Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[the Jester]

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 hate to tell you this, but this whole thread is just an inch shy of an edition war. Not only that, it comes across as pretty "one-true-wayist" and basically sounds like you played early editions with a good dm but have only had crappy dms in later editions.

Let's take the whole "I'm flanked and want to dodge out of the way so they hit each other" thing as an example. There's this page in the 4e DMG that is there so that pcs can do "stunts" rather than just relying on their powers. The tools are already there. A good dm will use them. And a crappy dm won't allow the pc to be creative, regardless of edition. Are you seriously positing that every old school dm would automatically do for the dodge-hit-each-other thing? Of course not. And would you seriously tell me that no new school dm would? You can't, because I just pointed to the new school page that says, "Here's how!"

The key to good, or at least one key, is a good dm. Period. A crappy dm runs a crappy game, even with a good system. A good dm runs a good game with even a poor system- and a great dm runs a great game even with a crappy system.

I definitely agree that there's a difference between old school style and new school style, but it isn't the stuff you're pointing at. To me, it's more an attitude. An old school style dm isn't afraid to destroy your gear, kill your character, remove your limbs, give you cursed items, and all without checking with the player first. An old school style dm uses your magic item wish list for scratch paper and then throws it away. An old school style dm is a referee and adjudicator. A new school style dm helps make sure that everyone is having a good time even if it means that he pulls his punches and limits his dirty tricks (Mordenkainen's disjunction, I'm staring you in the face). A new school style dm doesn't use many random encounters, because they throw the game off track. A new school style dm tries to ensure that the party is relatively balanced so nobody is useless, makes sure they have appropriate gear for their level and doesn't use encounters 19 levels above the party.

Each type has advantages and disadvantages, and some people prefer each. Nothing wrong with that, and with discussing it. But I think you're doing the new-school guys a disservice in the entire framing of the thread.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Chaochou just explained why following the rules strictly in any edition can be a bad idea. Was it so hard to just have one check per room/hallway, even if the rules didn't strictly "allow" this?

In late 3.5 and now in 4e, traps are more interactive once combat starts.

What? Yes, traps can be part of combat. Ideally, a lot of traps are not hidden and don't require a check to spot. They're right there in the open... on the other side of the room, between the PCs and the treasure in the next room, and perhaps there are kobolds who ensure it's targeting the PCs and not them.

Quite often, the rogue will be frantically working on the "disarm panel" (a skill challenge in 4e parlance) while the rest of the party is keeping him alive by killing kobolds (if there are any) and using magic to heal and/or resist the effects of the trap.

While the newer editions have featured encounters of this type, you could of course use such an encounter in 2e.

 

[Water Bob]

But with no trap there the whole things dissolves into an exercise in searching repetitively, every 10 feet, for the non existent. And with anything other than a pit trap there the player can still get killed despite 'using his noggin'.

This doesn't encourage any sort of gameplay that I want to experience. In my experience it results in player caution and paralysis as they check every flagstone for pits, pressure plates, poisoned bdarts, hidden crossbows, sprung blades, magical wards, secret doors, concealed doors, illusions, etc etc etc.

Sorry, but it ain't for me.

The author of the article (and myself) do not advocate boring gameplay. Quite the opposite, in fact. Part of the DM's job is to keep the game moving and interesting.

So....the DM knows there's a trap the PCs are about to walk over. He's got notes on all the PCs with skills listed. Behind his DM screen, he does a quick Spot roll for the players.

They don't know what he's doing. Heck, he's always rolling dice behind his screen and then not saying anything. Sometimes, he does it just to increase tension. "You're opening THAT door?" Rolls dice. "OK, it's unlocked. You pull it open. The room is dark beyond."

The DM looks at the result of the Spot check and then plays off of that. If it's a failure, he doesn't say anything to the players. It's up to them to "use their noggin" or just walk over the trap.

If the Spot check is a success, then the DM gives the players a clue, out of the blue, to tip them off that "something is up".

"You get to rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt HERE, when you notice that the floor seems to be cleaner--more free of dirt and grime--in the space before you."

The DM is thinking that those who fall into the trap "clean" the floor a bit when they slide on by to their doom.

Still, the DM is giving the PCs a clue, and game is interesting.

It's not: "Hey, I rolled a Spot check for you and you noticed a trap right here."

And, a good DM will sometimes go through the exact same procedure when there is no trap. Just roll some dice and tell the players that the floor looks a little cleaner beneath their feet.

Heck, maybe the last drunk goblin that walked through that corridor spilled some of his wine there.

 

[The Shaman]

But with no trap there the whole things dissolves into an exercise in searching repetitively, every 10 feet, for the non existent.

Referee: "You see a ten-foot wide, forty-foot wide corridor ahead of you ending in a wooden door with iron bands."

Caller: "Okay, we'll do 'The Usual.'"

Referee: "So, the dwarf will take a moment to detect slanting passages, unusual rockwork and all that, then you'll head off down the hall, probing carefully with the ten-foot pole ahead of us as you go to detect pressure plates, loose rocks, and tripwires, and the elf will scan for secret doors as you move, right?"

