The other side of the coin

Forked from: Whats the deal with rogues anyway?

Elphilm said:

I'm not going to touch the subject of whether the following is an accurate portrayal of the history of D&D, but here is a nice blog post that highlights an interesting philosophical difference between "old school" and "new school" roleplaying, particularly when it comes to combat.

Click to expand...

I read that blog post and the comments, and this is what I thought:

"I'd never manage in that sort of game: my patience with thinking through the situation would quickly run out and I'd have to fall back on rules which, according to the quoted part of the article, would be a Bad Idea. I need a system for doing all minutae so I can save my brain."

My point in posting this here wasn't to say anything against that style of gaming, as I can understand why some people like it. But when I think about my reaction it occurs to me that I read posts on this site defending various sorts of gaming and when I think back on them I feel like certain sides some out seeming better than others mostly because that side is better argued.

Am I just imagining this? Are some sides of debates, such as "old-school vs. new-school (assuming that there is a new-school)" lopsided in terms of how well they're argued?

Oo, I got forked (which, in hindsight, would probably have been a better thing to do in the first place, rather than possibly derail the rather nice rogue thread).

There is a portion of the current Old School Renaissance, spearheaded by brilliant guys like James Maliszewski and Philotomy Jurament, that spends a considerable time combing through the finer points of what exactly constitutes the "old school" experience, partly because the revival of this type of gaming is still in its formative stages. The result is that there is a large amount of thoughtful and well-argued texts on the subject, whereas the need for such analysis is perhaps of lesser priority when it comes to the "new school", or whatever you want to call the current mainstream mode of play. I'm not sure there is anything more to it than that.

While there will always be individuals who are better or worse at arguing a given point, I think it's mostly a matter of gaming style preference and how the argument is received (it's human nature to be more inclined to credit something you agree with as being superior in quality).

For example, from the linked blog:

Traps, deception, manipulating other characters into fighting for you, and so forth are all preferred mechanisms for conflict resolution - anything that avoids the possibility of actually having someone roll to hit you.

Click to expand...

I don't mind doing this on occasion, but for me it grows old fast. Even in 2nd ed and before, I approached the game as heroic fantasy. To me, traps, deception and manipulation are often anything but heroic.

Don't get me wrong, I think that using a clever trap to even the odds in what would be an otherwise insurmountable encounter is the definition of awesome. Kudos if you can turn two of your enemies against each other so that "evil" is fighting "evil" instead of the forces of "good". However, at the end of the day, I like the idea of the PCs getting their hands dirty and taking down the (now weakened but still dangerous) enemy themselves (irrespective of which side of the screen I happen to be sitting on).

Heroes take risks. For me, that's a big part of what makes them heroes.

From my perspective, the style described in the quote would be assumed in a genre like Vampire (WoD), but seems somewhat out of place from how I approach D&D.

Of course, that's just my personal outlook and I can totally understand how someone who approaches D&D from a more Machiavellian perspective could love that style of game.

I have a pretty strong appreciation for the "old school" when it comes to D&D and remember a lot of good times being had playing in the lateral-thinking, game-within-a-game style. However, I have to say that most of these Old School Rennaissance blog posters make it seem like every second at the game table was a tense, intellectual, knife fight between the DM and players with brainstorming and underhanded schemery taking the place of thrusts, parries and ripostes.

While it was awesome when someone at the table came up with an idea about how to use a barrel of water, a 10ft pole and three dead orcs to build a cunning trap to slay the dragon without a single sword swung or spell cast, the vast majority of "old school" gaming (in my experience, at least) was still the PCs wading into battle, killing things and taking their stuff (preferably magical stuff) on a very personal level. The idea that combat wasn't very common "back in the day" or wasn't intended to be a main focus of the game is completely anathema to everything I experienced as a kid immersed in gamer culture in the late 70s-early 80s. If someone had come to our table in 1980 and told us that actually rolling dice was a sign that we "weren't doing it right", we probably would have thrown several handfuls of said dice at their head.

