Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6143510" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Actually, a friend of mine visiting from the States just gave me a copy of Burning Wheel, which has provided quite an interesting perspective to contrast, as well as more context for your posts.I agree in many respects, although I think these are muddy waters, especially after seeing this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGQ_IICAWkI" target="_blank">interview</a> with Rob Kuntz, and his comments on open vs. closed systems.  I think the early concept of D&D, in a sense of a prototypical RPG, was intentionally unmoored, so that it could easily be drifted towards "success based on DM interpretation of what makes sense within the fiction" or "success based on what would make for satisfying fiction".  I think this aspect of the game was somewhat diminished by the introduction of AD&D, but remains at least partially present in the Basic versions of the game, and in Mike Carr's presentation of it.  The crux is, the direction the game will take is pretty much all on the DM's shoulders (in consultation with the players, as Carr suggests).  Just about every roll is subject to modification by the DM.  The popular perception of this is indeed simulationist: what the DM decides as appropriate to the fiction.  But I think Carr's presentation of the game is more open-ended.  He makes no claims to "logic" or "making sense", but only to "the appropriate modifiers".  Indeed, one conceivable, and perhaps not uncommon, form of the game is that the DM makes all the rolls, and can even dispense with them altogether.  In Holmes, for example, players make to-hit rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws.  But in Moldvay, the DM makes damage rolls.  And in both, virtually every other roll is made by the DM.  And in any case, even if players make rolls, they do so blind, not knowing how much they need to hit, or how many HP the monster has.  (The exception is of course Saving Throws, which have generally binary pass/fail conditions.)  This gets into the early game's blase attitude towards fudging.  One would think that if the game's raison d'etre were pure gamist challenge, or fictional simulation, fudging would be discouraged.  On the contrary, though, DM's are encouraged to fake rolls, freely modify rolls, and even ignore them.  I think the subtext of this is "feel free as DM to adjudicate success based on what makes the most satisfying fiction, if that's what your table wants".  But it's also "adjudicate based what seems logical for the world and setting, if that's what you want," as well as "adjudicate based on what makes for the best challenge, if that what you want."Where I think your observations are most astute is that indie games handle this resolution through clear mechanics explicitly designed to support an intended playstyle or playstyles in a fair way.  But in early D&D, it's all on the DM.  The DM is the game, the DM is the resolution system.  The rules and mechanics, such as they are, are merely to support the DM, rather than operate as a medium to facilitate play.  Thus, while indie games disperse the metagame to all participants through metagame resources, the point of early D&D was that the DM took on virtually all of the metagame, so that the players need only concern themselves with the actions of their characters, in-fiction.  Hence, another aspect of early D&D that can be seen in all these early materials is a veeeerrrrry fuzzy distinction between IC and OOC.  Whereas my impression, and by all means correct me if I'm mistaken, the distinction is quite distinct in indie games.If I may borrow a metaphor from Buddhism, IMO these are merely different paths to the top of the same mountain.Yes, exactly.  This exactly my take, as well.  Only I get the feeling this conflict of interest was seen as a feature, not a bug.  It was, and is, however, a pit-trap for new DMs; hence Carr's repeated injunctions to be fair, and the remarkable admonition to be "worthy of respect".I can see where Pulsipher is coming from, and I think I can relate through my own experiences running B/X.  Also, you can see the seeds of this idea in the various sources of Basic advice.  But I also like this <a href="http://canonpuncture.geekyandgenki.com/canon-puncture-99-game-advocates-%E2%80%93-original-dd/" target="_blank">interview</a> with Tavis Allison, where he expounds on the early style of play particularly encouraged by the Judges Guild materials: that of copious use of random tables and random encounters.  Again, we have a side of D&D that doesn't fall into a neat category of challenges, nor necessarily into simulationism, but another metagame tool through which the DM may bring about a game focused on satisfying fiction.  And I see that in these materials as well.  Like I said, early D&D is really unmoored, and is just naturally prone to drifting.IMO, the de-emphasis of random tables in 2e (the core game had no random tables; merely guidance for making your own. A prospect to which a great many people said, "No thanks.  Too much hassle.") is one of the reasons that you see the RPGs-as-railroads effect.  Ideally, random encounters -- played as random encounters, not random battles -- blow up the railroad tracks, because they surprise the DM, as well, and create opportunities for situations outside of what the DM has prepared.  Their (essential) absence deprived DMs of a valuable metagame tool.  But I think too often they were seen as random combats at worst, and aids for underprepared DMs winging it in sandboxes at best.Sure!</blockquote>

Verification