Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[dd.stevenson]

I've said from the beginning that it [DDN] looks like, feels like, plays like, and promotes 2e era play.

Counterpoint: right now I'm running DDN and 2E alternate weeks, and both my players and I agree that DDN feels more like 3E than it does like 2E. The big thing is skills--in the trenches, skills are the big (IMO intrusive) thing that made 3E feel different than 2E, and as long as they're present, I suspect they'll continue to make the game feel like 3E.

The other big difference is harder for me to define, but it comes down to a feeling of empowerment: with 2E rules being such an utter CF, there's a huge amount of creative pleasure to be had in cutting through the tangled mess and making an incisive ruling that moves the game forward. For whatever reasons, this is a huge stimulant for my imagination, and it is something that DDN, with its clear, specific rules, denies me.

 

[The Human Target]

In basically every other facet of our lives we strive to make things more user friendly and clear.

Its interesting that some people don't want that in D&D.

 

[dd.stevenson]

In basically every other facet of our lives we strive to make things more user friendly and clear.

Its interesting that some people don't want that in D&D.

If you think I said I didn't want it in D&D, then you're mistaken. I was explaining why 2E feels different than DDN.

 

[Minigiant]

This is why I always go back to Player-DM-Game-Playstyle synchronization.

My favorite, funniest, most imaginative game at a table was 2e. But my worst, most boring, most argumentative, heaviest "This sucks, I aint coming back next session" game at a table was 2e as well. Because of player synchronizing.

If you buy into the game, the supported playstyle chosen, and the DM's interpretation of it, old school gaming was awesome. But if you didn't, it was a mess. Your imaginization gains no anchor and is pushed off to lets you flow away.

The modern editions sort of pulls game, playstyle, and DM thought closer together. So a player can see if they sync up before sitting down. Unfortunately if you don't naturally sync up, it takes a lot more work to get you to. Too much for some.

 

[The Human Target]

If you think I said I didn't want it in D&D, then you're mistaken. I was explaining why 2E feels different than DDN.

So you like how 2e's tangle inspires you but don't want too see it in Next?

 

[dd.stevenson]

So you like how 2e's tangle inspires you but don't want too see it in Next?

Ayup. One tangle's enough for me, thanks; as long as they're doing reprints I see no reason why D&D should go down that road again.

 

[The Human Target]

Ayup. One tangle's enough for me, thanks; as long as they're doing reprints I see no reason why D&D should go down that road again.

I like your style.

 

[Lanefan]

Q

OK, I'll play.

Interesting thread; and a polite discussion, to boot! Congrats to all.

Here's a though experiment. You have a character in some game system who has a background of "sailor", a "good skill with archery" and is "very strong, but not very dextrous". Which of these statements make sense to you?

Many of these are situationally dependent, I'll note such as I go through...

I would be automatically able to sail a small boat without needing to roll dice

Unless weather conditions were extreme, yes.

I would know how to tie common knots

Usually; and were a roll required you'd have a big bonus

I would be better at tying knots than someone who is not a sailor

Maybe. Completely depends on what the "someone who is not a sailor" has going for her.

I would be less good at tying knots than someone who has high dexterity

The higher-dex person would probably be faster at tying knots but the end result would be just as good a knot.

I would be able to shoot and hit an unaware person at 50' with a bow without needing a roll

Never. Anything requiring aim always needs a roll to hit. And you can always fumble, too.

I would need to make a roll to shoot someone who was aware of me

Yes.

I would be more effective with my bow than a weaker person because I can pull more weight

If you had a bow matched to your strength your shots would do more damage on a hit, but your aim to hit would be no better than the next guy.

I would be less effective with my bow than a more dexterous person

When aiming to hit, yes.

I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship than a non-sailor

Yes. (assuming a moving ship at sea; a ship tied to a dock is the same as being on land)

I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship in a storm than a weaker sailor

If "weaker" is defined as "less strong" then see response above re pulling more weight. If "weaker" is defined as "less competent as a sailor" it might make a slight difference but not much.

I would be worse at shooting my bow than a "soldier" with "good skill at archery"

Too many other variables to give a clear answer, but it would probably come down to fighter-equivalent-level. If all other things were exactly equal except the sceondary skill of sailor/soldier then you'd be the same on land and the sailor would be better at sea.

I would be awesome at repairing bows because not only am I good at archery, but I know how to tie knots and handle rope

No, your secondary skill is "sailor" not "bowyer".

I would never need to roll to repair a basic bowstring, given the materials I need

You'd never repair a bowstring anyway, you'd just restring the whole thing, which any competent archer should be able to do. You'd only have to roll if you were under pressure e.g. in mid-combat.