Ourph said:

While it was awesome when someone at the table came up with an idea about how to use a barrel of water, a 10ft pole and three dead orcs to build a cunning trap to slay the dragon without a single sword swung or spell cast, the vast majority of "old school" gaming (in my experience, at least) was still the PCs wading into battle, killing things and taking their stuff (preferably magical stuff) on a very personal level. The idea that combat wasn't very common "back in the day" or wasn't intended to be a main focus of the game is completely anathema to everything I experienced as a kid immersed in gamer culture in the late 70s-early 80s. If someone had come to our table in 1980 and told us that actually rolling dice was a sign that we "weren't doing it right", we probably would have thrown several handfuls of said dice at their head.

Click to expand...

Okay, this synchs up a bit more with my experiences.

While I would applaud that player's ingenuity, I would feel honestly disappointed that we slew the dragon without a fight.

I find it a bit odd to think that that style of play is considered "old-school". My group schemes to shift the odds in their favor when facing a dangerous enemy, regardless of whether we are playing 2nd ed, 3.x, or 4e. Do "new-school" players really just charge in heedlessly without ever considering the possibility of a plan beyond "kill it til it's dead"?

I think the disconnect comes from the fact that in my group no one who is DMing allows those traps to be a one-shot kill and none of the players expect it to do so. The trap hurts the monster and makes it easier to kill, but the characters are still expected to fight the dangerous (albeit weakened) foe. When we reached the level of save or die effects in 3.x (we never made it that high in 2nd ed) we ended up forswearing their use because we found them to be extremely unsatisfying. One-shots still occasionally happened from things like a max damage greataxe crit, but they were allowed to persist because we never could find a balanced fix that satisfied us. Such things just feel anti-climactic to us.

Still, taking a step back and assuming a neutral perspective, I can understand how such an approach could be rewarding for others. I guess we just don't enjoy our baddies dying too quickly.

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:

Forked from: Whats the deal with rogues anyway?



I read that blog post and the comments, and this is what I thought:

"I'd never manage in that sort of game: my patience with thinking through the situation would quickly run out and I'd have to fall back on rules which, according to the quoted part of the article, would be a Bad Idea. I need a system for doing all minutae so I can save my brain."

My point in posting this here wasn't to say anything against that style of gaming, as I can understand why some people like it. But when I think about my reaction it occurs to me that I read posts on this site defending various sorts of gaming and when I think back on them I feel like certain sides some out seeming better than others mostly because that side is better argued.

Am I just imagining this? Are some sides of debates, such as "old-school vs. new-school (assuming that there is a new-school)" lopsided in terms of how well they're argued?

Click to expand...

I think it's all personal preference.

I love the action violence fest of D&D as I play it. I like wading into melee or slinging spells, using optimum tactics. I wouldn't want to avoid such situations.

But I can see a point where I have to "think" myself into a situation that ensures that the fight I will inevitably get into is a "fair" fight (or rather not fair - it's just a fight I have good chance to win if I also fight smart). For example, tricking the enemies to divert their forces, isolating enemies, turning them against each other and so on. But basically, if I can reduce a conflict down to a few fancy words or a single smart idea and a single dice roll, it won't satisfy me.

If I'll try to define what I expect from any conflict resolution:
- Lots of meaningful decisions (e.g. discussions that affect the actual outcome)
- A feedback loop that consistently tells me whether I am getting closer or farther away from a goal. (my attack hits, if I push Lever A, door 1 opens but door 2 and 3 lose, the mayor demands an excuse for my insolent behavior, I just spent my last drama point)

I think that's one of the reasons I often hate "riddle" scenarios. You have only the pass/fail feedback, but you don't get a feeling of progress. There is only one meaningful "decision" - the one that solves the puzzle.

You have the same problem if everything is only resolved by talking to the DM. He might expect a very specific answer/decision and you just don't go there, and you have no idea if you're closing in or not. That's very easily frustrating - and I think it can be on both sides - the riddle scenario is actually pretty close to this, too, except that the DM didn't always create the answer. But it can be frustrating for the DM seeing his players stumble around the real solution and getting close, but never making the connection they need to make. I've seen this in play, too, usually as one of the dense player that just didn't get it.

Ourph said:

However, I have to say that most of these Old School Rennaissance blog posters make it seem like every second at the game table was a tense, intellectual, knife fight between the DM and players with brainstorming and underhanded schemery taking the place of thrusts, parries and ripostes.

Click to expand...

There's no past like a romanticized one.

