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

[outsider]

IME, at the end of the day, if you want your character to do X, the GM/DM still has the final say on whether or not X is appropriate and, therefore, if your character can attempt it.

On some level, yes. However, when a rule says you can do something, in my experience the DM won't prevent it, unless there's something specifically preventing it in the current situation. If a DM is constantly ignoring/modifying rules in order to limit player options(referring to game play options rather than character building options), that's generally my cue to leave.

Note that I'm not trying to say the old school "here's a few rules, ask the dm for everything else" style is neccessarily bad. In fact, if the group can reconcile their individual views how they believe the game should be played, that style of game can wind up being superior. Aside from 4e, B/X or BECMI would be my favorite version of D&D, and I'd gladly be playing them if I had a DM that I meshed particularly well with.

 

[Ariosto]

Survey sez: 20 (including the purtier troupe to reprise it at the Grand Ole Opry and on Hee Haw).

In my (statistically unrepresentative) experience as a 4E player, I have found it more like pulling teeth to get the (RPGA) DM to allow actions than ever in all my toiling in the field of fantasy gaming.

As a DM in the same context, I found the comprehensive rules liberating in a "gloves off" way. My performance really fell short only in lacking mastery enough to play the "adversarial" role as competently as the scenario demanded for best effect.

In TSR-D&D, I have seen more in the way of conferences in which players and DM come to a consensus as to what makes sense. In 4E, it's been more a matter of looking up (and arguing interpretations of) text in a book.

Again, that's just one person's unrepresentative experience.

 

[outsider]

I agree. I've played in many groups as an adult, and I've never seen a player need to produce a rule to convince the GM to at least let the PC attempt something.

That sort of "no, you just can't" attitude is something I associate with the personality politics of high-school, reinforcing the theory that retro-gaming is gaining popularity because official Dungeons & Dragons is now designed solely for adolescents.

There are other ways to say "no" than "you just can't". There's "sure, here's the astronomical penalty to your roll". Or "sure, roll a d20 and I'll tell you if you succeed or not". If you've really never seen a situation where a player and a DM disagreed about what's possible in the real world, or what should be possible in a fantasy world, or how easy/difficult it should be, you've been pretty lucky in getting DMs that mesh well with you.

Myself, I've been stuck trying to play Conan in Middle Earth for much of my D&D life, heh.

 

[Ariosto]

My (very, VERY personal) analogies:
"Old school" D&D is sort of like the Hospitality Room at TellusCon.
3E was sort of like ... Advanced Squad Leader Semifinals?
4E is sort of like Contract Bridge Night.

No better or worse, but definitely different. Sometimes I feel like a nut, and sometimes I feel like a coconut.

 

[Hairfoot]

There are other ways to say "no" than "you just can't". There's "sure, here's the astronomical penalty to your roll". Or "sure, roll a d20 and I'll tell you if you succeed or not".

Debating "what's possible in the real world, or what should be possible in a fantasy world, or how easy/difficult it should be" happens regardless of the system or rules used. Unless a game lists, categorically, everything a PC is capable of, there will always be GM adjudication, and in a fantasy game of heroism, characters will attempt heroic actions.

The only reason a GM would make things unnecessarily difficult is personal prejudice, and no amount of rules will alter that. Rule zero cannot be "the DM shall not be a prick", even if it's sometimes warranted.

 

[Windjammer]

@Ariosto

I'm grateful for your presence on this thread - indeed on EnWorld as such, which apart from a ridiculously small number of lucid posters has become a complete waste of time.

It's worth pointing out that entering a thread just to insult people is a pretty good way to get booted from the thread. Discussion and discourse are great; cheap shots aren't. ~ PCat

That said, you misunderstood Mearls when you equated the following to "railroding":

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.

What Mearls meant is that in some older edition games players didn't even know their own to-hit numbers and didn't even record their hit points (a suggestion that's even in the 1E DMG). So what you get is the players only interfacing with the game world directly, and the DM translating that into game mechanical terms for them. This, by itself, constitutes a greater narrative control by the DM as well - it's in the details, and not in the grander "story arc" (as is the case with railroading).

On the other side of the spectrum is the codification of combat maneuvers in 3E and 4E. If a player says "I bullrush that orc", he already knows how to put mechanics onto that.

So basically the fewer mechanics players track in a game beyond the absolutely vital for their PCs to function (6 core abilities, to-hit score, hp, saves vs. attacks other than hp-depletion) the closer that game will be to OD&D. In that vein, have a look at what Mearls suggests for 4E here.

D&D is such a subjective, personal thing that trying to push everyone's experience with it into a single box is a waste of time.
... The specific mechanics behind the game and its setting are irrelevant.

Agreed. I take a good DM using a wacky ruleset (say, Earthdawn 1E) any day over a mediocre DM using the best ruleset (say [insert favourite edition of D&D here everyone]). But the style and skills of either DM would be enhanced - or hampered - by which game he is playing.

I think there are a lot of parallels between the old school movement and the indie movement. Both started around what I see as fairly simple concepts. The indie movement eventually gathered a lot of baggage that hampered its growth, a sort of "us vs. them" vibe that turned away people. It'd be a pity to see the same thing happen again.

Ok. That's just wishful thinking on your part. Dragonsfoot will outlive 4E and you know that. People there will put out good, free modules and contribute enlightening discussion when you've long ago turned your back on the P&P industry and joint the world of digital gaming. I don't mean that as a derogatory remark at all. Arneson did it, Jaquays did it - you'll be in good company. But wishful thinking along the ride ill behoves Lareth - just get to the job.

Those who arouse suspicion will be quietly murdered in their sleep; those with too much promise will be likewise dealt with, for Mearls wants no potential usurpers or threats to his domination.

 

[jdrakeh]

On some level, yes. However, when a rule says you can do something, in my experience the DM won't prevent it, unless there's something specifically preventing it in the current situation.

I agree that it's definitely the exception, not the. . . er. . . rule. I just meant to point out that it's not always ths way. In my own experience, I had this issue crop up more often in D&D 3e than in other editions of the game, with players even going so far as to quote all of the sample skill DCs in the PHB as immutable figures. I hated that. It happened so often that when I was DMing 3e, I just quit fighting it, as that ended up being wasted effort on my part.

 

[Piratecat]

I've just threadbanned several people, in the hopes that this can remain a discussion instead of an edition war. Plan accordingly.

 

[Mark]

How do you figure that?

Because the verb you use "convince" (and the rest of your post) shows that there was an adversarial relationship between your group and your DM, where you had to often debate whether or not PC actions were viable or allowed. A DM who was a better communicator and facilitator would have had a relationship with the players that had fewer in-game boundaries and required much less or none of that sort of boundary testing. The game-flow was stilted because of that relationship and it hindered the experience. This can be accomplished in any edition and was something my mid-Seventies groups on through my current groups enjoy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Old school gaming for me is, when players come up with creative ideas, like as mentioned, using an iron spike to disable a trap, and a DM who allows it if it makes sense...

old school is usually challenges the player, not his character... its not a bad thing, but it makes playing believable characters challenging... very challenging sometimes...

As said: you don´t actually need rules for old school gaming... because you can solve every problems by playing out the character...

But what you need is a great, fair DM and players willing to accept the ruling... and some players and some DMs don´t like it.

IMHO the best RPG is a good mix of old and new school: the 3.5 DM´s best friend: reward clever ideas by modifying the rolls by an approriate amount... and using take 10/20 as much as possible...