Starting "Old SChool" gaming

[Jack Daniel]

One (interminable) problem with these discussions of "old school" gaming is that the Primer emphasizes one facet of "old school" gaming -- rulings, not rules -- but actual "old school" gaming wasn't nearly so consistent.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, after all, was a pretty clear move away from this philosophy -- although, starting from "original" D&D, it was still, in many ways, a rulings-based game. So we had players describing how their characters searched for traps and treasure, and the DM making judgment calls with little mechanical support -- and then we had explicit rules for demi-human level limits and other esoterica.

Bingo. The Primer describes ONE way to play role-playing games in general, not THE way to play OLD SCHOOL role-playing games.

 

[rogueattorney]

I've been waiting for it...

We've almost gotten to the post that inevitably comes in these discussions...

It's the post that simultaneously argues that there is no such thing as "old school" gaming and that "old school" gaming sucks.

I love those. In my book, it's right up there in terms of great moments in logical dissonance on the Internet as the "D&D is the same as it's always been only better" arguments.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've been waiting for it...

Indeed.


RC

 

[Korgoth]

Are you suggesting that poking a trap door with a 10' pole in a D&D3 game would not spring the trap door open like it would in a OD&D game? You're suggesting that *only* rolling a Search check would find the trap door?

Sorry but that's how I've seen it done a lot. It doesn't really matter what you say; all that matters is the roll. It's just one long, dreary dicefest. The talky that matters is the player jockeying to be able to use his highest skill as the basis of the roll.

Player: "First, I take the mattress off the bed and cut it open with my dagger. Then I sort through all the stuffing with the dagger. I then do the same with the pillow. I then break down the bed frame and go over every inch with my magnifying glass. Then I open the drawers of the dresser. I dump the contents of each one and sort through them with the dagger. Then I measure the depth of each drawer on the outside and the inside to establish if there is a discrepancy. Then I thump for hollow sounds on both sides of the drawer bottom and walls. I do this with each drawer. I then remove the mirror from the wall and take it apart with my dagger. I pay special attention to the frame and the backing. If the backing is multiple layers then I deconstruct it so that each layer is separate. I then check each stone in the floor, walls and ceiling for any discoloration, difference in texture or other incongruity. I then test the floor with water to see if there is any suspicious drainage. Then I measure all the dimensions of the room to see if they are straight."

DM: "OK, make a Search roll.

Player: "Crumbs... I rolled a '9'. That's a result of 24."

DM: "You don't find anything. Loser."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry but that's how I've seen it done a lot. It doesn't really matter what you say; all that matters is the roll. It's just one long, dreary dicefest. The talky that matters is the player jockeying to be able to use his highest skill as the basis of the roll.

Indeed, when I suggested that the description given by a player should be used to alter the DC or modify the roll, back when 3.x was the hottest thing, I recall several people suggesting that this was a bad thing, that I failed to understand the game, etc., etc.

(Not unlike what some folks say now if one suggests that PC abilities in 4e should be limited to what makes sense, rather than "it always works, we'll make sense of it somehow".)


RC

 

[Celebrim]

Player: "First, I take the mattress off the bed and cut it open with my dagger. Then I sort through all the stuffing with the dagger. I then do the same with the pillow. I then break down the bed frame and go over every inch with my magnifying glass. Then I open the drawers of the dresser. I dump the contents of each one and sort through them with the dagger. Then I measure the depth of each drawer on the outside and the inside to establish if there is a discrepancy. Then I thump for hollow sounds on both sides of the drawer bottom and walls. I do this with each drawer. I then remove the mirror from the wall and take it apart with my dagger. I pay special attention to the frame and the backing. If the backing is multiple layers then I deconstruct it so that each layer is separate. I then check each stone in the floor, walls and ceiling for any discoloration, difference in texture or other incongruity. I then test the floor with water to see if there is any suspicious drainage. Then I measure all the dimensions of the room to see if they are straight."

DM: "OK, make a Search roll.

Player: "Crumbs... I rolled a '9'. That's a result of 24."

DM: "You don't find anything. Loser."

That would suck.

My take on the above is that it is taking 20 with a huge circumstance bonus (at least +7, possibly more). If you don't find anything, it's because your character is dumber than you are and made some careless mistake in the search. However, as far as I'm concerned, the above proposition resolves the single biggest issue in a search check - not whether you can find the clue, but whether you can, before finding the clue, detect and avoid the hazard which protects the clue.

The above player is essentially telling me, "To heck with the risks, I'm going to interact with these objects until I find everything there is to find, good or bad." So, here, the relevance of the search check isn't whether you find the hidden compartment, because you will, it's whether in your search you notice the poison needle trap before it jabs you (or whatever hazard is involved).

 

[Grimstaff]

And I was also galled by the idea that these rules have created a culture of "rollplaying" but that's not so much a strawman as it's just an unsubstantiated assertion that I disagree with.

That, nonetheless, is the perception I have of skill-based games like 3E. It is perhaps a wrong assumption, I've made them in the past. For instance, I always assumed 2E *required* the use of weapon proficiencies, but was recently alerted to the fact that the proficiencies chapter subheading quite clearly says "Optional". I stood corrected, and have since changed my attitude on that subject.

So I'll bite: 3E scholars, point me to a passage in the 3E PHB or SRD that encourages DMs to rule on "skill" actions according to the players' actions instead of a specific skill check roll, and I'll gladly change my perception that the game promotes "rollplaying" over roleplaying!

*Edit for clarity - I should add that I'm not looking to promote one "edition" over another here, just mildly curious. I do believe the Old School Primer makes some very valid points and presents a style of playing that is drastically different from that presented in newer edition games. Not better or worse, but certainly different; and I'm not closed to looking at some cited evidence to the contrary!

 

[Raven Crowking]

That, nonetheless, is the perception I have of skill-based games like 3E.

It's also not a strawman:

A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one other statement—being presumably easier to refute than the original position—must be true. If one refutes this weaker proposition, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

However, the claim that it is a straw man does seem to be one.


RC

 

[Grimstaff]

If you don't find anything, it's because your character is dumber than you are and made some careless mistake in the search.

So a fair conclusion to draw from this would be that a possible difference between "old" and "new" school gaming is that one favors the player's skill and the other the character's skill?

 

[Belen]

Yeah, I couldn't decide which one galled me more. Mostly the idea that having a lot of options = restrictions.

I thought of also referencing the closely related strawman from the document linked in the OP, the idea that "if you don't have a feat, you can't do it."

And I was also galled by the idea that these rules have created a culture of "rollplaying" but that's not so much a strawman as it's just an unsubstantiated assertion that I disagree with.

It's all opinion.

I had no issues with the post. It is all about what mindset a game creates. I see a clear difference in gamers who started with earlier editions to those who started with later editions. They play the game differently.

It is a cultural thing in many respects. 3e did produce a lot of players that would not attempt something unless the rules stated that they could. I even used a house rule that made all "social skills" class skills for all classes. It helped grease the wheels.

4e seemed to have addressed this by the half level to skills.