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

[jdrakeh]

And it doesn't seem to have any of that rather unfortunate arrogance etc. attached to it.

I dunno. There are some pretty vocal individuals and communities screaming about the superiority of older RPG systems over currently in-print systems, complete with name-calling and newly coined vernacular that makes grade school children look grown up by comparison.

I can't name such individuals or communities per forum rules, but I'm certain you can nail down a few with a Google search. Frankly, those individuals and communities turn me off of certain 'old school' products as much as their Indie counterparts turned me off of certain 'Indie' games.

 

[Cadfan]

The only thing I'll say about what is or is not "old school" is this:

1. If "old school" is just "stuff I'm nostalgic for," then whatever, knock yourselves out and have a good time with it. Don't expect anyone to be playing the way you do in 20 years, though.

2. If "old school," even for a specific person, is a specific style of game, then... the impression I've gotten over the years is that most "old school" styles of play are methods of adapting an intransigent ruleset into some semblance of fun. In that case, figuring out exactly what it was that was fun, and then obtaining and/or writing a game that actually facilitates that instead of merely allowing it, would have some value and possibly contribute meaningfully to the overall culture and repertoire of RPGs.

For example, some people play a "Tomb of Horrors" style game where the best method of play is to hire a dozen or so henchmen and expend their lives callously, or run around with ten foot poles and systematic door-checking practices, etc, etc. This is something you can do in a lot of older games (and some newer ones), but I've always felt that it was sort of a hack of the game system, and that maybe a game written from the ground up with a laser like focus on encouraging this sort of play might be a much, much better choice.

Same thing for the "magical mcguyver" type game where PCs solve their problems with a wealth of spells, magic items, and the occasional man-sized keg of alchemist's fire. You can do that with a lot of game systems (3e is quite good at it) but none of these systems were written with the explicit intention of supporting this kind of game. Maybe a game designed with the intention that players play in this manner would be an even better fit- it might do things like omit the classes that can't meaningfully contribute to this style of game, or alter them to help them fit in better.

There are probably a dozen other popular allegedly "old school" styles of play, so this sort of list could probably go on.

 

[Ariosto]

"Bashing" is definitely out there, very prominently in some quarters. Certain derogatory terms seem to have wide currency, and some others that (I think) were not coined with insulting intent seem to have acquired such connotations.

There are individuals whose creative works I much admire, but whose animosity toward each other can be even more tiresome than their bile for the vogue in game design.

I don't think it's any nearer a critical mass, though, than the bad behavior among, e.g., 3E/4E partisans. Somehow, the diverse aspects of the hobby have survived the trolling and flame wars for which at least one prominent Web site is rather infamous.

 

[Ariosto]

I don't see that a game with a "laser like focus" on a sharply limited range of play would be objectively better than a more wide-open one.

The valuation implicit in "adapting an intransigent ruleset into some semblance of fun" is why I have a growing distaste for encountering the word "fun" in such discussions. It is too often associated with a projection onto others of one's own preferences, suggesting that they are lost lambs needing guidance because they don't really know how to have fun.

That is of a kind with telling people that their motives are "just nostalgia", rather than listening to what they have to say about their personal experiences.

 

[Mark]

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 feel for you. I canot tell you how many sad stories I have heard over the years about the mom who tossed the box of stuff while a friend was away at college or the guy who got married and "put away childish things" only to have his wife ask him later to teach her how to play. I'll try to point out phrases and quotes that support either/or position, as I am sure we both have some basis for our positions, and we'll see what comes of it.

Also, RC?

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.

Despite Bumbles's suggestion above, I think it is fair for you to make that call on the scope of our inquiry into the past. Let's face it, if we include too much, we could go on until even 7E is obsolete. Core-only would certain capture the influence over the widest sphere of players and is likely something that allows us to recruit most of the gamers on EN World to assist us.

May I suggest that you start up a new thread with the parameters you have in mind (feel free to quote us both in the OP to help lend some context for others) and we'll get everyone we can to join in the fun? Perhaps people can even add in some stories about how they came by their books and a memory or two of their early games?

