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

[naturaltwenty]

I'll try to quantify my views but I'm not a debater or an eloquent speaker (writer).

Games with rules for everything and that strive for "balance" are more difficult for me to run.

If player's are expected to define their characters within a specific rules-set during creation and play I, as a Game Master, have a sense of guilt if I have to wing an encounter where villains are expected to follow the "rules" as well. I constantly question - "Did I do that right or did I pick the appropriate power/feat/skill combo?" Weird I know but for 30 years that's been my personal bugaboo. Does it physically stop me from "winging it"? No. I can only compare it to a white lie or taking an extra cookie when you know you shouldn't.

Newer editions (specifically of D&D 3.x and 4.0) introduced a very tightly bound system into encounter design and balance to address previous editions lack of said sub-systems. This attempt at balance reinforced and exacerbated my issues from the previous paragraph.

This more tightly balanced system* constrained me personally from enjoying the game. I was more worried about "did I run that encounter right" than "is this going to be fun". I focused more on the feat/power/ability selection that going with what I knew to be fun.

"Old school" is a less refined set of parameters allowing me to let my imagination be the engine instead of a daily/encounter/CR/miniature matrix that constrains me.

Put another way in terms I associate with (I'm a homebrewer and have a degree in restaurant and hotel cookery). With older rules-sets I've been given a very straightforward recipe that is very forgiving and allows a lot of variation. As long as I know my players and that they ordered "steak" I can supply them with a filet, or steak diane, or tartar and I can quickly alter the recipe as I go. With the newer games I have a pre-defined recipe, as Mike Mearls indicated is like a symphony, that people know and if I tweak it too much the souffle will flatten or won't be recognizable for what it was supposed to be.

If I were to focus all of my attention on 4e and play it and run it more I'm sure I'd become more accustomed to it's nuances - but I think my old brain is too challenged by it

 

[Aus_Snow]

Swanmay? 3 Hearts & 3 Lions, baby. Yeah.

Iron Heroes does. ---snip---

So, it's 'make a skill check', pretty much. As it might likely be ruled in, say, 3e or 4e (though 4e has a special table for DCs and damage rolls, IIRC). Dex check with or without mods, if earlier edition, perhaps. Or % chance, whatever.

Also, IH ain't D&D. Even if it was written by Mr. 4e. . .

 

[Mark]

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.

That you use the word power (and DM fiat, for that matter) rather than responsibility speaks to the point I was making. The better DMs and players I know share those responsibilities by default with the caveat that the facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee has the final say if it really comes down to it. Certainly the facilitator can leave those rare decisions up to chance, the dice, and many do if there is no overriding factor of which the facilitator is uniquely aware. There are sometimes circumstanes of which only the facilitator is aware and any game that has a facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee provides for this in the rules. Again, your choice of wording leads me to believe that you are getting hung up on some bad experiences with a particularly controlling DM(s?) that have you disallowing that games run with the earlier systems were by default more in the hands of the DM when my own experiences are contrary. The fact that my own experiences are quite different from your situation points to something other than the ruleset we both used as the defining aspect of your own experience. I recognize that your situation was different than mine. I am sorry that it was not more enjoyable or, at least, less contentious for you. But clearly it could have been different, and with the same ruleset being used just as it was used by my own groups.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm not sure that a litcrit perspective is the best way to interpret and answer other people's posts.

 

[Harr]

That you use the word power (and DM fiat, for that matter) rather than responsibility speaks to the point I was making. The better DMs and players I know share those responsibilities by default with the caveat that the facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee has the final say if it really comes down to it. Certainly the facilitator can leave those rare decisions up to chance, the dice, and many do if there is no overriding factor of which the facilitator is uniquely aware. There are sometimes circumstanes of which only the facilitator is aware and any game that has a facilitator/adjudicator/GM/DM/referee provides for this in the rules. Again, your choice of wording leads me to believe that you are getting hung up on some bad experiences with a particularly controlling DM(s?) that have you disallowing that games run with the earlier systems were by default more in the hands of the DM when my own experiences are contrary. The fact that my own experiences are quite different from your situation points to something other than the ruleset we both used as the defining aspect of your own experience. I recognize that your situation was different than mine. I am sorry that it was not more enjoyable or, at least, less contentious for you. But clearly it could have been different, and with the same ruleset being used just as it was used by my own groups.

