|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 29, 2015 12:26:08 GMT -5
hengest makes an excellent point, I have observed the same thing. robkuntz I look forward to reading you book when it is published. To get back to the OP, since I haven't addressed that yet: Bitd when we first started playing the first couple of games were pure hack and slash and with first level characters we went through a lot of characters and quite a few TPKs while we were figuring out the game. After the first couple of games we started to get the drift of exploration, avoiding combat and taking home the treasure with no more fighting than was absolutely necessary. And for four years in college we played a game that was primarily exploration. Between Friday and Saturday nights we would play between 22-28 hours. Granted we were college kids and reasonably well read in fantasy at that as opposed to many who started playing at the 12-14 year old age group. I am sure that greatly affected the kind of game that we ran. IMO a major factor in old school gaming is the improvisational and creative play both by the ref and by the players. While designing and preparing for a game is good, a ref should always IMO leave room for improvisational and creative play since a lot of great ideas occur on the fly as you play. That in turn spurs thinking and creativity by the players which in turn spurs on the ref.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Sept 29, 2015 16:35:54 GMT -5
Okay, some evolution of the campaign stuff....
My early games were on two levels: that of miniatures combat (baron and commander level) and that of dungeon crawls (individual hero level). As time passed we evolved into more exploration and mapping out the world. I think this was a logical progression, from the local to the global, but nowadays many folks buy pre-packaged worlds that start you off from the gobal. I think it's a lot easier to develop the world as you play rather than have to learn it all at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Sept 30, 2015 6:20:45 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. The difference is between multiple choice and free choice. When players say "we want more tactical choice" they often mean multiple choice between defined actions: this and that and the other. When referees say "but you have tactical choice!" they often mean free choice. Do what you like and I'll tell you if it works or not. I feel that at some point, the use of this one word with its two definitions has caused some wires to cross. I also feel that once you start to introduce rules you sow a seed that can sprout into anxiety and the concern about doing things right. I also, also feel that at some point players began to desire rules that would insulate them from the inept or tyrannical referee. I hear so many stories along the lines of "I see you have listed no clothes on your character sheet, clearly you have gone into the woods stark bollock naked, start rolling saves vs. death by exposure". The player who told me that story did so to explain his obsessive bean counting - listing exactly what his character was carrying and where it was being carried - and his reason for wanting to know where the game mechanical properties of bullets could be found. I feel, instinctively, that the drive is as much away from this kind of gameplay as it is toward something more structured and defined. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 30, 2015 10:21:07 GMT -5
The difference is between multiple choice and free choice. When players say "we want more tactical choice" they often mean multiple choice between defined actions: this and that and the other. When referees say "but you have tactical choice!" they often mean free choice. Do what you like and I'll tell you if it works or not. I feel that at some point, the use of this one word with its two definitions has caused some wires to cross. That is one way of defining what old school is - free choice instead of multiple choice. I also feel that once you start to introduce rules you sow a seed that can sprout into anxiety and the concern about doing things right. Yeah, I would agree that can be a symptom of too many rules. I also, also feel that at some point players began to desire rules that would insulate them from the inept or tyrannical referee. I hear so many stories along the lines of "I see you have listed no clothes on your character sheet, clearly you have gone into the woods stark bollock naked, start rolling saves vs. death by exposure". The player who told me that story did so to explain his obsessive bean counting - listing exactly what his character was carrying and where it was being carried - and his reason for wanting to know where the game mechanical properties of bullets could be found. I feel, instinctively, that the drive is as much away from this kind of gameplay as it is toward something more structured and defined. A better solution IMO is to find a different referee or start your own game. The players can always vote with their feet if they are not having fun. |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Sept 30, 2015 13:40:25 GMT -5
