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

[Mournblade94]

Check out this 'anime' from 1967:

No more Japanese influences please Mr Moorcock! I want traditional fantasy!

I have read everything that man has written, well except for short stories I have not come across. He is best described as the new weird.

However I see nothing 'anime' about the illustration other than a thickness of blade. That is not nearly the exageration that occurs in anime.

Besides almost every cover of Elric fiction has an irritatingly depicted blade. But in the books it is called a Broad sword. SO I am OK with that.

 

[Ariosto]

Here are just a few of the reasons many people have offered for preferring the results of "old school" design, and some corresponding design elements:

Preference: speed of play. Elements: Simplicity, for a start. The interactions of chance to hit, damage, and hit points (or equivalent factors) are also significant; the designers of 4E set those to prolong combats in order to give more opportunities to bring powers into play.

Preference: speed of character generation. Elements: Again, simplicity. "Rolling up" rather than "building" is another factor, which also appeals to those who prefer to "discover" rather than "design".

Preference: a certain level of risk of character mortality (high versus 4E, in the long run low versus some other games). Elements: Taking D&D as an example, the factors used to prolong combats in 4E introduce more occasions of hit-point loss before death, very notably for first-level characters. Other mechanical differences contributing to this may quickly come to mind. Speed of character generation reduces the "down time" from casualties.

Preference: risk of character failure/defeat, even short of death. Elements: Mainly the absence of all the mechanisms that have been developed to "ensure balance" in or "fudge" situations. Those could be stripped away from other games more or less easily, depending on how integrated they are into a whole "system". Their presence, though, is (to those who don't like them) at best a waste and at worst a heavy presumption as to what "the game is about".

(Getting rid of "player elimination" -- a similar phenomenon, I think -- is a trend in board games. In 4E, the design for treasure distribution and for skill challenges, and suggestions concerning awarding of experience points, are examples of implementing a design goal of reducing differences in outcomes.)

Preference: a strategic game. Elements: Besides those above, there are key factors of resource management as well as all that is conducive to "sandbox" play.

Preference: "role-playing, not roll-playing". Elements: The absence of mechanisms here, as in "risk of defeat" above, is significant. However, old-schoolers can point to differences in how "skill systems" enter play in games such as Traveller and how they are integrated in some more modern designs.

Preference: modularity. Elements: The term should pretty much speak for itself, although its higher-order nature makes it difficult to "see the forest by looking at a tree". The contrasting phenomenon is close coupling or integration, yet another case of something added in modern designs and significant not only for the consequences of employing it in play but for the philosophy it embodies.

Preference: "do it yourself". Elements: Modularity and rules-lightness both contribute to manifestation of this philosophy. The degree to which a game is defined by implicit or (even more significantly) explicit background is a notable factor. When old-schoolers purchase a "setting supplement", they tend to want much less detail -- more "blanks to fill in" -- than in modern designs. They may consider rules supplements not "support" but a burden, as such things often come with a presumption that one "must" use them. Scenarios one can easily fit into one's own campaign, though, may be highly appreciated; those that are heavily plot driven or otherwise depend greatly on particular assumptions may be less conducive to that.


One may notice quite often that there is an underlying philosophy of play style that is not strictly incompatible with a modern rules set -- at least if one is willing to modify the set. There's the inconvenience of needing to put in such work, perhaps discarding much of the material one has purchased, just to get something barely adequate. That's another matter from creating "house rules" to fine tune something already quite suitable. On top of that is the host of assumptions selected for and even cultivated in the player demographic by mechanics designed to cater to those expectations.

The same obviously applies when people with "new school" preferences struggle with a design that has goals contrary to their own.

"System matters" is a reasonable conclusion, I think.

 

[Mallus]

I didn't get that from the blog post at all.

This is part I was referring to:

The second dismissal claims that old school is "a feeling" and can be divorced both from particular games and particular mechanical designs. The intention behind this dismissal is to claim that one can play any game in an old school fashion, regardless of its vintage or rules. It's an attempt to divorce the animating principles of the early hobby from its mechanical foundations. This is a somewhat more sophisticated dismissal, but, ultimately, it's still a rhetorical trick rather an argument. It's an appeal to an ill-defined "spirit" of the old school as a means of undermining attachment to any particular old school game.

For four years I ran my 3.5e "Tales of CITY" campaign in what I think was fairly called an old-school fashion. Perhaps James would disagree with that characterization, but the notion that we couldn't discuss it, discuss the different uses of a rule set and the changes they produce on the play experience (or that such discussions are too subjective to be meaningful) is ludicrous. People do that all the time here.

Essentially saying my group's approach to the game amounted to nothing more than a rhetorical trick -- note that he doesn't even bother to engage the point, he just, well, dismisses-- makes him seen ill-equipped to pontificate on this subject.

 

[Ariosto]

Dismissing a person's preferences as mere nostalgia is dumb. But dismissing the role, and nature of nostalgia, is also dumb.

I did not see any such dismissal on J.M.'s part.

Apparently it's okay to dismiss people who feel a large part of 'old-school gaming' comes from the way you approach the rules, not from the rules themselves.

No! There's a difference between "a large part" and "all". In particular, if a large part is ignoring many of the rules in modern designs -- then might it not be more efficient to start with a less cumbersome set?

 

[Desdichado]

Positive.

You?

So... you quoted a part where Remathalis attempted to paraphrase your argument in an attempt to clarify, by saying that he understood you to be saying that it wasn't the use of the word nostalgia that you didn't like, but the phrase just nostalgia.

You say this is an ad hominem attack, and you're positive that that's not an oversensitive claim to make.

The mind boggles. Seriously; I'm over here boggling right now.

