Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6310384" data-attributes="member: 87792">I don't think I've ever&nbsp; doubted that.&nbsp; I've read too much MERP, too much Rolemaster (although&nbsp; that's more [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game), too much GURPS, and have just bought&nbsp; Pendragon (<a href="http://www.bundleofholding.com/index/current" target="_blank">as it's the current Bundle of Holding</a>).&nbsp; And I'm well aware of <a href="http://mrlizard.com/characters/chivalry-sorcery-eyestrain/" target="_blank">Chivalry and Sorcery</a>&nbsp; and Harn.&nbsp; In fact I'll say flat out that one of the best things about&nbsp; 80s gaming was the depth, attention, and love put into the settings and&nbsp; fiction.&nbsp; Much more so, in my opinion, than 90s metaplotty stuff - and&nbsp; that's one of the reasons I was buying GURPS rather than WoD in the&nbsp; 90s.&nbsp; In fact I'll go so far as to say say that the 80s was the&nbsp; high point of RPG research and setting creation and no one is doing it&nbsp; remotely that well now (except arguably the people who've continued to&nbsp; build Harn).On the other hand on this thread I've been dealing&nbsp; with Howandwhy99 who takes a very different approach.&nbsp; Things I say&nbsp; about Howandwhy99's very fringe playstyle are not intended to apply to&nbsp; everyone.And I like that sort of story.&nbsp; But it is far from the only sort of story I like.&nbsp; And, with all due respect, it takes an absolute age to play.&nbsp; By the time we've finished a Fiasco&nbsp; we'd still be on the first level of Caverns of Thracia - and that's if&nbsp; we've entered the caverns at all.&nbsp; (A fast game of Fiasco can be played&nbsp; in an hour including setup).&nbsp; It takes you what?&nbsp; Four to six sessions&nbsp; to reach level 2?&nbsp; In that time my Grey Ranks character will have had&nbsp; all the triumph and heartbreak of a child soldier in the Warsaw&nbsp; Occupation, seeing what they love turn to ash and either surviving or&nbsp; dying.&nbsp; And I can throw in a game of Montsegur as well.&nbsp; In&nbsp; Monsterhearts we can have told a complete coming of age story, with&nbsp; people growing and developing massively, learning to cope with the world&nbsp; in a not screwed up way.&nbsp; Or descending into a whole pile of screwup&nbsp; and possibly burning down the school and ruining their life and others.And to the nature of the challenges the rules&nbsp; and DM produce.&nbsp; D&amp;D's mechanics basically support an &quot;ascending&nbsp; sawtooth&quot; story (&quot;Can I?&nbsp; Can I?&nbsp; I don't think I can?&nbsp; I might be able&nbsp; to?&nbsp; Yay!!!/[Death]&quot;, repeat with a slightly bigger threat) or&nbsp; chicken/addiction arcs (&quot;Just a bit further for a bit more treasure...&quot;)&nbsp; with the next iteration being almost the same but slightly louder.&nbsp; You&nbsp; can do more with it, of course, but the rules don't actively help you&nbsp; and can get in the way (try a locked room mystery with the cleric able&nbsp; to Speak with Dead and the wizard loaded down on divination spells?)If we look at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots" target="_blank">seven basic plots</a>,&nbsp; D&amp;D is fundamentally about &quot;The Quest&quot; or &quot;Overcoming the&nbsp; monster&quot;.&nbsp; Neither of those plots are bad things.&nbsp; But Fiasco is&nbsp; targetted on &quot;Tragedy&quot;, and can delve into &quot;Comedy&quot; and &quot;Voyage and&nbsp; Return&quot; (and occasionally &quot;Rebirth&quot;).&nbsp; Monsterhearts strongly supports&nbsp; all five D&amp;D doesn't.It's just possible that the game of&nbsp; Monsterhearts I'm currently running with seven PCs has all five of those&nbsp; running together plus Overcoming the Monster (with the Monster being&nbsp; one of the PCs), with each PC as the focus for their own story.&nbsp; That's&nbsp; tangled, interwoven storytelling of a sort I've never seen in D&amp;D -&nbsp; especially not after a couple of sessions.This, as I've pointed out, just isn't true&nbsp; and I have already provided a counter-example.&nbsp; He allowed the Balrog to&nbsp; invent The Balrog Times as a plausible lie, and the idea they used&nbsp; flash photography.&nbsp; Because it was fun. Claiming Gygax would never have done something that someone who was there says he actually did&nbsp; doesn't help your cause at all.&nbsp; And Arneson did not ask Major Wellesly&nbsp; if he could take a CIA badge with him into Braunstein.&nbsp; He just did it.A new way did arise in home games not&nbsp; super long after D&amp;D was invented.&nbsp; The new way was that you must&nbsp; stick to the pre-established rules and background rather than &quot;we made&nbsp; up some <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> we thought would be fun&quot;.&nbsp; And this new way came to&nbsp; dominate the hobby.&nbsp; Because it's what the books said to do.The idea was introduced in&nbsp; Braunstein.&nbsp; The game that inspired D&amp;D.&nbsp; By Arneson before Gygax&nbsp; even started to get involved with D&amp;D.&nbsp; Indeed it wasn't on most&nbsp; peoples' minds.&nbsp; It happened in Lake Geneva - but the game Gygax played&nbsp; was not the game he published.&nbsp; And people who followed the published&nbsp; game (especially AD&amp;D) were given dense books full of tables and&nbsp; rules saying the way things must be.