The "Old School Revival" - The Light Bulb Goes On

[Mercurius]

Because the world it which most D&D games take place is not the real-world.

This is why many gamers eschew the concept of 'realism' and instead describe this as 'verisimilitude' or 'internal consistency.'

In the game-world implied by the game-mechanics, those who wield magical power granted by the gods cannot use any but blunt weapons. It's one of the many ways in which the game-world differs from our own.

Speculative fiction takes our world and changes a number of elements to create a different world. This is one of those changes.

Maybe I misunderstand you but the way you describe "the" D&D game world is as if it is one world with a codified set of "verisimilitudinous" themes and tropes that should not be varied from; e.g. clerics must always on use blunt weapons, elves have weak constitutions, etc.

Alternately we could look at "the" D&D game world as a kind of archetype from which there are many possible variations. The published D&D material--from the OD&D stuff of the mid-70s to the latest Dragon article on D&D Insider--could be seen as a vast and detailed toolbox that an individual DM can populate his or her own world with (or craft his or her own version of a published setting with). So there can be many, infinite really, possible variations, with a range from "classic D&D" settings to more wild and wooly exotic settings.

I think this is an interesting observation/insight. His whole return to a simplified rule system in Lejendary Adventures makes it seem like Gygax was in essence saying, "Given the choice, I'd rather let a competent GM decide what happens than the rule in the book."

However, between AD&D and LA, Gary designed Dangerous Journeys (Mythus), which wandered into the insanely complex.

Yeah, this is interesting to see, isn't it? EGG went through a trajectory of:

OD&D -- > AD&D (including Unearthed Arcana) --> Dangerous Journeys --> Lejendary Adventures.

It was almost as if he boomeranged way out there with Dangerous Journeys in terms of rules complexity and "simulationism" and then started back with LA.

This doesn't mean his particular trajectory is "right," it just is what it is.

 

[The Shaman]

Maybe I misunderstand you but the way you describe "the" D&D game world is as if it is one world with a codified set of "verisimilitudinous" themes and tropes that should not be varied from; e.g. clerics must always on use blunt weapons, elves have weak constitutions, etc.

I never said or suggested that anything in the rules "should not be varied from."

What I said is, the rules-as-written for every edition of D&D include an implied setting. If a referee doesn't care for some part of the implied setting, then the referee can change it by a house rule to whatever works for the game-world the referee wants to run.

JeffB objects to some elements of that implied setting because they snap his suspenders of disbelief. My reply is, the implied setting is not our world and does not need to follow the same assumptions. That in no way suggests that JeffB cannot or should not change the implied setting to his liking; I have no problem ignoring or changing rules to realize the setting I want to run, and I fully expect others to do the same.

If JeffB want clerics who wield spears or bows or peashooters in his world, he's welcome to them. Suggesting that this is somehow an issue of 'realism' in a world which the implied setting indicates is quite different from our own misses the mark by a fair bit, however. The metaphysical effects of alignment - a tangible force or presence in the multiverse which can affect how powerful a character is, limit access to class abilities, and can be detected and manipulated by magic and other means - lack a 'realistic' analog, but if we play by the rules as written we accept it as an aspect of the game-world because the implied setting is not our world.

 

[JeffB]

Suggesting that this is somehow an issue of 'realism' in a world which the implied setting indicates is quite different from our own misses the mark by a fair bit, however..

You are TOTALLY missing my point, and frankly I don't feel like getting any more in-depth because it's really not all that important anyway.

Suffice to say I am NOT hung up on realism/simulation, but was using that as one example of many where the game changed over the years to appease/please those who felt the original rule did not make sense from a realistic point of view (and creates a snowball effect of more simulation behind it).

 

[Ydars]

Here is an interesting philsophical blog post, from Dave Morris (who was a prolific RPG and gamebook writer in the 1980s) that suggests that roleplaying games have evolved in a strange direction, with increasing complexity for commercial reasons.

Fabled Lands: People don’t want to role-play anymore…

I think I agree with Dave, that codified rules, whilst satisfying for some groups of players, turn many off the hobby at an early stage and that all of us get fed up with it all at some point.

 

[Celebrim]

You are TOTALLY missing my point, and frankly I don't feel like getting any more in-depth because it's really not all that important anyway.

Suffice to say I am NOT hung up on realism/simulation, but was using that as one example of many where the game changed over the years to appease/please those who felt the original rule did not make sense from a realistic point of view...

Hmmm... are you sure that you aren't the one missing the point.