The idea that combat wasn't very common "back in the day" or wasn't intended to be a main focus of the game is completely anathema to everything I experienced as a kid immersed in gamer culture in the late 70s-early 80s.

Click to expand...

This was my experience as well (though a few years later).

I imagine most D&D play back then consisted of, in addition to the frequent violence, contrived b*tshit problems being overcome using equally b*tshit solutions refereed by a person who can't differentiate between b*tshit and Shinola with any consistency.

In other words, it's plays the same as it does today .

Ourph said:

...I have to say that most of these Old School Rennaissance blog posters make it seem like every second at the game table was a tense, intellectual, knife fight between the DM and players with brainstorming and underhanded schemery taking the place of thrusts, parries and ripostes.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the idea that anyone intends to express. Certainly my own "old school" games don't abandon combat and looting in favor of a game of purely mental scheming.

I'd guess that old school bloggers are emphasizing the "player brainstorming" aspect of play because it's an area of distinction between the old and new D&D systems; as M. Mearls opined, the use of player skill, deductive reasoning by the player, etc. fits in better (and is more accepted) with the older systems. However, that doesn't mean that combat gets left off the table.

Another thing to consider is that many of the "old schoolers" playing now are probably running better games than they did "back in the day." Certainly that is true for me. I've learned a lot over the past several decades, and I have a better understanding of how the old systems work, because I've come to understand many design assumptions that went right over my head when I was younger. If I were to judge old school D&D purely on my memory and how I used to play and run games, I think I'd have a skewed picture. For me, "old school" D&D has always been fun, but it really came to life once I understood and embraced the design assumptions.

Ourph said:

I have a pretty strong appreciation for the "old school" when it comes to D&D and remember a lot of good times being had playing in the lateral-thinking, game-within-a-game style. However, I have to say that most of these Old School Rennaissance blog posters make it seem like every second at the game table was a tense, intellectual, knife fight between the DM and players with brainstorming and underhanded schemery taking the place of thrusts, parries and ripostes.

While it was awesome when someone at the table came up with an idea about how to use a barrel of water, a 10ft pole and three dead orcs to build a cunning trap to slay the dragon without a single sword swung or spell cast, the vast majority of "old school" gaming (in my experience, at least) was still the PCs wading into battle, killing things and taking their stuff (preferably magical stuff) on a very personal level. The idea that combat wasn't very common "back in the day" or wasn't intended to be a main focus of the game is completely anathema to everything I experienced as a kid immersed in gamer culture in the late 70s-early 80s. If someone had come to our table in 1980 and told us that actually rolling dice was a sign that we "weren't doing it right", we probably would have thrown several handfuls of said dice at their head.

Click to expand...

My experience also, It also occurs to me that alot of the lateral thinking and trap with the water barrel and ten foot pole would be considered nowadays by many as metagaming and a bad thing to do.

Philotomy Jurament said:

I'd guess that old school bloggers are emphasizing the "player brainstorming" aspect of play because it's an area of distinction between the old and new D&D systems; as M. Mearls opined, the use of player skill, deductive reasoning by the player, etc. fits in better (and is more accepted) with the older systems.

Click to expand...

I think this is where my disconnect with the OSR must spring from. Other than a few, very rare, people I've encountered only through the internet, I've never encountered a player of any edition of D&D (or any other RPG for that matter) who thought that players using deductive reasoning or creative thinking to find solutions to in-game challenges didn't have a normal and accepted place at the game table. I don't know if this is just a major difference in experiences, a gut reaction to the fact that newer games tend to have more defined skill systems or some kind of strawman being used to support a non-existent "edition gulf", but the idea that problem solving and lateral thinking aren't integral parts of playing a modern RPG is just completely alien to my gaming experiences.

I do agree that, in the absence of rules for a particular situation which we might be more likely to encounter playing an earlier edition of D&D, the main method of task resolution is for the player and DM to "talk it out". But in my experience, this is much more likely to take the form of running down a boring checklist...

Player: I check under the mattress for treasure.
DM: No treasure.
Player: I check under the bed for treasure.
DM: No treasure.
Player: I cut open the mattress to look for treasure.
DM: No treasure.
Player: I hack the bedframe to splinters to look for treasure.
DM: You find a 50gp gem in a hollow space drilled into the left, bottom leg of the bed.

... than actual problem solving or creativity.