My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"

[outsider]

Because the verb you use "convince" (and the rest of your post) shows that there was an adversarial relationship between your group and your DM, where you had to often debate whether or not PC actions were viable or allowed.

With some DMs, this has been true. Other DMs not so much. Even with a DM that usually says "yes" though, the process is still there. Some players are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to ask permission from somebody to do things(even if he usually says yes). Others are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to consult the rules to determine whether they can do things(even if the rules usually say yes).

 

[Doug McCrae]

superhero boardgame format of 4E may not be as much fun as the more demanding and human-scaled classic play-style.

And yet what could be more old school than Chainmail? Wargames and boardgames are pretty similar so if one does accept that 4e is a boardgame (I don't, or rather that's not *all* it is) then 4e is, in a sense, old school. Its gamism-promoting system also makes it more old school than anything we've seen since 1e. The focus on location based adventures of both d20 editions are more old school than 2e.

You say that 4e is marketed at teenagers. Well OD&D was a product of the young. It was played by the young. Gary initially ran the game for his children. Dave Arneson wasn't long out of his teens when he began work on D&D. Rob Kuntz, co-DM of Gary's first Greyhawk campaign, was born in 1955, he'd have been a teenager when OD&D was published. Holmes 1977 D&D was specifically revised to make it more accessible to children and was aimed at ages 12 and up.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that's largely an illusion that has been fostered by modern game design. IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it.

That is, volume of rules doesn't speak to the nature of individual action or, if you prefer, just because a game contains rules for X doesn't mean that X will happen during actual play.

Agreed.

DMs, being a fickle bunch (I should know, I'm one) can still poo-poo actions even in the presence/absence of rules for it.

No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU. He might call for a dex check, a series of skill checks, he might just let you do it, or he might flat out say no (or worse, allow you to "try" but make the attempt automatically fail). Still, the DM provides the narrative footwork & mechanical frame for it to happen; is there a chandelier, can the PC reach it, will it hold his weight, what roll does he need (if any) to accomplish the task, what game-related benefit does it provide (if swinging over a group of enemies provokes AoO's from them, why waste the dice rolls to swing when you've just walked and got the same effect?)

What the codification of rules was supposed to do was give indecisive DMs a framework to base judgments off of (Can I swing? Well, I don't know, how bout a tumble check?) What it does for some it create an artificial limit (No, there is no rule for that, you cannot). Still, the presence/absence of the rule should not be the deciding factor as to what is possible, but merely a jumping off point. Its a fine distinction some "rules-light" people expose; A rules-heavy game has no place for improvisation.

 

[Remathilis]

old school is usually challenges the player, not his character... its not a bad thing, but it makes playing believable characters challenging... very challenging sometimes...

Agreed. It can lead to the "My PC has a 18 charisma, why doesn't that count when I'm trying to convince the barkeep to let us in the hidden backroom?" scenario.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I was having a look at the Fight On! site, "A Fanzine for the Old-School Renaissance", and I saw something in the first paragraph that I would say is the opposite of old school.

Out of 5 PCs in the adventuring party mentioned, 2 are female, the swanmay and the witch. Not old school. In the very early days of D&D, all the players (and their PCs) were male.

It was Fighting Man, not Fighting Person.

 

[outsider]

No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU.

It's about more than complex environmental interaction. Pre 3e, I don't think I could even try to push a foe without DM fiat.

It's not really about having rules for everything(though having a good, consistent system that can easily cover many situations is awfully nice). It's about having a fair amount of options codified by the rules, so you aren't playing ask the DM constantly when you get bored of "I roll my d20 to hit, then I roll my d8 for damage".

 

[Mark]

With some DMs, this has been true. Other DMs not so much. Even with a DM that usually says "yes" though, the process is still there.

Only in so far as the DM is the default eyes and ears of the players into the setting, the facilitator.

Some players are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to ask permission from somebody to do things(even if he usually says yes). Others are going to chafe under a system where they constantly have to consult the rules to determine whether they can do things(even if the rules usually say yes).

Again, that's not the system. That's a relationship between DM and players that requires adjustment. Unless the setting is merely a veneer and the rules are such that the players do not even need a DM to adjudicate, but that's no longer an RPG with a DM/player dynamic and not what I am discussing. That's more akin to a CRPG or a boardgame where no DM/facilitator/adjudicator is necessary.

 

[outsider]

Again, that's not the system. That's a relationship between DM and players that requires adjustment.

It is, in fact, the system, and I'm having a realy hard time seeing why you feel differently. The relationship between the DM and the players will make the system work better or worse, of course. It doesn't change what the system actually is though. Old D&D's system was that nearly everything was decided by DM fiat. It's possible to dislike so much power being in the hands of one player even if he always does exactly what you want him to.

 

[Remathilis]

I was having a look at the Fight On! site, "A Fanzine for the Old-School Renaissance", and I saw something in the first paragraph that I would say is the opposite of old school.

Out of 5 PCs in the adventuring party mentioned, 2 are female, the swanmay and the witch. Not old school. In the very early days of D&D, all the players (and their PCs) were male.

It was Fighting Man, not Fighting Person.

Paging Shilsen in 5... 4... 3...

EDIT: Actually, that is very old school. AFAIK, neither class was a PC class choice, both were NPC classes (or "monsters"). Both are unarmored, lightly armed spellcaster types that follow and aid their male "adventurers" with magic and knowledge, akin to a wide collection of mythical magicians such as Circe or Medea.

A female PC in full plate carrying a greatsword, on the other hand...

 

[amethal]

No edition of D&D has ever given the swashbuckler "swing from chandelier" action, yet it can be attempted in any edition of D&D IF THE DM LETS YOU.

Iron Heroes does. (A d20 system game.)

Chandelier Swing (Reusable Action Zone): You leap through the
air, grab hold of the chandelier, and use it to swing across the
room. You must make a Jump check as normal to reach the
chandelier. You then use it to swing across the room as a free
action. The distance it carries you depends on its size and the
length of the rope or chain used to suspend it from the ceiling.
If, after swinging across the room, you immediately attack a foe
in melee, you gain the benefits and drawbacks of charging.

NB As far as I can tell, the above is not open content.