I would always beat someone at archery if they were "bad at archery" without needing a roll

No. You'd have a bonus and-or your opponent would have a penalty, but you'd still have to roll - anyone can have a bad day.

I would always get a better rate of pay for sailing a boat as a "sailor" than someone who was "highly charismatic" but not a "sailor"

Not necessarily.

I will always beat someone in a tug-of-war game if they are less strong than me

This is the same as two clauses back re auto-beating a poor archer - you'd still have to roll, with bonus/penalty applied.

Since sailors are very used to playing tug-of-war, I'd expect to beat someone equally strong as me if they were not a "sailor"

This is a bit of a stretch, you *might* get a tiny bonus on a roll, if that. Sailors are very used to drinking rum too, but it doesn't mean they can hold their liquor any better than a landlubber.

I do not need to roll dice to tell if someone else is a sailor.

Yes you do.

I do not need to roll dice to assess someone's skill at archery.

Yes you do.

I do not need to roll dice to assess how strong someone is.

Yes you do.

Lan-"what do we do with a drunken archer"-efan

 

[Mercurius]

I'm starting to lose a little steam, but have enjoyed the go-arounds - some really good stuff in this thread. A couple final thoughts/responses:

In total; I do not think the 5e "big tent" approach will facilitate what they're looking for (One D&D to Rule Them All). I've been extremely skeptical of the design theory from the beginning. At its core is an ethos of (i) "Rulings Not Rules", (ii) its GM advice advocating hand-waved or fudged DCs and contests, and (iii) its embedded, somewhat opaque, task resolution mechanics that drive toward granular exploration of GM setting. It is quite literally anathema to (i) my preferred ethos ("Drive Play Toward Conflict - Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes."), (ii) fidelity to the action resolution mechanics, and (iii) transparent, conflict resolution mechanics that focus on fiction (including setting) emerging from resolving player intent within a scene-based architecture.

I find myself both fascinated and confused with this paragraph - the latter because I don't fully understand it and feel like I need a rosetta stone, because you're using a lot of lingo and conceptual models that some Forge-esque or at least designerspeak, but the former because what I do understand is quite interesting!

Can you re-phase the difference between the two ethos ("ethi"?)? What I hear you saying is that the Next approach harkens back to the old school, which in turn is somewhat in line with the "myth of the pre-given world" - characters exploring a pre-made setting, and that the rules are general guidelines and flexible. Whereas what I hear you saying about your preferred ethos is that the setting arises out of the actions of the PCs, and that the rules are set in stone, providing a solid foundation for the agreement between players and DM. Is that basically it or am I off base?

I've said from the beginning that it looks like, feels like, plays like, and promotes 2e era play. I think they will catch a very wide audience but it won't be the One D&D to Rule Them All that they are looking for. The ethos, system, and technique issues at the core of these disputes make the realization of that ideal impossible.

While I started in the early 80s with 1e, I probably played more D&D during 2e era than any other era, although mainly before "2.5" of Player's Options. If what you say is true, I don't mind it in terms of the feel - but I'm rather attached to a clearly defined core mechanic ala 3e and 4e.

As for the One D&D to Rule Them All, I still don't see whi it isn't possible if: a) the maintain a very simple core system, and b) offer modular options that can be layered on as desired by DMs, even players. I suppose the problem is that by doing that they might not do any particular style (or modular theme) better than specific editions; in other words, they won't "out-4e 4e." But they will be able to, at least, provide some of the dynamic quality of the AEDU power structure, if there's a modular option for it.

Related question: If we accept that certain realms of imaginative exploration have been closed off in newer rulesets, does that necessarily imply an *overall* lost of space for imagination? Can the new rules not help support imaginative play in realms the older designs don't?

Interesting question. My answer is: why not? Its not about new or old, but what the new and old rules are, and what sort of paradigm they enact.

I also wouldn't say that "certain realms of imaginative exploration have been closed off in newer rulesets" as much as they have been de-emphasized or obfuscated, or perhaps the focus has changed towards other domains. But, as far as I can tell, any "imaginative realm" that was possible in 1983 is possible in 2013, but the medium has changed.

If a GM has a model of world physics that is purely Newtonian, but I have an understanding of quantum mechanics, there will be points (although, admittedly, few of them) where what the GM says happens simply disagrees with my model of reality. If we were talking about the real world, the GM would simply be wrong. But this isn't because the GM is being a "jerk" or trying to be mean or contradictory - it's because they sincerely believe in a model that differs from mine.

Yes, this is so true - and applies to every avenue of life.

