Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies

[Alan Shutko]

That is why the problem with "cocky" players arises, because you can "perform" really well, over the top, really, in an adventure for low level characters if you are a very experienced player, knowing all the mysteries of the 10' pole and dropping sand everywhere to look for traps, etc. Or having to use a listening cone. Because being an experienced player and really does make a huge difference.
What bothers me is that there seem to be people who hail this stuff as an outstanding roleplaying experience but claim that 4E is rather "gamist" and less creative.

You're conflating the play style of Tomb of Horrors with the entirety of old school gaming. That's like judging 4e solely on D&D Encounters. GDQ weren't all about dropping sand, or 10' poles. U1-3 were different. Night's Dark Terror and Veiled Society were different.

I'm glad that you've found a play style you like. But since you don't seem to understand old school play, please stop building straw men based on a misrepresentation.

 

[Hassassin]

Except one is written in the rulebook and therefore I do not question it, while I have to come up with a plausible answer for the other on a narrative level on my own. Now, how is that for creativity?

It's not really a difference of creativity or even plausibility, but mostly play styles. One style is about staying inside the character's head (method acting) while the other is about narrating both actions and circumstances (storytelling).

You can increase narrative control by adding things like action/fate/hero points on top of a system that by default is focused on method acting. I don't think going the other way is as easy.

 

[Lwaxy]

Of course treasure can be destroyed or malformed. Any any other mishap if you don't think about what you are doing. If 4e did away with that then that is one more reason for me to dislike it

Seriously though, it is up to the GM. Always has been.

 

[KarinsDad]

You're exactly wrong; either you haven't read the 4e DMG or you never reached pg 42.

I think a lot of confusion in this area comes from the rules themselves:


Environmental effects, attacks, and other forces have no effect on a zone unless a power description says otherwise. For example, a zone that deals fire damage is in no way diminished by a power that deals cold damage.

Environmental phenomena and other forces have no effect on a conjuration unless a power description says otherwise. For example, a conjuration that produces an icy hand functions in a fiery, volcanic cavern without penalty.

All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and necrotic damage. Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.


Target
Target: One creature
Target: You or one ally
Target: Each enemy in burst
Targets: One, two, or three creatures
Target: One object or unoccupied square
If a power directly affects one or more creatures or objects, it has a “Target” or “Targets” entry. When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your teammates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you.


This last sentence does not imply objects.

What you say is the general consensus of many players who frequent these boards, but not everyone playing the game is a rules expert like many of the people who post on these forums. They read sentences like these where it implies that the target has to be an object in order for an effect to affect it and they play the game for years with that in mind.

Many different aspects of the game rules tend to imply that effects only affect creatures (or the exact targets specified in the power) and since objects are rarely mentioned as targets, they aren't in many player's minds.

Just because the rules experts here on the boards do not read 4E that way does not mean that many players do not play it that way. Perception is often 90% of reality.

 

[TheFindus]

You're conflating the play style of Tomb of Horrors with the entirety of old school gaming.

No, I am not. ToH is an example of adverserial GMing.
Many other adventures, of which I have named 6 really important ones from the old days, however, are.

That's like judging 4e solely on D&D Encounters. GDQ weren't all about dropping sand, or 10' poles. U1-3 were different. Night's Dark Terror and Veiled Society were different.

I do not know the abbreviation GDQ. I also have not read anything from you about what old-school-game is for you, since you are only saying what it is not. In my opinion that is not very helpful for a proper discussion. But I have said more about old-school-play in my posts in this thread. Yet you fail to present the dear readers of this thread to your definition of old-school-play.

I'm glad that you've found a play style you like. But since you don't seem to understand old school play, please stop building straw men based on a misrepresentation.

Yeah, I guess I will stop discussing this you. I obviously do not understand the kind of old-school-game I played 25 years ago, do not know what it was about and have stopped playing, because I have picked up the new hobby of building strawmen.
Whatever.

 

[TheFindus]

It's not really a difference of creativity or even plausibility, but mostly play styles. One style is about staying inside the character's head (method acting) while the other is about narrating both actions and circumstances (storytelling).

You can increase narrative control by adding things like action/fate/hero points on top of a system that by default is focused on method acting. I don't think going the other way is as easy.

