Doug McCrae
Legend
Yeah. I think non-Forgites should really use the term Dramatism (from rec.advocacy's Three Fold Model) rather than Narrativism, which is, as you say, very obscure.S'mon said:
Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?
- Thread starter Abyss
- Start date
John Morrow
First Post
S'mon said:
With the rec.games.frp.advocacy Threefold (which better fits the three elements you are talking about than the GNS), it's not so much a matter of choosing and wanting only one element but which one takes priority when two or more come in conflict. Most role-players want at least some of all three of those elements but you can't always have all three at once.
If, for example, the players tactically blow a balanced encounter with a group of NPC monsters (gamism) and the game world logic now indicates a TPK should happen (simulationism), does the GM step in and fudge things to keep the players alive (dramatism)? Is the bad guy's hideout protected by thugs that the PCs can blow through like stormtroopers (dramatism), protected by guards who will put up a challenging resistence for the PCs (gamism), or by whatever makes sense in the setting, even if the force will lead to a TPK if the PCs attack (simulationism)? There are times when you simply can't get all three. If you have to sacrifice one to get the other two or two to get the third one, which is your highest priority?
DeadlyUematsu
Explorer
diaglo said:
Agreed.
So, where does DS9 fit in this scheme? Secretive government organizations (e.g. Section 31), Federation personell providing information to agents of other governments in order to help them against one of the Federation's allies, constantly changing loyalties, and so on?Orcus said:
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
I don't want to come across as overly hostile to the Cinematic approach in general. I should make clear that I was trying to attack the Power Rangers (TM) approach where the player characters are able to solve all their problems by charging into the attack whenever they see their enemy - not the Cinematic approach in general, which is in my view the best hope for the future of gaming, since it's the only alternative on offer to the Storytelling style which has done so much damage.
The "1e feel" of the thread title goes back to a time when RPG's were very Darwinian. It wasn't quite "survival of the fittest" - at low level, it was often "survival of the luckiest" (because a few high rolls on those 3d6 certainly enhanced your character's chance of survival, and because a few good "to hit" rolls in the right places were often the make or break of the group's success.)
Once you'd got past that early stage and reached higher levels, 1e AD&D was a case of "Survival of the least stupid." Adventures like S1: Tomb of Horrors showed this perfectly, being stuffed full of traps that caused death with no save. Either you were able to think laterally and use spells creatively to solve the unique challenges posed by the dungeon, or your character died.
S1: Tomb of Horrors, incidentally, is an adventure which contains only one or two combat encounters in the entire area. There are to the best of my knowledge no published "Storytelling" style adventures which are as cerebral, or as light on dice-rolling, as S1 which was published in the 1970's.
Anyway, what I'm coming to is this: Stupidity deserves to be punished.
I mean, you wouldn't reward your players for weakness, or greed, or clumsiness, or ineptness, would you? Stupidity is not a survival trait and its wages should be punishment rather than reward.
Equally, clever play should generally be rewarded with success, wealth, experience and so forth.
The problem with the "Storytelling" style is that it doesn't reward (or punish) either kind of play. Because the outcome is fixed in advance, it really doesn't matter what the players do. No matter whether they charge in and attack at the first opportunity, or try to negotiate, or avoid the encounter, or set up a clever ambush, or in fact whether they stop paying attention to the adventure entirely and sit around drawing up plans for a new world order, they are always going to end up in the showdown with the evil necromancer which takes place on the narrow and inexplicably handrail-less bridge which swings precariously over the lava pit.
So why should they bother to play intelligently? In my experience, with the storytelling style, few players do bother.
I'd be interested to know how a DM from the Cinematic style would solve this and reward intelligent or skilled play. Is the answer to engage in "stream-of-consciousness DMing" where little is prepared in advance and the majority of what happens is made up by the DM on the spot?
The "1e feel" of the thread title goes back to a time when RPG's were very Darwinian. It wasn't quite "survival of the fittest" - at low level, it was often "survival of the luckiest" (because a few high rolls on those 3d6 certainly enhanced your character's chance of survival, and because a few good "to hit" rolls in the right places were often the make or break of the group's success.)
