Dealing with an "oldschool" DM

[Ariosto]

Storm Raven, why do you feel a need to put down what happens not to suit your taste? Do you really imagine that the old game was such a smashing success because so many hundreds of thousands of avid players found it not fun? It is still fun -- just not for you!

4E was created -- not exclusively, but primarily -- for you, and for the many who share your views. It is neither by accident nor by inevitable progress toward some objectively ideal state that the game has changed, but by design to target a defined market.

So, the demographics suggest that it usually behooves a 4E DM to moderate in mindfulness of, and deference to, such attitudes as you express. For people who prefer to play a game like AD&D, the most straightforward course is most often simply to play AD&D.

That does not void the case in which the particular players concerned do not share those stereotypical assumptions. It is sensible to put the fun of the group above the desires of one player. That player can join some other campaign more to his taste -- or, as suggested by others, start his own!

 

[Storm Raven]

Storm Raven, why do you feel a need to put down what happens not to suit your taste? Do you really imagine that the old game was such a smashing success because so many hundreds of thousands of avid players found it not fun? It is still fun -- just not for you!

What I am disputing is your contention that the new game isn't about role-playing and exploration, and that the old game wasn't about manipulation of stats. Neither assertion is true.

4E was created -- not exclusively, but primarily -- for you, and for the many who share your views. It is neither by accident nor by inevitable progress toward some objectively ideal state that the game has changed, but by design to target a defined market.

If 4e was designed to appeal to me, it missed its mark, since I prefer 3e. I've tried 4e, but decided to stay with the last edition.

 

[Ariosto]

I have not contended that the new game is not about role-playing and exploration; I have observed that -- even in the days of the old game -- there is a shift in focus that goes on.

In any case, your put-downs preceded that post!

As to whether 4E missed its mark, or my appraisal (or at least expression) missed it, I think the case more the latter. I was glossing over the differences between 3E and 4E, concerned rather with the contrast between WotC-D&D and TSR-D&D.

 

[Storm Raven]

I have not contended that the new game is not about role-playing and exploration; I have observed that -- even in the days of the old game -- there is a shift in focus that goes on.

And I think you are wrong on that. The focus is on exploration and role-playing, as always.

In any case, your put-downs long preceded that post!

"Old skool" gaming needs to be put in its proper context, not placed on a pedestal. The good old days often weren't so great, and many of the notions of "old skool" gaming need to die a hard death.

As to whether 4E missed its mark, or my appraisal (or at least expression) missed it, I think the case more the latter. I was glossing over the differences between 3E and 4E, concerned rather with the contrast between WotC-D&D and TSR-D&D.

In my opinion, WotCs efforts have outstripped those of TSR, and made the game system a more fertile one for interesting role-playing and wide ranging options. Old skool is horribly overrated by those nostalgic for their thirteen year old selves.

 

[Ariosto]

Storm Raven, I will work for the moment on the assumption that terminology is a genuine barrier to understanding here.

By "exploration", I meant the kind presently under consideration: discovering by experience (rather than looking in a book or module) such game factors as the distribution of XP or treasure. That can be extended to determining the nature of Monster X, Magic Item Y or Spell Z -- which might not be found in any book, however many were at hand.

By "role-playing", I meant dealing with the world from the character's perspective, as opposed to dealing with game-mechanical abstractions.

By "manipulation of fixed sets of data", I meant the opposed approach, as illustrated not only in your remarks but in this (tongue-in-cheek) bit from an old issue of The Dragon:

"You obtain surprise over three Clickclicks."
"Clickclicks? Oh, yeah, they're in Supplement Three. Hand it to me. And where's Greyhawk? It had a note about them." A pause. "We shout out 'November'."

 

[jgbrowning]

"Old skool" gaming needs to be put in its proper context, not placed on a pedestal. The good old days often weren't so great, and many of the notions of "old skool" gaming need to die a hard death.

The OP seems to agree with you as he used "oldschool" as a negative which kinda put the whole thread in a bad tone from the beginning.

Old skool is horribly overrated by those nostalgic for their thirteen year old selves.

Badwrongfun must die and those who like it are nostalgic fools!

You really don't listen to the mods, do you?

joe b.

 

[Storm Raven]

By "exploration", I meant the kind presently under consideration: discovering by experience (rather than looking in a book or module) such game factors as the distribution of XP or treasure. That can be extended to determining the nature of Monster X, Magic Item Y or Spell Z -- which might not be found in any book, however many were at hand.

And?

The only place I'd disagree with you here is that the game rules should be used except where noted. If you need to change the game rules on the sly to make something happen the way you, as the DM, want it to, then maybe that's an avenue that a DM shouldn't be pursuing and an alternative above board approach to accomplish that goal should be used.

By "role-playing", I meant dealing with the world from the character's perspective, as opposed to dealing with game-mechanical abstractions.

Yes, and?

By "manipulation of fixed sets of data", I meant the opposed approach, as illustrated not only in your remarks but in this (tongue-in-cheek) bit from an old issue of The Dragon:

Yes, and?

In none of your statements have you stated anything that I disagree with (save where noted). I have found that more recent editions promote enormously more exploration and role playing than the older ones ever did, especially older games that have been identified as hard core "old skool" (for example, crawling through giant dungeons).

Heck, look at Gygax and his buddies stories of play: names like Yrag (i.e. Gary backwards), or Drawmij (i.e. Jim Ward backwards), or Tenser and Serten (the same letters merely rearranged) and so on. Stories about how the players kept trying to outdo one another by obtaining more treasure behind the others' backs, and measuring each other by the size of their hoards, the numbers of their retainers, and so on. How much "role-playing" do you really think was happening.

I'm not saying that crawling through dungeons isn't fun, or that having big vaults of treasure hidden away and scads of henchmen cheering you on while you measure the length of your swords isn't an interesting game, but to pretend that this era set some sort of exemplary standard for intensive in-depth role-playing and inventive DMing is just rewriting the historical record.

 

[Ariosto]

In none of your statements have you stated anything that I disagree with (save where noted).

I am delighted that the misunderstanding has been cleared up -- tilting at straw men can be tiresome exercise!

 

[Lidgar]

This thread is not wearing a sombrero. It is not an acrobat, nor is it old skool. It may be a pile of steaming pile of dung, roll 2d7 and divide by three to find out how long the thread stays open.

 

[Umbran]

I just wanted to make clear that to me knowing the source of an idea and understanding the idea are two different things. I understand where the idea came from. I don't understand the idea itself.

I know that the 1e and 2e DMGs had language talking about how the material inside was to be verboten to the players. On the other hand, I just don't understand why this should be so, or why this is anything but a ridiculously awful notion. It needs to die a horrible unpleasant death as soon as possible.

Preferably, someone will invent a time machine and edit it out of the original DMG.

So, you don't understand it, or why it should be so...

...so it must go away?

Take your pick - either you understand it and you think it is bad, or you don't understand it, and are not in a position to judge.

Honestly, I read your basic premise as, "I know what is good for others - that which I do not like should perish from the Earth entirely." Some folks would refer to this as "One True Wayism" - you know the one way people should game, and anything that doesn't agree with that in your head is wrongity wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce, and should die. You come across as the man who wants to ban chocolate from the supermarkets, because he himself does not care for it.

I am all for you not using the idea in your own games. Go to, play how you like! But banishing the idea so that others cannot use it if they wish - that is hubris. Others may have fun with things that you detest. And that's okay. Really. The idea doesn't have to die - it just needs to not be at the table where you play.