OD&D example of play

[Chainsaw]

I choose to believe that Finch is slightly hyperbolistic in order to make his point. But for the most part, Finch is kinda full of it.

Well, he's a hell of a good DM and I think anyone interested in running a great game would do well to pay attention to what he says. I've played in his games (awesome) and also been witness to him expertly running games with 12+ players who were all rocking and rolling, with smiles, laughter and good times had by all, the whole time. If that's the result of being full of it, I want IT whatever IT is!

 

[Odhanan]

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.

This is it. The same way, Gary was actually a fierce opponent in battle, and would cheer when winning from his side of the screen (got this from Rob Kuntz directly, as I asked him specifically about it some time ago), much like he did when he commanded armies across the sand table. It was all in good spirit, and has nothing to do with the poisonous, arbitrary and personally antagonistic type of DMing some people might think of.

 

[Glyfair]

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

Not necessarily. I find that problems develop when large parts of a group are somewhat extreme in a direction that one or more players don't enjoy. Most players don't mind waiting through small bits they don't find enjoyable, but when large sections of the game go that direction, you often end up with tension and sometimes problems.

For example, I find I enjoy a group that consists of players who enjoy the "theatrical improv" style of gaming. I can take it in small doses. After running a convention game I went to the main room and found that group never left the Inn where the adventure began. I know the players and the GM and know they love that. Four hours of that would very probably annoy me.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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 "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.

I think you're probably taking that example of "attitude" too literally. In my experience, many DMs who have been playing since the early days make a bit of a show of "cursing the PCs' luck" and such, but it's done with a wink and a nod: just part of running the game (which means running the PCs' enemies), but not really a serious set against the players. Rob Kuntz does that in his games. I never had a chance to play in one of Gary's games, but I've been told that he did much the same, for what it's worth.

Edit: Posted before reading on in the thread, and see that I'm repeating what was already said.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Well, he's a hell of a good DM…

He's a hell of a good player, too.

 

[Jhaelen]

Pray tell...

/snark off

The moment a discussion turns to what something as subjective as D&D fun "should be" the discussion effectively ends and turns into people talking past one another (at best). Let's avoid that here.

Wait a minute: Are you saying that roleplaying games aren't about roleplaying?! That's odd.

I didn't mean to refute that you can have fun playing D&D without any roleplaying. We certainly did have fun playing our parties. We just had more fun after discovering that we could also limit ourselves to one pc each and roleplay them, YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

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.

LostSoul is experimenting with this in his 4e hack.

HeroWars/Quest has it also, and not just for combats but for all action resolution - the option of a simple or an extended contest.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I choose to believe that Finch is slightly hyperbolistic in order to make his point. But for the most part, Finch is kinda full of it.

Very good article, solid analysis.

"New School started in 1975"

My understanding is that many GMs looked at OD&D, and AD&D, and thought, not "rulings not rules" but "more rules". Korgoth, an old schooler on ENWorld, seems to believe the #1 purpose of a GM is to write houserules, which is a totally different approach from Finch. Another old schooler, howandwhy99 also favors a lot of rules, but keeps them secret from the players. From the players PoV, it's actually a bit like a Matthew Finch run game, albeit more consistent. Again, this is clearly different from the play example, where the players are extremely well acquainted with the rules. Indeed I believe this was common in the 70s - Where has all the magic gone?

 

[Doug McCrae]

HeroWars/Quest has it also, and not just for combats but for all action resolution - the option of a simple or an extended contest.

I should have a look at that. I've had a copy of Hero Wars sitting on my shelf for years and never really read it. I am lazy.

 

[Reynard]

Wait a minute: Are you saying that roleplaying games aren't about roleplaying?! That's odd.

If you consider from whence they came, they are really about squad based combat and exploration with individual units. If you consider the genre as defined in electronic gaming, it's about mechanical character development, including new and better special powers and abilities, over time. If you consider certain small press games, it is about cooperative storytelling and intra-player negotiations.

In order to have a discussion about what roleplaying game should be about, first we'd have to define roleplaying. It's been tried. It fails every time. So instead of using "should" maybe we can use "do" "does" and "did".