D&D General 5e D&D to OSR pipeline or circle?

[Remathilis]

How one feels about metagaming is nothing more than personal preference. If you want to regularly use player knowledge your PC doesn't have, more power to you.

Twenty years ago, if you were on Eric Noah's board and expressed that sentiment, you'd have been flayed and fed to displacer beasts. It was absolutely dogma that "avoid metagaming" was part of the advice given to player and DMs alike. Somewhere, the view changed, and I can't help but feel it has to do a lot with the notion of "smart play" and the idea that D&D is a dual of whits between players and DM.

 

[Bae'zel]

...and I can't help but feel it has to do a lot with the notion of "smart play" and the idea that D&D is a dual of whits between players and DM.

I always resented that interpretation, especially when many OSR folks insisted on the title "Referee" instead of DM, to imply total impartiality either way. The other implication was that it was player vs dungeon, the Referee was just the one arbitrating the rules and running the show.

I say "resent" because I've had to "unlearn" many players over the past 20 years that I, the DM, is NOT out to get them. That the game is NOT player vs. DM. Nothing like players trying to outwit me, causing the game to grind to a halt as I have to scramble to change course and sort out how to proceed. Touché, witty player, you've just put the game on pause for everyone. I hope that you're happy, I guess?

Said players were either avid Games Workshop players, or people who had really naughty word DMs in the past who WERE of the mind that they were antagonists.

 

[Remathilis]

I always resented that interpretation, especially when many OSR folks insisted on the title "Referee" instead of DM, to imply total impartiality either way. The other implication was that it was player vs dungeon, the Referee was just the one arbitrating the rules and running the show.

I say "resent" because I've had to "unlearn" many players over the past 20 years that I, the DM, is NOT out to get them. That the game is NOT player vs. DM. Nothing like players trying to outwit me, causing the game to grind to a halt as I have to scramble to change course and sort out how to proceed. Touché, witty player, you've just put the game on pause for everyone. I hope that you're happy, I guess?

Said players were either avid Games Workshop players, or people who had really naughty word DMs in the past who WERE of the mind that they were antagonists.

I'm more referring to the idea of the DM creating a world that is designed to be challenging and the players having to outsmart the DM to survive and prosper. If the DM places a trap, an unwinnable fight, or a hazard, the players have to outthink the DM on how to survive, bypass, or beat said obstacle. Someone called this asymmetrical play upthread.

 

[zakael19]

Twenty years ago, if you were on Eric Noah's board and expressed that sentiment, you'd have been flayed and fed to displacer beasts. It was absolutely dogma that "avoid metagaming" was part of the advice given to player and DMs alike. Somewhere, the view changed, and I can't help but feel it has to do a lot with the notion of "smart play" and the idea that D&D is a dual of whits between players and DM.

from what I’ve seen Current Osr ethos holds that GMs should strive to be impartial and generous with info, and that it’s not adversarial. If there’s something in the character’s background that they ask to leverage for knowledge - err on the side of giving it, or points to where details can be found. If it makes sense for a wizard to know about magical effects, a hunter to know about beasts, a fighter to know how to finish off monsters, use that. Like, have you ever spoken to a decent hunter? They know so much about how to work with the behavior and capabilities of what they hunt - why shouldn’t we roleplay our characters (or expect our players) to be similar?

I think it only becomes highlighted when it’s “oh I read the module we’re playing so I know we need to go into the postman’s back office to grab the key to the Cave of Orbaz” or “I have no way to know that the rest of the group is in danger, but I’m going to drop what I’m doing and run in that direction.”

 

[Micah Sweet]

Twenty years ago, if you were on Eric Noah's board and expressed that sentiment, you'd have been flayed and fed to displacer beasts. It was absolutely dogma that "avoid metagaming" was part of the advice given to player and DMs alike. Somewhere, the view changed, and I can't help but feel it has to do a lot with the notion of "smart play" and the idea that D&D is a dual of whits between players and DM.