Once you'd got past that early stage and reached higher levels, 1e AD&D was a case of "Survival of the least stupid." Adventures like S1: Tomb of Horrors showed this perfectly, being stuffed full of traps that caused death with no save. Either you were able to think laterally and use spells creatively to solve the unique challenges posed by the dungeon, or your character died.
S1: Tomb of Horrors, incidentally, is an adventure which contains only one or two combat encounters in the entire area. There are to the best of my knowledge no published "Storytelling" style adventures which are as cerebral, or as light on dice-rolling, as S1 which was published in the 1970's.
Anyway, what I'm coming to is this: Stupidity deserves to be punished.
I mean, you wouldn't reward your players for weakness, or greed, or clumsiness, or ineptness, would you? Stupidity is not a survival trait and its wages should be punishment rather than reward.
Equally, clever play should generally be rewarded with success, wealth, experience and so forth.
The problem with the "Storytelling" style is that it doesn't reward (or punish) either kind of play. Because the outcome is fixed in advance, it really doesn't matter what the players do. No matter whether they charge in and attack at the first opportunity, or try to negotiate, or avoid the encounter, or set up a clever ambush, or in fact whether they stop paying attention to the adventure entirely and sit around drawing up plans for a new world order, they are always going to end up in the showdown with the evil necromancer which takes place on the narrow and inexplicably handrail-less bridge which swings precariously over the lava pit.
So why should they bother to play intelligently? In my experience, with the storytelling style, few players do bother.
I'd be interested to know how a DM from the Cinematic style would solve this and reward intelligent or skilled play. Is the answer to engage in "stream-of-consciousness DMing" where little is prepared in advance and the majority of what happens is made up by the DM on the spot?
Torm
Explorer
Actually, I'd say you've got that backwards:Orcus said:
1st edition feel: Classic Trek. Grittier. The government may be tricking you, but they aren't very good at it - usually kinda transparent.
2nd edition feel: Next Gen. Shiny/happy Federation, because they've gotten better at tricking you. And if they aren't tricking you, you may just need to go to a "rehabilitation colony" where you can be reprogrammed to be a healthy citizen.
Ever notice that by TNG, most of the humans that seem like they're doing anything worthwhile are either in Starfleet or have gone somewhere that the Federation's presence isn't so strong?
Sholari
First Post
Pielorinho said:
Necromancer games does not have as much first edition feel as they claim to. For me first edition feel is about an attention to asthetics, wonder, and environment that is lacking from most modules nowadays. 3.x edition is more about mechanics and a lot of the modules feel like some bad Playstation episode where you mindless hack up a bunch of monsters and then defeat the boss at the end. Instead of having a personality every fighter is wandering around with a spiked chain or two handed long sword with power attack and cleave. Try to run Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, Pharoah, or the Assassin's Knot and tell me why exactly they aren't plausible. With first edition feel every module series had a unique feel and environment, whereas with third edition most modules come of as generic. Modules which have been able to capture that sense of asthetics and environment in third edition are the Witchfire trilogy, a lot of recent Dungeon adventures, and the Freeport module series. For many third edition modules it feels like people are just dropping monsters into yet another stereotype.
Here is my summary of each editions focus...
1st edition - Location-based Environment and Wonder
2nd edition - Story and Railroading
3rd edition - Mechanics
I'd also say that if character and monster power were spice for a some fine cuisine, that third edition tends to overdose on it to the point where the meal just doesn't taste good anymore, whereas first first edition had a more balanced approach.
Last edited:
Abyss said:
As you can see, everyone has a different opinion on the subject. For me, there is no such thing as First Edition Feel. If I can't possibly replicate it, then it doesn't exist. If it First Edition feel does exist, then it's just a feeling that no one can really define. Except this:
True 'first edition' feel is fun. It's not everything and everyone's definition on this thread, it's just fun. If you are having fun playing whatever you play, then you have caught the feel of the first edition.
Real fun, that's what it is all about. That's why first edition feel really doesn't have one solid definition among everyone. To capture the feel of first edition, you have to know what your players want, know when to break the rules, and know what to do. Your players have to have faith in your game master, never obsess about the rules, and have a rip roaring time playing.
First edition feel is having and feeling fun. That's all it is.
Last edited:
