OD&D example of play

[Chainsaw]

You know... it's possible to do a lot of that stuff well, or at least in an entertaining fashion (okay, maybe not the hour-long genealogy recital...).

I hear you - I actually don't mind voices and some social interaction as a contrast to hardcore dungeoneering (and readily admit either can get out of hand). Needless to say, the key is to find a group that has the mix you like.

I do think TD raises a good point though - roleplaying isn't just theatrical improv storytelling.

 

[Doug McCrae]

some random peasant selling apples in town

That's a mistake my group has made in the past. We didn't realise that not all in-character talk is equally interesting. Put too much value on it, I think.

Interestingly enough that is also a levels of abstraction issue (sorry to keep going on about that), exactly what we were discussing in the other thread. Some in character conversations should be summarised, or not mentioned at all, whereas more exciting stuff, like a verbal confrontation with the BBEG, should be played out in full.

It's intriguing that it is the exact same issue as whether to describe the exploration of a room in detail or not. Some people actually seem to really like roleplaying out haggling over an apple (not me, but I've heard about them). I understand there are even some strange people who like to search rooms. Ofc if the GM doesn't want to describe either activity in detail those players are outta luck. I'm afraid that I would probably be that GM, due to my low boredom threshold.

 

[Bullgrit]

REF: (Cursing the thoroughness of the Caller!) The seemingly empty trunk has
a false bottom ...

This attitude, though apparently common for the time, is perplexing to me. If the DM/designer doesn't want the Players/PCs to find the treasure, don't put it in the dungeon.

For myself, I put treasure in the dungeon for the PCs to find. It disappoints me when the PCs/Players aren't clever, observant, or curious enough to discover everything in the dungeon.

Sure, I "hide" treasure here and there, but I hope the PCs/Players are curious, observant, and clever enough to discover the hidden stashes. I'd cheer, not curse, when someone is thorough enough to find the secrets.

Bullgrit

 

[Doug McCrae]

Still on the levels of abstraction issue, with which I'm clearly obsessed:

Amber: Diceless Roleplaying has virtually no rules. Everything is resolved by description. This allows a lot of freedom as to the levels of abstraction used. For instance the rules recommend playing out a fight between two closely matched long-time rivals in great detail, describing every little flick of the blade. (It helps to run Amber if you know fencing terminology, there's a lot of it in the books.) Whereas an Amberite massacring a horde of minions could be described in a single sentence.

This is something missing from D&D, in fact I don't know any rpg that has it - different levels of abstraction for fights within the rules. For example you could have a high level of detail for the final fight with a campaign BBEG. It could take hours real time, but that's what you want for that kind of epic-ness. Whereas another set of rules would let you deal with a wandering monster in 5 minutes, tops.

I understand that GURPS has a lot of optional rules which might be turned to this purpose, not sure how fast the minimum level of crunch is tho.

 

[Reynard]

This attitude, though apparently common for the time, is perplexing to me. If the DM/designer doesn't want the Players/PCs to find the treasure, don't put it in the dungeon.

For myself, I put treasure in the dungeon for the PCs to find. It disappoints me when the PCs/Players aren't clever, observant, or curious enough to discover everything in the dungeon.

Sure, I "hide" treasure here and there, but I hope the PCs/Players are curious, observant, and clever enough to discover the hidden stashes. I'd cheer, not curse, when someone is thorough enough to find the secrets.

Bullgrit

Given the nature of the game at that stage, I assume it is the same kind of good natured cursing you do when your opponent jumps three of your checkers and says "King Me." While I know many people don't like to play it that way, there is something of a competetive aspect to old school style play.

 

[Chainsaw]

It's intriguing that it is the exact same issue as whether to describe the exploration of a room in detail or not. Some people actually seem to really like roleplaying out haggling over an apple (not me, but I've heard about them). I understand there are even some strange people who like to search rooms. Ofc if the GM doesn't want to describe either activity in detail those players are outta luck.

I don't know that it's all that intriguing.. people just like to zoom in on different things. I'm cool with people being different and don't need us all to do/like the same stuff..

 

[Reynard]

I don't know that it's all that intriguing.. people just like to zoom in on different things. I'm cool with people being different and don't need us all to do/like the same stuff..

If we're lucky we can even be part of the same group and game and all still have fun.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This attitude, though apparently common for the time, is perplexing to me. If the DM/designer doesn't want the Players/PCs to find the treasure, don't put it in the dungeon.

I think that this was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. After all, we note that the DM didn't suddenly "decide it wasn't there", or make the player's choice "an illusion of choice" or any such nonsense.

In OD&D, it was assumed that multiple forays would occur in the same setting, so that what wasn't found by one party might be found by another....or the same party at a later date.

The "Referee DM" neither assumes that one group will find a treasure, or that it will not be found. That said, some DMs certainly find satisfaction in a treasure that is "eventually found" only after multiple forays, if only due to the satisfaction of players who realize that they have discovered something that others have missed.

I don't know that it's all that intriguing.. people just like to zoom in on different things. I'm cool with people being different and don't need us all to do/like the same stuff..

Yup.



RC

-

 

[Mark CMG]

That's a mistake my group has made in the past. We didn't realise that not all in-character talk is equally interesting. Put too much value on it, I think.

Interestingly enough that is also a levels of abstraction issue (sorry to keep going on about that), exactly what we were discussing in the other thread. Some in character conversations should be summarised, or not mentioned at all, whereas more exciting stuff, like a verbal confrontation with the BBEG, should be played out in full.

It's intriguing that it is the exact same issue as whether to describe the exploration of a room in detail or not. Some people actually seem to really like roleplaying out haggling over an apple (not me, but I've heard about them). I understand there are even some strange people who like to search rooms. Ofc if the GM doesn't want to describe either activity in detail those players are outta luck. I'm afraid that I would probably be that GM, due to my low boredom threshold.

The oversimplification and marginalization of one play style certainly makes it seem like you understand how both have their advantages.

Obviously a reductio ad absurdum description of roleplaying the details is going to cast it in a light that is less than favorable. It would be no different to suggest that the conterpoint includes roles only as they pertain to combat, treasures always germane to the finders, and no in-character discussion from NPCs unless it it directly related to moving the adventure along. When everything is a clue, they aren't clues, they are instructions. When every treasure is targetted toward a slot, it isn't a treasure, it is an expected piece of a formulaic build. When your only role is that of what part you play in combat, you aren't playing a role, you're merely pushing down the lever when the light comes on. These, too, are an extreme characterization of a type of gaming that has, one hopes, just as little bearing on reality as suggesting roleplaying means always bargaining on the price of an apple.

 

[Bullgrit]

I don't know that it's all that intriguing.. people just like to zoom in on different things. I'm cool with people being different and don't need us all to do/like the same stuff..

If we're lucky we can even be part of the same group and game and all still have fun.

The differences really only become a problem when someone claims their way to be the one, true, authentic, intended, and proper way.

Bullgrit