 

[Remathilis]

Here are just a few of the reasons many people have offered for preferring the results of "old school" design, and some corresponding design elements

Thank you for some insight as to why "system matters". Cutting through the signal:Noise ratio, it helps define the terms we have been firing back and forth and gives us some examples.

Allow me to give the "new schoolers" manifesto.

Preference: Cinematic Combat. Elements: The ability to incorporate movement, strategy, unique combat maneuvers, and other drama-inducing elements into cut-and-dry combat.

Preference: Balanced Game. Elements: No character overshadowing another; meaningful choices at all stages of game. Guidelines for appropriate balance in encounters and treasure.

Preference: Non-Combat Task Resolution System. Elements: some meaningfully defined skill system complex enough to allow diversity of character choice, simple enough to allow the DM to ad-lib when needed.

Preference: Character Lifespan. Elements: Ways to create complex PCs at the starting point and play them (with luck and skill) throughout the course of the game. Removal of "cheap shots" that bypass character defenses. Abilities that make combat "fair contest" and don't allow the PCs (or the DM) to bully through a long-played character with only 1-2 dice rolls or reduce a spectacular end-game scenario to a non-encounter.

Preference: Unified Mechanics. Elements: Game mechanics using similar task-resolution systems, removal of sub-systems (esp class-related subsystems) that slow down play.

Preference: Expanded Fantasy. Elements: An incorporation of modern trends in fantasy coming from a variety of sources (novels, games, movies, TV) in both fluff, mechanics, and artwork.

Preference: Smooth Play Experience. Elements: A game that is simple to learn, hard to master. Enough rules to create a unified "game experience" without straight-jacketing a DM to one play style alone. New game elements that build off older ones, not supersede them.


Note: Some of these elements are available in Old School games as well, and not all New school games meet these marks. However, these are the elements I think that define new school game experiences.

 

[Mallus]

I did not see any such dismissal on J.M.'s part.

I did. Not only does he dismiss nostalgia, he goes on to dismiss the relevance of emotional responses when discussing what one likes and enjoys --thought at one point he tries to deny doing just that. The post is riddled with a misplaced appeal to a kind of rationalism.

It's one thing to try and present a logical position, it's quite another to cop a Spock and tar people who disagree with you as emotional.

More to the point, to resort to feelings is basically to concede the argument before one has even begun.

I imagine the esteemed film critic Pauline Kael would have vehemently disagreed -if she were alive today and a game-nerd instead of a film-nerd.

Also, so long as I'm quibbling, the coinage and subsequent use of the phrase 'ludic indifferentialism' --in an unironic manner , so far as I can tell-- makes me want to smack him. In the spirit of meaningful and substantive discourse, of course .

No! There's a difference between "a large part" and "all".

Which is irrelevant to the point I was making, to wit, people can certainly have reasonable, informative discussions about touchy-feely subjects like the existence and nature of an old-school approach to the game. A subject that James M. dismisses as impossibly subjective.

edit: I should probably stop harping on James M. He made a bad argument in response to some bad arguments coming from others. I certainly know that feeling.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is part I was referring to:

Again, I don't see this as saying what you, apparently, see there.

James doesn't seem to be saying (AFAICT) that any game cannot be played in an "old school" fashion, but rather than the ability to do so does not define what "old school" means.

As a simple example, were I to claim that I could play OD&D in a 4e fashion, you could not refute me without further information, but were I to claim that there is therefore no difference between OD&D and 4e, you could (hopefully) dismiss this line of reasoning as (at best) a rhetorical trick.

So... you quoted a part where Remathalis attempted to paraphrase your argument in an attempt to clarify, by saying that he understood you to be saying that it wasn't the use of the word nostalgia that you didn't like, but the phrase just nostalgia.

You say this is an ad hominem attack, and you're positive that that's not an oversensitive claim to make.

The mind boggles. Seriously; I'm over here boggling right now.

Hobo, I am not surprised that your mind is boggling. Your ability to selectively interpret data is second to none. What Remathilis posted was

I see what you're getting at...

Its not the "nostalgia" part you're having a fit about, its the "just".​

(emphasis mine)

This is an attempt to dismiss the argument by an attack on the individual (i.e., dismissable as person simply having a fit), which is one common form of ad hominem attack.

If your mind is still boggling, it is probably due to selectively interpreting the above down to "Hobo....is second to none".


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I did. Not only does he dismiss nostalgia, he goes on to dismiss the relevance of emotional responses when discussing what one likes and enjoys

If this was, in fact, what was presented, then I suppose I would have to agree with you. However, I believe that you are misinterpreting both his words and his intent. The reason that "at one point he tries to deny doing just that" is because he isn't doing just that, and he doesn't wish the reader to conclude that he is.

What, AFAICT, James is saying is that (1) an appeal to how something "feels" does no good in attempting to describe what is meant by "old school" (and may, in fact, do harm, as it feeds into rhetorical arguments intended to remove any meaning from the term), and that (2) there are actual, objective differences between mechanics and presentation between "old school" and "new school" games. He therefore concludes that it is more productive to focus on the objective differences rather than the subjective emotions when defining the term.

While our enjoyment of a particular gaming style may be completely subjective, the elements that enable (or work against) that subjective enjoyment are not completely subjective.

Hence "More than a feeling" rather than "Not a feeling at all".

His propositions (1) and (2) might be argued with, of course.



RC

 

[Ariosto]

Your ability to selectively interpret data is second to none.

I suspect that's conscious hyperbole! Without naming names, I can think of other candidates here at ENworld. Maybe Raven Crowking is "living in a glass house" (see: throwing rocks) in this regard as much as I am?

To err is human, to forgive divine.