Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9469766" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I am going to very briefly pine in on the actual topic.OD&amp;D and AD&amp;D (like 5e) can be run in a variety of ways- both from the RAW, as well as because there is a &quot;tradition&quot; or &quot;culture&quot; in D&amp;D. One way that it can be run is, for lack of a better way of putting it, the &quot;Strong Simbalist&quot; approach. In other words, having the DM strongly script the narratives (whether through illusionism or meta-gaming buy in or other techniques) so that the players experience something resembling a narrative arc.This is in contrast to another, old school (call it the &quot;Strong Pulsipher&quot; approach) where there is no thumb on the scale, and players can do what they want- and story or narrative is accidental and emergent.This debate was already getting tired in the '70s, and it's a function of the hobby that it always circles around, continually, every year. Like taxes. And pumpkin spice. I think we start to run into trouble when we assign blame to different playing styles, or if we start to use jargon to make pejorative statements. For example, some people use illusionism and/or railroading to describe selecting an adventure (a module, an AP). But is that a good thing to explore? Is the (insert jargon) or is that just buy in from the table?Let's make that more concrete. Look, if you're playing BiTD (for example) and the players are decide that the characters don't want to do scores, don't want to be in Duskvol, and think heists are lame, you're going to run into problems. But because of the narrow(er) focus, we often overlook the necessary buy-in that has already occurred. No one would say that BiTD is railroading players into Duskvol, or heists, because that would be absurd, right?So, what am I here to say? Well, people have different preferences when it comes to playing. And that's awesome! The issue is that D&amp;D (and variants) doesn't really focus on mandating a particular style; so we often end up with various debates about the right way to play it- something that most more focused games don't have. And the answer, to me, is simple-The right way to play it is the way that your tables enjoys playing it. Simple. If y'all like it, then that's the right way to play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9469766, member: 7023840"] I am going to very briefly pine in on the actual topic. OD&D and AD&D (like 5e) can be run in a variety of ways- both from the RAW, as well as because there is a "tradition" or "culture" in D&D. One way that it can be run is, for lack of a better way of putting it, the "Strong Simbalist" approach. In other words, having the DM strongly script the narratives (whether through illusionism or meta-gaming buy in or other techniques) so that the players experience something resembling a narrative arc. This is in contrast to another, old school (call it the "Strong Pulsipher" approach) where there is no thumb on the scale, and players can do what they want- and story or narrative is accidental and emergent. This debate was already getting tired in the '70s, and it's a function of the hobby that it always circles around, continually, every year. Like taxes. And pumpkin spice. I think we start to run into trouble when we assign blame to different playing styles, or if we start to use jargon to make pejorative statements. For example, some people use illusionism and/or railroading to describe selecting an adventure (a module, an AP). But is that a good thing to explore? Is the (insert jargon) or is that just [I]buy in from the table[/I]? Let's make that more concrete. Look, if you're playing BiTD (for example) and the players are decide that the characters don't want to do scores, don't want to be in Duskvol, and think heists are lame, you're going to run into problems. But because of the narrow(er) focus, we often overlook the [I]necessary buy-in [/I]that has already occurred. No one would say that BiTD is railroading players into Duskvol, or heists, because that would be absurd, right? So, what am I here to say? Well, people have different preferences when it comes to playing. And that's awesome! The issue is that D&D (and variants) doesn't really focus on mandating a particular style; so we often end up with various debates about the right way to play it- something that most more focused games don't have. And the answer, to me, is simple- The right way to play it is the way that your tables enjoys playing it. Simple. If y'all like it, then that's the right way to play. [/QUOTE]

Verification