An epiphany
- Thread starter der_kluge
- Start date
Sundragon2012
First Post
I believe your theory is flawed
Nope, not really.
I have as much control of my game now as I had in 1e and 2e. A DM has control of his or her game because someone has to be judge, arbiter, benign despot, of the setting being used. In many instances its the DM that actually creates the setting. What limits a DM's ability to control his game is his certainty in his ability to guide the game as necessary and to provide the necessary structure and boundaries within an adventure or setting.
Many DMs, including myself when I was a kid, doubted the amount of control I had. I ended up allowing any ridiculous characters, items, classes, etc. because my players would refer to some reference in some "official" book or in Dragon Magazine therefore it must be true despite the fact it could have awful repercussions in my game. I used to yield because Gary Gygax or Skip Williams or whoever wrote something somewhere and despite the flawed logic or unbalanced nature of the concepts involved I would allow it.
No more, not for years. I am the one who writes endless adventures, I make certain that the setting and adventures possess a certain integrity. I am all of the people and creatures that the player character's encounter. My player's don't decide things outside of their own characters (and what their characters have dominion over) directly. Their actions and decisions create reactions and ripples within the setting that in turn drive events, plots and adventures.
No, the version of D&D being played doesn't determine how much control the DM has over the game, the DM's level of confidence in his ability to decide and stick to his fairly thought out, thoughfully considered decisions. In the 3.5 DMs Guide I believe it still refers to the DM being the final arbiter and not the rules.
Chris
der_kluge said:
Nope, not really.
I have as much control of my game now as I had in 1e and 2e. A DM has control of his or her game because someone has to be judge, arbiter, benign despot, of the setting being used. In many instances its the DM that actually creates the setting. What limits a DM's ability to control his game is his certainty in his ability to guide the game as necessary and to provide the necessary structure and boundaries within an adventure or setting.
Many DMs, including myself when I was a kid, doubted the amount of control I had. I ended up allowing any ridiculous characters, items, classes, etc. because my players would refer to some reference in some "official" book or in Dragon Magazine therefore it must be true despite the fact it could have awful repercussions in my game. I used to yield because Gary Gygax or Skip Williams or whoever wrote something somewhere and despite the flawed logic or unbalanced nature of the concepts involved I would allow it.
No more, not for years. I am the one who writes endless adventures, I make certain that the setting and adventures possess a certain integrity. I am all of the people and creatures that the player character's encounter. My player's don't decide things outside of their own characters (and what their characters have dominion over) directly. Their actions and decisions create reactions and ripples within the setting that in turn drive events, plots and adventures.
No, the version of D&D being played doesn't determine how much control the DM has over the game, the DM's level of confidence in his ability to decide and stick to his fairly thought out, thoughfully considered decisions. In the 3.5 DMs Guide I believe it still refers to the DM being the final arbiter and not the rules.
Chris
A brontosaurus is thin at one end, thick in the middle, and thin at the other end.
Well, that's some of the story, but like most generalisations, it's a generalisation.
Other things that contribute to the oldskool feel:
Art. (That changed, and it's continually underrated in terms of it's importance to the "vibe" of the game and the ideas it generates. e.g. Apart from the cover, the Rules Cyclopedia is full of what I'd consider a style of art that doesn't deliver what I'd call a good "D&D feel". I think 3E art loses something in the colouration; just look at the great job WAR did on Deep Dwarven Delve, or 3E artists in general did on the promo, B&W concept art for 3E.)
Monster selection. (That changed...there's a lot of "flavour" staples missing from the core tome...e.g. where the heck is the leprechaun? Count the number of Dungeon magazine adventures that revolve around these little guys, then reconsider their usefulness beyond what CR they represent.)
House rules. (People seem to do it a lot less, gone are the 3-ring binders.)
Settings. (They changed...even the ones that are still about are perhaps approached in a different, non-pioneering way - e.g. Greyhawk may still be getting dungeons, but some of them are puportedly made by people who have no interest in designing a "tower of orcs".)
Stats. (NPCs used to take seconds to create, now you need a computer program to generate half a page of stuff...yes, you can fudge it, but that speaks of a design error which relates back to your original point - character design was made highly customisable for the benefit of PCs, not NPCs, which is why 4E could perhaps benefit from an abbreviated character creation chapter in the DMG.)
