pming
Legend
Hiya!
First, no, not "that" kind of label.
Second, I was skimming the forums here and for some reason got 'irked' with all the labels everyone seems to be using to describe D&D, and RPG'ing in general, that I think are...unnecessary? Let me explain a bit...
A Groups Home Game.
The labels used to describe it tend to be: "Sandbox", "Open-World", "Hexcrawl" and sometimes just "Wilderness"
Now I'm probably showing my age here, but back in my day we called that "a DM's campaign". There was no need for labeling it because RPG'ing encompassed, well, "open imagination and exploration". EVERY campaign was a "sandbox/open-world/hexcrawl/whatever". The DM presented his world, and tossed hooks out, the players bit on what they found interested, the DM...well... DM'ed.
I find it quite strange when people talk about their "campaigns" and then I find out they are going to "be finished with it in a month or so". That's not a campaign as I remember it. That's called "an adventure/module". For example, the GDQ series. If when the PC's finish Q1...the campaign doesn't "end" magically. It's still going. The next week the players will be there with the same PC's and just keep on playing them in the campaign setting/world that they have been. Or, they'll be there with new PC's, perhaps henchmen of the former (no retired) PC's, continuing on the next day the high-level heroes return to the Prime Material Plane (re: campaign setting). On Friday, the high-level heroes were in the Demonweb Pits. On Saturday they returned home. On Sunday they sleep. On Monday, new PC's are at the local inn hearing that the "Lords & Ladies of the country just returned from The Abyss after a harrowing adventure!".
PC Builds.
I very much dislike the very notion, to be honest. I understand the desire to somehow "control" how your PC is going to turn out...but it seems to be far too...specific? I guess? A PC shouldn't, IMNSHO, be a fore-gone conclusion as to exactly what class(es) of what level(s), with what specific abilities, combined with a specific race, and having certain stat scores, and a specific listing of spells/magic items. A beginning 1st level PC should be a relatively blank slate; with only the base "theme" reflecting that PC's background/history as written by the player (and DM). Once that is done, the Player plays the PC and that PC's "shtick" may or may not be the same by the time it hits 5th, 10th, or higher level. Again, IMHO, this uncertainty should be seen as a GOOD thing! Not something to be avoided by carefully crafted "builds" on a detailed level-to-level spreadsheet. It just sucks all the mystery and excitement out of the game. Playing, making decisions, and seeing what fate unfolds before the PC's is probably THE biggest draw to RPG's. "PC Builds" stomp all over that.
RAW.
This ol' bugaboo! Back when I started playing ('80/'81), the "rules" where there for us to refer to when we encountered a situation that we wanted to have handled in a consistent manner. That is NOT the same as "a situation handled exactly as the rules say". Why? Because, frankly, too many variables. But today's more modern player/DM seem to almost have a phobia in regards to modifying or even outright ignoring rules. CONSISTENCY is not necessarily the same as "RAW". Anyway, we did have "Rules Lawyers", and they were initially very annoying to deal with because their inflexible outlook on the rules of the game. It was sometimes impossible to placate them; if a rule was in the game, they wanted to use it...but in the current situation it would be detrimental to the Rules Lawyers' PC, they would be annoyed/upset, but would still want to use the rule as written...because if they didn't, then that sets a precedent in their mind that the RAW can sometimes need to be ignored/adjusted/modified.
How this related to modern gaming...a lot of gamer's seem to see the rules as "equal" to the DM. That somehow, if there is a rule the DM wants to change or ignore, he/she needs permission from the Player(s) to do so...because otherwise it might "make the game bad" or even worse, "mess up a planned PC Build". 5e is better at alleviating that mindset a bit, but it's a far cry from ye olden days of yore when "What the DM says, goes!" was the bedrock. (sucky DM's that ran roughshod over their Players quickly found themselves 'unemployable', from a Player perspective; a nice self-correcting error, if I might say so! ).
......
Anyway...I just found it mildly irksome realizing that I am old and my "old man gaming style" is making it harder and harder for me to converse with some players and DM's. My notion of "campaign" means never-ending timeline advancing with the Players playing many PC's over the decades...all taking place in that shared imaginative world. So hearing "The campaign is ending soon, what should I play next?" gives me a double take; I still jump to the thought of "...well, try a sci-fi game, or maybe super hero". Because a "campaign", in my mind, never actually "ends"; PC's just die or retire. With 5e, me saying "No Feats, no multi-classing, and only PHB, DMG, MM...unless reviewed on a case-by-case basis for other things"...pretty much is the same as saying "DM available! Nobody need apply, thanks!"
Any other old grognards out there feel the same? Or am I just an anomaly in not "getting" all these new-fangled terminologies and whatnot?