It is a question of plausibility. If you look at a character sheet and see a martial daily power you have to find a plausible way to explain why this martial power can only be used once. Why not 2, 3 many times.
And I think that some people have a hard time with that and therefore do not like 4E.

I also do not think that being able to narrate both actions and circumstances work against method acting. At least if you define method acting as being in the character's head. Because you are always in the character's head after defining the circumstances. Or does it make a difference whether you define the circumstances or somebody else, the GM, does that for you?

Of course, the question of creativity has nothing to do with old-school or modern roleplay. I wrote that because the OPs posts have the tendency to assume that mordern roleplaying is in any way less creative.

He wrote for example:

What do you guys think, is it a good idea to bring back that sense of freedom/verisimilitude? The up-side is player and GM creativity, and the 'remember that time' stories.

The notion that the modern way of gaming leeks out any sense of creativity out of roleplay is, of course, not true.

 

[Alan Shutko]

No, I am not. ToH is an example of adverserial GMing.
Many other adventures, of which I have named 6 really important ones from the old days, however, are.

Giants... Originally a tournament adventure.

I do not know the abbreviation GDQ.

I'm sorry you don't know how to use Google.

I also have not read anything from you about what old-school-game is for you, since you are only saying what it is not.

For me, U1-3 are old-school gaming. B*, X*, CM*, M* are old-school gaming. The post that started this thread is old-school gaming. Tucker's kobolds, and the post that started this, are old-school gaming. Old-school gaming is stepping outside the rules and creating your own outcome. Old school gaming is buying off the attacking army and directing them at the big bad of a previous adventure who got away. Old school gaming is finding an old lady in a village who can teach the halfling about sword craft the way she taught her sons.

In my opinion that is not very helpful for a proper discussion. But I have said more about old-school-play in my posts in this thread.

No, you've complained about Tomb of Horrors. I'm sorry that scarred you. It's a shame you were doing it wrong the whole time.

 

[Harlekin]

You're conflating the play style of Tomb of Horrors with the entirety of old school gaming. That's like judging 4e solely on D&D Encounters. GDQ weren't all about dropping sand, or 10' poles. U1-3 were different. Night's Dark Terror and Veiled Society were different.

I'm glad that you've found a play style you like. But since you don't seem to understand old school play, please stop building straw men based on a misrepresentation.

Actually, his post has nothing to do with ToH. He is describing what is often referred to as emphasizing player skill, which is considered a hallmark of Old School play.

I do agree with you though that there is a noticeable disconnect between older adventures and many old school players preferences.

 

[Harlekin]

It's not really a difference of creativity or even plausibility, but mostly play styles. One style is about staying inside the character's head (method acting) while the other is about narrating both actions and circumstances (storytelling).

You can increase narrative control by adding things like action/fate/hero points on top of a system that by default is focused on method acting. I don't think going the other way is as easy.

I can buy that, in the sense that 4ed forces you a little in the role of actor and director while in other games you can focus more on just being the actor. Of course that only applies to actions taken in combat and I would argue that most role-playing happens out of combat.

Also, I hope you don't describe any edition of D&D as "focused on method acting". Runequest, maybe. GURPS, maybe. D&D never tried hard to have one to one correspondence between players' decisions and PC's decisions. (HP, AC and levels all interfere).

 

[LostSoul]

"A standard encounter should challenge a typical group of characters but not overwhelm them. The characters should prevail if they haven't depleted their daily resources or had a streak of bad luck. An encounter that's the same level as the party, or one level higher, falls in this standard range of difficulty." 4e DMG pg 56.

Just for comparison:

"Everything is balanced." The DM should try to maintain the "balance of play". The treasures should be balanced by the dangers. Some groups prefer adventures where advancement between levels is swift. In such a case, since the treasures are generally greater, the monsters should be "tougher". Other groups prefer adventures where character development is more important, and advancement is slower. If the monsters are too tough, and if the parties are reduced by many deaths, then few characters will ever reach higher levels. (The DM should keep in mind that further supplements will detail character levels up to the 36th. It should be very difficult for a character to attain this level, but it should not be impossible).​