J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[HywayWolf]

Implied insults aside, you're absolutely right. The problems weren't with the DMs (who were great DMs in many other ways) it's that the heavy DM fiat style of gaming requires a charismatic, witty, mature, outgoing, confident DM who isn't preoccupied by thoughts of work, upcoming tests, relationship problems, children or a hangover in order to be done well. And that type of DM just doesn't come along very often. It's a great game when all of those things come together, but campaigns like that (again, IME) are catching lightning in a bottle. Even the same DM might not be able to pull it off on a weekly basis.

I'm not going to say that it wasn't meant as an insult, I'll just say that I was being frank. BITD D&D was played by millions of kids who had no clue what it took to be a DM yet the game flourished. So given that you could only find 2 out of 30-40 DMs that ran games the way you wanted means it is more likely that you yourself weren't a good fit for the game, not that the 30-40 DM that didn't meet your standards weren't a good fit for the game.

Nothing wrong with that. That is the reason that there are more RPG games out there than anyone has shelf space enough to hold them. It doesn't mean the game only works with expert and charismatic DMs, it just means it didn't work for you.

 

[Ourph]

I'm not going to say that it wasn't meant as an insult, I'll just say that I was being frank. BITD D&D was played by millions of kids who had no clue what it took to be a DM yet the game flourished. So given that you could only find 2 out of 30-40 DMs that ran games the way you wanted means it is more likely that you yourself weren't a good fit for the game, not that the 30-40 DM that didn't meet your standards weren't a good fit for the game.

Given that those DMs cover nearly 30 years of gaming and a pretty wide age-range, qualifiers like "BITD" and "kids" don't really apply. Also given that B/X D&D is one of my favorite RPGs (and one that I still play on a semi-regular basis), the "you weren't a good fit for the game" doesn't really apply either.

I like a good DM-fiat heavy game, with the emphasis on GOOD. Most DMs (even the ones who think they are good at this form of gaming) aren't very good at it. Unfortunately, the same set of skills necessary to make such a game work are also the skills necessary to self-evaluate one's performance, so the mediocre DMs are also mediocre at knowing they're mediocre. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that style of gaming. It's just not as easy to pull off successfully as a lot of people try to make it out to be.

 

[Ariosto]

I agree that a looser approach can be horrible when one depending more on the interest provided by manipulating rigid rules might be but mediocre. One thing I would observe is that, when so much depends on participant quality, it can help if the burden is shared.

As a DM, I am mindful that not everything needs to be kept from the players' purview. Often, a situation by its nature has nothing pertinent withheld; the players are in as good a position as I am to consider how it ought to be adjudicated. Their bias toward their characters can be partly offset by (among other things) the principle that rules will be applied even-handedly; what's good for them is good for the monsters, too! Keeping as much as possible above board, showing the degree to which the DM's rulings meet with the wider consensus, helps to build trust for the occasions when trust is necessary.

As a player, I appreciate being able to keep "in the shoes of" my character as much as possible; it's the referee's job to handle rules. However, I also like knowing that the DM is fair rather than fudging, and I prefer the open consideration of controversial questions to cryptic judgments from "on high".

 

[HywayWolf]

Implied insults aside, you're absolutely right. The problems weren't with the DMs (who were great DMs in many other ways) it's that the heavy DM fiat style of gaming requires a charismatic, witty, mature, outgoing, confident DM who isn't preoccupied by thoughts of work, upcoming tests, relationship problems, children or a hangover in order to be done well. And that type of DM just doesn't come along very often. It's a great game when all of those things come together, but campaigns like that (again, IME) are catching lightning in a bottle. Even the same DM might not be able to pull it off on a weekly basis.

Given that those DMs cover nearly 30 years of gaming and a pretty wide age-range, qualifiers like "BITD" and "kids" don't really apply. Also given that B/X D&D is one of my favorite RPGs (and one that I still play on a semi-regular basis), the "you weren't a good fit for the game" doesn't really apply either.

I like a good DM-fiat heavy game, with the emphasis on GOOD. Most DMs (even the ones who think they are good at this form of gaming) aren't very good at it. Unfortunately, the same set of skills necessary to make such a game work are also the skills necessary to self-evaluate one's performance, so the mediocre DMs are also mediocre at knowing they're mediocre. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that style of gaming. It's just not as easy to pull off successfully as a lot of people try to make it out to be.

The game worked well enough with mostly less than stellar DMs to spawn an entire industry so my position is that it ios very easy to pull off that style successfully..

I don't have a lot of experience with 3.5 and 4e but I have played them and/or watched others play them. From my brief experiences I would much rather play in a DM Fiat game with a less than stellar DM than in a rules heavy game with a less than stellar DM and players who think they know more than the DM. Just my druthers. 3.5 and 4e don't work for me, and retro works for you when you have the particular style of DM you like.

