath. Still, these days, I'd go villains & vigilantes for supers.
For D&D though... my preferred method of general play eschews all the feats, skills, non-weapon deficiencies, that engender a feeling of building a character as opposed to playing one. And putting the focus onto player talent, in creative problem solving, instead of rules memorization or management beyond a simple scale.
But I really dig the seat-of-your-pants, hip-shot action oriented style of reffing!
By the way, I don't intend this as argumentative: Only discussionary . If you ran a fantasy hero game near me, I'd beg to play... and love every minute of it!!
Edit: I'm on my phone, and only now just saw that Hedgehobit already spoke on the whole "seasoned players getting confined by rules they know" thing. Oops! But, yeah, we agree on this. I've seen it a lot in games with heavier rules than OD&D. I've only started running my OD&D game, but I don't see this becoming a problem really. Not enough rules to constrain you. And if one does? Change it.
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 18, 2015 23:35:12 GMT -5
Also, you can't really use the ratio of rules to determine what a game is about. For example, OD&D has about six pages dedicated to Naval Combat. Far more than for man-to-man combat. But that doesn't mean that it was a naval combat game. It's just some things are more complicated and need more rules space. Exploration being one of those. Plus, since exploration was an entirely new concept it required a more detailed explanation. I'm on board with this. I think between this, and the OP, lies my personal truth. Mix the slightly extra rules for little known stuff like naval and aerial combat, to generally help me run my game, with healthy doses of exploration and I'm happily shooting this one down the middle!! ...Now, add in the juicy campaign development bits from the FFC and you've got yourself a deal!!! |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 19, 2015 10:45:40 GMT -5
Hedgehobbit quoth: "Once you combine a desire for more tactical choice with a reliance on players knowing the rules in detail, you have a huge bloated set of combat rules and a need among the players for more combat encounters so they can show off their knowledge."
Which, in concise design philosophy, is what I noted previously: ""The mode establishes the expression paths in design and play." The point being, if the design is crafted to exclusively root on combat, don't be surprised when that occurs.""
Aside: Considering the huge prevalence of these types of games today, and their existence for some time, a diametric change has also occurred as to what these particularly groomed consumers view as an RPG and what it can be. A very narrow patterning has been instilled which threatens to make Arneson's original vision of the RP experience anecdotal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 19, 2015 14:37:21 GMT -5
Aside: Considering the huge prevalence of these types of games today, and their existence for some time, a diametric change has also occurred as to what these particularly groomed consumers view as an RPG and what it can be. A very narrow patterning has been instilled which threatens to make Arneson's original vision of the RP experience anecdotal. The hope here is that we can jointly and severally widen the patterning out to its fullest possible extent to make Arneson's original vision of the RP experience a reality in every refs game who desires it to be so. |
|
monk
Prospector
Posts: 90
|
Post by monk on May 19, 2015 20:52:51 GMT -5
Aside: Considering the huge prevalence of these types of games today, and their existence for some time, a diametric change has also occurred as to what these particularly groomed consumers view as an RPG and what it can be. A very narrow patterning has been instilled which threatens to make Arneson's original vision of the RP experience anecdotal. The hope here is that we can jointly and severally widen the patterning out to its fullest possible extent to make Arneson's original vision of the RP experience a reality in every refs game who desires it to be so. That's right. We on a mission. May fun be victorious.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 20, 2015 7:25:27 GMT -5
"May fun be victorious!" Surely something that everyone can agree on! |
|
|
|
Post by randyb on May 20, 2015 8:23:38 GMT -5
"May fun be victorious!" Surely something that everyone can agree on! For all differing definitions of "fun". (Well, except for those definitions that include real harm to others.) |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 21, 2015 7:55:15 GMT -5
Great thread! I think that the main shift has been a focus on detail. OD&D allowed for a lot of creativity and hand-waving, and somewhere along the line (mostly AD&D) the rules tried to codify and standardize everything so that we all were "supposed" to do things the same way. A move "back to OD&D" is mostly a matter of stripping away a lot of the details and going back to where the Referee could adjudicate on-the-fly. An example of this is some OD&D sessions where I provided a newbie magic-user with a spell list but no spell descriptions. I'd ask her "what do you think it does" and she would improvise as situations developed. Certainly not a "by the book" session, but some fantastic role playing. The tricky thing here is that every game needs some rules or it moves away from an RPG and into the realm of cooperative storytelling. The question always becomes: "how many rules do you like in your game?" Of course, there is no single answer for this.  |
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 21, 2015 8:20:59 GMT -5
There is quite a bit of beauty in Finn's post above.
I particularly love the bits about stripping down the game to where the referee may again adjudicate on the fly (quite important to me, as if I can't do this, I'm screwed) and about needing at least a basic framework of rules as a foundation of the game.
The note about cooperative storytelling is a really good one, too. I'm not against cooperative storytelling, but I prefer my D&D to be focused on all parts of the game, including the random bits so I'm surprised too as the referee, and also the simple mechanics I can rely on so that 'cooperative storytelling' does not devolve into petty arguing about certain preferred outcomes.
Exalt!
EDIT: Ok, at home on the 'puter now... So... (Points at 'Exalt!' above!!)
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Sept 18, 2015 20:37:46 GMT -5
merctime, tetramorph, Necromancer: I haven't been deeply involved in RPGs for a long time like a lot of the posters here, so I feel a little out of my depth saying this, but I will anyway. When I watch movies from the 80s or 70s that feature teenagers or young adults, they seem freer than the same characters in movies today. More open, more flexible. I'm not saying there aren't set character types, just that the overall feel of their appearance is more...I don't know. The characters seem to breathe more easily. The same people in movies now seem much more anxious, even when they're "chaotic" or "unrestrained" they seem COMPELLED to be that way. Why say this? Well, I went to college from 1998-2002. And I know it had settled down a lot by then from the late 60s and 70s. And I didn't have a good time, so I don't think nostalgia is clouding my sight too much. But when I was teaching this last year, I started to see how TENSE the students are now -- not only in classes, but in recreation. A lot of them look like they're about to explode or implode from some horrible pressure. This is a purely subjective and personal observation, and I'll end it here. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the big shift towards rules-heavy materials wasn't part of a larger cultural shift towards needing to be told what to do at all times.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Sept 18, 2015 21:00:15 GMT -5
Machine minds make for dull students & teachers as well as designers and players. The human condition is one of vitality (expansion) and not mechanism (contraction). However, world societies and their institutions were formed around the industrial/mass consumerism model, that is, around mechanistic principles. I have written upon this in depth in my upcoming book.
|
|