^_^
Paul L. Ming
First, no, not "that" kind of label.
Second, I was skimming the forums here and for some reason got 'irked' with all the labels everyone seems to be using to describe D&D, and RPG'ing in general, that I think are...unnecessary? Let me explain a bit...
A Groups Home Game.
The labels used to describe it tend to be: "Sandbox", "Open-World", "Hexcrawl" and sometimes just "Wilderness"
Now I'm probably showing my age here, but back in my day we called that "a DM's campaign". There was no need for labeling it because RPG'ing encompassed, well, "open imagination and exploration". EVERY campaign was a "sandbox/open-world/hexcrawl/whatever". The DM presented his world, and tossed hooks out, the players bit on what they found interested, the DM...well... DM'ed.
I find it quite strange when people talk about their "campaigns" and then I find out they are going to "be finished with it in a month or so". That's not a campaign as I remember it. That's called "an adventure/module". For example, the GDQ series. If when the PC's finish Q1...the campaign doesn't "end" magically. It's still going. The next week the players will be there with the same PC's and just keep on playing them in the campaign setting/world that they have been. Or, they'll be there with new PC's, perhaps henchmen of the former (no retired) PC's, continuing on the next day the high-level heroes return to the Prime Material Plane (re: campaign setting). On Friday, the high-level heroes were in the Demonweb Pits. On Saturday they returned home. On Sunday they sleep. On Monday, new PC's are at the local inn hearing that the "Lords & Ladies of the country just returned from The Abyss after a harrowing adventure!".
PC Builds.
I very much dislike the very notion, to be honest. I understand the desire to somehow "control" how your PC is going to turn out...but it seems to be far too...specific? I guess? A PC shouldn't, IMNSHO, be a fore-gone conclusion as to exactly what class(es) of what level(s), with what specific abilities, combined with a specific race, and having certain stat scores, and a specific listing of spells/magic items. A beginning 1st level PC should be a relatively blank slate; with only the base "theme" reflecting that PC's background/history as written by the player (and DM). Once that is done, the Player plays the PC and that PC's "shtick" may or may not be the same by the time it hits 5th, 10th, or higher level. Again, IMHO, this uncertainty should be seen as a GOOD thing! Not something to be avoided by carefully crafted "builds" on a detailed level-to-level spreadsheet. It just sucks all the mystery and excitement out of the game. Playing, making decisions, and seeing what fate unfolds before the PC's is probably THE biggest draw to RPG's. "PC Builds" stomp all over that.
RAW.
This ol' bugaboo! Back when I started playing ('80/'81), the "rules" where there for us to refer to when we encountered a situation that we wanted to have handled in a consistent manner. That is NOT the same as "a situation handled exactly as the rules say". Why? Because, frankly, too many variables. But today's more modern player/DM seem to almost have a phobia in regards to modifying or even outright ignoring rules. CONSISTENCY is not necessarily the same as "RAW". Anyway, we did have "Rules Lawyers", and they were initially very annoying to deal with because their inflexible outlook on the rules of the game. It was sometimes impossible to placate them; if a rule was in the game, they wanted to use it...but in the current situation it would be detrimental to the Rules Lawyers' PC, they would be annoyed/upset, but would still want to use the rule as written...because if they didn't, then that sets a precedent in their mind that the RAW can sometimes need to be ignored/adjusted/modified.
How this related to modern gaming...a lot of gamer's seem to see the rules as "equal" to the DM. That somehow, if there is a rule the DM wants to change or ignore, he/she needs permission from the Player(s) to do so...because otherwise it might "make the game bad" or even worse, "mess up a planned PC Build". 5e is better at alleviating that mindset a bit, but it's a far cry from ye olden days of yore when "What the DM says, goes!" was the bedrock. (sucky DM's that ran roughshod over their Players quickly found themselves 'unemployable', from a Player perspective; a nice self-correcting error, if I might say so! ).
......
Anyway...I just found it mildly irksome realizing that I am old and my "old man gaming style" is making it harder and harder for me to converse with some players and DM's. My notion of "campaign" means never-ending timeline advancing with the Players playing many PC's over the decades...all taking place in that shared imaginative world. So hearing "The campaign is ending soon, what should I play next?" gives me a double take; I still jump to the thought of "...well, try a sci-fi game, or maybe super hero". Because a "campaign", in my mind, never actually "ends"; PC's just die or retire. With 5e, me saying "No Feats, no multi-classing, and only PHB, DMG, MM...unless reviewed on a case-by-case basis for other things"...pretty much is the same as saying "DM available! Nobody need apply, thanks!"
Any other old grognards out there feel the same? Or am I just an anomaly in not "getting" all these new-fangled terminologies and whatnot?
^_^
Paul L. Ming