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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A question might be whether it actually changes the play style, or it just provides more tools you want for that play style?

It seemed as if people always play their games according to their preferences, regardless of what the games offers. Even if this requires houserules and rulings.

Does old school gaming mean that the "old school games" (whichever these ones are) offer just the right choices for your play style?

 

[Doug McCrae]

System matters. The question is, how much?

Are Necromancer Games 3e adventures and Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics part of the old school renaissance? If yes, then that shows the limitation of system as a means of categorisation.

One could even say 3e itself was part of the old school renaissance with its 'Back to the Dungeon' after the more setting and story focused 2e. Though, as has been said, with 2e there was a disconnect between the rules and what you were supposed to do with them. Vampire has the exact same disconnect.

One could also say 4e is old school in several respects. There's a similar focus on location based adventures and monster slaying. And the need for minis is as old school as it gets, going all the way back before D&D to Chainmail.

And yet sites such as Grognardia or Dragonsfoot seem to be very anti-d20. But Castles & Crusades is widely recognised as being both d20 *and* old school.

So there's a definite problem in defining what is and isn't part of the old school renaissance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A question might be whether it actually changes the play style, or it just provides more tools you want for that play style?

I imagine that this varies widely between individuals and groups. Some, as you note. "always play their games according to their preferences, regardless of what the games offers". Others, I imagine, find themselves influenced by what the rules offer.

Because of my take on human nature, I actually expect the latter group to be larger than the former. Because I believe people essentially follow the path of least resistance, except when they consciously decide to do otherwise, I believe that people tend to change their gaming habits over time to better match what a particular system does well.

I am not skeptical that people can play according to their preferences, regardless of what a game offers, but I am skeptical of any specific claim of the same. IME, people tend to believe that they themselves are not influenced by outside factors, even when they believe that the majority of other people clearly are. Thus we have cases where, for example, most doctors claim that they are not personally affected by gifts from pharmaceutical companies, while at the same time claiming that almost all the doctors they know are influenced by the same.

IMHO, game design matters in the vast majority of cases. It is certainly a principle that is guiding me with RCFG....I want the game to make focusing on sandbox play easy, for example. I will concede, however, that awareness of how game design influences players is not nearly as common, especially in terms of self-awareness.

Does old school gaming mean that the "old school games" (whichever these ones are) offer just the right choices for your play style?

I would say so, yes.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And the need for minis is as old school as it gets, going all the way back before D&D to Chainmail.

The need for minis is certainly wargamey, but it isn't old-school RPG-ey.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

The need for minis is certainly wargamey, but it isn't old-school RPG-ey.

No? All the old school RPGs assumed you used them. How is it not?

As an aside, I know I'm not the only one to profess the opinoin that system doesn't matter much. I am, however, the only one to profess that opinion in this particular conversation, at least over the course of the last several pages. Hence my question of whether or not that post was directed at me.

 

[Mallus]

Otherwise, why not play a free game, if the system is irrelevant?

1) No one, not even me, said system is irrelevant.

2) What I did say is that system doesn't matter as much to some people.

3) What I was getting at was the idea that systems don't necessarily determine the nature of play. At least not as clearly, nor to the extent that some folks were claiming.

3.1) Which is to say I believe you can play 3e or 4e in an old-school way. Conversely, you can play OD&D and 1e in a new-school way that would tick off the Grognard Army. I imagine the way I play D&D would have always ticked off the Grognard Army.

4) Why not play a free game? I don't know. I like shopping?

5) Seriously though, I purchased 4e because I wanted a new set of rules to mess around with. Turns out I like them.

6) Only in Raven-land does the statement: "System doesn't matter that much to me" equate to "You must find free game and play only that or be guilty of logic-crime".

6.1) This is probably because the national sport of Raven-land is using logic where it doesn't really apply.

7) In Mallus-land it means "When it comes to campaign style/flavor/feel, the system isn't as important as the people using it".

8) It also means "I'm not looking for an ideal system. I like and play several games. Some it's not contradictory for me to purchase different game systems over the course of a few years".

9) Did I mention I like shopping? I actually was being serious.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No? All the old school RPGs assumed you used them.

No, they did not.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

1) No one, not even me, said system is irrelevant.

So, then, are we all in agreement that system matters? Because I am more then willing to accept that "system doesn't matter as much to some people", even if those who claim that system doesn't matter as much to them might not be accurate in that claim.

6) Only in Raven-land does the statement: "System doesn't matter that much to me" equate to "You must find free game and play only that or be guilty of logic-crime".

6.1) This is probably because the national sport of Raven-land is using logic where it doesn't really apply.

Logic always applies, when determining whether or not a given statement makes sense.

For example, look at your (7) and (8):

7) In Mallus-land it means "When it comes to campaign style/flavor/feel, the system isn't as important as the people using it".

8) It also means "I'm not looking for an ideal system. I like and play several games. Some it's not contradictory for me to purchase different game systems over the course of a few years".​

If you like and play several games, and you play those games with the same people, then while it may be true that the system isn't as important as the people using it, it must also be true that the system is important. Othewise, why play additional games?

Because you like shopping for new systems? Strongly implies system is important.

Because you like playing different systems? Strongly implies system is important.

So, as long as we agree that system matters, not only are we in agreement on this topic, but, AFAICT, we are in agreement with the original blog post.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

No, they did not.

Yeah, pretty much they did.

Boy, this is a great conversation.

 

[Mournblade94]

Yeah, pretty much they did.

Boy, this is a great conversation.

Not that I disagree that this is a great conversation...

I don't think in 1/2 edition you had to use miniatures or even that it was assumed. I went on and off, finding that it was usually easier not to use minis.

I use minis in 3rd edition, but not in Mutants and Masterminds.