Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
1e Play Report
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5843496" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>The subject of formal rules versus implicit and unwritten rules is something I've discussed at length at EnWorld. These "understandings" you speak of are simply rules which have the same force and purpose as written rules, but which aren't written down but instead are part of the "common law" or "table culture" of the group. They have no real advantage over formal rules, and several distinct disadvantages, not the least of which is the mental overhead of tracking all these 'understandings' without a concrete point of reference. A certain amount of 'common law' is desirable and probably necessary (no rules set can or should be comprehensive), but its not a selling point for a game that it requires a massive amount of informal rules to cover the most common situations in play.</p><p></p><p>One of my core beliefs about gaming, based on 30 years of play on both sides of the screen is that 'rules light' is an illusion. Rules light systems end up being systems with large bodies of 'common law' as opposed to 'constitutional law', but that over time these two converge in importance, meaning and impact on the table. This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are rarely if ever successful in the market. The more times you encounter the same situation - the character wants to climb a wall and he's not a thief - the more tempted you will be to resolve it according to the way that worked for you the last time. Or else, you'll be tempted to change 'the rule' by which you decided whether or not the character could climb the rope or swim the moat because you realized 'the rule' isn't working. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Meaning no disrespect, but your argument is contridictory and shallow.</p><p></p><p>For example:</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>In point of fact, this is exactly the complaint that I made. You are now agreeing with my evaluation, and not contridicting it.</p><p></p><p>If the DM has to "invoke whatever system he prefers to determine success and consequences" then this adds to the burden that the DM is under during play, and any burden that the DM can shift to outside of play is a good one. During play, the DM is simply under too much pressure to be expected to handle rulesmithing in the middle of play. Good fortune systems take time to craft and think through. They aren't something you want to ad hoc on the spur of the moment, and each second you spend crafting rules is a second you are not entertaining your players and pushing the 'story' forward. </p><p></p><p>I know "1E had LOTS of stuff like that"; what the heck do you think 15 years of experience means? The point is that if you have to ad hoc in a rules system for resolving climbing or swimming, whether you want a fiddly, gritty, one with high versimiltude over a wide range of conditions - swimmer is injured, just ate a large meal, wearing bulky armor, encumbered by 90 lbs., swimmer dexterity, swimmer strength, swimmer con - or one that is more abstract, less granular, and makes for quicker resolution, the DM is still responcible for creating those systems on the fly. That's a harsh additional burden. It's not a burden I can't handle; I may have my flaws as a DM but rules smithing isn't one of them, but even if I can 'pump the iron' I can still tell whether I'm working harder whether I'm actually in shape or not.</p><p></p><p>Again, my purpose here was to 'retro game' and communicate to players the experience of playing 'old school' as it might have been played 25 years ago. If I had said, "to heck with what the module designer has written here, let's just use a system I prefer, in the long run it would probably be a lot like playing the same module adapted to my 3e house rules. At which point, I probably should have handed out 3e characters. Again, it's not a strong selling point for the system to say, "You can throw it out and make whatever you want." Of course I can. I always do. But sometimes I have to throw out more than others. The sad thing is that in most cases, 1e didn't even give me something to throw out; it was absolutely silent.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are just so hopelessly far off base that I don't know how to begin. I don't expect players to know the rules at all - whether we are playing 1e or 3e. I have a new RPG player who has about 25 sessions in my 3e game and he still has problems working out the 'to hit' roll correctly. Disempowerment is not the same as lacking system mastery. System mastery shouldn't be necessary to empower the players. A completely closed black box system doesn't necessarily disempower the players if the player recieves adequate feedback from the system and has an adequate interface for making meaningful choices. He may not know exactly what rolls are made or the full extent of the modifiers involved, but he has still knows that there is some sort of non-arbitrary resolution. First edition fails utterly here, because its lack of an underlying system tends to mean that the real feedback loop isnt' between the player and the rules, but between the player and the DM. Eventually, if the DM is consistant in his rulings, the player may 'learn the DM', but for me to approach consistancy would require me to run 1e less as written (or not written!) and more like 3e. