The other side of the coin

[Cadfan]

The only thing I can contribute is to confirm that many of the old school players I know do not often use the actual rules of the game. Instead they engage in a form of mother-may-I and storytelling, mixed with mcguyver like fantasy engineering.

When people ask me the biggest difference between 4e and previous editions, I generally tell them that the game no longer supports that sort of mcguyver stuff. you can still do the mother-may-I and the storytelling, since that's system independent. But the fantasy engineering is almost explicitly unsupported. I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, creative fantasy engineering has led to some of the most memorable moments in gaming that I've ever had. Its also led to some the lamest epochs.

 

[Cadfan]

Oh, and Knights of the Dinner Table is probably the best example of how old school gaming worked in practice. You even have the personality types. The two guys to the left of the table are the old school suckers who keep trying to win things by manipulating the rules. The girl has half attained enlightenment, and recognizes that the only way to win is not to play- so she tries to roleplay everything out rather than touch dice. And the big guy has completely transcended the matrix- he understands that the metagame is the true key to victory, and he plays almost exclusively on that level. And the unfortunate DM is the sort who wants to run a general, all around decent game with some roleplaying, some combat, and a heroic climax, but doesn't understand that neither he nor the game system he's using reward that sort of gameplay.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh, and Knights of the Dinner Table is probably the best example of how old school gaming worked in practice. You even have the personality types. The two guys to the left of the table are the old school suckers who keep trying to win things by manipulating the rules. The girl has half attained enlightenment, and recognizes that the only way to win is not to play- so she tries to roleplay everything out rather than touch dice. And the big guy has completely transcended the matrix- he understands that the metagame is the true key to victory, and he plays almost exclusively on that level. And the unfortunate DM is the sort who wants to run a general, all around decent game with some roleplaying, some combat, and a heroic climax, but doesn't understand that neither he nor the game system he's using reward that sort of gameplay.

I only have one response to this......................Hackmaster is serious business!!!

 

[Fanaelialae]

When people ask me the biggest difference between 4e and previous editions, I generally tell them that the game no longer supports that sort of mcguyver stuff.

I don't really see this.

In the campaign I'm currently running, one of my players wanted to play a human/spider hybrid so we homebrewed a race (doesn't have a natural climb speed, but gets the Spider Climb ability as well as the ability to create webbing). We also reflavored his powers to be more spider-like (acidic venoms and webs).

I've only run two games so far, but he already:
1) Used one of his encounter powers (a ranged burst that generates a webbed zone for a round) to span a large gap (in conjunction with his Spider Climb ability) in order to escape the Solo pursuing him.
2) Wove sticky bags of webbing and inflated them to use as makeshift flotation devices for himself and his companions (they had to swim across an underground lake).
3) Created a makeshift bridge using two web "ropes" to span a 30' gap between a pair of windows so that his companions could escape a house that was rapidly filling with an unending horde of zombies.
4) Created a safety harness so that he could safely disable a mechanism that was being "guarded" by another trap (he made the Athletics checks to climb over to it, then secured his safety line and dangled over the mechanism at an angle that the trap's creators had never anticipated).

Admittedly, this was pretty basic level mcguyvering, but with only two game sessions I haven't been able to give them a ton of opportunities yet. He was also using homebrewed/reflavored abilities, but most of that could have been done by any character with some equipment and creative use of skills/powers.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I think dissecting play styles and different market segments of thinking about RPGs is old Skool.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think this is where my disconnect with the OSR must spring from...I've never encountered a player of any edition of D&D...who thought that players using deductive reasoning or creative thinking to find solutions to in-game challenges didn't have a normal and accepted place at the game table.

I doubt that it's really a disconnect -- sounds more like a misunderstanding, to me. I'm not saying that people playing modern D&D think this. (Much like I don't think bloggers are promoting traditional D&D as a cerebral game at the expense of combat.) It's not one or the other, or black and white, but a mix of the two.

The difference is in the exact mix, and where and how the reasoning and creative thinking is applied. Here's what Mike Mearls said in that liked quote, above:

I think that OD&D's open nature makes the players more likely to accept things in the game as elements of fiction, rather than as game elements. The players reacted more by thinking "What's the logical thing for an adventurer to do?" rather than "What's the logical thing to do according to the rules?"

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[OD&D players] are probably more likely to accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).

I think there are pros and cons to either approach. I agree with Mike when he says the games cater to different needs (or preferences). They're not the same -- they have different approaches and different styles. Mike's not putting down 4e or trying to set up a straw-man with his statement. Neither am I.

...the idea that problem solving and lateral thinking aren't integral parts of playing a modern RPG is just completely alien to my gaming experiences.

