My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"

[outsider]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it.

On some level, yes. However, when a rule says you can do something, in my experience the DM won't prevent it, unless there's something specifically preventing it in the current situation. If a DM is constantly ignoring/modifying rules in order to limit player options(referring to game play options rather than character building options), that's generally my cue to leave.

Note that I'm not trying to say the old school "here's a few rules, ask the dm for everything else" style is neccessarily bad. In fact, if the group can reconcile their individual views how they believe the game should be played, that style of game can wind up being superior. Aside from 4e, B/X or BECMI would be my favorite version of D&D, and I'd gladly be playing them if I had a DM that I meshed particularly well with.

[Ariosto]

Survey sez: 20 (including the purtier troupe to reprise it at the Grand Ole Opry and on Hee Haw).

In my (statistically unrepresentative) experience as a 4E player, I have found it more like pulling teeth to get the (RPGA) DM to allow actions than ever in all my toiling in the field of fantasy gaming.

As a DM in the same context, I found the comprehensive rules liberating in a "gloves off" way. My performance really fell short only in lacking mastery enough to play the "adversarial" role as competently as the scenario demanded for best effect.

In TSR-D&D, I have seen more in the way of conferences in which players and DM come to a consensus as to what makes sense. In 4E, it's been more a matter of looking up (and arguing interpretations of) text in a book.

Again, that's just one person's unrepresentative experience.

[outsider]

Originally Posted by Hairfoot

I agree. I've played in many groups as an adult, and I've never seen a player need to produce a rule to convince the GM to at least let the PC attempt something.

That sort of "no, you just can't" attitude is something I associate with the personality politics of high-school, reinforcing the theory that retro-gaming is gaining popularity because official Dungeons & Dragons is now designed solely for adolescents.

There are other ways to say "no" than "you just can't". There's "sure, here's the astronomical penalty to your roll". Or "sure, roll a d20 and I'll tell you if you succeed or not". If you've really never seen a situation where a player and a DM disagreed about what's possible in the real world, or what should be possible in a fantasy world, or how easy/difficult it should be, you've been pretty lucky in getting DMs that mesh well with you.

Myself, I've been stuck trying to play Conan in Middle Earth for much of my D&D life, heh.

[Ariosto]

My (very, VERY personal) analogies:
"Old school" D&D is sort of like the Hospitality Room at TellusCon.
3E was sort of like ... Advanced Squad Leader Semifinals?
4E is sort of like Contract Bridge Night.

No better or worse, but definitely different. Sometimes I feel like a nut, and sometimes I feel like a coconut.

[Hairfoot]

Originally Posted by outsider

There are other ways to say "no" than "you just can't". There's "sure, here's the astronomical penalty to your roll". Or "sure, roll a d20 and I'll tell you if you succeed or not".

Debating "what's possible in the real world, or what should be possible in a fantasy world, or how easy/difficult it should be" happens regardless of the system or rules used. Unless a game lists, categorically, everything a PC is capable of, there will always be GM adjudication, and in a fantasy game of heroism, characters will attempt heroic actions.

The only reason a GM would make things unnecessarily difficult is personal prejudice, and no amount of rules will alter that. Rule zero cannot be "the DM shall not be a prick", even if it's sometimes warranted.

[Windjammer]

@Ariosto

I'm grateful for your presence on this thread - indeed on EnWorld as such, which apart from a ridiculously small number of lucid posters has become a complete waste of time.

It's worth pointing out that entering a thread just to insult people is a pretty good way to get booted from the thread. Discussion and discourse are great; cheap shots aren't. ~ PCat

That said, you misunderstood Mearls when you equated the following to "railroding":

Originally Posted by mearls

To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.

What Mearls meant is that in some older edition games players didn't even know their own to-hit numbers and didn't even record their hit points (a suggestion that's even in the 1E DMG). So what you get is the players only interfacing with the game world directly, and the DM translating that into game mechanical terms for them. This, by itself, constitutes a greater narrative control by the DM as well - it's in the details, and not in the grander "story arc" (as is the case with railroading).

On the other side of the spectrum is the codification of combat maneuvers in 3E and 4E. If a player says "I bullrush that orc", he already knows how to put mechanics onto that.

So basically the fewer mechanics players track in a game beyond the absolutely vital for their PCs to function (6 core abilities, to-hit score, hp, saves vs. attacks other than hp-depletion) the closer that game will be to OD&D. In that vein, have a look at what Mearls suggests for 4E here.

Originally Posted by mearls

D&D is such a subjective, personal thing that trying to push everyone's experience with it into a single box is a waste of time.
... The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant.