The advantage of rules, here, is that they define what the outcome of certain character choices in the game world are in a way that the GM and the player agree on (because they read the rules and agreed to play by them). Whether or not the rules are really "realistic" is immaterial; they provide a shared model that allows both "sides" to understand how interaction between the character and the environment will work. In this sense it is "player empowering", because it gives the player a knowledge of the game world that lets them see the game world more like their character would see it - with comprehension rather than ignorance - and make in-character choices that are informed rather than wild-assed guesses, at least in the areas that their character is supposed to be good at.

Yes, I agree here - well said. Its similar to a reader suspending disbelief when entering the world of a fantasy novel. If the author is skilled and clear about the 'rules of the world" - magic, etc - then the reader will follow along willingly. But they must be internally consistent.

Yep - I agree with this. This is why the folks on the Forge talked in terms of systems supporting specific styles of play rather than enforcing them. The difference is not that a style of play is possible with one ruleset but impossible with another - it's that a style of play is easy with one ruleset and hampered with another.

Yes, exactly. This has been my point with 4e - the "old school" theater of mind combat is "hampered" by the 4e AEDU paradigm, which requires focused attention the battlemat and relatively pre-determined outcomes. It opens up other possibilities, and certainly the old approach is still possible, just hampered.

As an aside to this, I don't see "immersion" as necessarily the primary aim of roleplaying. It's AN aim - and a perfectly valid one - but not THE aim of roleplaying. In some styles it is emphasised, in others it's not.

This is probably true. I realize that one error in my original post and some of the later discussion is that I was subconsciously talking about a lot more than RPGs, even RPGs secondarily. I can't even say that I play RPGs for "imaginative immersion" which, for me, pays off with the sense of wonderment. I write for that reason, or I read, setting books or novels, but I play to have fun with friends, at least first and foremost.

All I can say is this: for the aspects of RPG that it is good at, I find 4E to be the best system on the market. For what older editions of D&D are particularly good at, I find that there are other systems that do the job in a way that I prefer.

Yup. In my mind, there is no beating 4e's battlemat combat, perhaps among other things. I just found that, over time, its flavor was too specific (for me); game sessions were too repetitive. Part of this was due to my own fault, or not having enough time to design and run the type of game I really wanted to, but a lot of it was the nature of the game itself. Again, 4e's strengths are shadowed by corresponding weaknesses; the balance among classes is shadowed by the homogeneity of powers. And so on.

 

[Manbearcat]

What I hear you saying is that the Next approach harkens back to the old school, which in turn is somewhat in line with the "myth of the pre-given world" - characters exploring a pre-made setting, and that the rules are general guidelines and flexible. Whereas what I hear you saying about your preferred ethos is that the setting arises out of the actions of the PCs, and that the rules are set in stone, providing a solid foundation for the agreement between players and DM. Is that basically it or am I off base?

Its zoomed-out (there is a bit more nuance that would require further unpacking system components, GMing techniques, et al), but your abstract is pretty close to the mark.

As for the One D&D to Rule Them All, I still don't see whi it isn't possible if: a) the maintain a very simple core system, and b) offer modular options that can be layered on as desired by DMs, even players. I suppose the problem is that by doing that they might not do any particular style (or modular theme) better than specific editions; in other words, they won't "out-4e 4e." But they will be able to, at least, provide some of the dynamic quality of the AEDU power structure, if there's a modular option for it.

As an overview, this is the main problem, as I see it. There are too many component parts that are all but (or near to at the very least) mutually exclusive of one another with respect to facilitating disparate agendas; outcome-based design versus process-based design...granular, task resolution to resolve a character's singular action during world exploration (eg climbing a tree to get to the top of it to then make a check to perceive) versus abstract conflict resolution to resolve player intent while paying heed to the conflict's stakes (eg navigating the course of a harrowing, narrow switchback mountain path, replete with icy snowdrifts, during pursuit evasion) . Or, you end up with a truly watered down component that doesn't remotely carry the mechanical heft or narrative malleability (eg 5e's Hit Die are not remotely a proper analogue for the mufti-faceted mechanical impact of 4e's Healing Surges and their free-descriptor nature which provides a malleable, fungible narrative device for GMs to tax PCs and/or make offers).

Bolting on an elegant non-combat, conflict resolution framework in a task resolution based system is not as easy as devising a x successes before n failures and subjective, of-level DCs. There are PC build scheme considerations, mechanical means for attrition/ablation on failures (micro and macro), resource refresh rates, that must be in lockstep. And, of course, the math needs to be coherent. The same applies for doing the inverse (going from conflict resolution at the closed-scene level to task resolution at the open-world level). Making the two paradigms compatible requires an extraordinary amount of work or the deft hand of Errol Flynn.