Fashion. (What's "in" now, and what's considered passe is different...dungeons have to "make sense" rather than "be fun", for instance...who would be caught dead doing a chess puzzle room like in Ghost Tower of Inverness or a puzzle dungeon like White Plume Mountain? Bedrooms, guard posts and empty rooms have replaced Fighting Fantasy-style weirdness...too many DMs & designers care what the kobolds eat and where the orcs go to the toilet.)
That's probably just scratched the surface. Quirkiness itself seems to be passe - the writing and ideas seem a bit more homogenised these days, as if there's a "way things are done" which everyone's settled upon subconciously.
I'm not saying it's all changed for the worse, BTW, just that you've missed quite a few of the "differents", IMO.
Last edited:
Sundragon2012
First Post
rounser said:A brontosaurus is thin at one end, thick in the middle, and thin at the other end.
Well, that's some of the story, but like most generalisations, it's a generalisation.
Other things that contribute to the oldskool feel:
Art (that changed, and it's continually underrated in terms of it's importance to the "vibe" of the game and the ideas it generates)
Monster selection (that changed...there's a lot of "flavour" staples missing from the core tome...e.g. where the heck is the leprechaun? Count the number of Dungeon magazine adventures that revolve around these little guys, then reconsider their usefulness beyond what CR they represent)
House rules (people seem to do it a lot less, gone are the 3-ring binders)
Settings (they changed...even the ones that are still about are perhaps approached in a different, non-pioneering way - e.g. Greyhawk may still be getting dungeons, but some of them are puportedly made by people who have no interest in designing a "tower of orcs")
Stats (NPCs used to take seconds to create, now you need a computer program to generate half a page of stuff...yes, you can fudge it, but that speaks of a design error which relates back to your original point - character design was made highly customisable for the benefit of PCs, not NPCs, which is why 4E could perhaps benefit from an abbreviated character creation chapter in the DMG)
Fashion (what's "in" now, and what's considered passe is different...dungeons have to "make sense" rather than "be fun", for instance...who would be caught dead doing a chess puzzle room like in Ghost Tower of Inverness or a puzzle dungeon like White Plume Mountain? Bedrooms, guard posts and empty rooms have replaced Fighting Fantasy-style weirdness...too many DMs & designers care what the kobolds eat and where the orcs go to the toilet)
That's probably just scratched the surface.
I agree on your point about art....and the far greater complexity of NPC creation.
However I must disagree with your conclusions about dungeons and whatnot because I am eternally grateful that designers are attempting to make sense of their creations in regards to fundamental mundane concerns like why are their monsters just hanging around in a cave waiting to be killed and robbed by armored thugs. And why do they all have gold anyway? Sorry, no insult intended, but I think that stuff is mind numbingly dull.
Plus, what are your thoughts about the DMs level of control in the various incarnations of the game?
Chris
Ha! 100% disagreement.
Give me nonsensical wishing fountains and magic mouths telling riddles over an empty orc bedroom with 3cp in the closet any day. My brother even came up with a name for this yawnful, latter type of dungeon-building which has become the rule (and a blight on the game, IMO): A "cabinet contents" dungeon.The epitomy of this is empty rooms for verisimilitude. If it were a film, the director would be fired for not leaving such timewastery on the cutting room floor. And funnily enough, it's only really snobbery in the P&P realm. The SSI and Bioware D&D computer games are stocked with puzzles that maintain a sense of verisimilitude, without filling the place solely with bedrooms, guardrooms and privies (and thus, just lots of combat and the odd no-frills trap to entertain).
Last edited:
Aaron L
Hero
Doesnt seem that way to me. To me, oldskool is more the feeling of adventure for adventures sake, kick in the door and ask no questions, with a more simple "its ok because theyre evil cuz theyre enemies of human(or elven or dwarven)kind attitude. Then you take your loot and blow it in Greyhawk city (or insert your favored urban splurging grounds) only to be broke in a week and want to do it all over again. Plenty of room for any amount of RP (or lack thereof), but primarily a "lets go get some booty" (in multiple senses of the term) motivation.
