Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DinoInDisguise" data-source="post: 9384690" data-attributes="member: 7045806">We can see in the old modules from the 70s and 80s that there were some interesting features. Such as instant death traps, or puzzles with dire consequences. Combat was far more lethal, and the odds were stacked against the PCs in many ways.Taking Tomb of Horrors, for example. Published in 1978, this is some of the oldest &quot;old school.&quot; And it is infamous for it's difficulty. It had some hard puzzles with dire consequences. But those puzzles never relied on players describing something precisely. They never relied on the players knowing obscure facts never mentioned to them. Everyone I found, gave all the information needed and just required spatial reasoning and problem solving. Maybe I missed an example to the contrary, but if so it was seldom.I think this is where Bloodtide over stretches what Old School was. Instead of making these moments purely &quot;in game,&quot; they are stretched to the very semantics of the game play. Now, not only do I have to figure out the puzzle - but I have to word the solution correctly. I have to guess the password in a way. It's a second puzzle layered on top of the first, and one completely outside the &quot;game.&quot;In old school, you tracked ammo and many other things. This is mentioned in many of these modules. And if you ran out, there were consequences, challenges. You could, in the right situation forage for food. Never in the modules was it stated that you needed to &quot;realistically&quot; describe that food's prep after foraging. This is again, adding a password of sorts. An additional onus on the player themselves, outside of the &quot;game.&quot;This is what I mean when I say Bloodtide is stretching the lethality and punishing aspects of old school into the very semantics of the game play. And in that case, I feel like we are moving from old school's detail oriented approach into adversarial DMing laced with gotchas. And I think this does old school a disservice as it paints it an extreme that it didn't neccessarily encompass by design.Edit: I think it's fine and good if groups want to play this style of game. I just think it doesn't help old school's popularity to frame the game as being like this as a whole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DinoInDisguise, post: 9384690, member: 7045806"] We can see in the old modules from the 70s and 80s that there were some interesting features. Such as instant death traps, or puzzles with dire consequences. Combat was far more lethal, and the odds were stacked against the PCs in many ways. Taking Tomb of Horrors, for example. Published in 1978, this is some of the oldest "old school." And it is infamous for it's difficulty. It had some hard puzzles with dire consequences. But those puzzles never relied on players describing something precisely. They never relied on the players knowing obscure facts never mentioned to them. Everyone I found, gave all the information needed and just required spatial reasoning and problem solving. Maybe I missed an example to the contrary, but if so it was seldom. I think this is where Bloodtide over stretches what Old School was. Instead of making these moments purely "in game," they are stretched to the very semantics of the game play. Now, not only do I have to figure out the puzzle - but I have to word the solution correctly. I have to guess the password in a way. It's a second puzzle layered on top of the first, and one completely outside the "game." In old school, you tracked ammo and many other things. This is mentioned in many of these modules. And if you ran out, there were consequences, challenges. You could, in the right situation forage for food. Never in the modules was it stated that you needed to "realistically" describe that food's prep after foraging. This is again, adding a password of sorts. An additional onus on the player themselves, outside of the "game." This is what I mean when I say Bloodtide is stretching the lethality and punishing aspects of old school into the very semantics of the game play. And in that case, I feel like we are moving from old school's detail oriented approach into adversarial DMing laced with gotchas. And I think this does old school a disservice as it paints it an extreme that it didn't neccessarily encompass by design. Edit: I think it's fine and good if groups want to play this style of game. I just think it doesn't help old school's popularity to frame the game as being like this as a whole. [/QUOTE]

Verification