Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Water Bob]

THIS IS A TREATISE that every GM should READ!

I believe, as the author of this document does, that modern roleplaying lends itslef to being "stale" and "boring" more often than old school gaming. I haven't been able to express that comment as well as it is expressed in the document linked above.

I've even found myself running games that look more like the "modern game" examples in the document rather than the style of exciting play that I grew up on, as expressed in the document with the "old style games".

I think that the Ye Olde Style game can be used with modern game rules.

The hard part is getting players to trust their GMs to be more than just arbiter of the printed rules. GMs should be, as this document says, THE RULEBOOK.

This is a fantastic commentary on styles of role playing.

It's worth the read.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

In case people are trying to figure out what it is that he linked to, it's "A quick primer for Old School gaming".

I have no comment about the article itself because I think arguing about playstyles is about as useful as arguing whether chocolate or strawberry is a better flavour.

*shrug*

YMMV

 

[Hautamaki]

I've read the article before, I liked it, it had some good ideas. I don't know that it's necessarily accurate to define 'old school gaming' so monolithically, there were as many different ways to enjoy the game then as there are now. But either way, fun is fun, and if you really feel that your own gaming is starting to get 'stale' then there might be something in there that you find useful.

 

[frostburn]

I'm glad Scurvy posted before me. He helped me have a Zen moment, before I started a flame war. SP and H is right nobody can tell you how/what you fun at the table can if 10ft poles is r u idea of fun. have at it and enjoy.

I have read more/better helpful "old school" advice in other places. which is growth for me bc as little as 6 months I would have told you all my wisdom is new school.

I need to go drink the blood of a few doves to feel better, now

 

[Water Bob]

Just to be clear, I'm not telling anybody how to play. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, the game has blown up a bit with a rule for everything.

Player: "I've got an enemy in front of me and an enemy behind? I've got initiative. I'm going to dodge to the right and see if there's a chance they'll strike each other!"

DM: "Um...no. Sorry. Not a chance. There's the Pantherish Twist combat maneuver, and it says you have to have Improved Uncanny Dodge. I know you don't have it, so there's absolutely no chance you can pull that off."

Player: "Not even a 5% chance? If I roll a d20 and get a 20?"

DM: "No sorry. No cool moves today. Roll your regular attack."

In an old school game, the DM might think it unlikely, but might still give the player some sort of chance just because it was "fun".



And, that's probably a bad example. Turn it around. Two PCs are flanking an NPC badguy. Both PCs have initiative, and, as luck would have it, the first rolls a natural "1" on his attack, followed by the second rolling a "1" one. Neat conincidence. Doesn't happen that often at all, both rolling a natural "1", back-to-back.

So, the DM says, "The Bad Guy dodges to the right, and the two of you have to make attacks at each other!"

Player: "Wait! That's the Pantherish Twist combat maneuver! I saw it one the blah-blah-blah sourcebook. Let's look it up, but if I remember, you've got to have Improved Uncanny Dodge to pull that one off. Does the NPC have Improved Uncanny Dodge?"

DM looks at his NPC notes. "Um...no."

Player: "Whelp, can't do it. Sorry."

DM: "Hey...who's DMing who here?"



What I'm suggesting is, with all the rules bloat and such (and I like all versions of D&D that I've played), at least in some games, the creative give-n-take might be sucked out of a game.

It becomes an excercise, sometimes, in numbers. I roll this. What's your roll? OK, this happens. Then I do this. If you do, you need to roll that. OK, I rolled. Do I make it.

That sort of thing.



I'm not saying that YOU play the game like this (YOU = to whomever is reading this). I'm saying that the fading of the free-form play in favor of a-rule-for-everything play has, in some cases, reduced the power of the DM to an arbiter of the rules instead of being The Rulebook, as he was in the more abstract days.

Play the game as you wish. I'm not going to stop you.

I'm just opening up a discussion here.

 

[lostingeneral]

Reading through that (and note that I might be biased since I started with 4e), I would personally strongly prefer something halfway between the two play styles ("modern" and "old" style) described.

The modern style examples are all flat and without flavour, and seem to just boil down to either mechanical shortcuts or rules arguments. Meanwhile, the old style examples are colourful but occasionally just arbitrary. Though my games tip more towards modern style than old style, I certainly don't go to the extreme where everything is described and acted on in terms of numbers.

