General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
In those days a campaign was more than a series of adventures. Players would often play 6 or 7 days a week. The main game would be on one night, and on others the dm would run one or more players through side adventures, there were several ongoing plots running at once, and people often ran several characters in the same campaign. A few shorter adventures on off nights and pcs were close to the same level as the veteran pcs. Besides, old school games were generally about exploring, overcoming challenges, and a combat or two thrown in.
even if you did have to hide behind the mage for a few sessions, you're talking about 30 minutes out of An 8 hour game session.
See, this isn't a edition-based point; I could do this same thing in any edition, but I'll compare experiences.
I played in a group in HS where there were 5 of us, everyone ran a game and everyone played in everyone elses game. We played as often as school/homework/jobs would let us. Our games very very story intensive and role-play intensive; NPCs to meet, plots to foil, places to explore. We also didn't do a lot of pointless combat either and the bulk of our XP was story-reward. Battles were EPIC insofar as if we were going to have a fight, it was a plot-related battle or an occasional goons-come-to-battle you moment. No random encounters here! Oh, and there was the occasional module for gold, magic, and some XP mining.
But I don't think what you described is what I "missed". There are a lot of good things I recall carried from 2nd to 3rd and even into 4th (but someone 4e is mutating them, and I don't know why. That's another thread.) They carried in Star Wars and M&M and even our brief stint in Vampire. I loved my PCs, I can tell you everything about my handle's namesake not because he was the 24th elven thief I rolled up but because he was the first!
Anyway, we had different experiences, and that colors our opinions of things like this.
Besides, old school games were generally about exploring, overcoming challenges, and a combat or two thrown in.
even if you did have to hide behind the mage for a few sessions, you're talking about 30 minutes out of An 8 hour game session.
I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.
It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed, worked or was fun in the first place. It's like people doubting that the moon landings ever happened... it depresses me because we've actually lost so much capability in space exploration that people now doubt we ever had it in the first place.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Anyway, we had different experiences, and that colors our opinions of things like this.
I imagine that's so to a degree. If it's very different from one's expectations, then an old-style campaign on one hand -- or an "adventure path" on the other -- might be very hard to appreciate. Logistical factors have shaped different approaches to D&D, quite apart from any pre-existing strong preferences. As Mallus observed, by the second half of the '80s, one might never encounter anything but the kind of setup in which wide disparities among character levels are a drag even if one would not otherwise mind rolling up Remathilis IV.
The continuity of characters from campaign to campaign seems another custom that has declined, introducing in the long run more occasions for generating new ones (at whatever level the host campaign rules stipulate). More rapid level advancement might contribute to that. It used to be par for the course (from what I saw) for folks with 2 years plus of experience to have at least one character in the 10th to 14th level range, regardless of the spread in a whole "stable". (Rarely, one might have nothing closer than 8th or 9th, or a multi-class equivalent, but that was usually workable; I don't remember anyone with only 7th or less and 15th+.)
Nowadays, I often hear of people "rebooting" campaigns after two years or less.
Although I agree with the conventional wisdom that starting at first level is an invaluable experience for a player new to D&D, I don't see a lot of point in repeating that many times unless one happens to prefer play at that level (which some people do). One cannot really lose one's virginity more than once, and the tendency to recycle now-familiar elements and situations can lead to the game's becoming very stereotyped. To my mind, the elements of mystery, discovery and unpredictability are key aspects of play thus easily lost. Even without introducing new monsters and magic, the range of "old standards" usable increases along with character level and thereby provides a wider variety of permutations to explore.
Last edited by Ariosto; 17th June 2009 at 01:11 AM..
"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters... After all, they are not missing out on anything, as they have already played beginning character roles elsewhere, and they will not have to be virtually helpless and impotent characters in your campaign"
- Gary Gygax, powergamer
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
The suggestion of giving a new (to the campaign) but experienced (at the game) player a character of roughly average level -- perhaps in a four-level spread generated with an averaging die -- does not, I think, necessarily apply to replacing a casualty when one has been in the campaign for some time. More properly (to my thinking), it is the player's responsibility to cultivate henchmen as backups. He who neglects that part of skilled play (perhaps starting by treating charisma as a "dump stat") should reap what he has sown. I would not allow such a slacker to start a replacement at a higher level than that determined by the formula for NPC henchmen at DMG page 175, or that of the lowest-level active non-henchman PC, whichever is lower.
I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.
It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed [snip]
FWIW, I first played AD&D in the late '70s, when I was a kid; I then found friends in 5th and 6th grades to play Basic D&D with, then later a larger rotating group at a library that we played AD&D with -- and I don't think we ever played the way you described. I don't know anyone (aside from via the Internet) who did play that way.
