D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[pemerton]

Both Moldvay and Gygax are speaking to brand new DMs here, quite safe in the (accurate, in my experience) knowledge that once a DM gets some experience she'll be able to craft something of a world around the PCs either before or during play.

Even there, Gygax's actual advice on this is along the ilnes of "follow the leads of play" rather than "design something to be sand-boxed" - see eg DMG p 87 ("After a few episodes of play, you and your camaign participants will be ready for expansion of the milieu"), p 112 (using ideas from other genres and other games to keep things interesting), though p 57-58 on other planes (emphasising creativity and imagination apparently for its own sake) doesn't emphasise the needs of play quite so much.

In other words, the campaign world will grow - but there is nothing to suggest that the campaign world is the point of play in its own right, as opposed to a deliberately crafted tool for letting the GM confront the players with challenges that will be fun and exciting. (James Wyatt got in trouble for advocating "the tyranny of fun", but on p 112 of his DMG Gygax reminds us that "ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game, a pastime for fun and enjoyment.")

While I know these guidelines exist I've never bothered following them.

Fair enough. But I don't think that changes the fact that they're their for a reason, which is to support the role of the multi-level dungeon in supporting a certain sort of gameplay by incentivising players of high-level PCs to take their characters to the lower levels.

 

[Mark CMG]

Also - what is the meaning of the phrase "the players' needs"? What they need is stuff to do when playing the game. What does that stuff consist in?

A world to explore. As we all seem to be agreeing, proto-tailoring is becoming part of the mix as early as five to seven years into the development of the game., no doubt, as I have maintained, due to the ways in which the game was being adapted and played by the many GMs who picked it up and ran with it. But, yes, the early game was primarily sandboxy in nature as shown above (Outdoor survival, (O)D&D booklet excerpts, etc.). I think where some of your arguments fail is that you don't seem to personally find sandbox play fun, though many do. A lot of what you insist must be the case based on your interpretation falls back on the idea that what you think is fun must be what everyone thinks is fun. That's simply untrue.

 

[Hussar]

I have no problem with the idea of proto tailoring. I consider pretty much everything published go d&d before 1e to be proto.

 

[Sadras]

Hrm, sounds like tailored encounters to me. Or am I still misreading things and failing to understand the stuff that I played through back in the day.

No you're not, it definitely encourages a tailoring of wilderness encounters. Your bolded section appears 100% in the Rules Cyclopeadia, can't seem to find my Expert rulebook.

Just to add: To a greater degree I follow that advice, but every once in a while - depending on various circumstances the party does encounter a threat beyond their depth, but they are aware that such expectation could exist on the path they are on, and they surprise me often on their resourcefulness and creativity by either avoiding/mitigating the deadly threat.
It happens often enough where I'm unsure how they will avoid a possible TPK or PC death - but they do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's a fair assessment. I'm glad we're all in agreement. Different people hold different ideals, and different editions appeal to each.

If anything, the lesson here is that "traditional" is not a useful descriptor in this context.

Probably so. And traditional is read as an attempt to claim legitimacy for one approach as being true to the origins of D&D - a term best avoided

Just as PCs aren't stopped at the gate before they leave town and told they are not allowed to go outside the city until they are ready to defeat dragons.

They aren't stopped. But it is indicated where the town gates are - and more to the point it's indicated which level of the dungeon the PCs and monsters are on. To me the only difference in the way you tailor things is that the PCs can cross the barriers. The level of the dungeons are to serve up level appropriate encounters - with the only fundamental difference being that the PCs decide which level is appropriate to them. It's a fundamental difference in playstyle (and I prefer the older ways here) but in no way does it mean that the process of tailoring is different.

Seconded by the main if not only way of earning experience points after 1e being combat. 1e specifically states characters are to get the same xp for avoiding an encounter as for defeating it; that advice (and mindset) faded into the background in 2e and vanished thereafter.

First, as a 4e fan, I protest.

