The "Old School Revival" - The Light Bulb Goes On

[Celebrim]

Mercurius just said what I was trying to say probably better than I said it.

I'd add to that that I think regardless of the system you choose to play, we already have that best of both worlds. Every DM has the option of working out everything to a nicety when it makes sense to do so, and winging with numbers that are 'about right' when time and pacing don't permit such fine calculation. That's not a system problem, that's a GM choice in pretty much any system. Even GURPS, rules heavy as it is, encourages the GM to make that choice as needed, because in GURPS of all systems it's probably essential that you do so.

I love 3rd edition. D20 in some flavor is my system of choice, and for most games that run the 'casual realism' to 'superhero' spectrum, I don't see alot of reason to depart from it. But there alot of times playing the game that I choose as the DM to spitball the exact numbers because it's not worth it to figure out whether the conjured up NPC of the moment has a +10 or +12 bonus to the rule. When in doubt as to the DC, there are alot of times when I figure '15+ on the dice is a success'. Just I love rules, feel that rules make the DM's job easier, and love having them there for me when I want them, doesn't mean I'm a slave to them. I'm not usually going to stop the story to work out and double check my figures unless there is a really really good reason to do so.

 

[prosfilaes]

For me the Holy Grail of D&D would be a design in which the entire spectrum is served, because all approaches are valid, all styles welcome within the D&D Family. You want to chart out Demogorgon's skills and feats, down to how well he can shine shoes and throw a bola? Fine, go right ahead. You want to bypass all feats and powers in a completely free-form approach of character actions? Sure, why not?

Once you've got one side completely happy, you've got a book the size of Pathfinder. How are you going to sell that to the OD&D fans?

 

[Hairfoot]

Once you've got one side completely happy, you've got a book the size of Pathfinder. How are you going to sell that to the OD&D fans?

There are no real "sides", unless we view the debate as something between half a dozen factions, because that's the sort of diversity that's represented by S&W, C&C, PF, 4E, and the various permutations thereof.

 

[JeffB]

Merc did a good job of summing up in no small part what I was getting at (and Byron, certainly I was not trying to push buttons, or say one way is better than the other-just that there are different ways of approaching the rules, very much different).

But another point I was trying to get at is that you can have alot of rules, and they can be simulationist or gamist. Or you can have few rules, and they can be simulationist, or gamist.


For example- 3.X/Pathfinder are daunting rules volumes- with a big focus on simulation. 4E is also pretty daunting but it also has rules that are very gamist (many powers that cause a story effect of , "your attack never happened despite the fact you hit".

To delve further-Lets look at OD&D clerics- No sharp weapons- they are averse to the drawing of blood. The gamist in me says- may not make sense, but it's a way to balance the game so that Clerics are not able to procure and use a vast variety of magic swords that really should be the dominion of the Fighter and Fighter only.

The simulation side of me says- well, we know that many real world priests, shamans, etc of ancient times, used all sorts of weapons- swords, spears, knives (sacrifces) etc. So why should the Cleric be limited to blunt weapons only? and while we are at it, lets give everyone more options in magic weapons- we will balance the classes in other ways.

Mages in armor is another example- early on it was balancing agent- in later editions the designers felt the need to create a plausible "simulation" that describes how magic works , just so they can explain why mages cannot wear armor.

In one mindset- "who cares, its just a game, like monopoly and thats the rule. In the other mindset you have that "realism" factor- "this doesn't make sense, so lets re-work it so that it does make sense in a realistic way".

You could cite hundreds of examples of this- Race as Class, Level Limits, Hit Points, spellcasting and armor, etc., etc., etc.

At some point, D&D became less of a "game" and become more of a realistic simulation of a fantasy world, if that makes sense?

Different folks have different needs/expectations. I'm one of those people who leans to the gaming side, though at times I prefer something a bit more "realistic". The damage by class house-rule I mentioned earlier is a great example. It provides a bit of common sense, while still retaining the balance, and does it in a simple gamist way- it emulates realism (trained Fighters are gonna have more damage output), without getting bogged down in minutiae.

Its all just preference and mentality in which you approach the game- some people REALLY get into that detail and minutiae, and wanting to have "builds" and doing charop, and ultimate combat tactics, etc. They enjoy the game within the game. I was never one of those people. To me a D&D character is not a whole lot different than the thimble or the steamship- a bit more complicated of course, but it's just a playing piece you use to get through the adventuring and/or story.

Thats of course JMO, everyones MMV, nor do I begrudge them for what they like or want out of a game.

 

[ancientvaults]

As an oldschooler (although I love Pathfinder and indie games) I enjoy the OSR toolkit/sandbox approach. The basic ideas and rules are simple and I can add on anything that I want to. Instead of starting with a behemoth and whittling it down I start simple and build on a few things here and there, customizing the game as we go. This is much easier for the person running the game as well as the players. My Labyrinth Lord screen of four pages is pretty much all I need other than the adventure itself, no need to look up rules all the time. The players each have a two page print out with hit tables, prices for gear and their weapons and armor. Bang. Done. Then we play. Instead of skills I keep track of major tasks accomplished and the difficulty is reduced the next time they try it.

