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

[Ariosto]

So when you want to run a game of some sort you have to go choose the tool you want to use and decide how you want to use it. How you choose to approach the job doesn't dictate what tool you use, you choose the one you're most comfortable with (since they're all basically made for the same set of tasks).

I disagree. The match between rules set and GM is critical -- but the GM's preferred approach is a key part of that side of the equation! The notion that it makes no difference whether one selects Rolemaster or Legendary Lives does not hold up in light of my experience, and flies in the face of common sense. There is a reason people set out to design different games in the first place, or else we'd all still be playing Gygax and Perren's Chainmail.

I agree with Hobo that there was a disjunction in 2E between mechanics and advice on play, and even within the latter. (Consistency and sheer volume of tone-setting material seems to me more significant in White Wolf designs than any nod to narrative in mechanics).

One might say that the full development of the 2E line, in rules supplements, scenarios and campaign settings, was what really parted it from sympathy with the ethos of the "old school". The core books get an unfair rap in that quarter, perhaps -- yet the game has a strong presence at Dragonsfoot, "home of 1st Edition AD&D".

With 4E, I see -- despite its being another design by committee -- a return to coherent vision. It's a very different vision from the Gygaxian, realized in appropriately different approaches.

 

[Mallus]

The match between rules set and GM is critical...

For some people. For folks like me, we (usually) ran the current version of D&D because it was always well-supported and everyone was familiar with it.

The notion that it makes no difference whether one selects Rolemaster or Legendary Lives does not hold up in light of my experience, and flies in the face of common sense.

The notion that system never matters, is, indeed, silly. As is the notion system matters significantly to everyone.

I agree with Hobo that there was a disjunction in 2E between mechanics and advice on play, and even within the latter.

One might say that the full development of the 2E line, in rules supplements, scenarios and campaign settings, was what really parted it from sympathy with the ethos of the "old school".

Which is to say that even though, as Hobo pointed out, 1e and 2e are very similar in terms of their mechanics, people tended to play them differently They approached them differently. They used them differently. And these differences in the approach to/use of two mechanically similar games matter a quite lot when in comes to their 'feel', old-school or otherwise.

Sometimes the system itself matters. Other times it's how the system is used that matters. If Jame M. would have simply acknowledged this, instead of trying to sweep it under the rug in a ill-advised bid to claim the objective high ground (how many metaphors can I mix in one sentence??), his point would have been stronger.

edit: I said I'd stop harping on James M., didn't I? Note to self: no more harping!

 

[Ariosto]

Mallus, I think it is significant that the "legacy" design in 2E was an awkward fit with the new goals. There is nothing to keep people from trying to pound a square peg into a round hole!

I see a similar problem in 3E, although the target had been moved yet again. Some of the goals of that design were carried over to 4E, but (in my opinion) with the benefit of having learned what did not work in implementing them. My impression is that it is the abandonment of some other (and probably incompatible) goals that has lost some 3E fans to the new game.

One cannot please all people all the time!

 

[Desdichado]

Which is to say that even though, as Hobo pointed out, 1e and 2e are very similar in terms of their mechanics, people tended to play them differently They approached them differently. They used them differently. And these differences in the approach to/use of two mechanically similar games matter a quite lot when in comes to their 'feel', old-school or otherwise.

Did they? That seems to challenge the notion of your earlier claim that system doesn't matter to everyone equally.

See, I tend to play almost all RPGs more or less the same way. Therefore, my criteria for how "good" an RPG system is how well that system supports how I play instead of hindering it. Therefore, changing the "approach" and the presentation of a game while leaving the mechanics mostly intact would have literally no effect on me whatsoever.

 

[Ariosto]

The notion that system never matters, is, indeed, silly. As is the notion system matters significantly to everyone.

I don't find the second premise silly, as it matches all the compelling evidence I have encountered.

Now, one might not care much about system if one is similarly cavalier as to style of play. I have in mind your difficulty seeing the issues with which Samuel Leming was grappling in 4E, and indeed the usual tenor of responses by devotees to those who lack enthusiasm for the design.

That brings us back to the focus on "feelings" as the determinant of significance, which is fine for one to claim for oneself -- but not as a means to cast aspersions on others.

Not minding a change in approach to match that of a game, or accepting incompatibility between the two, is not the same as establishing that there is no objective significance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well said, Ariosto.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Did they?

For the sake of argument I was accepting that 1e and 2e produced different play experiences for a lot of people (in reductive shorthand 'subterranean f-ing Vietnam' vs. 'epic fantasy storytelling'). It's an opinion I've encountered frequently around here, but I honestly have no idea how accurate it is.

See, I tend to play almost all RPGs more or less the same way.

So do I. God help me...

Therefore, changing the "approach" and the presentation of a game while leaving the mechanics mostly intact would have literally no effect on me whatsoever.

I'm a big believer in the idea that RPG play primarily occurs in a place unmediated by rules, so things like GM technique, shared assumptions, the social contract(s) in place are more important than the specific rules being used. This goes a long way towards explaining how gamers can play what's ostensibly the same game so many different ways. And, curiously enough, why I keep harping on James M.'s blog post.

 

[Mallus]

I don't find the second premise silly, as it matches all the compelling evidence I have encountered.

That's fair.

Now, one might not care much about system if one is similarly cavalier as to style of play.

It's not that I don't care about system or style of play. In fact, I think the relationship between the two in really interesting --hence my posting in threads like this. I just think you need a nuance when discussing that relationship.

 

[Oni]

I disagree. The match between rules set and GM is critical -- but the GM's preferred approach is a key part of that side of the equation! The notion that it makes no difference whether one selects Rolemaster or Legendary Lives does not hold up in light of my experience, and flies in the face of common sense. There is a reason people set out to design different games in the first place, or else we'd all still be playing Gygax and Perren's Chainmail.

Um...I'm not sure I said that at all. I quite plainly stated that different systems handle different aspects of the task of running a table top game in different ways and with varying degrees of success. That's certainly not the same as saying system does not matter. What I did say was that you are not required to use a certain rules set to run in a certain style. Much of that comes down to the GM's ability to finesse the system to make it do what he wants. Some GM's depend on the system for the feel, and when they want to change the feel of their game they change the system, others can make one system sing and bend it to whatever feel they want. If I was saying there was no difference between systems, why would I talk about choosing the tool that best fits you and the job at hand? Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Ariosto]

Sorry, Oni. I read you stating, "How you choose to approach the job doesn't dictate what tool you use." I apologize for misrepresenting your meaning, which I misunderstood.