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is as much as saying that while it's true that the characers are one trick ponies, the DM can create rules that fill in the empty spaces to make the characters more well rounded.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>My biggest power gamer is the same player who also doesn't know the rules. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And by game you mean what? And why "playing" in quotes? </p><p></p><p>I'm not at all certain what you mean, but if I may make a guess based on the usual snobbery here, I believe you have entirely the wrong idea of what the proposition -> fortune -> resolution cycle looks like at my table. When playing 3e, "I make a diplomacy check", is not a valid proposition. You don't interface with my game via metalanguage regardless of the system we are playing. Rather, they may make a proposition, "Good morning, goodman baker, may I sample one of your wares.", and I may respond with metaexplanation - in 3e "Make a diplomacy check" - or I may resolve the situation directly by making a fortune check myself to determine the outcome yes/no (or degree of the outcome), and then respond with the in game resolution, "Certainly, m'Lord. Tha finest pasties in all of Amalteen we have, we do, and fresh too. A dozen for just 6 coppers, and you won't get a better deal than that anywhere."</p><p></p><p>Meaning no disrespect, but I'm not sure you have a clue.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My disenchantment with 1e dates back to much earlier than 1997. </p><p></p><p>All I'm saying is that I played 1e for 15 years and had many a good time, and the nostalgia factor for the three of us that had played in the older error was high, but that ultimately I don't think the way forward is by going backward. I'm sure for some groups it works great. For me though, the experience was a degree of shock at just how bad the system was. I remembered having problems with it, but not to this degree. Fourty-eight hours ago I would have probably been a much stauncher defender of 1e than I am now. Now, while I probably wouldn't fully agree with them either, I'm much more sympathetic with its detractors. I recognize now that my defense of 1e has always implicitly assumed that I'd run it in a way that is ultimately more 3e inspired. Indeed, I was moving in the direction of 3e with my own house rules before I gave up because the work load involved because rules smithing is hard, and that was the era of type writers, monochrome monitors, and floppy disks. Publishing your house rules back then was a good bit harder than today.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5843496, member: 4937"] The subject of formal rules versus implicit and unwritten rules is something I've discussed at length at EnWorld. These "understandings" you speak of are simply rules which have the same force and purpose as written rules, but which aren't written down but instead are part of the "common law" or "table culture" of the group. They have no real advantage over formal rules, and several distinct disadvantages, not the least of which is the mental overhead of tracking all these 'understandings' without a concrete point of reference. A certain amount of 'common law' is desirable and probably necessary (no rules set can or should be comprehensive), but its not a selling point for a game that it requires a massive amount of informal rules to cover the most common situations in play. One of my core beliefs about gaming, based on 30 years of play on both sides of the screen is that 'rules light' is an illusion. Rules light systems end up being systems with large bodies of 'common law' as opposed to 'constitutional law', but that over time these two converge in importance, meaning and impact on the table. This is one of the several reasons why rules light systems are rarely if ever successful in the market. The more times you encounter the same situation - the character wants to climb a wall and he's not a thief - the more tempted you will be to resolve it according to the way that worked for you the last time. Or else, you'll be tempted to change 'the rule' by which you decided whether or not the character could climb the rope or swim the moat because you realized 'the rule' isn't working. Meaning no disrespect, but your argument is contridictory and shallow. For example: In point of fact, this is exactly the complaint that I made. You are now agreeing with my evaluation, and not contridicting it. If the DM has to "invoke whatever system he prefers to determine success and consequences" then this adds to the burden that the DM is under during play, and any burden that the DM can shift to outside of play is a good one. During play, the DM is simply under too much pressure to be expected to handle rulesmithing in the middle of play. Good fortune systems take time to craft and think through. They aren't something you want to ad hoc on the spur of the moment, and each second you spend