Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies

[Harlekin]

I didn't even know there was a DMG 2 for 4e. At any rate I was not trying to start an edition war thread, merely communicate my feeling that over the years there has been a drift away from looking outside the character sheet for solutions to problems. It didn't start in 4e, and it won't end in 5e.

My question is: Should looking outside the character sheet for solutions be encouraged in 5e?

As previous posters have pointed out, it was encouraged in 4ed more than in any previous edition. And I think that trend should continue.

The idea that old editions supported creativity is a classical case of survivor bias: Only a small percentage of people that started playing with old editions are still playing them. And typically they are still playing them because they managed to coax a lot out of the old system. But they make the mistake to ascribe the fun they have to the system rather than to their own mastery.

 

[Harlekin]

You seem to be covering two issues:

Nope. As I said, this is not an edition wars thread.

WRT the Ochre jelly. No edition of D&D ever (including 3.x) included rules for training non-intelligent, hostile monsters.

The story, as I recall it, was written by E.G.Gygax in a Dragon Magazine. It described how the party saw the jelly lurking in a corridor intersection. It was large and formidable looking so they didn't want to fight it. Now jellies cannot see, in any edition. So the MU tossed a fireball at it from long range. Mindless or not fire hurts and the jelly retreated since could detect no source of the damage to attack.

The MU got a bright idea. The next day they came back and this time he rang the bell and tossed a fireball, jelly retreated. After a few more days of this and the sound of the bell alone was enough to drive the jelly away and the party was able to proceed down the corridor without a nasty fight and with the jelly functionally guarding their backs against wandering monsters.

This could be done, with the same rationale in any edition of D&D, if the GM liked the idea and agreed that you could use operant conditioning on something with the brains of a jelly fish. (Current research supports this notion in sea slugs, so I'd buy it.) Likewise it would NOT work in any edition of D&D if the GM did not buy the idea.

Allowing the PCs creative solution to work is not what I would consider Tomb of Horroresque hostile GM/PC interaction but YMMV.

It's a cute story. I find it highly implausible that a predator would a) return to a spot where he was badly hurt out of nowhere and b) that it would be able to survive sitting predictably at the same spot day in and day out, so the solution wouldn't work in my game.

It also requires assuming that the characters have a very modern concept of behaviorism, which I find jarring in a fantasy world.

These days, and this is not a mechanical feature of any system, the thought seems to be that it is not "fair" or "balanced" to allow sneaky bastard PCs to bypass or neutralize a threat with unconventional tactics. Likewise it is "unfair" for GMs to present a situation with no obvious or simple solutions.

That would be news to me that any modern game has an issue with the PCs neutralizing threats. And that GMs shouldn't be unfair has been true since the very first edition of the game, it is just codified better today.

I'm trying to foster discussion of where along the spectrum of the simulationist 'expolitable realism' to the gamist 'balanced abstraction' the good people of Enworld would like to see 5e set it's goals.

I think a lot of this difference is made up to defend old systems that don't have the ability to adequately gauge balance.

 

[El Mahdi]

...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 down-side is having to listen to "But how was I supposed to know using burning hands in the middle of an ancient and dry rope bridge over a thousand foot chasm was a bad idea? You're a mean GM!"

I don't necessarily think it's a good idea to bring that back as an official/default impetus of the game. But I do think it's important to show or present that theme of freedom/verisimilitude as an option to the game. One that's as valid and enjoyable (for those that want that type of game), as any other focus of the game.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
A comprehensive ruleset is a noble goal but there is a price. The price is a rigidity of thinking, there is a separation of player thought and character thought. The player has to metagame to try and accomplish an intuitive action. The DM has to navigate the myriad of rules subsystems to figure out how to judge the outcome. It is rule by interpretation vs. fiat.
So, comprehensive rules are good. They still will not cover every situation and with a wide set of differing mechanics can limit play by complexity and creating boxed thinking.

No, it really isn't.

Comprehensive does not mean endless lists of fiddly rules that cover every eventuality with a different mechanic. It can mean that. That's the direction that games like Rolemaster, D&D 3e and GURPS go. However, there are all sorts of rules light games with comprehensive mechanics that do not have a shopping list of fiddly bits.

Savage Worlds - any score over 4 and you succeed at your action. End of story.

There, a comprehensive rule that covers everything. Your die size is determined by your skill/ability, and the modifiers are determined by the DM (sometimes by fiat). Done.

 

[Andor]

There, a comprehensive rule that covers everything. Your die size is determined by your skill/ability, and the modifiers are determined by the DM (sometimes by fiat). Done.

That's not a comprehensive rule set, it's a universal resolution mechanic. D&D has one of those, it's called a d20.

And it completely fails to answer how to resolve something when the measure of success is not clear cut.

To repeat my earlier example. The Dweller-in-Darkness is chasing my PC down a corridor. The PC pulls out his Immovable rod, kisses it goodbye with a tear in his eye and activates it at knee height as he runs. He's hoping it will hinder the badguy long enough for him to get away.

So you make your check and roll over a 4. Yay! Success.

Oh wait, what does that mean? Did he successfully target the rod so it's at an appropriate height? Did he make an attack or create a hazard? (To use Savage Worlds terms.) Does it now automatically trip the monster? Does it roll a dex save to avoid the rod? (Or an agility check to avoid a hazard, in SW?)

Neither system covers this exact set of circumstances. Both have a general resolution mechanic. Both games will call for a judgement from the GM as to how this works. There are still just as many decisions to make in Savage Worlds as in D&D.

