Looking for Advanced Role-Playing Content

[Celebrim]

Randomness is integral to the game because it takes the decision-making out of the GM's hands. When the GM rolls the dice, she must honor the result. If she doesn't, the players have every right to revolt and leave the game.

*sigh*

I recognize that there are tables that have that social contract, but it's a really dumb social contract that you usually find among tables where one or more players have been burned repeatedly by some jerk (or are themselves jerks) and instead of dealing with the problem as a social problem they blame the game, as if there was some sort of perfect game that could be run that didn't depend on the judgment and skill of the DM - just a process engine that churned out results based on dice rolls.

Seriously, there isn't.

Now sure, there is value to having a GM be a neutral arbiter, and I roll out in the open all the time - and pretty much every time a PC or NPCs success or failure is on the line. But 'fudging' a random encounter to avoid a repetitive result isn't even in the same class of moves as fudging a result to protect your precious plot or DM pet NPC, or whatever you as a GM are doing to rob your player of agency. You've conflated a method with a goal.

 

[jasper]

Weather System Mark VI - Temperature Ok Hey Guys was the weather system include in Dungeoneers Survival Guide or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Survival_Guide. Weather is great but unless it has an affect on the pcs it is just stage dressing.
There have only two major changes (plus lots of smart editing changes) between Advanced D&D and D&D 5 E. 1.Classes and levels are open to all races. 2. D20 rules them all instead a different set dice for all those chances. In Fact I say 5E is more advanced that AD&D.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Weather System Mark VI - Temperature Ok Hey Guys was the weather system include in Dungeoneers Survival Guide or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Survival_Guide. Weather is great but unless it has an affect on the pcs it is just stage dressing.

Agreed. And Tao has rules that make weather relevant. I don't know that he's implemented them ~ just as I'm not positive that he's implemented his weather rules ~ but the intent is there.

There have only two major changes (plus lots of smart editing changes) between Advanced D&D and D&D 5 E. 1.Classes and levels are open to all races. 2. D20 rules them all instead a different set dice for all those chances. In Fact I say 5E is more advanced that AD&D.

Not sure how this is relevant. He's not running AD&D; his house rules have heavily modified the game, as I noted previously.

 

[jasper]

Simon T. Except having lots and lots of charts for encounters, I have no figured out what you are talking about. And all Tao has done was homebrew with what looks like articles read from the Dragon Magazines.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

*sigh*

I recognize that there are tables that have that social contract, but it's a really dumb social contract that you usually find among tableswhere one or more players have been burned repeatedly by some jerk (or are themselves jerks) and instead of dealing with the problem as a social problem they blame the game, as if there was some sort of perfect game that could be run that didn't depend on the judgment and skill of the DM - just a process engine that churned out results based on dice rolls.

Seriously, there isn't.

Now sure, there is value to having a GM be a neutral arbiter, and I roll out in the open all the time - and pretty much every time a PC or NPCs success or failure is on the line. But 'fudging' a random encounter to avoid a repetitive result isn't even in the same class of moves as fudging a result to protect your precious plot or DM pet NPC, or whatever you as a GM are doing to rob your player of agency. You've conflated a method with a goal.

I'm sorry, I thought I was rather clear about not wanting to create a flame war. That's the direction you're taking this, as evidenced by the emphasized portions above. Do you have anything to actually contribute to the discussion, or are you simply here to poo-poo anything that doesn't fit your world view?

I appreciate the argument that I've "conflated a method with a goal," and were this under a different thread I'd be more than happy to pursue it. I think you're wrong because we derive actual value in the game by adhering to the results of the dice, regardless of what those results are; but I really don't see how this is in keeping with the OP.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Simon T. Except having lots and lots of charts for encounters, I have no figured out what you are talking about. And all Tao has done was homebrew with what looks like articles read from the Dragon Magazines.

I'm sorry if I've failed to make the connection for you, but I've provided a few articles that serve as good examples and I've discussed my own attempt at length. Since none of these are remotely close to "articles... from the Dragon Magazines..."

I'm at a loss as how to help you.

 

[Celebrim]

Not sure how this is relevant. He's not running AD&D; his house rules have heavily modified the game, as I noted previously.

