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

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Conscious hyperbole needed for the joke line at the end ("Hobo....is second to none").

We are all guilty of selective interpretation of data, even if we try not to be, because it is human nature to be so.

(Of course, for some of us, this selective interpretation of data has more to do with being able to make snide remarks in various asshattery threads on other websites that shall remain nameless than it does with actually trying to converse here. Not that that is necessarily the case in this particular instance.)



RC

 

[Ariosto]

One thing most games featured in the "old school renaissance" have in common is that they are either literally D&D or direct spin-offs from it (EPT, MA, GW, Arduin). A general characterization would be "rules-light" -- which leaves out a lot of old games.

Chivalry & Sorcery doesn't get much love, which seems to hold for pretty much everything from FGU except Villains & Vigilantes.

Neither do SPI's Dragonquest and Universe. Metagaming's The Fantasy Trip fares a bit better in the field of RPGs from designers and publishers primarily of "hex and counter" wargames.

Champions and its "Hero System" spin-offs seem to represent one branch of "new school". Some might consider RuneQuest the "granddaddy" of that branch, and Call of Cthulhu the spawner of another -- but whatever their taxonomy they (and Stormbringer) have quite a few adherents among folks who also dig old-style D&D.

There are many more. Probably the majority of FRP games in the field's first decade were "fantasy heartbreakers" that tried to be "D&D, but better" -- mostly by making things more complicated. They really have never stopped coming, and usually quickly fading to obscurity.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not sure that "rules-lite" is a sufficient, or even necessarily relevent, factor in defining the Old School Renaissance, though. Even the old schoolers often refer to it as such.

AD&D, for example, really wasn't rules lite at all, and yet it's an important part of the OSR. Yet games like FUDGE or The Window, and plenty of other Forgey type games are extremely rules-lite, and yet have nothing whatsoever to do with the OSR.

 

[Campbell]

I would hesitate to call a game that has been around in "pretty much" the same form since 1989 new school. It represented a shift from OD&D and AD&D to be sure, but it really isn't contemporary in the same way that Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft, Spirit of the Century, or Shadowrun 4e is.

 

[Ariosto]

Rules-lightness seems to me pretty relevant, but note the other design elements mentioned earlier -- and the primacy of D&D. I suspect that a long habit of taking the last bit for granted is one reason why the phenomenon is commonly called simply "old school" rather than (say) "old-school TSR games".

Some people have always favored OD&D, and the PDF releases from WotC gave more an opportunity to check it out. It seems to have especially strong appeal for those who like to take the basic framework of the original set and create a game of one's own -- the way it apparently was meant to be used.

It remains to be seen how many will still stick with the original (or games such as S&W, S&S, or E&S). For how many is it a phase of exploration from which they will eventually return, with informed perspective and new appreciation, to some other presentation?

AD&D is rules-light relative to a lot of other RPGs. The basic elements of the original set are still "in there", and the rest is mainly a polishing of material from the OD&D supplements and The Strategic Review / The Dragon. Modularity facilitates picking and choosing, a core part of the D&D philosophy.

Most D&Ders in my experience, "back in the day", did not draw a sharp distinction among editions: "mix and match" was the order of the day. That hardly anyone played AD&D strictly "by the book" (even to the extent that's meaningful), using every option, hardly stood out from general practice throughout the FRP hobby. Put another way, the DM by the book was the Law.

That relationship with rules is, I think, germane to the design of rules and the choice by players of a text with which to start. Speaking for myself, I would consider it a waste to treat 4E that way (a matter of degree). It accomplishes the goals of the "new school manifesto" offered earlier partly via systematic integration of the components into a carefully balanced whole. Rules mastery is central to play, and the DM's reference to established rules provides the context for the players' manipulations of mechanics.

That similar claims were made for AD&D does not mean that it actually came anywhere near 4E's success in accomplishing those goals. In my opinion, it was very far from the fact.

I would hesitate to call a game that has been around in "pretty much" the same form since 1989 new school.

Is the reference to Champions? If so, then it seems reasonable that there might be "old-school Champions" fans to whom it is significant that (e.g.) the fourth edition hardbound had almost 7 times as many pages as the original rules book, or that it cut Endurance costs in half. That's not relevant to whether the original game -- from the perspective of old-style D&Ders -- represents a significant departure in basic design philosophy.

The newer approach is not necessarily relevant to whether they enjoy the game, either. Why should every game have exactly the same design goals? The old-school view is that old D&D accomplished what it set out to do better than alleged "improvements" -- better, in particular, than what has since been offered under the Dungeons & Dragons brand.

 

[Doug McCrae]

AD&D is rules-light relative to a lot of other RPGs.

I can only think of three. Phoenix Command, GURPS and Chivalry & Sorcery. Champions and 3e might be rules heavier in play but are far more coherent, making it easier to learn and remember the rules.

I see 1e AD&D as being very different from B/X, the only old school version of D&D I like. 1e has tons of rules and they're almost all bad. It's true you can get rid of them fairly easily, but if you do, why play AD&D at all? You're really playing 74 OD&D or B/X.

Modularity facilitates picking and choosing, a core part of the D&D philosophy.

But not the 1e philosophy. A major motivation for its creation was to provide a consistent rule set so a D&D game in Albuquerque would be much the same as a D&D game in Albany. Gary devotes two paragraphs to this subject, the need for unity, in the 1e Preface.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But not the 1e philosophy. A major motivation for its creation was to provide a consistent rule set so a D&D game in Albuquerque would be much the same as a D&D game in Albany. Gary devotes two paragraphs to this subject, the need for unity, in the 1e Preface.

Not according to Tim Kask, one of the folks responsible for the ultimate shape of AD&D 1e. The goal was to make a framework from which rulings could be addressed with a greater degree of similarity than with BD&D, but not to remove the DM's ruling from its place of primacy. Or as Gary says in those paragraphs you mention, every campaign would have points of similarity, although the similar points between any two given games might vary widely.

1e was intended to provide a consistant framework for rulings. It was not intended to provide consistent rulings between DMs.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

Not according to Tim Kask, one of the folks responsible for the ultimate shape of AD&D 1e. The goal was to make a framework from which rulings could be addressed with a greater degree of similarity than with BD&D, but not to remove the DM's ruling from its place of primacy. Or as Gary says in those paragraphs you mention, every campaign would have points of similarity, although the similar points between any two given games might vary widely.

1e was intended to provide a consistent framework for rulings. It was not intended to provide consistent rulings between DMs.

RC

Huh. I thought the purpose was to create a structure of rules suitable for tournament/RPGA gaming that, at the DMs whim, could be changed to suit his style (making the design goals close cousins to every edition of D&D afterward).

Every edition of D&D has been built to kitbash (though some are more complex kits than others) and while I don't think AD&D is rules light, its certainly lighter than some of its later iterations (like 3e.)

PS: Sorry if I came off snarky earlier. It wasn't my intent.

 

[Desdichado]

AD&D is rules-light relative to a lot of other RPGs.

While not technically incorrect, I also think that's a misleading statement. In a more "objective" sense, it's not a rules light game. The fact that you can find even less rules light games out there doesn't change that.

I won't argue that all versions of older D&D shared enough of a similar framework that they work very modularly. Whether or not they were intended to be used that way I'm less clear on, but obviously they could and were used that way.

 

[Mallus]

Heh... AD&D's initiative rules alone disqualify it from being a rules-lite game.