Your play experiences were similar to Ariosto's; mine were more like Mallus's. There isn't, wasn't, and never will be one way to play D&D. So it's not that something's been lost, or changed; it's just different experiences, and the different styles that those experiences engender.
__________________ - Bob Huss
[H]e's dead and poisoned and possibly insane on another plane. It's a very stylish death, but a definitive one. - Piratecat
Here's some tables of starting points for 1st level characters that are joining higher level parties:
Party is 3 levels higher:
1: Wealthy - you start with starting gold multiplied by 200
Party is 4-6 levels higher:
1: Rich Nobility - you are part of the nobility for a major region and part of the highest social caste. You can call in favors from a variety of people and start with a credit up to 20,000 gold.
Party is 7-10 levels higher:
1: Artifact - you start with an artifact, which operates but is not complete (it will either stop working or is not at full power).
As one of the higher level characters, my first thought would be regret at sharing the looted treasure and experience with a lower level fodder who did not pull their own weight in battle.
My second thought would be that since the lower level fodder was wealthy, that I was looking forward to splitting its stuff when it died.
D&D is a game, and all players should be treated equally.
__________________ "Democracy must be something more than two gnolls and an elf voting on what to have for dinner."
I keep getting told that I'm some kind of weirdo outlier, and everybody else on this planet is all combat all the time, and that blasting down monsters in one shot isn't about power but "fun", and all this other codswallop.
I have the opposite experience: I keep hearing about a definitive D&D experience that bears no resemblance to anything I've encountered. Also, one man's codswallop is another man's amusing codswallop.
Quote:
It's weird that things which used to be the norm, such as the point of the game being exploration and intellectual challenge, are now so removed from what people think of D&D that they doubt it ever existed...
You probably shouldn't imply that play styles that differ from your lack 'intellectual challenge'.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
As Mallus observed, by the second half of the '80s, one might never encounter anything but the kind of setup...
I feel I should point out I was introduced to the game by a high school friend and his father. His father's group had been playing for several years and stories of their campaigns don't sound like yours, either.
I wonder if a better indicator would be how a person came to D&D/RPG's: more from wargames or genre fiction?
My wargaming experience is limited to Risk and a few games of Axis and Allies (does chess count??). However, I've been reading SF/F for as long as I could read.
Quote:
One cannot really lose one's virginity more than once, and the tendency to recycle now-familiar elements and situations can lead to the game's becoming very stereotyped.
This assumes all like-level experiences are essentially the same. Have you ever read more than one book in the same genre? More than one Shakespeare comedy?
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I'd rather figure out how to stab a giant in the eye or wrap by brain around the Riddle of the Sphinx than deal with staffing problems.
That's nice.
My observation was (I thought obviously) pertinent to the old-style game in which henchmen are in fact and by design "greatly desired by the discerning players, for they usually spell the difference between failure and success in the long term view."
It would not be germane to certain other games, any more than would an observation concerning the Lawful Goodness of paladins, or the development of magic-users from relative weakness as prestidigitators to the most powerful figures as wizards, or any one of many other alien aspects.
This assumes all like-level experiences are essentially the same.
No; it reflects the observation that, having rung the standard changes, most 1st-level D&D experiences are notably similar in terms of game elements deployed.
I wonder if a better indicator would be how a person came to D&D/RPG's: more from wargames or genre fiction?
"Better than what?" is the obvious question. Even without knowing the answer, I think you're probably right. The game was originally designed and presented with wargamers in mind, and 1st ed. AD&D continued in that vein. The Basic sets were aimed at a much wider audience, and quite successfully so.
You probably shouldn't imply that play styles that differ from your lack 'intellectual challenge'.
I didn't. I try to choose my words carefully; I don't always succeed, for various reasons. But what I said was that in the style of play I favor, exploration and intellectual challenge are the point of the game (challenge the player vs. challenge the character, etc.).
There is no permutation of logic I'm aware of where that implies that other styles "lack" intellectual challenge; my point was conerning the "point" or focus of play.
See, in [(p -> q)] and if you've got (p), (q) is implied. Also, (~q) implies (~p). But (~p) doesn't imply anything in that equation. Let (p) be Old School play and (q) be intellectual challenge... Old School implies intellectual challenge because it's integral to the point of play ("challenge the player"). So if you're not challenging the player, you're not playing Old School. But if you are challenging the player ("intellectual challenge"), that doesn't imply you're playing Old School and if you're not playing Old School that doesn't imply that you're not challenging the player.