&nbsp; And most people who wanted to make&nbsp; their own stuff up either stuck to oD&amp;D, B/X, BECMI. or the Rules&nbsp; Cyclopaedia.Rules lawyering is a consequence of detail heavy games that people&nbsp; haven't been careful when writing.&nbsp; (AD&amp;D is very bad for this, so&nbsp; is the World of Darkness).As for the rest, had D&amp;D made more explicit its roots in the Freeform LARP (even if that term hadn't been invented) that was Braunstein it would have made more people happy, yes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6310384, member: 87792"] I don't think I've [I]ever[/I] doubted that. I've read too much MERP, too much Rolemaster (although that's more [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game), too much GURPS, and have just bought Pendragon ([URL="http://www.bundleofholding.com/index/current"]as it's the current Bundle of Holding[/URL]). And I'm well aware of [URL="http://mrlizard.com/characters/chivalry-sorcery-eyestrain/"]Chivalry and Sorcery[/URL] and Harn. In fact I'll say flat out that one of the best things about 80s gaming was the depth, attention, and love put into the settings and fiction. Much more so, in my opinion, than 90s metaplotty stuff - and that's one of the reasons I was buying GURPS rather than WoD in the 90s. In fact I'll go so far as to say say that the 80s was the high point of RPG research and setting creation and no one is doing it remotely that well now (except arguably the people who've continued to build Harn). On the other hand on this thread I've been dealing with Howandwhy99 who takes a very different approach. Things I say about Howandwhy99's very fringe playstyle are not intended to apply to everyone. And I like that sort of story. But it is [I]far[/I] from the only sort of story I like. And, with all due respect, it takes [I]an absolute age[/I] to play. By the time we've finished a [I]Fiasco[/I] we'd still be on the first level of Caverns of Thracia - and that's if we've entered the caverns at all. (A fast game of Fiasco can be played in an hour including setup). It takes you what? Four to six sessions to reach level 2? In that time my Grey Ranks character will have had all the triumph and heartbreak of a child soldier in the Warsaw Occupation, seeing what they love turn to ash and either surviving or dying. And I can throw in a game of Montsegur as well. In Monsterhearts we can have told a complete coming of age story, with people growing and developing massively, learning to cope with the world in a not screwed up way. Or descending into a whole pile of screwup and possibly burning down the school and ruining their life and others. And to the nature of the challenges the rules and DM produce. D&D's mechanics basically support an "ascending sawtooth" story ("Can I? Can I? I don't think I can? I might be able to? Yay!!!/[Death]", repeat with a slightly bigger threat) or chicken/addiction arcs ("Just a bit further for a bit more treasure...") with the next iteration being almost the same but slightly louder. You can do more with it, of course, but the rules don't actively help you and can get in the way (try a locked room mystery with the cleric able to [I]Speak with Dead[/I] and the wizard loaded down on divination spells?) If we look at the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots"]seven basic plots[/URL], D&D is fundamentally about "The Quest" or "Overcoming the monster". Neither of those plots are bad things. But Fiasco is targetted on "Tragedy", and can delve into "Comedy" and "Voyage and Return" (and occasionally "Rebirth"). Monsterhearts strongly supports all five D&D doesn't. It's just possible that the game of Monsterhearts I'm currently running with seven PCs has all five of those running together plus Overcoming the Monster (with the Monster being one of the PCs), with each PC as the focus for their own story. That's tangled, interwoven storytelling of a sort I've never seen in D&D - especially not after a couple of sessions. This, as I've pointed out, just isn't true and I have already provided a counter-example. He allowed the Balrog to invent The Balrog Times as a plausible lie, and the idea they used flash photography. Because it was fun. Claiming Gygax would never have done something that someone who was there says he actually [I]did[/I] doesn't help your cause at all. And Arneson did not ask Major Wellesly if he could take a CIA badge with him into Braunstein. He just did it. A new way [I]did[/I] arise in home games not super long after D&D was invented. The new way was that you must stick to the pre-established rules and background rather than "we made up some :):):):) we thought would be fun". And this new way came to dominate the hobby. Because it's what the books said to do. The idea was introduced in Braunstein. The game that inspired D&D. By Arneson before Gygax even started to get involved with D&D. Indeed it wasn't on most peoples' minds. It happened in Lake Geneva - but the game Gygax played was not the game he published. And people who followed the [I]published[/I] game (especially AD&D) were given dense books full of tables and rules saying the way things must be. And most people who wanted to make their own stuff up either stuck to oD&D, B/X, BECMI. or the Rules Cyclopaedia. Rules lawyering is a consequence of detail heavy games that people haven't been careful when writing. (AD&D is very bad for this, so is the World of Darkness). As for the rest, had D&D made more explicit its roots in the [I]Freeform LARP[/I] (even if that term hadn't been invented) that was Braunstein it would have made more people happy, yes. [/QUOTE]

Verification