Well, except in various blog posts he repeatedly claims to be playing D&D, and one of the posts you linked to as proof of the quality of his work contained a rant about how no one needed to play any other system but D&D because it was best if everyone was familiar with a system. So, whether he's running D&D seems to be a matter of debate. If he is running D&D as he claims, then he's definitely running AD&D. I don't agree that he's heavily modified the game at all. He's made a few changes like using GURPS style hex tiles rather than a square grid, added Hackmaster style action points, borrowed a few other things from GURPS and 3.5 D&D combat systems, and he has a largely unfinished 'skill system' that is heavily inspired by the 1e Sage rules combined with NWPs that serves to somewhat codify the ideas of 1e AD&D's 'secondary skills'. Most of his changes are fairly minor, and it's still very much recognizably 1e AD&D.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

Well, except in various blog posts he repeatedly claims to be playing D&D, and one of the posts you linked to as proof of the quality of his work contained a rant about how no one needed to play any other system but D&D because it was best if everyone was familiar with a system. So, whether he's running D&D seems to be a matter of debate.

(Emphasis is mine.)

He's biased. Clearly.

How is this different from any other gamer out there?

Well, except for those who repeat the mantra that the worth of a game is just "a matter of personal preference."

If it helps, think of "D&D" as your preferred system. No system is good enough for your table. As the GM, you have to put in the effort to make your game work for your needs. Once we accept that, then we can talk about which ways are better than others, regarding how to advance your game.

 

[Riley37]

Randomness isn't an aesthetic of play. Randomness can be a tool you use to uphold a desired aesthetic of play - in particular because the world seems to be random and people are very bad at creating the illusion of randomness without resorting to a random number generator - but the real purpose of an encounter table isn't in and of itself to be random. Randomness is just one tool to an end. You could do just as well with an encounter queue that wasn't random at all, but would be perceived as random by the players if it was long enough and varied enough.

TLDR: There are methods, and there are goals, and it's useful to understand which is which.

Furthermore, if I'm understanding Celebrim accurately (take with grain of salt), Celebrim sets goals *for the experience of the actual humans playing at his table*.

Here's what would motivate *me* to flee a table in horror and outrage: "Well, the dice say zombies again, and I defer to the authority of the encounter table, which I myself wrote last month. So here's your fifth gorram zombie fight of the session. There's nothing to investigate, and no way to parley; roll for initiative." If Celebrim and I might ever agree on anything, I propose this: Servile obedience to one's previously-written tabular ordinances is not the highest possible moral accountability

To paraphrase Lao Tzu, the tao which adheres rigidly to percentile roll encounter tables is not the true Tao.

Simon, if you see Windows Vista as the acme of information technology and you want more of the same, then I hope you find what you want. However, when you're talking to people who mostly upgraded last year from Windows 8 to 10, or who have swapped to Ubuntu Linux, then "advanced" might not be the most useful search keyword, it might not prompt them "Oh, you want more Vista, here it is."

Similarly, if you love what was cutting-edge TRPG design in the early 90s, and you want more of it, then I hope you find it, but few people here associate "advanced" with the style you prefer.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

TLDR

Am I the only one who finds this insulting? Someone puts forth the effort to write for a forum, to contribute to a conversation on a topic that we all (clearly) care about, and the audience can't be bothered to take a few minutes to read the work?

Not meant as a personal knock against you, Riley, I'm just airing a pet peeve...

Here's what would motivate *me* to flee a table in horror and outrage: "Well, the dice say zombies again, and I defer to the authority of the encounter table, which I myself wrote last month. So here's your fifth gorram zombie fight of the session. There's nothing to investigate, and no way to parley; roll for initiative."

The failure in this example isn't the methodology the GM used, it's being obvious about the process and the presentation. While I don't advocate hiding dice rolls from the players, it's not necessary for them to see every single step involved when generating an encounter (or a dungeon, or a town, or an NPC, etc.).

If Celebrim and I might ever agree on anything, I propose this: Servile obedience to one's previously-written tabular ordinances is not the highest possible moral accountability

No, but playing by the rules is considered good sportsmanship. If the rules or the process fails you during a game, then fix it, but do so in-between sessions. The players have a right to know that you're going to play fair. Their ability to play the game successfully is affected by your willingness to follow the rules. (Mind you, this is not to say that a GM can't make things up. Indeed, she must do so all the time, but where making things up comes into direct conflict with a known rule, it's better to employ the rule, lest she erode her players' trust in her.)

... few people here associate "advanced" with the style you prefer.

It's not a matter of style preference.

I'll say it again, for everyone who doesn't seem to be paying attention: the term "advanced" has been clearly defined. I appreciate that others may disagree with the term as I'm using it (even though I didn't make it up out of thin air), but so far, no one has offered a better definition.