D&D General In defence of Grognardism

[Malcolm Serabian]

Could it be they're roleplaying seasoned adventurers and wary tomb robbers instead of naive child characters? Nothing wrong in roleplaying as a dungeoneer that'd rather come out of the dungeon with their life than with gold, as long as it gives them a chance to do it again.

But really is it logical in any way that the “wary tomb robber” has a wisdom of 8 and an int of 10? Does that person with those stats make sense as a know it all puzzle solving wise man? Does that sound like reasonable role-playing to you? I’m pretty sure that’s what ehren37 is talking about…

 

[theCourier]

But really is it logical in any way that the “wary tomb robber” has a wisdom of 8 and an int of 10? Does that person with those stats make sense as a know it all puzzle solving wise man? Does that sound like reasonable role-playing to you? I’m pretty sure that’s what ehren37 is talking about…

Those stats seem perfectly viable for people looking to make a risky dive for whatever reason into a completely dangerous ruin/cave/castle/etc. 10's average in most systems, with 8 being below average. I like to think a lot of the standard adventuring procedure comes not only from previous experience, but as a precaution from rumors, tales, and the reputation of the place being explored.

But yes, I get your point. I'd definitely roleplay someone with an 8 WIS as being a bit rash and naive in their expectations. 10 Int is pretty average though, they might not be able to make a lot of connections when it comes to subtle puzzles and challenges but with enough time (something that's quite precious in dungeons due to wandering monsters or other complications), I don't see why they couldn't figure it out by poking about the place.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But really is it logical in any way that the “wary tomb robber” has a wisdom of 8 and an int of 10? Does that person with those stats make sense as a know it all puzzle solving wise man? Does that sound like reasonable role-playing to you? I’m pretty sure that’s what ehren37 is talking about…

Again though this is just about what you find fun and what the styles favor. There is actually a bit of variation on this one. Some people who engage the style happily play that 8 wisdom. Some take more of a 'you are playing yourself' in terms of your mental stats, and the wisdom thing would only matter when it comes up mechanically. People role-play for different reasons. Some people get really into playing a character they have created, rolled and/or designed. Some people role-play more as themselves and ignore characterization (maybe seeing it more as a gaming conceit that can be ignored). Again I have to emphasize though, I see lots of diversity here in terms of how people approach roleplaying a character in this skilled play style. After all we are playing these games to have fun

 

[Fanaelialae]

Personally I see that more as trying to control the language of a play style to win a play style debate

So you're telling me that if everyone around here started referring to it as "playing the DM" that you would be fine with that, since it's just a term that reflects a particular view (with a grain of truth) of this playstyle? The OSR can call it "skilled play" and everyone else will refer to it as "playing the DM". Two sides of the coin.

I think that plenty of OSR folks would object to using such a term. In fact, I've seen it plenty of times on ENWorld. "Skilled play" is similarly problematic, for similar reasons. It's likely too entrenched to change now, but for you to cast such aspersions upon anyone objecting to the term suggests a bias.

 

[TheSword]

I've never seen a grognard knowingly spring a trap or make the wrong decision because that's what their character would do. They don't play interestingly flawed characters. You know the scene in Pan's Labyrinth where the little girl eats the grape from the monsters table and all hell breaks loose? I've never seen an old skooler who would voluntarily make that choice. For all the pontificating about roleplaying, the characters they choose to portray are from a really narrow spectrum.

@GuyBoy yeah. You would so eat that grape. You’d look Ryan and Pete straight in the eye too as you did it

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you're telling me that if everyone around here started referring to it as "playing the DM" that you would be fine with that, since it's just a term that reflects a particular view (with a grain of truth) of this playstyle? The OSR can call it "skilled play" and everyone else will refer to it as "playing the DM". Two sides of the coin.

I think that plenty of OSR folks would object to using such a term. In fact, I've seen it plenty of times on ENWorld. "Skilled play" is similarly problematic, for similar reasons. It's likely too entrenched to change now, but for you to cast such aspersions upon anyone objecting to the term suggests a bias.

