4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"

[MerricB]

Problem is, if 4e is your first D&D game, you pretty much have no clues on how to do it apart from "everything has to be balanced or Something Horrible will happen and you'll stop having fun". If you grew up reading Gygax articles, you already have all the baggage needed to bring "old school" to any game (Heck, I've even run Gygaxian Risus), but if you're just stretching your DM wings and don't know any other advice than the 4e DMG's, it seems like your only option is to purchase correctly balanced monster groups and locating treasure parcels of the right level.

I'm really, really, really trying to see what's bad with that. Now, the 4e DMG doesn't say "every encounter should be average difficulty" and, indeed, has some quite difficult encounter set-ups (hard encounters are hard in 4e), but for a beginning DM, surely you want a game that is enjoyable for those involved?

What did Gary say in the AD&D DMG? Oh, yes:

"AD&D means to set right both extremes. Neither the giveaway game nor the certain death campaign will be lauded here. In point of fact, DMs who attempt to run such affairs will be drumming themselves out of the ranks of AD&D entirely. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS aims at providing not only the best possible adventure game but also the best possible refereeing of such campaigns." (DMG page 92).

Both 3e and 4e have come closer to that in terms of providing a framework that gives a range of encounters from easy to extremely difficult, and treasure to match, which aids the beginning DM enormously.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Page 84, the whole second column, "Puzzle as Skill Challenge".

I like more the option of page 81, "The "get a clue" check".

Same here. Arrgh, totally forgot about the Skill Challenge section. Most likely I wouldn't use it in my games.

Cheers!

 

[Betote]

Same here. Arrgh, totally forgot about the Skill Challenge section. Most likely I wouldn't use it in my games.

I win the Interwebs!

 

[Betote]

I'm really, really, really trying to see what's bad with that. [...]

I'm not saying its either bad or good. To me, "old school" is neither a positive nor derogatory term, just a descriptor.

What I'm saying on this thread is that 4e lacks that descriptor. I don't try to imply that it's a good or a bad thing.

Both 3e and 4e have come closer to that in terms of providing a framework that gives a range of encounters from easy to extremely difficult, and treasure to match, which aids the beginning DM enormously.

And 4e does it, IMO better than 3e, because there's no so much difference between levels in 4e as in 3e, so encounters of different levels scale better.

 

[MerricB]

And 4e does it, IMO better than 3e, because there's no so much difference between levels in 4e as in 3e, so encounters of different levels scale better.

It's one of the most important features of 4e that made me abandon 3e: the power curve was way too steep in 3e.

Cheers!

 

[justanobody]

2. There are strains of an almost Lovecraftian incomprehensibility to many gods and demons, a la the chaos temple in Keep on the Borderlands.

Maybe you prefer Cthulhu to D&D?

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe you prefer Cthulhu to D&D?

Yes, because what he described is so unlike D&D. Particularly the reference to Keep on the Borderlands.

 

[mearls]

I think those are very good points, Mr. Mearls, but you left one out: in Old School play, you don't handle with a roll what can be handled by common sense and description, such as searches, negotiations etc.

You don't get to roll your Int to 'solve' a riddle, or roll your Sense Motive to find out if the bad guy is lying to you. You have to figure out those things for yourself.

I think that's a big part of old school for a lot of people, but it isn't necessarily something I see as key. As a DM, I tend to mix the two approaches.

For a puzzle, I avoid dice. But for something like Sense Motive, or say a Perception check against a monster's Hide check, i like using dice. There are some things that AD&D leaves up to DM judgment that I find easier to adjudicate via dice.

OTOH, I do see the appeal of stuff like the example of play from the AD&D DMG, where the players figure out to poke at the skeleton or use the clues in one room to determine the location of a secret door.

Myself, I wish I had a good enough handle on my own preferences to nail down exactly where the line between dice and play rests.

 

[mearls]

Problem is, if 4e is your first D&D game, you pretty much have no clues on how to do it apart from "everything has to be balanced or Something Horrible will happen and you'll stop having fun". If you grew up reading Gygax articles, you already have all the baggage needed to bring "old school" to any game (Heck, I've even run Gygaxian Risus), but if you're just stretching your DM wings and don't know any other advice than the 4e DMG's, it seems like your only option is to purchase correctly balanced monster groups and locating treasure parcels of the right level.

I think you're overstating the DMG's approach to things. There's a world of difference between game balance, and running a dangerous campaign.

Balance makes options equivalent in power for a player. All things being equal, you can build a rogue or a wizard without worrying about playing a lame class.

For the DM, balance is about making things predictable. A DM has a good idea what happens when he sets a level 3 party against a level 5 encounter.

True, the DMG gives plenty of advice on how to design encounters, but I don't think it's anything more than Gary's advice in the AD&D DMG to avoid Monty Haul-ism and killer dungeons, but instead find the middle ground.

Now, it is true that hit point damage is the best mechanical way to clobber players. We did away with ability score damage, level drain, and SoD. We do have monsters that can kill with a series of failed saves. I can see that argument, but I'd also point out that this again comes down to DM style.

While the DMG might not explicitly cover such approaches, the truth is that the DMG had to draw a line somewhere. It can't cover every approach to DMing, but I think James did a good job of covering the bases, particularly for new DMs. The approach in the book did focus more on the practicalities of managing a table of players with potential conflicting goals and desires.

Was that the right path? I think so, but we can't really know for another few years, when we can see if we have a vibrant community of skilled DMs emerging from the newest generation of gamers.

Anyway, I think you're right that Old School sensibilities aren't necessarily reflected in the DMG, but I do believe that a game that feels Old School (again, depending on what's old school to you) is possible in 4e.

 

[justanobody]

Yes, because what he described is so unlike D&D. Particularly the reference to Keep on the Borderlands.

Outside of really Skullport and the Promenade where do the Lovecraftian Old Ones really present themselves in D&D?

We are talking of the gods here. There would be nothing wrong with Mr. Mearls liking the Cthuluhu based gods over those presented in D&D for years, and in his place has a chance to include more similar tot he game to broaden the audience with some more tentacles and open up new world potentials for home-brew that take less work to develop by having such gods like Deities and Demigods had, but with a distinct D&D slant that keeps WotC out of copyright infringement as did the original use of Cthuluhu and Melnibonean properties.

I mean we have Eldritch Blast now, so why not try to reclaim some influence by the other long lost god area for D&D?