In particular, I'm not absolutely convinced that the rule changed because of motivations you call 'realistic', and I am not at all sure where you get that absolute conviction. Speaking as a DM, I find that a lot of times players raise the 'realistic' argument for reasons that have nothing to do with realism, and everything to do with player empowerment and a sense of freedom. That is to say, the real reason often is, "I don't like such confining constraints on who I play or what I imagine myself doing." The appeal to realism is simply an attempt to cast their desires in terms that they hope will appeal more favorable to all at the table (and especially the GM), since they percieve that the request for player empowerment and freedom will be mocked, ridiculed, and denied.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think I agree with Dave, that codified rules, whilst satisfying for some groups of players, turn many off the hobby at an early stage and that all of us get fed up with it all at some point.

I don't see it. It's like claiming the prevalence of American cheese turns people off cheese. Maybe, but there's been alternatives around for a while, and there's probably a reason they're not contenders.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm going to risk a political analogy. In politics, particularly in the 20th century, one of the overriding issues is the idea of 'statism'. That is to say, people in the 20th century began to feel that virtually all the problems experienced by humanity where the result of dysfunctional government, and as a result much of the 20th century became a prolonged argument over the best way to organize a government. Everyone regardless of political inclination, from libertarian to socialist, from conservative to liberal, framed all of the world's problems as a problem of law and implied that these problems could be fixed or at least alleviated if only the right governmental structure was adopted. Personally, I find all of this bunk that only shows to me how little either the libertarians or the socialists understand about humanity. Please don't hear this and imagine you can explain to me how your particular government system fixes everything. Not only have I already heard it before from more famous and influential people than you, but this isn't the place.

I bring this up only because I want to use the definition of statism to reference what I think the real problem with PnP RPGs has been over the last 15-20 years. Every one in this argument is engaging in a parallel form of 'systemism' and imaging that the real issue is that the systems generally in use are wrong, and that what really needs to happen to attract new players or to revitalize the RPG scene is to adopt new systems. It just so happens that this thread is filled with people who think the problem is that we got away from the 'good old systems of the past' and that its these new fangled systems that are driving people from the hobby for whatever reasons ("Too much math!", says one linked to blogger). To me, this is all wrong and self-evidently wrong, though I don't much expect anyone to listen to me.

The real problem with the PnP RPG scene right now is not enough Game Masters. In the linked to blog, Dave Morris attributes the success of the campaign to the system being used. This is entirely wrong. The success of the campaign is due to the imagination and effort being put into it by the Game Master. The system is irrelevant. They could be using just about any system whatsoever, and the game would be fun and the people involved would be eager for the "the face-to-face experience and real immersion in the story that an RPG can give you" pretty much regardless of the system involved. The game is succeeding not because of the lack of rules, but despite them. Freedom from the rules isn't an old school thing, because old school could be as cramped and heavy handed as anything stodgedly insisting that 'damn it, wizards can't use swords, clerics can't use daggers, and halflings can't be thieves'. Freedom from the rules is a Game Mastery thing. Emmersion is mainly the result of system, it's the result of Game Mastery. Flights of imagination aren't mainly the results of rules, they are the result of Game Mastery.

So long as people go around looking for the simple solution to land in their laps in the form of the perfect set of rules, then the hobby will continue to wither. The problem isn't with the rules. If the hobby is withering, look in the mirror. If you don't like the fact that you can't find a game, start one. And if that's too much work, then we've in fact discovered or problem - we live in a world where the culture is such that it doesn't create good game masters any more.

 

[Mournblade94]

It's funny, because in many ways 3e was more pro- DM customisation than any other edition ever! Somehow that got lost in the public perception though...

And that is why I like Pathfinder and 3rd edition so much!!!

 

[Umbran]

The real problem with the PnP RPG scene right now is not enough Game Masters. In the linked to blog, Dave Morris attributes the success of the campaign to the system being used. This is entirely wrong. The success of the campaign is due to the imagination and effort being put into it by the Game Master. The system is irrelevant. They could be using just about any system whatsoever, and the game would be fun and the people involved would be eager for the "the face-to-face experience and real immersion in the story that an RPG can give you" pretty much regardless of the system involved.

I think there is some wisdom here.

However, I think you'll find that there is some linkage - the system isn't completely irrelevant. The number of GMs around may well depend on the details of the dominant system, because those details may encourage or inhibit new GMs from sticking with gaming.

Mind you, system details are only one thing influencing the uptake and keeping of new GMs. Most of the others cannot be obviously addressed by the people making the rules. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When the thing you can influence is the rules, all problems are solved by changes in rules.

Some of the factors could be addressed by players, but that would require players to actually take some responsibility for how things go. Changing players, on the broad scale, is far more difficult than changing a rule-set. So, when the only tool easily in reach is a hammer...

 

[The Shaman]

Suffice to say I am NOT hung up on realism/simulation, but was using that as one example of many where the game changed over the years to appease/please those who felt the original rule did not make sense from a realistic point of view (and creates a snowball effect of more simulation behind it).

While retaining features like hit points, alignment, and armor class?

If clerics using edged or pointed weapons is your idea of increasing simulation in D&D, it would be more of a snowflake than a snowball.