No, what I am saying is trying to alter an existing term that is used within a style to describe something they do, especially one like this that has gained currency outside the style, is controlling the language in order to win a playstyle debate. I am saying these conversations about a particular style's vocabulary tend to do that. I have no problem with legitimate discussions about the terms we use. But it just seems like every single big term used by the OSR gets run through this process where people want to attack it, change it, co-opt it, or argue that it isn't accurate because it applies to everything under the sun (when again it is just a descriptive term), that it is very frustrating in discussions (because it feels like the words are being taken out of your mouth and the waters of the conversation are being muddied). I am saying having two different terms for the same thing would be confusing and make it harder for people who abide by a skilled play style to communicate that style to gamers from other approaches.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally I am not worried about how much skill is involved in other styles of play. I don't even worry about how much skill involved in skilled play. To me it is just a useful term that describes the style clearly, and has gained a lot of traction so that when you say it, people know what you mean (even the folks in this thread who are objecting to it, appear to understand what is meant by the term).

That's only because most of us have been around this rodeo before. Use it around people who aren't familiar with the OSR and see how they interpret it sometime. I promise you, its not going to likely be positive.

Honestly I think the hardest style I've ever played was trying to power game during 3E, both because the system and the methods for building a powerful character were pretty intricate and because it required a tremendous amount of system mastery.

Well, the fact 3e was littered with traps and false attractants didn't hurt.

Skilled play in the old school sense isn't hard as much as it requires focus and attention to detail.

I'd also (and if you hear some negativity in my response, you're not wrong) knowing your GM. As I've noted any number of times over the years, the "sensible" response to an action can seem vastly different even among two players, let alone a player and the GM, and until you know your particular GM well, predicting what that will be is not a given.

The think you are being challenged by is the stuff going on in the game. You aren't contending with the math of the system (which I would say is a harder task). But what I find frustrating in these discussions is there is a term people who come out of the style use, and it is how we communicate what we are talking about. But I find pretty consistently that people who are opposed to said style, have this tendency to go after our vocabulary so that we can't even communicate what we mean by the end of the conversation. It is like having the words taken out of your mouth. And to be clear, I am not a pure "skilled play" GM or player. I play and enjoy lots of styles. This is just one style among many I enjoy and I find this language is important to understanding it.

If someone objects to the semantic loading in a term, they're not required to accept it just because its convenient for the people using it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This post shows a profound lack of understanding on the subject. Carefully considering your surroundings and coming up with clever solutions to any given situation is 100% the way old school D&D was supposed to be played.

Heck, EGG himself has said so in several occasions.

Just keep in mind that Rob Kuntz managed to survive the Tomb of Horrors whilst playing as a Fighter. It's pretty obvious that traps was expected to be engaged by means of skillfully manipulating the fiction, not just rolling a dice and hoping for a 10% success chance.

Rob Kuntz knew Gygax well, and could likely predict whether he was going to respond to a particular tactic Kuntz chose in any fashion that Kuntz would expect. So is that playing to the fiction or to the GM?

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a tricky issue relating abilities such as INT and CHA to “skilled play”, whether in the 70s and 80s or more recently. WIS might have the same problem.
Being “trash at an activity” such as fighting or pick-pocketing is pretty easy for the DM to adjudicate. You have a small chance to succeed and a dice roll determines the outcome. Much the same applies to the physical skills, so “skilled play” can’t really get round this. It doesn’t matter if I’m a big rugby player myself; my 8 strength bard can’t lift the portcullis, so I’d better use “skilled play” to find another way out PDQ.

The problem is, the farther back in the evolution of D&D you go, the less mechanics there were for, well, anything outside of combat. As an example, lets say you had an OD&D fighting-man and wanted to leap over a chasm. There was nothing whatsoever to provide guidance to a GM if it was reasonable. Oh, he could look at things like your Strength and encumbrance and the width of the chasm and try to factor it in, but in the end he's pulling the answer out of the air, and anything other than a yes/no answer was going to be a fundamentally arbitrary roll that, barring houserules of one stripe or another, the player had no way to know short of asking him. What's worse, there was no obligation for the GM to actually tell him this in advance, and even if he did he might well do it in "natural language" terms that could mean any number of things in practice.

(This doesn't even get into how GMs read things into the Thief abilities that sometimes colored how much and what they'd let other characters do).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally I see that more as trying to control the language of a play style to win a play style debate

One could read the insistence on using the term the same way.