When referees say "but you have tactical choice!" they often mean free choice. Do what you like and I'll tell you if it works or not. We sort of take for granted that this is true but that doesn't change the fact that the rules that were published never actually said to do this. Nowhere in the OD&D rules does it say the DM is supposed to adjudicate actions in a free form manner. This is especially true of AD&D, which is where most current day DMs got their start, as that game specifically says to stick to the rules as written. We can look at game rules in one of two ways: 1- A list of tools the DM can use to resolve player actions 2- A list of procedures the DM must follow in order to play the game Game rules, at least up until recently, have always been written under assumption #2, that you need to follow the rules in order to play the game. Sure, they often paid lip service to the idea that the rules can change, but even that is written under the assumption that those changes will be new procedures, not ad-hoc judgments. So, I don't see this as a case of game's evolving but rather a result of how an entire generation of gamers were trained to treat their own ideas as subservient to the written rules. Which brings us to today to our concept of Game Designers being overlords of our game and where a game designer like Luke Crane states that if your are trying to write a house rule, you are wrong because the game designer has already considered your idea during development and rejected it. www.seannittner.com/narrative-control-episode-80-conversations-in-design/I see this as a side effect of the worship of game designers and their works. Once the DM is subjugated by game rules, he no longer has responsible for those rules providing fun for the player. So, when the players see a DM using a rule against them, it now becomes the job of the game designer to fix the rules rather than just telling the DM to piss off. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 30, 2015 15:10:59 GMT -5
When referees say "but you have tactical choice!" they often mean free choice. Do what you like and I'll tell you if it works or not. We sort of take for granted that this is true but that doesn't change the fact that the rules that were published never actually said to do this. Nowhere in the OD&D rules does it say the DM is supposed to adjudicate actions in a free form manner. IMO the example of game play in Volume 3 - The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures does show the referee doing exactly that. We can look at game rules in one of two ways: 1- A list of tools the DM can use to resolve player actions 2- A list of procedures the DM must follow in order to play the game Game rules, at least up until recently, have always been written under assumption #2, that you need to follow the rules in order to play the game. Sure, they often paid lip service to the idea that the rules can change, but even that is written under the assumption that those changes will be new procedures, not ad-hoc judgments. Except that OD&D is very clear (starting at the very beginning of volume one) both explicitly and implicitly that house ruling and ad-hoc judgements are indeed part of the expected game play. So, I don't see this as a case of game's evolving but rather a result of how an entire generation of gamers were trained to treat their own ideas as subservient to the written rules. Which brings us to today to our concept of Game Designers being overlords of our game and where a game designer like Luke Crane states that if your are trying to write a house rule, you are wrong because the game designer has already considered your idea during development and rejected it. www.seannittner.com/narrative-control-episode-80-conversations-in-design/I started playing OD&D as a college student, but from early childhood I have house-ruled every game I have ever played (outside organized school sports) and there is no point in time that I would ever have accepted the right of a game designer to tell me not to house rule. Personally I can not imagine as a player or DM ever listening to the wishes of Mr Crane in regard to house rules. I see this as a side effect of the worship of game designers and their works. Once the DM is subjugated by game rules, he no longer has responsible for those rules providing fun for the player. So, when the players see a DM using a rule against them, it now becomes the job of the game designer to fix the rules rather than just telling the DM to piss off. I can not imagine participating in any part of this as player or DM. |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Sept 30, 2015 15:33:00 GMT -5
When referees say "but you have tactical choice!" they often mean free choice. Do what you like and I'll tell you if it works or not. We sort of take for granted that this is true but that doesn't change the fact that the rules that were published never actually said to do this. Nowhere in the OD&D rules does it say the DM is supposed to adjudicate actions in a free form manner. This is especially true of AD&D, which is where most current day DMs got their start, as that game specifically says to stick to the rules as written. It is also worth noting that Gary, Dave, and Phil Barker all DM'ed that way, so we have examples if not exact instructions. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Oct 16, 2015 0:57:28 GMT -5
A better solution IMO is to find a different referee or start your own game. The players can always vote with their feet if they are not having fun. I don't disagree, but friendship groups are funny things. Your terrible referee is also a person and you associate on levels beyond the practice of gameplay. (Note: I first found myself occupying the lofty throne because I abandoned a terrible Call of Cthulhu game to run my own. And poached all the players . From someone who expected more courtesy of their friends. I am, perhaps, not a good person.) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Oct 16, 2015 8:10:09 GMT -5
