D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s also important to note that many players today have never experienced play anywhere near what was being done pre 1984. I know I haven’t. So for me it rather feels like the comparisons and forgesque framework are either inaccurate (initial reaction) or more likely accurate for pre 1984 play but extremely outdated when talking about more modern play.

Yep, definitely this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s also important to note that many players today have never experienced play anywhere near what was being done pre 1984. I know I haven’t. So for me it rather feels like the comparisons and forgesque framework are either inaccurate (initial reaction) or more likely accurate for pre 1984 play but extremely outdated when talking about more modern play.

As someone who started playing in 1975, I have to note even people's ideas of what older styles of D&D worked like in the wild are often focused on, at best, a limited subset of them. That doesn't mean they're completely irrelevant, but it does mean that a lot of people draw overly broad conclusions from that (I see it from OSR posters with some frequency).

 

[niklinna]

Look. If you want to go to Marvel forums and only discuss how The Incredible Hulk (1978 series) differs from Lars von Trier's style, you can do that. But it will lead to confusion. Especially if you try to discuss MCU with assumption that that the 70s Hulk series is basically the same thing.

And I'm not saying that the 70s Hulk show or Lars von Trier's films don't matter and one shouldn't discuss them. But the discussion might be more accessible to larger Marvel fanbase if you actually contrasted them to the modern MCU.

It just seems that in these threads a lot of time is wasted by people talking past each other, and personally I don't feel that is really an ideal way to conduct a discussion.

What if you go to the Marvel forums and discuss how The Incredible Hulk (1978) influenced and informed LvT's style, though? (Assuming that happened, which is a big assumption!)

The earlier styles of play—more particularly modes—influenced and informed our styles and modes of play today. Particularly since we do blend and mix them more freely now—and particularly particularly because many people do so implicitly—knowing what those modes are and being able to work with them consciously and deliberately is more important than ever. You used to be able to pick a game and know what to expect in playing it. That just isn't true any more. I have been in more than one group with GM and individual players operating with their own separate goals for play and modes of playing, not having explicit knowledge of the distinctions, signaling one and then doing the other, which led to a mess, that I am keenly aware of the importance.

 

[Campbell]

It frankly does not matter how close OSR play hews to how people played back in the day. It's part of an active practice of how people play today. That's what matters. I don't care how people played in 1975. This is how I played 8 days ago.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yep, definitely this.

This assumes that there's a forward evolution in play towards better play -- that the Trad ideals of 5e are somehow a growth from the less developed roots of Classic play. This is utterly incorrect -- there's as much to learn about Classic play approaches today as there was then. Having Trad as the predominate approach in 5e doesn't mean it's a better approach -- it's different. I mean, I have been directly accused of insinuating that Story Now is better than Trad when I expressly state that they are not better/worse but different, and so are better/worse for a given table. However, you are agreeing with an argument that directly states that Trad play is better as a matter of fact than Classic play -- that Classic play is old and of no relevance to current edition. The starkness of the very people that have accused me of being elitist for talking about not-D&D then going on to be this elitist within D&D is staggering.

 

[FrogReaver]

It frankly does not matter how close OSR play hews to how people played back in the day. It's part of an active practice of how people play today. That's what matters. I don't care how people played in 1975. This is how I played 8 days ago.

There’s always an exception, but I’m not sure why our terminology and analysis framework should explain the exceptions better than the typical.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This assumes that there's a forward evolution in play towards better play

No it doesn't. 'Outdated' was reference to understanding of what the play is like, not the style of play itself.

 

[Maxperson]

It frankly does not matter how close OSR play hews to how people played back in the day. It's part of an active practice of how people play today. That's what matters. I don't care how people played in 1975. This is how I played 8 days ago.

If you opt into a dungeon crawl where you can only be reactive to what the DM says and does, that's a decision you make. That hasn't been the primary way traditional game play has been run in almost 40 years, though. There's some measure of back and forth with the DM reacting to the players and the players reacting to the DM to created a shared story.

 

[niklinna]

It frankly does not matter how close OSR play hews to how people played back in the day. It's part of an active practice of how people play today. That's what matters. I don't care how people played in 1975. This is how I played 8 days ago.

If you opt into a dungeon crawl where you can only be reactive to what the DM says and does, that's a decision you make. That hasn't been the primary way traditional game play has been run in almost 40 years, though. There's some measure of back and forth with the DM reacting to the players and the players reacting to the DM to created a shared story.

He said it was part of how people play today. Understanding that part, and how it differs from other parts, and how well it meshes with those other parts, is relevant.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No it doesn't. 'Outdated' was reference to understanding of what the play is like, not the style of play itself.

This doesn't make any sense. There are people on this board that push Classic approach concepts. Look at @iserith, for instance. He puts forth a clear approach to play that is very much aligned to Classic approaches within 5e. The idea of how B/X plays isn't "outdated" in discussion of 5e play because it very much can be emulated quite easily. That it's not the most common approach today is of little to no import to the discussion. You are trying to gatekeep discussion of B/X play because it's outdated and doesn't reference current edition but those references are to the approach to play, which is still valid. It's more clear in B/X play, hence it's use as an exemplar.

What really fun here is that you're outright admitting that discussion must genuflect to current edition or be considered "outdated."