Second, it's not the XP for avoiding an encounter that was the fundamental change. The big thing that changed was that in 1E the main way of gaining XP was GP - you gained approximately three times as much XP from loot as you did from combat. 2E's version is that you gain XP from combat and from behaving as a stereotypical member of your class (something AFAIK most groups dropped as it's silly). 3E did away with this. 4E both put a lot of weight on Quest Awards and gave XP for skill challenges.

 

[Mark CMG]

They aren't stopped. But it is indicated where the town gates are - and more to the point it's indicated which level of the dungeon the PCs and monsters are on. To me the only difference in the way you tailor things is that the PCs can cross the barriers. The level of the dungeons are to serve up level appropriate encounters - with the only fundamental difference being that the PCs decide which level is appropriate to them. It's a fundamental difference in playstyle (and I prefer the older ways here) but in no way does it mean that the process of tailoring is different.

Gates and dungeon levels are in-game setting conceits. Having some sanctuary within the walls of a city or town holds a logic within the setting milieu but is in no way guaranteed, since evil high priest and all manner of deadly things might reside within. The in-game logic merely suggests it will be a more civilized evil banded together to keep out dragons, perhaps. As to dungeon levels, teleportation chambers and gently sloping passages give no guarantee that PCs will have say so in where they wind up. These things were the bread and butter of early campaigns. Later tailoring would suggest it is bad form to simply teleport PCs from a first to third level where the dungeon is stock with baddies that easily outmatch them but not so early on in setting and adventure design. So, yes, it is markedly different. Nevertheless, I'm not arguing against metagaming the players through in-game conceits and let's be clear that this is more in line with the OP discussion than the one in which we were embroiled, regarding player authorial control.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Gates and dungeon levels are in-game setting conceits. Having some sanctuary within the walls of a city or town holds a logic within the setting milieu but is in no way guaranteed, since evil high priest and all manner of deadly things might reside within. The in-game logic merely suggests it will be a more civilized evil banded together to keep out dragons, perhaps. As to dungeon levels, teleportation chambers and gently sloping passages give no guarantee that PCs will have say so in where they wind up. These things were the bread and butter of early campaigns. Later tailoring would suggest it is bad form to simply teleport PCs from a first to third level where the dungeon is stock with baddies that easily outmatch them but not so early on in setting and adventure design. So, yes, it is markedly different.

How far back are you going? Because the teleporters came in when people like Rob Kunz got to know Gygax's dungeons too well and so they needed mixing up. So yes, I'd say that early on the dungeons were stratified with entrances on various different levels. And the teleporters were for the hardcore players.

 

[Mark CMG]

How far back are you going? Because the teleporters came in when people like Rob Kunz got to know Gygax's dungeons too well and so they needed mixing up. So yes, I'd say that early on the dungeons were stratified with entrances on various different levels. And the teleporters were for the hardcore players.

I've been playing since 1974 and attended my first Gen Con in 75. I should have also mentioned slides of indeterminate depth and elevator chambers. No one was safe.

 

[Hussar]

I think some of the issue we're having here is how do we define "early" in the hobby. To me, the hobby is about 40 years old, so, anything in the first ten years counts as early. That takes us up to the first big crash in the hobby around 83. So, while teleporters might have been there first, things like Moldvay Basic counts as early to me. Player authorship elements and meta-game elements might look different then than they do now, understandably so, but, that doesn't mean that player authorship elements only count as player authorship elements if they are strictly codified. Any more than role playing only counts if it's done free form. Or combat only counts if it uses attack matrixes.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think some of the issue we're having here is how do we define "early" in the hobby. To me, the hobby is about 40 years old, so, anything in the first ten years counts as early. That takes us up to the first big crash in the hobby around 83. So, while teleporters might have been there first, things like Moldvay Basic counts as early to me. Player authorship elements and meta-game elements might look different then than they do now, understandably so, but, that doesn't mean that player authorship elements only count as player authorship elements if they are strictly codified. Any more than role playing only counts if it's done free form. Or combat only counts if it uses attack matrixes.

I like that we're collectively identifying the transition periods and pinpointing some key turning points in the development of RPGs, RPGs with storytelling elements, and more fully-fledged storytelling games. I think we're all doing a very good job of examining this developing phenomenon.