 

[sinecure]

Given his comments about "improvements" that could be made for OD&D, I don't think Mr. Tweet knows very much about old school game design philosophy. His examples of poor game design are actually "better" designs than the new stuff when old school play purposes are understood. I put better in quotes as better is always dependent upon the goal. To a good engineer a flower pot makes a lousy hammer.

This is in no way meant to impugn Mr. Tweet's long, successful, and proven ability to engineer new school games, ones adhering to a different design purpose and therefore theory. And it's not like OD&D & AD&D game design rationales were very scrutable either. At least not to many outside of Gygax and perhaps a handful of other fellow designers. Heaven knows later TSR designers seemed to make rules without understanding much at all about old school rationales after Gary left. But c'mon, he's suggesting the game was designed in order to tell stories. That's a red flag right there.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I understood what he wrote. I even understood what he wrote when he corrected your misunderstanding of what he wrote.

Aside from that, you seem to have identified a problem, but can you fix it?

Even more, I understand that if you still misunderstand what he wrote then its because you are just being antagonistic and not really interested in rational discussion.

Antagonistic? I show you antagonistic!
[sblock]
http://images.google.de/images?hl=de&q=antagonistic&btnG=Bilder-Suche&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=

I really had no idea it was also a medical term.

[/sblock]

 

[HywayWolf]

Aside from that, you seem to have identified a problem, but can you fix it?

Can I fix your misunderstanding or fix what you consider imbalanced player classes? Solomoriah made two pretty good posts on why he doesn't think that is a bad game design, I would assume you could understand what he is saying yet still disagree with him, so that will have to be up to you.

But if you mean can I fix the problem of imbalanced classes, then yes I can fix it. The solution is, there is no problem. So, problem fixed. I like to play thieves. They are the one class that has the most room for stepping outside its role. Fighters fight ... no one would put up with a fighter that wouldn't be first through the door. They can be as eccentric as they want, but when the excrement hits the rotary they better be standing like meat shields between the trouble and the weaker members. Clerics heal and clerics turn undead. No one will tolerate a cleric that was afraid of the undead. But a thief can be brave, a thief can be cowardly, a thief can be a braggart, a thief can throw himself into melee or he can slink around looking for a dastardly stab in the back. A thief can be any of those things and the other party members just shrug it off because thats how it is ... you just never let that damn thief out of sight.

Another thing about character and game balance, in retro it isn't important. If you see something you can't handle, just remember that Running is a game mechanic to.

Antagonistic? I show you antagonistic!
[sblock]
antagonistic - Google Bilder

I really had no idea it was also a medical term.

[/sblock]

I like it, but when I find out who disclosed our guild recognition signal to you they'll be doing penance.

 

[Ourph]

and retro only works for you when you have the particular style of DM you like.

I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

 

[SteveC]

Given that those DMs cover nearly 30 years of gaming and a pretty wide age-range, qualifiers like "BITD" and "kids" don't really apply. Also given that B/X D&D is one of my favorite RPGs (and one that I still play on a semi-regular basis), the "you weren't a good fit for the game" doesn't really apply either.

I like a good DM-fiat heavy game, with the emphasis on GOOD. Most DMs (even the ones who think they are good at this form of gaming) aren't very good at it. Unfortunately, the same set of skills necessary to make such a game work are also the skills necessary to self-evaluate one's performance, so the mediocre DMs are also mediocre at knowing they're mediocre. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that style of gaming. It's just not as easy to pull off successfully as a lot of people try to make it out to be.

For what it's worth, I'll echo your experiences, given that we appear to have similar gaming histories. A good GM makes all the difference in a fiat heavy game, because the weight of the game rests almost entirely on their shoulders.

I was lucky enough to play OD&D with Gary once (I was just a kid at the time, and didn't realize I was playing with the guy who started it all!), and he was a fantastic improv GM. When I hear stories about his games, I can only imagine how much fun they must have been. Similarly, I played in an Amber diceless game run by Erick Wujcik, and it was fantastic. From what I've experienced on ENWorld, there are a number of GMs who post here who run a game at that level of awesome as well.

Most games I played with either of these systems were not blessed by GMs of that kind of skill, which was rather the problem. As you say, if you're a mediocre GM, it's unlikely that you're going to self-assess yourself that way.

There's a lot that a GM needs to do in order to run a fiat heavy game well, and much of it starts with game theory. Reading a game like Amber or Burning Wheel or Dogs in the Vineyard can be a good start (I'd say "say yes or roll the dice" is the best piece of advice for a rules light game you can read, even if you disagree with it!) The question is, how many GMs who run old-school games take the time to really think about or study GM how-tos?

In any case, if I had to play a game with a mediocre GM, which we all have to sometimes, I'd much rather it be with a rules system that was better defined, since there will be more of a superstructure for them to rest on.

--Steve

 

[HywayWolf]

I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

If that's not what you meant, then I apologize. But out of 30-40 DMs you only consider 2 of them to be up to meeting the challenge of old school gaming in the manner that you think they should be to make DM Fiat work. So I concluded you wouldn't like playing old school D&D if the DM wasn't up to your standards of what makes DM Fiat work.