 

[Bumbles]

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.

Well, I am going to move in a couple months, but I still haven't put up my 2e books, would you like me to scan through it for anything in particular? I can also do the same with the 1e books.

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.

I think that's a bad reason to dismiss Dragon, which as an official publication is one great source of the Word, as it were, beyond that found in the core books. The core books while useful, are not all that much more defining as to what any percentage of players are doing/thinking anyway, as they represent what their authors think, not necessarily what the players are doing. Which may be me being influenced by reading the foreword of the 2e DMG right now where it pretty much says that is the case...

 

[catsclaw227]

I dunno. There are some pretty vocal individuals and communities screaming about the superiority of older RPG systems over currently in-print systems, complete with name-calling and newly coined vernacular that makes grade school children look grown up by comparison.

There are some examples of it even in this thread. I won't add the names or the posters or link to the individual posts, but they are here. These two by the same person:

That sort of "no, you just can't" attitude is something I associate with the personality politics of high-school, reinforcing the theory that retro-gaming is gaining popularity because official Dungeons & Dragons is now designed solely for adolescents.

Yea... that's not rub anyone the wrong way...

I played a 4E campaign and DMed another. I enjoyed it, but found it was thematically shallow, a bit tacky, and apparently geared more toward providing immortal Mary Sues for teenagers than challenging the ingenuity and cunning of the players. That's a perfectly legitimate design/marketing approach, but not the game I want to play.

There are probably many game systems that can provide a challenge for experienced players, but D&D is the one I'm most familiar with, so I gravitate toward clones of old editions for the style of game I want to play. You can call that nostalgia, but you'd be wrong.

A decade from now, many of today's 4E boosters will be looking for more flexible games which they can relate to as adults. Not all will go for an old D&D or clone, but they'll realise then why so many didn't hop on the 4E train all those years ago.

And current 4e gamers can't relate to their game system as adults? And as a 4e DM I am shackled because my system is "geared more toward providing immortal Mary Sues for teenagers than challenging the ingenuity and cunning of the players"?

 

[outsider]

Also, RC?

Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Basically BECMI+some extras crammed into one book.

Taking a quick skim of it, phrases such as "the dm decides", "the dm can decide", "the dm will decide", "up to the DM to determine" and the like are EXTREMELY common. My guess is if I was to take an average, I'd find one of those phrases at least twice per page. Though I haven't dug a specific quote that states "if there's no rule for it, ask the dm", it is HEAVILY implied that the DM handles such things.

 

[Bumbles]

Though I haven't dug a specific quote that states "if there's no rule for it, ask the dm", it is HEAVILY implied that the DM handles such things.

Well, this bit from the introduction to the 2e DMG says:

One of the principles guiding this project from the very beginning and which is expressed throughout this book, is this: The DM has primary responsibility for the success of his campaign and he must take an active hand in guiding it. That is an important concept. If you are skimming through this introduction, slow down and read it again. It's crucial that you understand what you are getting into.
The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you. Each DM must tailor his campaign to fit his own style and the style of his players.

Also a few paragraphs later, there is advice to read Dragon for more information on other aspects of refereeing that's beyond the scope of the DMG.

 

[Mark]

Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Basically BECMI+some extras crammed into one book.

I had thought that was an abbreviation for a place, like a name for resale shop of some sort.

As to BECMI, I was not a player or DM of those rules. I started in 1974 with the little box and booklets, moved to the hardcovers with AD&D1E, then on to AD&D2E, then to 3.XE and so forth. Perhaps the tenor of that branch of D&D is a bit different in tone? We'll see.

Taking a quick skim of it, phrases such as "the dm decides", "the dm can decide", "the dm will decide", "up to the DM to determine" and the like are EXTREMELY common. My guess is if I was to take an average, I'd find one of those phrases at least twice per page. Though I haven't dug a specific quote that states "if there's no rule for it, ask the dm", it is HEAVILY implied that the DM handles such things.

I think you are right to set aside those DM calls as a separate issue from the no rule applies situation, though they both make up the impression that DMs and players would take from a reading, so both should bear some weight.