Never been a big fan of what "the view" is; to me, that's just another way to place too much importance on popularity.

 

[TiQuinn]

Out of curiosity, do you remember how many of the optional rules were used when you first started playing 2e? You've mentioned dice fudging in previous threads, but I'm curious if your table used things like the "Hovering on Death's Door" optional rule immediately or did you do something else to handle dying? Exp for gold? Non-weapon proficiencies?

The reason I mention this is it seems like 2e frequently gets categorized as not being OSR because of the shift that happened during the edition towards more story driven campaigns, or at least that's what was largely being sold by TSR in published modules. My play experience largely reflects that as we got more into playing, but I will say our entry point into 2e where we didn't use any optional rules probably resembles a game that is closer to a OSR style dungeon crawl. 3d6 down the line and you made whatever character you could, you died at 0 HP, monsters used morale to decide how they would approach the party instead of defaulting to a scripted hostile or friendly, we tracked resources, energy drain took levels, save or die and so on. Much like the products TSR sold, our campaigns eventually shifted in tone as we added more optional rules from the PHB and DMG in but the point of my ramblings is if you play 2e out of the box with only 1 optional rule (exp for gold), you get a game that is very typical in tone to what I frequently hear people describe their B/X or 1e games. Or at least that was my early experience playing 2e.

Did you ever watch the Gen Con 50th anniversary show for 2nd edition with Zeb Cook? You might really like that if you haven’t. Cook said in the interview portion that one of the mandates handed down from management was that the game had to fully support 1e; the idea that they needed a new edition was kind of anathema to the executives who were concerned that all of their inventory that they already had for late 1e books would suddenly become useless. This largely forced Cook and others to write the new rules they envisioned as optional rules, and I’ve always noticed that the optional rules of 2e were much more prominent in the handbooks than in subsequent versions.

 

[Retreater]

But did you start that way or do you remember if you largely played without optional rules to learn how the game works? I'm curious if your early 2e experience was similar to mine or if the dice fudging you mentioned in another thread was a larger factor.

My earliest memories of DMing were unusual. I would run the occasional game for a friend or my sister - I didn't run for a "typical adventuring" party for years.
And I ran it like the Dragon Warrior/Quest video game. "You're walking outside of town. A random monster appears. A displacer beast looks cool. And ... you're dead."
It was hard finding players. When I finally did get a full sized group to play (it took about 7 years),
I don't recall a single session that didn't end in a TPK until I started fudging.

 

[Velderan]

Did you ever watch the Gen Con 50th anniversary show for 2nd edition with Zeb Cook? You might really like that if you haven’t. Cook said in the interview portion that one of the mandates handed down from management was that the game had to fully support 1e; the idea that they needed a new edition was kind of anathema to the executives who were concerned that all of their inventory that they already had for late 1e books would suddenly become useless. This largely forced Cook and others to write the new rules they envisioned as optional rules, and I’ve always noticed that the optional rules of 2e were much more prominent in the handbooks than in subsequent versions.

Was that the one where he mentioned that mandate is what killed discussion on things like ascending AC?

 

[TiQuinn]

Was that the one where he mentioned that mandate is what killed discussion on things like ascending AC?

Yep. They knew back then that it was an obvious change to make but it got nixed because they were in fear that a second edition would kill their golden goose.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Did you ever watch the Gen Con 50th anniversary show for 2nd edition with Zeb Cook? You might really like that if you haven’t. Cook said in the interview portion that one of the mandates handed down from management was that the game had to fully support 1e; the idea that they needed a new edition was kind of anathema to the executives who were concerned that all of their inventory that they already had for late 1e books would suddenly become useless. This largely forced Cook and others to write the new rules they envisioned as optional rules, and I’ve always noticed that the optional rules of 2e were much more prominent in the handbooks than in subsequent versions.

I for one am glad they kept it backwards compatible. I played with 1e rules as the base for years before and decades after 2e released, while making use of 2e materials as well.