I think it's important to note that the main purpose of this primer is to elaborate on the differences between old- and new-school gaming, and not to say that the former is better than the latter. It does highlight some points that could be improved upon in a general sense (more of a story focus versus rules focus) but it absolutely should not be taken as a way of saying "this is why modern gaming is terrible, and you should always play the old way." In other words, I think this is one of many perspectives that can (and should) be looked at to compare play styles and interpret what might be good to borrow, and likewise, should perhaps be strayed away from.

That's just my thought on it, though.

 

[Water Bob]

Meanwhile, the old style examples are colourful but occasionally just arbitrary.

That touches the point I'm making. "Arbitrary" DM calls have become a "bad thing" in many people's eyes. Players don't seem (to me, anyway) to trust their DMs they way they had to in the old days when there wasn't a rule for everything.

I'm a big proponent of "arbitrary" judgements by the DM in the game. I don't call it "aribtrary", though. I call it "creative".

I believe that a good, creative DM can make a game unbelieveable (good) with his description, sense of pace, and arbitrary judgements.

It doesn't matter if he would make the same call three months down the road when the same situation popped up again. As long as he makes the game fun and exciting, who cares if you rolled 4d6 for a number under your STR score to force open a sealed tomb back during January's game, but in tonight's game, you rolled a d20, plus your STR mod, for a DC of 15+.

Heck, maybe the two tombs took varying amounts of energy to open due to the weather and swelling. Or, maybe one was just plain harder to open than the other.

Arbitrary DM calls should not be a "bad thing".

I think it's important to note that the main purpose of this primer is to elaborate on the differences between old- and new-school gaming, and not to say that the former is better than the latter. It does highlight some points that could be improved upon in a general sense (more of a story focus versus rules focus) but it absolutely should not be taken as a way of saying "this is why modern gaming is terrible, and you should always play the old way." In other words, I think this is one of many perspectives that can (and should) be looked at to compare play styles and interpret what might be good to borrow, and likewise, should perhaps be strayed away from.

Well said. And as I said earlier, I like all the versions of D&D that I've played. I probably prefer d20 3.5 games over earlier versions of D&D, but I try to play them with an Old School tact. And, if you slipped a 2E or 1E AD&D game in front of me, I'd embrace it.

 

[pawsplay]

That touches the point I'm making. "Arbitrary" DM calls have become a "bad thing" in many people's eyes. Players don't seem (to me, anyway) to trust their DMs they way they had to in the old days when there wasn't a rule for everything.

Some DMs are total dicks, though. I cut my teeth on "old school gaming." My first character to survive to 2nd level got killed by turning down the wrong corner into a "magic missile crossbow trap."

I am, at heart, an old school player, but I do happily enjoy some advancements in the art, such as having vague awareness of how tough an encounter is, letting players understand their own capabilities to some extent, and not make the game about my sense of whimsy, but about the environment itself. I consider myself fairly Gygaxian in outlook; I like to test the players, and to improvise, and to narrate interesting results, but I also don't like to strip away player's powers, which is what you do if their success depends mainly on your inclinations.

 

[TheUltramark]

That touches the point I'm making. "Arbitrary" DM calls have become a "bad thing" in many people's eyes. Players don't seem (to me, anyway) to trust their DMs they way they had to in the old days when there wasn't a rule for everything.

I'm a big proponent of "arbitrary" judgements by the DM in the game. I don't call it "aribtrary", though. I call it "creative".

I believe that a good, creative DM can make a game unbelieveable (good) with his description, sense of pace, and arbitrary judgements.

It doesn't matter if he would make the same call three months down the road when the same situation popped up again. As long as he makes the game fun and exciting, who cares if you rolled 4d6 for a number under your STR score to force open a sealed tomb back during January's game, but in tonight's game, you rolled a d20, plus your STR mod, for a DC of 15+.

Heck, maybe the two tombs took varying amounts of energy to open due to the weather and swelling. Or, maybe one was just plain harder to open than the other.

Arbitrary DM calls should not be a "bad thing".

I agree with both you and the article.
I don't have it in front of me, but the 1e and 2e rule books all have a paragraph in the beginning that reads(paraphrase) these are just guidelines, feel free to change them to fit your game

 

[Crothian]

I've yet to run into a game that did not allow me to play the style of gaming I wanted. Some make it easier then others but none completely prevent it. Also, this seems to ignore many new games systems that do are fast moving and don't get bogged down in the rules. Claiming all modern games are like 4e is very inaccurate. It's almost as bad as claiming all older gamers are like 1e.