 

[Treebore]

As an oldschooler (although I love Pathfinder and indie games) I enjoy the OSR toolkit/sandbox approach. The basic ideas and rules are simple and I can add on anything that I want to. Instead of starting with a behemoth and whittling it down I start simple and build on a few things here and there, customizing the game as we go. This is much easier for the person running the game as well as the players.

Totally agree. I started with Castles and Crusades because I knew from the beginning I was going to want to take ideas from any edition of D&D, which was 3E on back at the time, so I went with what I felt was the most "universal" to make that goal easiest to accomplish. It has worked for me, and even made it easy for me to steal a couple of the better ideas from 4E pretty easily.

So starting from some kind of basic framework and then building it up to precisely the degree of complexity you and your players are most comfortable with is an awesome way to go.

 

[The Shaman]

Lets look at OD&D clerics- No sharp weapons- they are averse to the drawing of blood. The gamist in me says- may not make sense, but it's a way to balance the game so that Clerics are not able to procure and use a vast variety of magic swords that really should be the dominion of the Fighter and Fighter only.

The simulation side of me says- well, we know that many real world priests, shamans, etc of ancient times, used all sorts of weapons- swords, spears, knives (sacrifces) etc. So why should the Cleric be limited to blunt weapons only?

Because the world it which most D&D games take place is not the real-world.

This is why many gamers eschew the concept of 'realism' and instead describe this as 'verisimilitude' or 'internal consistency.'

In the game-world implied by the game-mechanics, those who wield magical power granted by the gods cannot use any but blunt weapons. It's one of the many ways in which the game-world differs from our own.

Speculative fiction takes our world and changes a number of elements to create a different world. This is one of those changes.

 

[ourchair]

Somewhere, at some point, D&D began to focus less on the gamist side of things, and started to bring in that simulation focus. I would say this initially started when AD&D was being worked on to conform and codify many things. At the time of course Gary was adamant about it being neccessary (for many reasons) over time of course we found out that his heart lay back in that wild & wooly OD&D mode.

Well put.

The way I see it is that the simulationist trajectory that D&D took for most of its existence was a result of Gygax trying to make his own (totally appropriate and completely necessary) houserules and codify them into text, simply because he felt that if he faced certain problems in-game and found ways to solve them, then it would stand to reason that other players could use the mechanical solutions he developed as well.

It is there that Gygax somehow went astray, then retro-actively decided he was wrong, which is pretty much what you'd expect of any reasonable person.

 

[innerdude]

The way I see it is that the simulationist trajectory that D&D took for most of its existence was a result of Gygax trying to make his own (totally appropriate and completely necessary) houserules and codify them into text, simply because he felt that if he faced certain problems in-game and found ways to solve them, then it would stand to reason that other players could use the mechanical solutions he developed as well.

It is there that Gygax somehow went astray, then retro-actively decided he was wrong, which is pretty much what you'd expect of any reasonable person.

I think this is an interesting observation/insight. His whole return to a simplified rule system in Lejendary Adventures makes it seem like Gygax was in essence saying, "Given the choice, I'd rather let a competent GM decide what happens than the rule in the book."

 

[MerricB]

I think this is an interesting observation/insight. His whole return to a simplified rule system in Lejendary Adventures makes it seem like Gygax was in essence saying, "Given the choice, I'd rather let a competent GM decide what happens than the rule in the book."

However, between AD&D and LA, Gary designed Dangerous Journeys (Mythus), which wandered into the insanely complex.

The way I see it is that the simulationist trajectory that D&D took for most of its existence was a result of Gygax trying to make his own (totally appropriate and completely necessary) houserules and codify them into text, simply because he felt that if he faced certain problems in-game and found ways to solve them, then it would stand to reason that other players could use the mechanical solutions he developed as well.

It should be noted that early D&D (in particular) was influenced by a range of designers. Gary was editing everything together and rebalancing it using his judgement, but he also had his friends insisting that various rules were making the game better.

I've always suspected that Len Lakofka was one of the chief culprits here: certainly his columns in Dragon Magazine were often giving rules that were far more complicated than the rest of the system.

It's worth noting that D&D has always had this uneasy balance between being a game (hit points) and being more of a simulation (weapon types vs armour). The initiative rules are a case in point: certainly the original three booklets of OD&D didn't have initiative spelt out, but if you looked in Chainmail you'd find a system that was quite similar to what was later presented in AD&D: a complicated set of rules depending on weapon length when charging, weapon speed otherwise, and so forth. The AD&D rules give you the impression that there *wasn't* a set system and that Gary was making it up as he went along. I was quite surprised to find out that he used a d10 for initiative...

Cheers!