Search results

Sure. The idea that elves who live hundreds of years and who seem to have some innate connection to magic would somehow not be able to master magic as well as short-lived humans is pretty silly. So much of the lore of D&D that’s just accepted is little more than rationalization for gamist...

I’m sure games prior to this point used it, but not any versions of D&D. Or at least, not consistently. I do recall some products that had NPCs that were clearly designed the same as PCs… but there are numerous contrary examples. Oh, I agree with that, for sure. The most GM burnout I’ve ever...

I don’t think that all GM side procedures constitute GM fiat. Sure, a GM could always ignore the expected procedures by exercising fiat… but I’m talking about when they follow the expected procedures. And I’m thinking of versions of D&D prior to 2e AD&D. So when the players decide to spend time...

The claim that parity between NPC and PC creation is somehow “old school” just seems revisionist to me. It’s a perfectly fine preference… but I don’t think it’s in any way essential to or emblematic of old school approaches to RPGs. One of the things that drove me crazy about 3e was that...

I don’t think those are the same things. One chooses to climb a wall. One may not choose to have a fight… the rules may dictate that one happens because the characters have done or tried to do something else. Maybe they decided to search a room and a random encounter occurs, maybe they chose a...

So this will vary from game to game because I think different games need different levels of prep… but generally, this is what I do. My players and I discuss what game we want to play. I usually suggest a few games I’m interested in running. Then we discuss and pick one from those. Once the...

I didn’t say the GM was mechanics. I said that the way in which you’ve described the GM, I wouldn’t expect resistance from you about the idea that the GM helps drive the game. Do you think the GM plays a part in driving the game? I didn’t comment on the purpose of mechanics… whether they...

I’m trying to maybe narrow in on the difference. Not saying they do exactly the same thing… but there are similarities, and mechanics producing results (which is how I see the idea of “driving play”) is one such similarity. So is “the players make decisions” that drive play. I’m trying to home...

If I’m running players through Tomb of Annihilation, I’m not really playing to find out what happens. Sure, there are some areas of uncertainty… but I’m gonna largely know what’s going to happen. The PCs are gonna navigate through the jungles of Chult until they find the tomb, then they’re going...

You don’t think that your description of what the GM does is helping to drive the game? And do you not agree that the rules may do so, too? See my example about attack and damage rules and how they can shape what happens.

I don’t know if I entirely agree. I think you’re onto something with how the mechanics drive play in some modern games (AW and its more faithful derivatives) but I also think that the binary pass/fail does similar work in a more traditional approach. The mechanics still dictate the type of...

I’m not sure… I think we can find examples of players being able to influence the game beyond the actions of their characters, which seems to be what you’re getting at, pretty early in the hobby’s development. I suppose I’m not sure what you mean by “more than just Lara Croft stuff”. I mean…...

Sure. Do you have any examples you can share that would support your statement that older games are better when it comes to implementation, presentation, selection of mechanics, or open discussion about the reason for mechanics? Exactly. This is a great example. Is anyone really going to say...

That's why I've specifically said I don't think that it makes as much sense to speak about mechanics as it does how they are implemented and presented and examined.

What games do you guys have in mind?

Well yes, when you selectively quote and remove the context of a post by doing so, you can then interpret things differently than intended. My post said: I was talking about specific things. Implementation, presentation, selection of mechanics, open discussion about the reason for...

Well, I also explained why newer is better in this context. And hey, at least I'm trying to add to the conversation instead of endlessly eeyoring everything.

Sure, but it seems to me like people are resisting the very idea that modern may equal better in some cases. As I said earlier, I don't tend to think of mechanics as being modern, because there are examples of most types of game mechanics early in the hobby's history. However, how the...

Would anyone really argue that the modern presentation used in Old School Essentials isn't what makes it great? Would anyone argue that it's not an improvement? Would anyone say that the many years of presentation of RPGs was not a factor? I mean... sometimes newer is better. It's okay.

I've seen it. Not for hours on end... but I don't think it takes hours for it to be disruptive or counterproductive (assuming that not everyone is happy with such play, because if they are, then they can carry on). I've had plenty of players who want to RP every small interaction. I've played...