A better solution IMO is to find a different referee or start your own game. The players can always vote with their feet if they are not having fun. I don't disagree, but friendship groups are funny things. Your terrible referee is also a person and you associate on levels beyond the practice of gameplay. (Note: I first found myself occupying the lofty throne because I abandoned a terrible Call of Cthulhu game to run my own. And poached all the players . From someone who expected more courtesy of their friends. I am, perhaps, not a good person.) A lot of things go into it, some are friends and some may be acquaintances. Some people can not handle any power or authority (in the real world those people commonly become bosses  ) and the only fix is mutiny - when all of the other options have failed. You could not have poached all the players, if they did not agree with you. We have all had times when we did not handle things the best way, so the real question is did you (I ) learn anything from it. What would we do different the next time? and so on and so forth. |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Oct 18, 2015 6:44:03 GMT -5
We sort of take for granted that this is true but that doesn't change the fact that the rules that were published never actually said to do this. Nowhere in the OD&D rules does it say the DM is supposed to adjudicate actions in a free form manner. This is especially true of AD&D, which is where most current day DMs got their start, as that game specifically says to stick to the rules as written. It is also worth noting that Gary, Dave, and Phil Barker all DM'ed that way, so we have examples if not exact instructions. I've been thinking more about this. When I feel the need for gaming inspiration, I often go back and re-read parts of the OD&D rulebooks and it happens I was doing this last night. I was thinking about the statement above and I found a couple of passages to mention. These quotes all come from the INTRODUCTON, page 4 of Men & Magic. (Underline done by the author) (Again, underline done by the author.) All of these tell me a few key things. (1) OD&D was designed to provide the skeleton for a game master to use to build a campaign. (2) The rules are intended to grow and evolve as the campaign grows and evolves. (3) The rules are not intended to be static, and can change at the whim of the game master. While I'm not sure how one classifies the term "free form" (Webster says "created or done in any way you choose; not required to have particular patterns or forms") I see OD&D as a game which is very wide open and where the rules can flow as needed. There is a core structure (classes, levels, etc.) but no predetermined setting. Lots of differences between one campaign and the next, and lots of options open to the players and game master. Often over the decades to resolve a situation I've used a "just grab some dice and roll them" philosophy, and I haven't been concerned with making sure that I use the same method the next time a similar situation comes up. Anyway, that was in my head and wanted to get out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on May 31, 2018 22:16:24 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? I've found the comments in this thread to be both entertaining and informative. I started playing in high school (1976) and we focused on the world building and the exploration of said world. I don't get too excited about the combat, I am more interested in what is over that mountain and across the sea and how do we get there and get back alive with lots of stuff. Sea travel and having an ocean based game, is in my opinion, a real blast. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 22:24:53 GMT -5
About two years ago a younger friend of mine, who cut his teeth on D&D 3.0 and 3.5, after a year or so of playing in my OD&D world abandoned newer editions and bought the OD&D PDFs and started running them.
I asked him why, and his reply was to the very point of this thread:
"Because if I say I want to sneak up behind the guard and knock him out, you roll dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the darn game."
|
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Jun 1, 2018 6:03:46 GMT -5
About two years ago a younger friend of mine, who cut his teeth on D&D 3.0 and 3.5, after a year or so of playing in my OD&D world abandoned newer editions and bought the OD&D PDFs and started running them. I asked him why, and his reply was to the very point of this thread: "Because if I say I want to sneak up behind the guard and knock him out, you roll dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the darn game." The only thing I would change is that I would let your friend roll the dice and otherwise everything is the same, but that is my way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 15:06:31 GMT -5
No, because he doesn't know all the factors influencing the die roll. Decision making based on imperfect information is an important part of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 1, 2018 15:33:58 GMT -5
Well. One can still control the information and have the other roll the dice; the roller just doesn't know what the roll means, the DM does.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jun 1, 2018 17:52:43 GMT -5
Sometimes the dice - are only dice.
|
|
) and the only fix is mutiny - when all of the other options have failed. You could not have poached all the players, if they did not agree with you. We have all had times when we did not handle things the best way, so the real question is did you (I ) learn anything from it. 