I personally would describe Savage Worlds as being far closer to 1e than to 4e as far as the design style I'm discussing here goes. Savage worlds characters are mostly stats and skills with a few edges, as opposed to lengthy lists of powers with feet. The playstyle encourages improvisation and GM/PC collusion towards crafting a thrilling story. While the GM section fairly bleeds hostility towards the detailed simulationist mechanics of 3e I couldn't find a single sentence about crafting a 4e style level appropriate balanced encounter.

 

[Hussar]

I couldn't find a single sentence about crafting a 4e style level appropriate balanced encounter.

For someone who just admitted that he knows next to nothing about 4e, why do you insist on repeatedly referencing it?

Here's a test - find a single sentence in the 4e DMG about crafting a "4e style level appropriate balanced encounter".

You're allowing your preconceptions to color your opinions and it's showing rather badly. Savage Worlds has a "universal" mechanic as you call it. But, it's also applied universally, unlike D20. In D20, the only universal is that when you roll a D20, higher is better. There's absolutely nothing in D20 (either 3e or 4e) which states that there is a universal target number.

As to the exact scenario, yup, I agree. Largely that's going to be somewhat DM's fiat on how to resolve things. That's what happens when you have a much lighter ruleset than either 3e or 4e. I mean, the SWEE weighs in at what, 200 pages, maybe? So, yeah, it's going to be a bit looser on resolving things.

But as far as it being closer to 1e, I disagree. In 1e D&D, you were given zero guidelines on how to adjudicate something. Someone drops an immovable rod and every DM needs to whip out his "Game Design 101 Book" in order to cobble together something that keeps the game going. And every DM will give a different answer. SWEE will give you one answer - the player succeeded, therefore, the results are going to be largely what the player intended - the baddie is slowed/tripped.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As previous posters have pointed out, it was encouraged in 4ed more than in any previous edition. And I think that trend should continue.

The idea that old editions supported creativity is a classical case of survivor bias: Only a small percentage of people that started playing with old editions are still playing them. And typically they are still playing them because they managed to coax a lot out of the old system. But they make the mistake to ascribe the fun they have to the system rather than to their own mastery.

A game system influences play through what is NOT included just as much as what is.

A large section of rules aimed at providing "support" on how to be creative paints a rather clear picture of the general tone and feel of the rest of the rules.

The fun to had by a roleplaying game rarely comes from any rules. It is generated by the people who participate in it.

 

[TheFindus]

These days, and this is not a mechanical feature of any system, the thought seems to be that it is not "fair" or "balanced" to allow sneaky bastard PCs to bypass or neutralize a threat with unconventional tactics. Likewise it is "unfair" for GMs to present a situation with no obvious or simple solutions.

I'm trying to foster discussion of where along the spectrum of the simulationist 'expolitable realism' to the gamist 'balanced abstraction' the good people of Enworld would like to see 5e set it's goals.

These again, are myths, in my opinion.
It is not "unfair" or "unbalanced" to overcome obstacles with no obvious or simple solutions. There are these kinds of challenges in any edition of DnD, including 4E. Why are you still riding the train of "non-old-school gamers are less creative than old-school gamers"?
What a balanced system provides is the chance for all characters to shine in all situations more or less on a mechanical level. No class is left behind or feels left behind. Now, while you and I might disagree if that is actually the case in any edition of DnD, "balance" does not mean that players can not come up with unconventional or smartass tactics. This notion is nonsense in my opinion.

Also, the thought that an adventure like Tomb of Horrors is not gamist is mindboggling in my opinion. And so many of the old-school adventures are nothing but gamist. The whole thought of having to use a 10' pole to poke into every hole that comes along in order "to beat" a certain dungeon or trap is in itself an invitation to a gamist adventure approach.

After reading hundreds of threads in which people are dissing 4E I find that most of the time it is not understood that in 4E the resolution of the action is described in a different way. In that way, "realism" can just be handled in an "abstract" way and a character's "exploitations" can be framed within a "balanced" rule mechanic. So I find it hard to see the game spectrum that you are talking about.

 

[TheFindus]

New school play lacks creativity in the same way that old school play equals adversarial DMing.

Yes, absolutely, I unuderstand what you are trying to say. And I agree with your sentiment.
But The Tomb of Horrors (and that is what I was talking about) is an adventure completely based on adversarial DMing, wouldn't you agree? And I must admit that this sort of game has never suited my taste. Plus, ToH is very incoherent and lacking a convincing story in my opinion. Another reason for me not to like or play it. Just compare ToH with the first Zeitgeist adventure and you can see a vast difference in quality of design. ToH does not stand the smallest chance if you ask me.
Now, this is just my taste and I defend anybody's right to like that kind of game. Sometimes, though, it seems to me that people who like this kind of game are very vocal (especially here on ENWorld) while those who disapprove dramatically are overlooked. Or at least, this is what I fear. I might be completely off, though. Those that like 4E and it's design need to speak up and defend this kind of game against all the mindboggling dissing that is going on.

 

[Alan Shutko]

But The Tomb of Horrors (and that is what I was talking about)

The reason folks are arguing with you is that Tomb of Horrors is an outlier in old-school gaming. It was written as a one-shot scenario designed to test players who boasted their characters could "beat any challenge". It doesn't reflect most of the gaming that people were doing.

You keep focusing on ToH while we're trying to say "hey, look at all this other stuff we did!"