... or maybe he's fully aware of all that, and said the word "power" anyway cause he likes it better, assuming (correctly) that 99.9% of all who read it would understand his intent.

 

[Mark]

... or maybe he's fully aware of all that, and said the word "power" anyway cause he likes it better, assuming (correctly) that 99.9% of all who read it would understand his intent.

But it isn't a matter of "power" in the games that some others do play and that is the crux of the disparity. The rest of his posts speak clearly to situations where the DM and players are often at odds and it becomes a power struggle. I'm not saying he isn't using the correct word for his situation, I am saying that other groups look at the situation and do not assess it in terms of power or controling but rather in terms of shared responsibility.

 

[Piratecat]

Let's not be pedantic, please. Quibbling over word choice isn't appropriate in a forum where people post from all over the world and from many different backgrounds.

 

[Mark]

Let's not be pedantic, please. Quibbling over word choice isn't appropriate in a forum where people post from all over the world and from many different backgrounds.

Oh, make no mistake, this is not a debate about semantics and I apologize if some have taken that impression from my posts. The words being used are just markers, verbal message tags, that point out the social dynamics at play in a cultural encounter. It's clear to me that we had very different experiences using the same rules and, since the rules were unlikely to be the root of the differences, I was looking toward other possibilities.

 

[Ariosto]

How more versus less comprehensive rules affects the process of play is just the sort of thing I think J.M. meant by "more than a feeling".

It's not a matter of, "What I like is right, and what I don't like is wrong". It's a matter of, "What is it about the design that facilitates the kinds of experiences I like, or gets in the way of those you like?"

"Old school", even when limited to D&D -- which seems to be the predominant frame of reference -- encompasses many things. The hobby of the 1970s-80s was (and that still rooted in it is) no less vibrant with creativity than the hobby focused on recent editions.

However, there is clearly overlap among the perspectives in the community; that's what makes it a community. Identifying the game features of that common region, and how they differ from the set found in games with notably different appeal is (I think) a feasible, informative ... and rational undertaking.

It might be ideal from a commercial perspective if everyone liked the same things. It would be great for an avid player of Pinochle, Diplomacy, or any other game, if one could find plenty of fellow players wherever and whenever one wanted to play.

That's not the case, though. Neither "edition wars" nor affected (but not real) indifference is going to change human nature.

It can be tempting to see a competition in which more players for Game X means fewer for Game Y. I think that's so only if there's some way to induce people to play one even though they would prefer the other -- and I think such a victory would prove Pyrrhic in the long run. It seems more likely that "the only game in town" would suffer from a bad rap spread by those dissatisfied with it, a reputation that would turn away even those who might like it if they tried it.

A hobby with many points of entry, one that appeals to many different tastes, should be a win-win situation for everyone. There's a market segment with eclectic tastes. My impression "back in the day" was that such folks (including Yours Truly) tended to spend more than those with more limited interest in the field. I don't know whether that still holds true, but I know that turning them away is no profit to anyone in the hobby/industry.

 

[Harr]

It's not a matter of, "What I like is right, and what I don't like is wrong". It's a matter of, "What is it about the design that facilitates the kinds of experiences I like, or gets in the way of those you like?"

Yep. I really don't see what the huge deal is here... what the guy is saying is simply "system matters", and anyone who follows RPGs on the net knows that that particular little tidbit already has years of vigorous debate behind it.

Let's just hope that the 'old-school' movement can do a (much) better job with it than their 'indie' movement counterparts did and not eventually alienate 90% of their intended market. I guess that might be Joe's whole point, but I don't see any indication that they mean to take it down that path -yet-.