And dungeons. Lots of dungeons.
And just to let it be known (since Im in a chatty mood) I love those kinds of games. Just as much as I love epic character driven quests with deep personal motivation and heavy character portrayal.
Heck, I just love just about any D&D games I can get. Wish I still had a group to play with.
Or was that not the kind of response you were looking for? Sometimes I get confused, and my painkillers are having a strong effect on me at the moment...
And dungeons. Lots of dungeons.
And just to let it be known (since Im in a chatty mood) I love those kinds of games. Just as much as I love epic character driven quests with deep personal motivation and heavy character portrayal.
Heck, I just love just about any D&D games I can get. Wish I still had a group to play with.
Or was that not the kind of response you were looking for? Sometimes I get confused, and my painkillers are having a strong effect on me at the moment...
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Countertheory...
"Old school" feel is the assumption, "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character can try, you can't try it."
"New school" feel is the assumption "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character CAN'T try, you can try it."
Basically, old school feel is about limiting options (often with different resolution systems), which makes the game easier IMO for a GM in some respects... your players are basically choosing from a list of options, which you can pre-know.
New school thinking is about "you can do anything you want" and trying to come up with rules for every combination people can try. It's easier in that there are rules for things. Its harder in that as a GM, you have no idea what wild idea is coming out of left field.
Discuss.
--The Sigil
"Old school" feel is the assumption, "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character can try, you can't try it."
"New school" feel is the assumption "if it isn't explicitly mentioned as something your character CAN'T try, you can try it."
Basically, old school feel is about limiting options (often with different resolution systems), which makes the game easier IMO for a GM in some respects... your players are basically choosing from a list of options, which you can pre-know.
New school thinking is about "you can do anything you want" and trying to come up with rules for every combination people can try. It's easier in that there are rules for things. Its harder in that as a GM, you have no idea what wild idea is coming out of left field.
Discuss.
--The Sigil
ThirdWizard
First Post
I can see it.
A big change from previous editions is that the players are now supposed to know the rules. When the players know the rules, the DM loses much power. Back in the day, players were afraid to read the DMG because of the righteous wrath that would surely be inflicted upon them if they dared desecrate the book. Even in 2E that was the case. If the players don't know the rules, then the DM has got much more of a grip on the game. Not only through knowlege, but through the player's fears of what they don't know.
Ah, there it is. Players don't know. Playing, you have no idea what's next. That's nostalgia that we can't get back. We'll never be surprised that Darth Vader is Luke's father again. And, we'll never fear that monster/spell/ability in D&D ever again. Because, now we know. We know what it does, we know how to counter it, we know how to handle it. More power out of the DM's hands and into the players', but this time in a way I do miss.
So in with some good, out with some bad, and for some it equals out, for some its better, and for others its worse. But, at the end of the day, no matter who you are, its going to be different.
A big change from previous editions is that the players are now supposed to know the rules. When the players know the rules, the DM loses much power. Back in the day, players were afraid to read the DMG because of the righteous wrath that would surely be inflicted upon them if they dared desecrate the book. Even in 2E that was the case. If the players don't know the rules, then the DM has got much more of a grip on the game. Not only through knowlege, but through the player's fears of what they don't know.
Ah, there it is. Players don't know. Playing, you have no idea what's next. That's nostalgia that we can't get back. We'll never be surprised that Darth Vader is Luke's father again. And, we'll never fear that monster/spell/ability in D&D ever again. Because, now we know. We know what it does, we know how to counter it, we know how to handle it. More power out of the DM's hands and into the players', but this time in a way I do miss.
So in with some good, out with some bad, and for some it equals out, for some its better, and for others its worse. But, at the end of the day, no matter who you are, its going to be different.
Counter-countertheory:
New school - more stuff codified, therefore more stuff "off limits" because the rules have covered it and explicitly won't let you do it (or will imply that a crazy-high roll is needed, which amounts to much the same thing).
Old school - less stuff codified, therefore more stuff open to DM rules improv (and therefore player requests to do crazy stuff), depending on the DM.
Again, not necessarily good or bad; just different...and come to think of it, this is just a variation on der-kluge's original post theory.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
