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
*TTRPGs General
4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"
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="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4533591" data-attributes="member: 30001"><p>I've been seeing a core idea expressed here on the internet at least as far back as when 3E came out and it barely makes any sense to me at all.</p><p> </p><p>IME "simulationism" was much more then norm in the earlier editions. The idea that people intentionally made 1E vague I think it overstating the reality. Much of the vagueness and reliance on DM-fiat was a result of the evolution of the game and not some intentional design philosophy. IME alternate rule sets like Dragon Magazine, the basic version of DnD etc. were mined by DMs to establish the rule set. In the end, I just don't see the claims that 1E was rules-light in practice as being back up by what I remember FWIW. Consider the wargaming background of many of the parcicipants in the early days.</p><p> </p><p>And when it comes to "breaking rules" I just don't read how 3E or 4E really makes that any more difficult than it was in earlier editions. The example I think of is climbing. Let's say that the rules say that a wall of a certain nature has a climb check DC of 15. What would the circumstances be for "breaking" this rule? You do realize that circumstantial modifiers are part of the rules, right? Using circumstantial modifiers isn't breaking or bending anything. The DM is well within his rights AFAICT to say that walls on Tuesdays are +10 to their DCs - it's his world and his walls. Sure, the players might think that's stupid, but they also might think that elves and orcs banding together in an alliance is stupid. Ultimately the physics of the campaign world is to be determined by the DM, and this is RAW. Nothing in any of the editions contradicts this.</p><p> </p><p>So what's left under the heading of "bending the rules" by the DM are only the most extreme cases of a complete disregard for letting the circumstances dictate the probabilities. And really, I can't actually think of an example that I couldn't come up with circumstance modifiers to justify. The basic philosophy of every edition of DnD was that both players and the DM would roll dice for the outcome, and that the DM would be a "neutral arbiter" and that his judging of the game would involve determining the circumstances surrounding a particular event, and then determine the chance of success/failure based on these circumstances, and that the judging of those circumstances was ideally to be done in a consistent manner (example - if last week I got a +5 for climbing while wearing spiked gauntlets, I should get the same thing this week barring additional circumstances). No edition of DnD IME has ever tried to prevent this basic DMing philosophy.</p><p> </p><p>If the DM is, in fact, creating a more "enjoyable experience" then I would think he wouldn't have much explaining to do about breaking the rules since the players would all agree what an improvement his change would be. If the DMs and all the players at the table think that limiting halflings to 4th level as fighters makes a more enjoyable and old-school experience then IMO that pretty much settles the issue. The DM wouldn't need the official rule set to validate this judgement in this case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4533591, member: 30001"] I've been seeing a core idea expressed here on the internet at least as far back as when 3E came out and it barely makes any sense to me at all. IME "simulationism" was much more then norm in the earlier editions. The idea that people intentionally made 1E vague I think it overstating the reality. Much of the vagueness and reliance on DM-fiat was a result of the evolution of the game and not some intentional design philosophy. IME alternate rule sets like Dragon Magazine, the basic version of DnD etc. were mined by DMs to establish the rule set. In the end, I just don't see the claims that 1E was rules-light in practice as being back up by what I remember FWIW. Consider the wargaming background of many of the parcicipants in the early days. And when it comes to "breaking rules" I just don't read how 3E or 4E really makes that any more difficult than it was in earlier editions. The example I think of is climbing. Let's say that the rules say that a wall of a certain nature has a climb check DC of 15. What would the circumstances be for "breaking" this rule? You do realize that circumstantial modifiers are part of the rules, right? Using circumstantial modifiers isn't breaking or bending anything. The DM is well within his rights AFAICT to say that walls on Tuesdays are +10 to their DCs - it's his world and his walls. Sure, the players might think that's stupid, but they also might think that elves and orcs banding together in an alliance is stupid. Ultimately the physics of the campaign world is to be determined by the DM, and this is RAW. Nothing in any of the editions contradicts this. So what's left under the heading of "bending the rules" by the DM are only the most extreme cases of a complete disregard for letting the circumstances dictate the probabilities. And really, I can't actually think of an example that I couldn't come up with circumstance modifiers to justify. The basic philosophy of every edition of DnD was that both players and the DM would roll dice for the outcome, and that the DM would be a "neutral arbiter" and that his judging of the game would involve determining the circumstances surrounding a particular event, and then determine the chance of success/failure based on these circumstances, and that the judging of those circumstances was ideally to be done in a consistent manner (example - if last week I got a +5 for climbing while wearing spiked gauntlets, I should get the same thing this week barring additional circumstances). No edition of DnD IME has ever tried to prevent this basic DMing philosophy. If the DM is, in fact, creating a more "enjoyable experience" then I would think he wouldn't have much explaining to do about breaking the rules since the players would all agree what an improvement his change would be. If the DMs and all the players at the table think that limiting halflings to 4th level as fighters makes a more enjoyable and old-school experience then IMO that pretty much settles the issue. The DM wouldn't need the official rule set to validate this judgement in this case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"
Top