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

[outsider]

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.

That's a fine way to play the game. It's not the way the books advocated playing the game though. It's been at least a decade since I cracked a 2nd ed PHB/DMG, but I sincerely doubt it ever suggests that the way to address something not covered by the rules is to achieve consensus with your fellow players, only calling upon the DM when neccessary. I'm pretty sure, however, that the basic rule of "if there's no rules for it, ask your DM" appears at least a dozen times.

 

[Mark]

That's a fine way to play the game. It's not the way the books advocated playing the game though. It's been at least a decade since I cracked a 2nd ed PHB/DMG, but I sincerely doubt it ever suggests that the way to address something not covered by the rules is to achieve consensus with your fellow players, only calling upon the DM when neccessary. I'm pretty sure, however, that the basic rule of "if there's no rules for it, ask your DM" appears at least a dozen times.

Interesting challenge. I suppose I could break out my books later and find some examples from 2E, 1E and OD&D that support my assertions. Shall we assume that 3.XE and 4E are new enough that we not not look to them for arcane quotes along these lines? Let's both do some digging and come up with actual quotes from the books so that neither of us feels as if we are just using our "feelings" (to borrow from JM) to bolster our points.

 

[Bumbles]

Don't forget to use other sources, like Dragon magazine or even books like Gygax's Role-playing Mastery.

 

[outsider]

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.

System most definitely DOES matter. However, the wise approach is to focus on what the system seeks to accomplish, not how it accomplishes it. Take, for example, modern increasing AC vs old school decreasing AC. I think that most would agree that modern AC is easier to work with. Are there any advantages to using old school AC? The only one I can think of is compatibility with existing old D&D products. If compatibility isn't one of your goals, I can see no logical reason to use old school AC, even if you are trying to make an old scool game.

Another example is rolled attributes vs point buy. At first, they appear to be systems that are trying to achieve the same goal(generating attributes for your character). They create a very different style of game though. As much as I dislike rolling for attributes, it's pretty appropriate for an old school game. Some thought should be given to why the rules are that way though, rather than just including them because it's the way it was always done.

 

[Ariosto]

The subject of how game design interacts with different kinds of "social contract" is one long ago recognized as significant.

Gary Gygax did an about-face on the question of conformity when he produced Advanced D&D. He did not (as I recall the impression I got from his columns in The Dragon) desire the demise of the original game's free-wheeling approach. However, he envisioned the codification of AD&D as a means to the end of reaching a wider audience -- a game that, like Scrabble, facilitated play among casual acquaintances or even among strangers at national tournaments.

I don't think the results quite filled that bill, partly because his own temperament was more predisposed to a "rules light" approach. I see 4E, in conjunction with the RPGA, as a model more likely to succeed in the endeavor. (How the proclivity for "supplement-itis" shall affect that remains to be seen.)

 

[Remathilis]

Interesting challenge. I suppose I could break out my books later and find some examples from 2E, 1E and OD&D that support my assertions. Shall we assume that 3.XE and 4E are new enough that we not not look to them for arcane quotes along these lines? Let's both do some digging and come up with actual quotes from the books so that neither of us feels as if we are just using our "feelings" (to borrow from JM) to bolster our points.

I'll give you 4e, but why exclude 3e? It has three DMGs (DMG, DMG v3.5, DMG II), an entire run of Dragon Mags, eight years of supplements, and an entire website that still hosts "Interviews with the Designers" pages?

Still, I look forward to seeing your evidence.

 

[Ariosto]

Don't forget to use other sources, like Dragon magazine or even books like Gygax's Role-playing Mastery.

I hope someday to get the Dragon Archives CD, as my (never comprehensive) magazine collection is no longer extant. The Role-playing Mastery book is another item on my "wish list".

 

[Aus_Snow]

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-.

I'm not sure that that is Joe's point (but, of course, I'll let him say one way of the other, rather than outright assume either way). Thing is, he's decided not to use older games (like OD&D or AD&D), but rather 'do old school' with 3e. More or less in his words, there.

So he personally was probably not even going to be part of that 'intended market'.

But that aside, I really don't see a parallel of that kind (between the old school and the indie RPG movements). From what I can see, it's blooming quite healthily, as it has been for well over a couple of years (or three?) - anyhow, a while. And it doesn't seem to have any of that rather unfortunate arrogance etc. attached to it. Old school is simply a style of play, one facilitated (funnily enough) by old school systems. Hardly a grandiose claim or swaggerin' 'pon the high ground.

But then, people will sometimes see what they want to see. And yes, that could also apply to me here. Who knows.

 

[outsider]

Interesting challenge. I suppose I could break out my books later and find some examples from 2E, 1E and OD&D that support my assertions. Shall we assume that 3.XE and 4E are new enough that we not not look to them for arcane quotes along these lines? Let's both do some digging and come up with actual quotes from the books so that neither of us feels as if we are just using our "feelings" (to borrow from JM) to bolster our points.

As I got rid of all my AD&D stuff back in the 90s, about the only resource I'll be able to utilize in this is D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I really wish I held on to my 2nd ed DMG, as there's been several debates I wished I could reference it in rather than working off of biased memory. I've tried to scrounge up a copy locally a few times, with no luck. I'll see what I can dig up in the good old RC though.

I do suggest though that if we do this, we limit it to the core books only. They are the only constant among D&D players, and they have the greatest impact on the game. Dragon articles, while they may be(and often were) high quality content, don't have the same impact, as a relatively small percentage of D&D players would have read any specific article.

 

[Ariosto]

The wise approach is to focus on what the system seeks to accomplish, not how it accomplishes it.

I think they are naturally complimentary in a successful design, at odds in one that fails to achieve the design goals. However, the goals are certainly "the horse before the cart" -- and recognizing that different games are designed to accomplish different things is an excellent start.

The tendency to take one's own priorities as a player for some sort of absolute standard is most unhelpful, as is an emotional attachment to some term as a badge of prestige rather than as a conveyor of meaning. The combination can be terribly counter-productive.