Anyway, that's how you parse the word "implication". So don't get insulted, because all I was saying was that the essence of my style of play concerns exploration and intellectual challenge. I'm not dissing your style, whatever that is; I'm saying that mine is valid and these are the things that are integral to it.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
The continuity of characters from campaign to campaign seems another custom that has declined, introducing in the long run more occasions for generating new ones (at whatever level the host campaign rules stipulate). More rapid level advancement might contribute to that. It used to be par for the course (from what I saw) for folks with 2 years plus of experience to have at least one character in the 10th to 14th level range, regardless of the spread in a whole "stable". (Rarely, one might have nothing closer than 8th or 9th, or a multi-class equivalent, but that was usually workable; I don't remember anyone with only 7th or less and 15th+.)
Probably a number of factors here.
For one, play style has an effect on your character sheet. Even back in the olden times I remember discussions in Dragon about what to do if somebody brings a new character to your group who's higher-level than all the other PCs and has twice the number of magic items, most of which are also twice as powerful. 3e and 4e standardized "magic by level" and to some extent point buy systems specifically to fight against this process, so that people didn't get the idea that their characters were good only for one particular group. They wanted more cross-pollination. Of course, that's also a reason that there are systems to make characters in line with any given group's level, and that they encourage using them. If being 5th level is a bar to playing with a new group at 11th, they don't want you to be discouraged, they want you to be encouraged to jump right in, and the other group to be encouraged to take you. Hence, systems that make generating higher-level characters "fair."
I also think setting has come to matter more. With the advent of things like Forgotten Realms, it became more interesting to a lot of gamers to develop their own settings. I can't remember where I read it, but I remember someone discussing the shift from GMs who make their own dungeons to GMs who make their own worlds. As more and more inspiration and published settings emerged, more people became interested in finding the world that fit their particular sensibilities beyond the dungeon. Consider the split between groups that loved Dragonlance and enjoyed having kender in their adventuring parties, and groups who didn't.
It's an interesting situation. In order to encourage cross-pollination of gamers, you need a core set of expected sensibilities. But I think in order to encourage a lot of people to stay with gaming, you absolutely need to give them the ability to customize characters and worlds to suit their preferences. Right now the solution would be that it's easy to use expected mechanics to generate a character to fit a customized group.
__________________ -------
Ethan Skemp
CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing
Start a side game for the level one folks to get them at least caught up to just a few levels difference than your higher level party.
Alternately, maybe get the high level players to pick up temporary alts to run with the new folks until they get within reasonable range.
It's an interesting situation. In order to encourage cross-pollination of gamers, you need a core set of expected sensibilities. But I think in order to encourage a lot of people to stay with gaming, you absolutely need to give them the ability to customize characters and worlds to suit their preferences. Right now the solution would be that it's easy to use expected mechanics to generate a character to fit a customized group.
An interesting point to all of the "standardization" vs. "rules-lite" debate. D&D moreso than most RPGS are governed by two principles; what material the campaign is allows (something all RPGs suffer) and how the DM has chosen to build his world.
If I was bringing my Jedi over from my friends SAGA game to yours, as long as the levels were comparable and we all used the same source books, no one would care. Heck, in RIFTS your encouraged to find as many weird outliers in the Palladium system and go with it! But D&D, after its initial explosion of interest, became very difficult to move PCs from. There was no set standards, and as "alternate worlds" began to spring up (each with its own alternate takes and new options) shifting became very hard. I can't play my hobbit-thief in a Dragonlance party, I certainly can't in a Dark Sun game, and I don't think I'd want to in Ravenloft.
Yet its the diversity (and ease of customization) that attracts us. My halflings CAN be different than yours. My gnomes are 20 feet tall and eat nothing but tar! There are dozens of published campaign worlds (lord knows now thanks to the OGL) and each has its own unique spin on Chargen. While it might be a hindrance for cross-germination, its a bounty to world-builders.
But for sure, its not something common to other RPG systems I know.
I would not have expected the standardization of 3E/4E to make transfers less common. That's a good point, though, regarding the tendency on one hand for players to get into "exotic" types (the more so for proliferation of game-mechanical oddities, and greater importance placed on them) -- and on the other for DMs to get strongly attached to the consistency of equally peculiar settings.
In the old days, one might in my circle encounter "transplants" from Gamma World, Starships & Spacemen, Villains and Vigilantes, Gangbusters, and so on. However, 90%+ of characters were of AD&D Players Handbook types (perhaps slightly different from standard, or subject to reincarnation or other effects commonly encountered in the course of an adventuring career). Spells, magic items, etc., were of course subject to careful scrutiny and potential revision and deletion. There was rarely a barrier, though, to continued play of characters developed over years in other "worlds".
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