Caller: "Yep, unless or until we find something out of the ordinary."​

See, 'The Usual' was a feature of pretty much every roleplaying game I ever played. Luke Crane created Instincts for Burning Wheel so that 'The Usual' was actually part of the character. 'The Usual' limits exactly the sort of grind you're talking about.

 

[The Shaman]

But, I do think the skills and Feats and all the numbers on the 3.5 character sheet lends itself to what is described in the document as "modern gaming".

So 'modern gaming' began with Traveller (1977), RuneQuest (1978), Top Secret (1980), and The Fantasy Trip (1980)?

There are gamers out there who believe this to be true. They also see 1e AD&D as 'not-old school' as well.

 

[pawsplay]

Why would you play with a total dick, no matter if he was curbed in via a rule for everything or given free reign to judgement call every circumstance?

Dicks are dicks. Don't play with them.

1. You often have to play with someone one time to find out they're dicks.
2. I was eight years old.

 

[Water Bob]

'The Usual' limits exactly the sort of grind you're talking about.​

Ooooo. I've got to disagree here. When the DM asks, "What do you want to do?" And the Caller yells out, "The Usual"....man, that doesn't sound too far removed from, "Roll a Spot check. What'd you get? A 16? OK, you found the trap. Roll to deactivate it. What'd you get?"
​

1. You often have to play with someone one time to find out they're dicks.
2. I was eight years old.

LOL, and understood.



I'm guess your dickified DM was 9 years old at the time?

 

[chaochou]

I'm honestly struggling to see any modern vs old school distinction in the pdf linked to in the OP.

I can see a numerical vs descriptive style of GM-ing and play in the examples. But play based on crunch has been around as long as gaming itself - I don't associate a desciptive style as being 'old school'.

Maybe even the reverse - the indie game rejuvenation over the last 10 years has seen lots of games published in which stats and system mastery are pretty much irrelevant, and that actions, decisions, conflicts, goals and stakes are the drivers.

So....the DM knows there's a trap the PCs are about to walk over. Behind his DM screen, he does a quick Spot roll for the players.

They don't know what he's doing. Heck, he's always rolling dice behind his screen and then not saying anything.

The DM looks at the result of the Spot check and then plays off of that. If it's a failure, he doesn't say anything to the players. It's up to them to "use their noggin" or just walk over the trap.

And, a good DM will sometimes go through the exact same procedure when there is no trap.

I find it baffling that a GM would make dummy dice rolls (to prevent players from making meta-game decisions based on the fact a roll was made) but then expect a player to actively make a meta-game decision to continue looking for a trap which the character has absolutely no knowledge of or reason to suspect, having already made, and failed, a spot check.

That may be an interesting game for you. Personally I find it tedious and incoherent.

Which isn't to denegrate anyone's idea of fun, just to say that mine is something considerably different.

 

[Mark CMG]

Referee: "You see a ten-foot wide, forty-foot wide corridor ahead of you ending in a wooden door with iron bands."

Caller: "Okay, we'll do 'The Usual.'"

Referee: "So, the dwarf will take a moment to detect slanting passages, unusual rockwork and all that, then you'll head off down the hall, probing carefully with the ten-foot pole ahead of us as you go to detect pressure plates, loose rocks, and tripwires, and the elf will scan for secret doors as you move, right?"

Caller: "Yep, unless or until we find something out of the ordinary."​

See, 'The Usual' was a feature of pretty much every roleplaying game I ever played. Luke Crane created Instincts for Burning Wheel so that 'The Usual' was actually part of the character. 'The Usual' limits exactly the sort of grind you're talking about.

There are some players who now go so far as to . . .

Referee: "You see a ten-foot wide, forty-foot long corridor ahead of you ending in a wooden door with iron bands."

Caller: "Okay, we'll Greyhawk the corridor. [ - ed]

Referee: "So, the dwarf will take a moment to detect slanting passages, unusual rockwork and all that, then you'll head off down the hall, probing carefully with the ten-foot pole ahead of us as you go to detect pressure plates, loose rocks, and tripwires, and the elf will scan for secret doors as you move, right?"

Caller: "Yep, unless or until we find something out of the ordinary."​

I find this shorthand disturbing and generally am not as accommodating as the Referee in the example, letting the players spell it out. It doesn't take any more time, really, and I also make sure to let them know how the clock is ticking (and try to devise scenarios where time is of the essence).

I think the treatise has a lot of good things to say, by way of reminder, about what makes any old school or modern game fun. The author was very careful to point out that this was a treatise on GMing styles and not about editions, as any RPG can be run to embrace the more immersive conduct being engendered in the examples of play. It's just that with rulesets that define the details of mechanics more there is sometimes less leeway for GMs to draw in players, since they can more easily fall back on the mechanics as a way to get from point A to point B. When I go to see a 3D IMAX movie I like to sit close enough so that the edges of the screen are not quite in the field of vision I have through the 3D glasses.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm guess your dickified DM was 9 years old at the time?

Like, 12, I think.