Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[pemerton]

But what about the analogy of clouds? I'm not saying its a "logic fail" to not like fiat or rule zero at all in your campaign; I'm saying its a logic fail to make no distinction between mild and judicious use of it, and excessive power-mongering. I've found that there is a huge difference.

For me, this goes to the issue of analysis.

I personaly don't find the contrast between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" helpful. For me, the useful distinctions are between different domains of gameplay or - which for me comes to the same thing - different ways in which content is contributed to the shared fiction.

Backstory, scene-framing, outcomes of action resolution: these are the categories that I think in (not invented by me - I'm under the influence of Ron Edwards here), and I think the GM has a different relationship to each of them (and likewise the other players).

 

[S'mon]

Also, how does one play an Excalibur-like game using Moldvay Basic?

Start everyone at 10,000 XP, all PCs are Fighters, Morale rules apply to PCs?

But yeah, I agree with you (unsurprisingly). I love Moldvay for picaresque swords & sorcery, with frequent bathos - Thieves' World, or Lankhmar if you don't know whether your PC is
Fafhrd or one of his short-lived rivals. When I tried to use 4e for picaresque sandboxing it
quickly transformed into Epic Fantasy.

 

[Mercurius]

Start everyone at 10,000 XP, all PCs are Fighters, Morale rules apply to PCs?

Or just play Pendragon.

 

[S'mon]

Or just play Pendragon.

Pendragon =/= Moldvay Basic. Fail.

 

[MJS]

I am the Dungeon Master. All who enter here are my bitches.
Choose a safe word and have a seat.

 

[Mercurius]

Pendragon =/= Moldvay Basic. Fail.

Thank you, Master of the Obvious. Somebody have a case of the Mondays?

 

[ExploderWizard]

What if, instead, some of your decisions and actions are meaningless, and some aren't, but you don't know which ones or why? And as a player you can't know the result of an action in advance, but can make some educated guesses?

Then, as a player, you're merely making decisions on the same level that the character is.

Almost all decisions and actions should have meaning. The importance of that meaning may vary wildly. The decision to go East or West at the bottom of a staircase has an important meaning to the characters but the players probably won't be aware of that importance when making that decision. Some very important decisions will be or can be made blindly if the players do not have or seek information before making those decisions. I like to provide as much information as possible and reward those who seek more out. The actual decisions made using gained information won't actually be transparent but at least they will be somewhat more informed.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd like to take a quick look at the 4e Healing Surge. Obviously this is a "new thing" as it didn't exist prior to 4e. Mechanically, it is a unit defined as "1/4 of your maximum HP". As it interacts with the sytem you have (i) a number per day (PC build choices) which unlock latent HP, (ii) unlockable during (short/extended) rests up to your max HS/day, (iii) unlockable in combat only when specified by a triggering feature/power.

Now what is this thing and how does it relate to the question posed at the outset of this thread? It is clearly not a "unit of latent meat." Within the scope of noncombat conflict resolution, what could loss of a Healing Surge mean? Could it mean morale loss? Mental anguish? Embarassment? Losing your cool? Shame? Rotten trail rations? Having the wind knocked out of you? Bewilderment or disorientation? Exhaustion? Dehydration? Starvation? Asphyxiation? Tweaked ankle? Infection? The flu? Seasickness? The frustration and urgency of reaching into your quiver for an arrow and finding only a few remaining? Getting hopelessly lost?

If the above is true, then does this amorphous, elusive "thing" expand or contract the conceptual narrative space? Does it open or close the imagination?

 

[Umbran]

I personaly don't find the contrast between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" helpful. For me, the useful distinctions are between different domains of gameplay or - which for me comes to the same thing - different ways in which content is contributed to the shared fiction.

But the contrast should still be valuable within each domain. And, from there, you have some point where the contrast is still valid in aggregate - a place where someone is so excessive in one or more domains that they are simply excessive overall.

Backstory, scene-framing, outcomes of action resolution: these are the categories that I think in

If your chosen framework makes the statements of others less useful... that's kind of your own problem, isn't it? I mean, it is your choice to restrict yourself to that framework. It doesn't make him wrong - it just means you need a translation step between frameworks.

 

[Ahnehnois]

...
If the above is true, then does this amorphous, elusive "thing" expand or contract the conceptual narrative space? Does it open or close the imagination?

I suspect that it might seem open for a while, until the players started to get the sense that it didn't really matter what they interpreted the amorphous thing as being since the mechanical effects of losing the resource are always the same.

That's pretty much how hit points in general went for us. First it was the generic "you deal five damage". Then it was a range of imaginative "you slash this and dodge there and trip him and blood spurts out etc. etc.". Then it was "oh, what the hell, you deal five damage".

Some ambiguity is good (for example, it's fine that a Knowledge skill could refer to book learning or practical experience), but it's important that each mechanical element have some real-world meaning that could be concisely and cogently explained to a layman, and that the ambiguity doesn't go too far.