Agreed. I take a good DM using a wacky ruleset (say, Earthdawn 1E) any day over a mediocre DM using the best ruleset (say [insert favourite edition of D&D here everyone]). But the style and skills of either DM would be enhanced - or hampered - by which game he is playing.

Originally Posted by mearls

I think there are a lot of parallels between the old school movement and the indie movement. Both started around what I see as fairly simple concepts. The indie movement eventually gathered a lot of baggage that hampered its growth, a sort of "us vs. them" vibe that turned away people. It'd be a pity to see the same thing happen again.

Ok. That's just wishful thinking on your part. Dragonsfoot will outlive 4E and you know that. People there will put out good, free modules and contribute enlightening discussion when you've long ago turned your back on the P&P industry and joint the world of digital gaming. I don't mean that as a derogatory remark at all. Arneson did it, Jaquays did it - you'll be in good company. But wishful thinking along the ride ill behoves Lareth - just get to the job.

Originally Posted by T1

Those who arouse suspicion will be quietly murdered in their sleep; those with too much promise will be likewise dealt with, for Mearls wants no potential usurpers or threats to his domination.

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by outsider

On some level, yes. However, when a rule says you can do something, in my experience the DM won't prevent it, unless there's something specifically preventing it in the current situation.

I agree that it's definitely the exception, not the. . . er. . . rule. I just meant to point out that it's not always ths way. In my own experience, I had this issue crop up more often in D&D 3e than in other editions of the game, with players even going so far as to quote all of the sample skill DCs in the PHB as immutable figures. I hated that. It happened so often that when I was DMing 3e, I just quit fighting it, as that ended up being wasted effort on my part.

[Piratecat]

I've just threadbanned several people, in the hopes that this can remain a discussion instead of an edition war. Plan accordingly.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by outsider

How do you figure that?

Because the verb you use "convince" (and the rest of your post) shows that there was an adversarial relationship between your group and your DM, where you had to often debate whether or not PC actions were viable or allowed. A DM who was a better communicator and facilitator would have had a relationship with the players that had fewer in-game boundaries and required much less or none of that sort of boundary testing. The game-flow was stilted because of that relationship and it hindered the experience. This can be accomplished in any edition and was something my mid-Seventies groups on through my current groups enjoy.

[UngeheuerLich]

Old school gaming for me is, when players come up with creative ideas, like as mentioned, using an iron spike to disable a trap, and a DM who allows it if it makes sense...

old school is usually challenges the player, not his character... its not a bad thing, but it makes playing believable characters challenging... very challenging sometimes...

As said: you don´t actually need rules for old school gaming... because you can solve every problems by playing out the character...

But what you need is a great, fair DM and players willing to accept the ruling... and some players and some DMs don´t like it.

IMHO the best RPG is a good mix of old and new school: the 3.5 DM´s best friend: reward clever ideas by modifying the rolls by an approriate amount... and using take 10/20 as much as possible...

[outsider]

Originally Posted by Mark

Because the verb you use "convince" (and the rest of your post) shows that there was an adversarial relationship between your group and your DM, where you had to often debate whether or not PC actions were viable or allowed.

With some DMs, this has been true. Other DMs not so much. Even with a DM that usually says "yes" though, the process is still there. Some players are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to ask permission from somebody to do things(even if he usually says yes). Others are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to consult the rules to determine whether they can do things(even if the rules usually say yes).

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Hairfoot

superhero boardgame format of 4E may not be as much fun as the more demanding and human-scaled classic play-style.

And yet what could be more old school than Chainmail? Wargames and boardgames are pretty similar so if one does accept that 4e is a boardgame (I don't, or rather that's not *all* it is) then 4e is, in a sense, old school. Its gamism-promoting system also makes it more old school than anything we've seen since 1e. The focus on location based adventures of both d20 editions are more old school than 2e.

You say that 4e is marketed at teenagers. Well OD&D was a product of the young. It was played by the young. Gary initially ran the game for his children. Dave Arneson wasn't long out of his teens when he began work on D&D. Rob Kuntz, co-DM of Gary's first Greyhawk campaign, was born in 1955, he'd have been a teenager when OD&D was published. Holmes 1977 D&D was specifically revised to make it more accessible to children and was aimed at ages 12 and up.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by jdrakeh

I think that's largely an illusion that has been fostered by modern game design. IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it.

That is, volume of rules doesn't speak to the nature of individual action or, if you prefer, just because a game contains rules for X doesn't mean that X will happen during actual play.

Agreed.