Again, it's where and how this kind of thing is applied. Personally, I think skill systems have a big influence on it. The presence of a skill system to cover certain actions encourages the use of that system (for fairness, consistency, etc) and discourage doing an "end-run" around it with "player knowledge." That's not inherently good or bad -- it's just the way it is.

My comments about player skill and reasoning aren't meant to put down modern editions, or claim that player skill and creative thinking have no place in modern D&D systems. I don't believe that. Nevertheless, I do think there's a real difference in approaches, and in how and to what degree these things are applied and accepted.

...in my experience, [dialogue based task resolution] is much more likely to take the form of running down a boring checklist...than actual problem solving or creativity.

I think that's a real danger with the dialogue-based approach. You have to find a balance.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think that's a real danger with the dialogue-based approach. You have to find a balance.

I will go a bit further and say that the talent and temperment of the DM carry a much greater weight in the dialogue approach style of game.

An adversarial DM or an inflexible one that only permits the "correct" solution to solve a problem can ruin the old school gaming experience.

Old school games do not have to be an endless string of mother-may-I resolutions any more than modern games have to be reduced to an endless roll-playing exercise. In either case, those playing the game are the largest factor in its success or failure.

 

[Ydars]

I agree with Exploder!

I was once DMing B1: The Lost City, using the "Old Skool" style (without knowing what that was back then) and it was one of the most awesome games I have ever run. You could cut the atmosphere with a knife and everyone was on complete tenderhooks. It was so tense and danger-filled that everyone loved it. They were stalking down the corridors, trying to avoid the monsters and find food and water and arrows, whilst scouting out the pyramid. Nothing special about the set-up, it was all in the execution.

Similarly, my WORST ever D&D experience was the one time I tried playing AD&D: it was a boring "advance ten feet, check for traps" etc where the DM had us describe exactly what we did and it was GOTCHA the moment we let our guards down. What the DM didn't know if that when he finally did kill our characters, it was a mercy killing. I don't think I ever played or DMed AD&D again and indeed it put me off D&D until 3.5 came around.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Interesting, when I read Emotion Engineering in Videogames thanks to a link found here Science-Fiction Rollenspiel Blog : /design/spass_vs_langeweile.flux (German), I was reminded of my post above regarding decisions/choices...

 

[Ourph]

Again, it's where and how this kind of thing is applied. Personally, I think skill systems have a big influence on it. The presence of a skill system to cover certain actions encourages the use of that system (for fairness, consistency, etc) and discourage doing an "end-run" around it with "player knowledge." That's not inherently good or bad -- it's just the way it is.

I'll agree that the presence of a skill system encourages the use of said skill system. That's as near a tautology as makes no difference. However, I think the distinctions being raised are blown way our of proportion in terms of the actual play and the effect they have on the feel of that play. Let's take Mearls' example of the trap scenario...

OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs. For me, in OD&D things are fast, loose, and improvised...[OD&D players] are probably more likely to accept...a game that requires a bit more deductive reasoning (I disable a trap by wedging an iron spike into the lever that activates it) as opposed to D&D 4 (I disable a trap by finding the lever then making a skill check).

... to me, the difference between the way a system with skill rules and a system without skill rules plays out simply comes down to this...

[System without skill rules]
DM: You find a lever that activates the trap door.
Player: I wedge an iron spike in the lever mechanism to deactivate it.
DM: You successfully deactivate the trap.

[System with skill rules]
DM: You find a lever that activates the trap door.
Player: I try to deactivate the lever by wedging an iron spike into the mechanism. ::rolls::
DM: You successfully deactivate the trap.

I suppose some people might find those two scenarios different enough to care about it one way or the other. The main difference, as far as I can see, is that in the first scenario, all the player has to do to succeed is say the "magic words" (spike/wedge/lever), while in the second, the player describes an action and then needs to make a successful skill check to succeed. From my personal perspective, that difference is so minute that I likely wouldn't notice it in actual play. I certainly wouldn't notice it to the extent that I would base two entire "schools" of game-play on it.

My comments about player skill and reasoning aren't meant to put down modern editions, or claim that player skill and creative thinking have no place in modern D&D systems. I don't believe that. Nevertheless, I do think there's a real difference in approaches, and in how and to what degree these things are applied and accepted.

I don't think you've been insulting at all. That's certainly not my point. I guess I've just never been exposed to the types of modern play or "old school" play that you have experienced. Either that, or the differences matter a lot more to other people than they do to me. There are SO many differences between the gamer culture of the late 70s/early 80s and today that (to me) are far more significant than the amount of deductive reasoning/problem solving assumed by the game that I just can't wrap my head around how someone would pick that out as THE major, defining difference.