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

[Remathilis]

The predicate to creating a 2E retro-clone, obviously, is acknowledging that it is indeed not "just the same as" 1E.

Such acknowledgment, without equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority, is all the "old school" asks -- and what the "new school" too often begrudges.

I see what you're doing.

By that standard, no edition beyond 1974 should be getting a clone, since they are all "imitations of the original" (as Dialgo puts it).

But since you asked...

1.) The Sphere system which allowed greater customization of priesthoods.
2.) The expansion of school specialization beyond "illusion" and including alternates to the "8 schools" in later books.
3.) Kits
4.) Non-weapon proficiencies
5.) Bards playable from first level

I'd go on, but I'm not sure anything else would meet your standards of "superiority/inferiority"

 

[Ariosto]

By that standard ... since you asked... your standards of "superiority/inferiority" ...

HUH???

There's no such standard there. Your reference has no referent.

What I proposed was "acknowledgment, without equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority". My personal "standards" (i.e., preferences) are not privileged over yours.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

I liked Mr. Mearls description.

 

[Remathilis]

HUH???

There's no such standard there. Your reference has no referent.

What I proposed was "acknowledgment, without equating difference with some absolute standard of superiority and inferiority". My personal "standards" (i.e., preferences) are not privileged over yours.

Ok, put that into English and I'll answer it, because something got lost in communication.

Because what I read was "Explain to me what 2e brings to the table without using the the phrase '2e is better than 1e because...'".

 

[Ariosto]

To me, an old school game is one where the players cede much of the narrative and mechanical control of the game to the DM.

So, does that make 4E even more "old school" than 0E?

Old-school players tend to express "giving the DM narrative control" with the pithy term "railroad"; it has in most cases a negative connotation. There is also a pretty objective (but not exclusive) denotation that can become pretty clear if one makes a flow-chart of a scenario. What is often called today a "sandbox" cannot be reduced much more toward that than the map itself.

From an old-school perspective, "mechanical control of the game" in modern designs tends to reside (by cession) mainly in their voluminous rules-books -- not in the DM or players. The experience of reclaiming control when returning to older modes is often remarked upon.

 

[Ariosto]

Ok, put that into English and I'll answer it, because something got lost in communication.

Because what I read was "Explain to me what 2e brings to the table without using the the phrase '2e is better than 1e because...'".

You also read

By that standard, no edition beyond 1974 should be getting a clone, since they are all "imitations of the original" (as Dialgo puts it).

You have a great talent for reading words that are not there!

 

[Bumbles]

As I see it, the argument is consuming far more time than it's worth, so here's my answer:

Play however you like, I'm not obligated to play with you, nor are you obligated to play in my games.

 

[Remathilis]

You also read You have a great talent for reading words that are not there!

Right, so I was talking about old-school and why nothing produced after 1985 is considered it...

 

[Oni]

Nah. You'll never see anyone here at Enworld knocking any aspect of old-school play. And you'll never see anyone anywhere holding up AD&D in particular as a model of bad design, or World of Darkness as the light that led RPGs out of the dark age. Nope, there's no hint of superiority at all in the drumbeat of dismissal.

Or rather, the prejudices go down easy if one happens to share them. Maybe even easier when sugar coated with the sorts of false claims that might wear thin if reason were admissible. Instead, it must be dismissed with Bulverism. Any positive statement concerning an "old school" design is nothing but silly "nostalgia", and therefore wrong.

When the shoe is on the foot of someone kicking it, the minority can be identified. Yet it is somehow improper for the minority to claim its own identity.

Gee and you'll never see other people expressing opinions to the contrary here. So some people don't like what you like and have expressed it. People do that all the time. But trying to paint yourself as an embattled minority over something so trivial as your choice of games is passing silly and smacks of an attempt set yourself above the unintelligent rabble.

So, does that make 4E even more "old school" than 0E?

Old-school players tend express "giving the DM narrative control" with the pithy term "railroad"; it has in most cases a negative connotation. There is also a pretty objective (but not exclusive) denotation that can become pretty clear if one makes a flow-chart of a scenario. What is often called today a "sandbox" cannot be reduced much more toward that than the map itself.

From an old-school perspective, "mechanical control of the game" in modern designs tends to reside (by cession) mainly in their voluminous rules-books -- not in the DM or players. The experience of reclaiming control when returning to older modes is often remarked upon.

But to turn around and attack on the sly, in the very manner you were complaining about previously. All I see is more us versus them attitude.

 

[Ariosto]

Is it "us" or "them" so threatened by the suggestion that it is not "just a feeling" ("nostalgia" or otherwise) that differentiates one thing from another in some minds?