D&D General "Player Skill" versus DM Ingenuity as a playstyle.

[Belen]

I think we all get into trouble (even since the hobby began) when the words "how games should be run" are spoken. That was one of the many things Gary got raked over the coals for! I know he was trying to set down some guidelines for folks -- this was all very new to everyone, and he and others were trying to explain things, sometimes badly. In RQ, there was a whole thing about "Your Glorantha Will Vary" after being "Gregged (Greg Stafford) with "canon."

There's lots of different playstyles out there, and everyone needs to find their own spot. I'm wondering if the OSR people are wanting to bring "deadly" back with some of the complaints that 5e is too easy on PCs. That's certainly a playstyle, and I get it -- feeling like things are actually dangerous adds a lot of intensity (various opinions on "fun") to the game, but it's not for everyone.

In any case, I love getting lots of different takes from various quarters (even crazy ones), but at the end of the day, take what's useful and leave the rest behind.

I have always thought the strength of D&D was the versatility of play styles. You can run completely different game styles using the same system.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I disagree. It was really bad in 3.5 and PF1. The sheer crunch complexity led to it. I saw it worse in those systems than any other.

What was really bad? The number of new monsters?

 

[Belen]

What was really bad? The number of new monsters?

The player crunch. The sheer number of options, situational bonuses, movement conditions, etc. Combat encounters would take hours. I got so burned out that I refuse to use battle maps these days in my games.

The complexity was enough that most players barely understood all the rules and had trouble remembering everything they could do.

 

[Wolfpack48]

The player crunch. The sheer number of options, situational bonuses, movement conditions, etc. Combat encounters would take hours. I got so burned out that I refuse to use battle maps these days in my games.

The complexity was enough that most players barely understood all the rules and had trouble remembering everything they could do.

Ah, so added complexity and crunch doesn't equate to added challenge. It makes things more challenging for players to look up rules, that's for sure! I think folks are discussing ways to challenge PCs and their players, not necessarily with more and more complex rule systems and monsters and stuff but using the toolbox that's already available in new and creative ways to make a challenging adventure. All without the GM being adversarial!

 

[Belen]

Ah, so added complexity and crunch doesn't equate to added challenge. It makes things more challenging for players to look up rules, that's for sure! I think folks are discussing ways to challenge PCs and their players, not necessarily with more and more complex rule systems and monster and stuff but using the toolbox that's already available in new and creative ways to make a challenging adventure. All without the GM being adversarial!

I do think that it does add to making it more difficult to challenge players, especially if they are power players with more crunch-fu than the DM. I have seen crunch used to "get" the DM or vice versa many times.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I do think that it does add to making it more difficult to challenge players, especially if they are power players with more crunch-fu than the DM. I have seen crunch used to "get" the DM or vice versa many times.

The idea is to get players and DMs away from hiding behind complicated rules, or using complicated rules as gotchas, and pushing towards "the answer is not on your character sheet, or on p. 237 paragraph 3. It's inside your noggin."

 

[overgeeked]

There's lots of different playstyles out there, and everyone needs to find their own spot. I'm wondering if the OSR people are wanting to bring "deadly" back with some of the complaints that 5e is too easy on PCs. That's certainly a playstyle, and I get it -- feeling like things are actually dangerous adds a lot of intensity (various opinions on "fun") to the game, but it's not for everyone.

Highly doubtful considering the OSR scene predates 5E.

 

[nevin]

In your experience and/or preference, should players separate player and character knowledge when using their brain muscles?

I don't think they can. I try very hard when playing but that knowledge influences you on every level. It's why when I DM I like to change up monster descriptions do odd stuff like have a NPC leveled half ogre character leading the orcs, throw hybrid dragons at the part so when they plan everything for fire they find out it's an electrical, fire hybrid. Not every time not just to mess with the players but simply to keep things unknown so they are always wondering what's coming next instead of planning the perfect assault as per monster manual or Dungeon module descriptions.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Highly doubtful considering the OSR scene predates 5E.

Yeah, not really familiar with the whole history or agenda of OSR, despite being as old school as old school can get.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, not really familiar with the whole history or agenda of OSR, despite being as old school as old school can get.

Yeah, it's weird. The OSR basically started with the OGL in 2000. If you want to try to get precise, it was the publication of OSRIC in 2006 that really kicked things off.

At times I'm perfectly aligned with the OSR ethos, other times...not so much. What's weird is that style of play is exactly how we've always played.

When I read the Six Cultures of Play it did not ring true with my experience. What he labels "classic" is something we never did. What he labels "OSR" is how we always played the game. I started in 1984 and that's how we played. In talking with my brothers and their friends, that's how they always played, too.