D&D General On Grognardism...

[S'mon]

I have a big problem with seeing many of the people whose work and contributions created a hobby I love, be treated with disdain and driven out of the very groups they created by toxic people.

I agree. But the toxic people driving them out of the hobby seem to be different toxic people than the toxic people brought up by Ruin Explorer.

(OK, I don't really think Pundit is toxic. He can certainly be super-obnoxious though, and would probably agree proudly with that assessment if asked. The rest of them do seem pretty toxic to me.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

The person I'd want from the first generation would be Jenelle Jacquays.

A great resource (and a genuine good human being), who also happens to be one of the folks I was referring to above who has pretty much left the OSR because of a lot of the toxic and bigoted loudmouths who have taken over nearly all of the OSR social media groups. I don't blame her at all, for the record, even though that seems....almost like sacrilege to what the OSR was about when people like her are being driven away from it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm arguing that the game structure tended to push people away from storytelling and more towards 'pick your action off the menu' game play, with most abilities being too similar. Again, we both agree this has been litigated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. No need to say anything further.

This is entirely hypocritical and completely rubbish as a position, mate. You are the one who brought up 4E again, and made factually inaccurate statements about it. It's not okay for you to complain about "re-litigating", when you are the one doing it. So either follow your own advice, or never complain about "re-litigating" again. It's just hypocrisy on your part. Nothing more.

 

[Umbran]

That can be just as true in new, narrative games.

Yes, but there's some not-to-subtle differences.

In these older games, there is no real guidance as to when and where the GM should exert influence, or how.

In new, narrative-focused games, the mechanics tell you explicitly where those points are, and lay out what that influence should look like, and even lay out what it's mechanical impact should be. And the players are also frequently given ability to influence the narrative beyond just the character's action in the game. And in several, setting-generation is a minigame for the players, rather than GM-fiat. So, these new narrative-focused games have several other things keeping them from being really a "John's the DM" game.

 

[S'mon]

So that's an example of how removing codification (reaction rolls) hurts player power. I think you agree? 3E did take away some codification. So did 4E - I made the example of the stunt adjudication "rules" in 4E, which basically amount to "ask the DM, he'll decide how hard", which is a step back from 3E's codification, which attempts to pretty much lay out what you'd roll in various situations.

I think the problem with page 42 is that 4e made improvised-action damage generally worse than just using an at-will power. I think that was a big mistake. The improvising player should almost always be rewarded. I was tempted to make the improvised actions 1/round minor actions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

(OK, I don't really think Pundit is toxic. He can certainly be super-obnoxious though, and would probably agree proudly with that assessment if asked. The rest of them do seem pretty toxic to me.)

You might want to look into his behaviour towards others in a bit more detail, if you believe this. Or don't if you want to keep on believing it. I too used to think he was just a "rude dude", but he's gone a hell of a lot further than just "rude dude"-ery, and into actual harassment, outright personal abuse, and online stalking and so on. Just read the front page of his own website today and then come back and tell me that's not "toxic". Go on!

 

[Sacrosanct]

I agree. But the toxic people driving them out of the hobby seem to be different toxic people than the toxic people brought up by Ruin Explorer.

(OK, I don't really think Pundit is toxic. He can certainly be super-obnoxious though, and would probably agree proudly with that assessment if asked. The rest of them do seem pretty toxic to me.)

I can't see any of Ruin Explorer's posts or when people who quote them, as they have me on ignore. Just so you know I am missing that context.

As for Pundit, even if one were not to consider he himself toxic (I'm gonna leave that for others to decide), he welcomes and embraces people who are outright white nationalists. You know who I'm talking about.

If you (general you) keep inviting bigots into your home and let them have free platform for their hate speech, then don't be surprised when people start assuming you tacitly (at the very least) approve of said hate speech. Too many people use the excuse "I'm just giving free speech to everyone!" when we all know it's a lame excuse to cover up for the fact that you share many of the same abhorrent beliefs, especially when you (again, general you) let slip many dog whistles of your own, and insist on using the same buzzwords used by these hate groups.

 

[S'mon]

One of my players who has played for 30 years and writes fiction and stuff (not published yet but he's easily as good as quite a few fantasy writers who are) DM'd, and I kind of didn't want to DM ever again, because he was so good at it. I think he's better than me. But DM'd a one-shot the bastard, and that was it! I'm still trying to convince him to do more!

Eek, one of my players is a moderately famous published author and has just started GMing for her writers' circle, I should be worried...

 

[S'mon]

You might want to look into his behaviour towards others in a bit more detail, if you believe this. Or don't if you want to keep on believing it. I too used to think he was just a "rude dude", but he's gone a hell of a lot further than just "rude dude"-ery, and into actual harassment, outright personal abuse, and online stalking and so on. Just read the front page of his own website today and then come back and tell me that's not "toxic". Go on!

I'm over there a lot, I dunno. He's called me various names over the years (I told him however much of an a-hole I am, he'll always be a thousand times bigger a-hole, which he seemed to take in good spirit). He rants against games I like. He conflates White Wolf 'Storyteller' Railroading with Forgeist Story-Creation games. He basically seems harmless to me, though. I guess I'm fond of crazy Libertarian types. I don't see any sign of harrassment or stalking. I guess his vitriol could be considered personal abuse if you're of a sensitive disposition. It comes across more as a schtick than malevolent to me, though.

(If this post comes across as S'mon donning the Mook Uniform of Lawful Evil Alignment, well, I think we should all just get along).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the problem with page 42 is that 4e made improvised-action damage generally worse than just using an at-will power. I think that was a big mistake. The improvising player should almost always be rewarded. I was tempted to make the improvised actions 1/round minor actions.

If that was true, I'd agree.

But it ain't. I've got it open right now - thanks for the page ref, I'd forgotten!

So basically there are two damage tables - "Normal" and "Limited". Generally anything remotely clever or one-off goes on the "Limited" table (this is explained). That's doing much, much more than at-will damage. Stuff you could do over and over, which isn't really anything clever, just not covered by the rules, goes on the Normal table.

Then you pick Low, Medium or High, and the example given specifically calls out that you should try and make it do at least as much damage as normal. So if you're picking medium or low damage and doing less than a normal attack, well, that's on you as a DM for bothering to read the rules. You can also inflict status effects (the example includes a shove and a prone, as well as Normal-High damage). On top of that, depending on the effect, you could do AOE damage or the like, when you didn't have an AOE attack on your "menu".

The problem was the other one we've been discussing That DMs vary. Some DMs understand the rules and are a fan of the players, and will use the Limited and High stuff generously, and inflict plenty of status effects and so on. Others will be stingy as hell because they don't get that this is stuff is literally explained in such a way that it should be as good as or better than normal powers.

Eek, one of my players is a moderately famous published author and has just started GMing for her writers' circle, I should be worried...

Maybe!