DMs, being a fickle bunch (I should know, I'm one) can still poo-poo actions even in the presence/absence of rules for it.

No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU. He might call for a dex check, a series of skill checks, he might just let you do it, or he might flat out say no (or worse, allow you to "try" but make the attempt automatically fail). Still, the DM provides the narrative footwork & mechanical frame for it to happen; is there a chandelier, can the PC reach it, will it hold his weight, what roll does he need (if any) to accomplish the task, what game-related benefit does it provide (if swinging over a group of enemies provokes AoO's from them, why waste the dice rolls to swing when you've just walked and got the same effect?)

What the codification of rules was supposed to do was give indecisive DMs a framework to base judgments off of (Can I swing? Well, I don't know, how bout a tumble check?) What it does for some it create an artificial limit (No, there is no rule for that, you cannot). Still, the presence/absence of the rule should not be the deciding factor as to what is possible, but merely a jumping off point. Its a fine distinction some "rules-light" people expose; A rules-heavy game has no place for improvisation.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by UngeheuerLich

old school is usually challenges the player, not his character... its not a bad thing, but it makes playing believable characters challenging... very challenging sometimes...

Agreed. It can lead to the "My PC has a 18 charisma, why doesn't that count when I'm trying to convince the barkeep to let us in the hidden backroom?" scenario.

[Doug McCrae]

I was having a look at the Fight On! site, "A Fanzine for the Old-School Renaissance", and I saw something in the first paragraph that I would say is the opposite of old school.

Out of 5 PCs in the adventuring party mentioned, 2 are female, the swanmay and the witch. Not old school. In the very early days of D&D, all the players (and their PCs) were male.

It was Fighting Man, not Fighting Person.

[outsider]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU.

It's about more than complex environmental interaction. Pre 3e, I don't think I could even try to push a foe without DM fiat.

It's not really about having rules for everything(though having a good, consistent system that can easily cover many situations is awfully nice). It's about having a fair amount of options codified by the rules, so you aren't playing ask the DM constantly when you get bored of "I roll my d20 to hit, then I roll my d8 for damage".

[Mark]

Originally Posted by outsider

With some DMs, this has been true. Other DMs not so much. Even with a DM that usually says "yes" though, the process is still there.

Only in so far as the DM is the default eyes and ears of the players into the setting, the facilitator.

Originally Posted by outsider

Some players are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to ask permission from somebody to do things(even if he usually says yes). Others are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to consult the rules to determine whether they can do things(even if the rules usually say yes).

Again, that's not the system. That's a relationship between DM and players that requires adjustment. Unless the setting is merely a veneer and the rules are such that the players do not even need a DM to adjudicate, but that's no longer an RPG with a DM/player dynamic and not what I am discussing. That's more akin to a CRPG or a boardgame where no DM/facilitator/adjudicator is necessary.

[outsider]

Originally Posted by Mark

Again, that's not the system. That's a relationship between DM and players that requires adjustment.

It is, in fact, the system, and I'm having a realy hard time seeing why you feel differently. The relationship between the DM and the players will make the system work better or worse, of course. It doesn't change what the system actually is though. Old D&D's system was that nearly everything was decided by DM fiat. It's possible to dislike so much power being in the hands of one player even if he always does exactly what you want him to.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

I was having a look at the Fight On! site, "A Fanzine for the Old-School Renaissance", and I saw something in the first paragraph that I would say is the opposite of old school.

Out of 5 PCs in the adventuring party mentioned, 2 are female, the swanmay and the witch. Not old school. In the very early days of D&D, all the players (and their PCs) were male.

It was Fighting Man, not Fighting Person.

Paging Shilsen in 5... 4... 3...

EDIT: Actually, that is very old school. AFAIK, neither class was a PC class choice, both were NPC classes (or "monsters"). Both are unarmored, lightly armed spellcaster types that follow and aid their male "adventurers" with magic and knowledge, akin to a wide collection of mythical magicians such as Circe or Medea.

A female PC in full plate carrying a greatsword, on the other hand...

[amethal]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU.

Iron Heroes does. (A d20 system game.)

Originally Posted by Mastering Iron Heroes

Chandelier Swing (Reusable Action Zone): You leap through the
air, grab hold of the chandelier, and use it to swing across the
room. You must make a Jump check as normal to reach the
chandelier. You then use it to swing across the room as a free
action. The distance it carries you depends on its size and the
length of the rope or chain used to suspend it from the ceiling.
If, after swinging across the room, you immediately attack a foe
in melee, you gain the benefits and drawbacks of charging.

NB As far as I can tell, the above is not open content.