Mercurius
Legend
I have read a lot of views that 4E and "Old School", in particular OD&D, are two very different breeds. A good example is skills: As I understand it--and correct me if I'm wrong--the difference between skill use in OD&D and 4E is that in OD&D the player says what he or she wants to do and the DM resolves it with a simple die roll or judgment call. In 4E, the player describes what he or she wants to do and then the DM issues a Skill Challenge: a series of skill checks that correspond with each action that the player wants to take.
Obviously there is a bit difference here. But what i'm wondering is, cannot a group play 4E "Old School style"? I mean, if DM Fiat is basically accepted, cannot 4E be Old School in that the DM can always supercede any rule with his or her own judgment? For example, in the example above the 4E DM might decide that a full Skill Challenge isn't necessary or desirable; perhaps, as with OD&D, a die roll is necessary, but it can be a gestalt roll, a combination or average of different skills. Or perhaps good roleplaying will bypass the need to roll dice at all.
I'm starting up a 4E campaign but was raised on 1E, and therefore DM Fiat is just an accepted--and necessary--part of gaming. As the 4E DMG itself says, the DM's main job is to create an enjoyable experience; if this means bending or breaking the rules, then so be it.
Actually, I'm going to go right out and say that the thing I really disliked about the style of D&D that, I think, started with 2E and continued with 3E--and is hopefully on the wane with 4E--is the so-called "empowerment" of players, as if D&D is a wargame of Players vs. DM, rather than the DM being a storyteller that creates a dynamic and responsive context in which the players act. If a DM wants to "beat" the players then he or she shouldn't be a DM; it is like putting a kitten into a headlock--why bother? If players feel like they need to be "empowered" and are always trying to manipulate the rules and argue with the DM, there are likely psychological issues at work that should probably be moved from a gaming session to a therapy session.
But my point is that "Old School Gaming" is more of a style than an actual rules set. It is primarily identified with OD&D, and to a lesser degree with BECMI and AD&D, but it is more of a flavor than a specific recipe. One can employ an Old School style simply by exercising the Gygax-given power of the DM. In that sense I think the so-called "Edition Wars" are a waste of time, or rather a misplacement of energy--not because there aren't real issues at work, but because it is seeming about one thing when it is really about another, like a married couple arguing over a broken glass when what they are really upset about is their broken marriage. In other words, what I see the Edition Wars really being about is different styles of game play, especially the "Old School" ad hoc approach, where the rules are more guidelines rather than Law.
OD&D was a simple rule set that allowed, no, required continual improvisation. AD&D complexified greatly, trying to put a rule to as many situations as Mr. Gygax could think of. 2E tried to streamline this a bit, or at least soften it with a lot of fluff; and 3E somehow complexified and stream-lined at the same time, by "correcting" the rules set with a core mechanic that allowed for infinite modifiers. It seems that 4E has tried to pull in the reins a bit, but still emphasizes rules-as-laws rather than rules-as-guidelines.
So rather than drawing up the battle lines between the "classic" editions--OD&D, BECMI, and 1E, and possibly 2E--and the newer editions--3E and 4E--why not discuss different stylistic approaches to gaming? Some argue that the rules themselves largely dictate the style of play; I say, let the rules be guidelines, not Absolute Law. You can use as much or as little of the 4E books--from the core three to whatever ungodly supplements will be coming out five or six years from now--as you want.
Which leads to the question: Is it possible to combine the innovations of the last 35 years with the free-form attitude of the original D&D? I personally think that D&D, as a rules system, has evolved; the core d20 mechanic, in my view, is better than THAC0, and much better than the combat charts; Defenses are better than Saving Throws, etc. But I also like to improvise and dislike when the rules get in the way of role-playing and creative thinking from the players. So, as I start my first campaign in years, I plan on taking a somewhat "old school style" to a 4E game: Or to put it another way, an improvisational and imaginative game style using a slick-running game engine.
To me this is the best of both worlds.
Obviously there is a bit difference here. But what i'm wondering is, cannot a group play 4E "Old School style"? I mean, if DM Fiat is basically accepted, cannot 4E be Old School in that the DM can always supercede any rule with his or her own judgment? For example, in the example above the 4E DM might decide that a full Skill Challenge isn't necessary or desirable; perhaps, as with OD&D, a die roll is necessary, but it can be a gestalt roll, a combination or average of different skills. Or perhaps good roleplaying will bypass the need to roll dice at all.
I'm starting up a 4E campaign but was raised on 1E, and therefore DM Fiat is just an accepted--and necessary--part of gaming. As the 4E DMG itself says, the DM's main job is to create an enjoyable experience; if this means bending or breaking the rules, then so be it.
Actually, I'm going to go right out and say that the thing I really disliked about the style of D&D that, I think, started with 2E and continued with 3E--and is hopefully on the wane with 4E--is the so-called "empowerment" of players, as if D&D is a wargame of Players vs. DM, rather than the DM being a storyteller that creates a dynamic and responsive context in which the players act. If a DM wants to "beat" the players then he or she shouldn't be a DM; it is like putting a kitten into a headlock--why bother? If players feel like they need to be "empowered" and are always trying to manipulate the rules and argue with the DM, there are likely psychological issues at work that should probably be moved from a gaming session to a therapy session.
But my point is that "Old School Gaming" is more of a style than an actual rules set. It is primarily identified with OD&D, and to a lesser degree with BECMI and AD&D, but it is more of a flavor than a specific recipe. One can employ an Old School style simply by exercising the Gygax-given power of the DM. In that sense I think the so-called "Edition Wars" are a waste of time, or rather a misplacement of energy--not because there aren't real issues at work, but because it is seeming about one thing when it is really about another, like a married couple arguing over a broken glass when what they are really upset about is their broken marriage. In other words, what I see the Edition Wars really being about is different styles of game play, especially the "Old School" ad hoc approach, where the rules are more guidelines rather than Law.
OD&D was a simple rule set that allowed, no, required continual improvisation. AD&D complexified greatly, trying to put a rule to as many situations as Mr. Gygax could think of. 2E tried to streamline this a bit, or at least soften it with a lot of fluff; and 3E somehow complexified and stream-lined at the same time, by "correcting" the rules set with a core mechanic that allowed for infinite modifiers. It seems that 4E has tried to pull in the reins a bit, but still emphasizes rules-as-laws rather than rules-as-guidelines.
So rather than drawing up the battle lines between the "classic" editions--OD&D, BECMI, and 1E, and possibly 2E--and the newer editions--3E and 4E--why not discuss different stylistic approaches to gaming? Some argue that the rules themselves largely dictate the style of play; I say, let the rules be guidelines, not Absolute Law. You can use as much or as little of the 4E books--from the core three to whatever ungodly supplements will be coming out five or six years from now--as you want.
Which leads to the question: Is it possible to combine the innovations of the last 35 years with the free-form attitude of the original D&D? I personally think that D&D, as a rules system, has evolved; the core d20 mechanic, in my view, is better than THAC0, and much better than the combat charts; Defenses are better than Saving Throws, etc. But I also like to improvise and dislike when the rules get in the way of role-playing and creative thinking from the players. So, as I start my first campaign in years, I plan on taking a somewhat "old school style" to a 4E game: Or to put it another way, an improvisational and imaginative game style using a slick-running game engine.
To me this is the best of both worlds.
If anything, Monopoly pieces are exactly the opposite: so balanced that they are just cookie cutters of each other with no mechanical differentiation between them whatsoever. 