crafting rules is a second you are not entertaining your players and pushing the 'story' forward. I know "1E had LOTS of stuff like that"; what the heck do you think 15 years of experience means? The point is that if you have to ad hoc in a rules system for resolving climbing or swimming, whether you want a fiddly, gritty, one with high versimiltude over a wide range of conditions - swimmer is injured, just ate a large meal, wearing bulky armor, encumbered by 90 lbs., swimmer dexterity, swimmer strength, swimmer con - or one that is more abstract, less granular, and makes for quicker resolution, the DM is still responcible for creating those systems on the fly. That's a harsh additional burden. It's not a burden I can't handle; I may have my flaws as a DM but rules smithing isn't one of them, but even if I can 'pump the iron' I can still tell whether I'm working harder whether I'm actually in shape or not. Again, my purpose here was to 'retro game' and communicate to players the experience of playing 'old school' as it might have been played 25 years ago. If I had said, "to heck with what the module designer has written here, let's just use a system I prefer, in the long run it would probably be a lot like playing the same module adapted to my 3e house rules. At which point, I probably should have handed out 3e characters. Again, it's not a strong selling point for the system to say, "You can throw it out and make whatever you want." Of course I can. I always do. But sometimes I have to throw out more than others. The sad thing is that in most cases, 1e didn't even give me something to throw out; it was absolutely silent. You are just so hopelessly far off base that I don't know how to begin. I don't expect players to know the rules at all - whether we are playing 1e or 3e. I have a new RPG player who has about 25 sessions in my 3e game and he still has problems working out the 'to hit' roll correctly. Disempowerment is not the same as lacking system mastery. System mastery shouldn't be necessary to empower the players. A completely closed black box system doesn't necessarily disempower the players if the player recieves adequate feedback from the system and has an adequate interface for making meaningful choices. He may not know exactly what rolls are made or the full extent of the modifiers involved, but he has still knows that there is some sort of non-arbitrary resolution. First edition fails utterly here, because its lack of an underlying system tends to mean that the real feedback loop isnt' between the player and the rules, but between the player and the DM. Eventually, if the DM is consistant in his rulings, the player may 'learn the DM', but for me to approach consistancy would require me to run 1e less as written (or not written!) and more like 3e. Which is as much as saying that while it's true that the characers are one trick ponies, the DM can create rules that fill in the empty spaces to make the characters more well rounded. My biggest power gamer is the same player who also doesn't know the rules. And by game you mean what? And why "playing" in quotes? I'm not at all certain what you mean, but if I may make a guess based on the usual snobbery here, I believe you have entirely the wrong idea of what the proposition -> fortune -> resolution cycle looks like at my table. When playing 3e, "I make a diplomacy check", is not a valid proposition. You don't interface with my game via metalanguage regardless of the system we are playing. Rather, they may make a proposition, "Good morning, goodman baker, may I sample one of your wares.", and I may respond with metaexplanation - in 3e "Make a diplomacy check" - or I may resolve the situation directly by making a fortune check myself to determine the outcome yes/no (or degree of the outcome), and then respond with the in game resolution, "Certainly, m'Lord. Tha finest pasties in all of Amalteen we have, we do, and fresh too. A dozen for just 6 coppers, and you won't get a better deal than that anywhere." Meaning no disrespect, but I'm not sure you have a clue. My disenchantment with 1e dates back to much earlier than 1997. All I'm saying is that I played 1e for 15 years and had many a good time, and the nostalgia factor for the three of us that had played in the older error was high, but that ultimately I don't think the way forward is by going backward. I'm sure for some groups it works great. For me though, the experience was a degree of shock at just how bad the system was. I remembered having problems with it, but not to this degree. Fourty-eight hours ago I would have probably been a much stauncher defender of 1e than I am now. Now, while I probably wouldn't fully agree with them either, I'm much more sympathetic with its detractors. I recognize now that my defense of 1e has always implicitly assumed that I'd run it in a way that is ultimately more 3e inspired. Indeed, I was moving in the direction of 3e with my own house rules before I gave up because the work load involved because rules smithing is hard, and that was the era of type writers, monochrome monitors, and floppy disks. Publishing your house rules back then was a good bit harder than today. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
1e Play Report
Top