Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Has Caused the OSR Revival?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7377312" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Typically, if a system doesn't explicitly call out that something is possible, it effectively forbids it. First, the players don't know or have any reason to believe that it is a valid proposition of play. Secondly, if it's not supported by the rules typically the GM has no real options but to answer "No" to any proposition for which he has no mechanism to resolve. Even if the GM tries to imagine a resolution, it's highly unlikely that a GM - especially a novice GM - will on the spur of the moment smith out any sort of interesting, fair and rewarding resolution system. Thus, even if the GM says, "Yes", to a creative proposition, the result is that his resolution or the resolution system of the engine will end up saying "No" to the proposition.</p><p></p><p>For example, in 15 years of playing old school D&D, I never saw players attempt anything other than attacks that resolved to 'to hit' rolls and 'damage' with weapons. That's because old school D&D did not call out that they could push, trip, grapple, clinch, circle, or really pull off any sort of combat stunt or maneuver at all. Even where optional rules systems existed, they were buried out of sight of the players and were frequently clunky, questionably balanced, and unrewarding to use in play (except in the case of grappling, where the DM wanted to be a complete rat bastard). As a result, the entire system was basically screaming "No" through its silence on the subject for even this basic level of creativity. With no reason to suspect that the outcome of a proposition is positive, players will not offer the proposition: they likely won't ever even think to offer the proposition.</p><p></p><p>Moldvay basic in the RAW will never produce a game where a player plays a sumo wrestler inspired fighter or a zorro inspired duelist that uses the terrain and improvised weapons. If it does produce that, it's only because the DM is so skilled that he's able to smith out all the fiddly bits as rulings that the rules themselves by their silence disallow. Frankly, I consider Moldvay basic one of the least creativity inspiring games ever. Not only is it silent, but unlike other games of its time, it does actually explain the procedures of play but in doing so encourages further silence. No one reading Moldvay basic ever imagines playing it except as it says it should be played. Heck, they don't even realize how limited their game is because the frame they are stuck in so well tightly constructed. Yes, the rules are well constructed. Yes, it has a clear idea of the game that it wants to create. All of that is really nice. But OMG is it uncreative unless someone merely uses it as a kernel to build on.</p><p></p><p>Where I think you are confused is that Moldvay basic by its silence on how to explore the game world (as opposed to how to engage in combat or any of its other subsystems) and by its silence on that requires player engagement with the imagined universe as a standard procedure of play in a way that a system with say 'search checks' or 'diplomacy checks' does not require. Now, that does potentially encourage creativity in a sense, in that a player trained with that procedure of play offers up very different propositions about how to interact with a room in which there is a painting on the wall than a player used to 'search checks', or how to negotiate with an NPC compared to one used to 'bluff checks' or 'diplomacy checks'. </p><p></p><p>However, that's only true if the tables procedures of play treat, "I make a bluff check..." or "I make a search check..." as a valid proposition. 3e doesn't really call out it's procedures of play, so granted it allows some tables to play in that way if they prefer. On the other hand, those mechanics don't actually invalidate older procedures of play, and in my opinion I think that they can be used to support them. After all, the root of a "search check" in 3e D&D is only a "find secret doors" check "check for traps" check in 1e D&D, and has the same difficulties for the table. I think the problem there is the writers of 3e were so familiar with "D&D" that they don't even realize that they needed to actually explain how to play. Instead, they think it's enough to describe how propositions are resolved, even if they don't explicitly state very often how propositions are created or validated. This is one of the things I'm trying to explain when I say that two tables that are both playing by the RAW can be playing very different games.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7377312, member: 4937"] Typically, if a system doesn't explicitly call out that something is possible, it effectively forbids it. First, the players don't know or have any reason to believe that it is a valid proposition of play. Secondly, if it's not supported by the rules typically the GM has no real options but to answer "No" to any proposition for which he has no mechanism to resolve. Even if the GM tries to imagine a resolution, it's highly unlikely that a GM - especially a novice GM - will on the spur of the moment smith out any sort of interesting, fair and rewarding resolution system. Thus, even if the GM says, "Yes", to a creative proposition, the result is that his resolution or the resolution system of the engine will end up saying "No" to the proposition. For example, in 15 years of playing old school D&D, I never saw players attempt anything other than attacks that resolved to 'to hit' rolls and 'damage' with weapons. That's because old school D&D did not call out that they could push, trip, grapple, clinch, circle, or really pull off any sort of combat stunt or maneuver at all. Even where optional rules systems existed, they were buried out of sight of the players and were frequently clunky, questionably balanced, and unrewarding to use in play (except in the case of grappling, where the DM wanted to be a complete rat bastard). As a result, the entire system was basically screaming "No" through its silence on the subject for even this basic level of creativity. With no reason to suspect that the outcome of a proposition is positive, players will not offer the proposition: they likely won't ever even think to offer the proposition. Moldvay basic in the RAW will never produce a game where a player plays a sumo wrestler inspired fighter or a zorro inspired duelist that uses the terrain and improvised weapons. If it does produce that, it's only because the DM is so skilled that he's able to smith out all the fiddly bits as rulings that the rules themselves by their silence disallow. Frankly, I consider Moldvay basic one of the least creativity inspiring games ever. Not only is it silent, but unlike other games of its time, it does actually explain the procedures of play but in doing so encourages further silence. No one reading Moldvay basic ever imagines playing it except as it says it should be played. Heck, they don't even realize how limited their game is because the frame they are stuck in so well tightly constructed. Yes, the rules are well constructed. Yes, it has a clear idea of the game that it wants to create. All of that is really nice. But OMG is it uncreative unless someone merely uses it as a kernel to build on. Where I think you are confused is that Moldvay basic by its silence on how to explore the game world (as opposed to how to engage in combat or any of its other subsystems) and by its silence on that requires player engagement with the imagined universe as a standard procedure of play in a way that a system with say 'search checks' or 'diplomacy checks' does not require. Now, that does potentially encourage creativity in a sense, in that a player trained with that procedure of play offers up very different propositions about how to interact with a room in which there is a painting on the wall than a player used to 'search checks', or how to negotiate with an NPC compared to one used to 'bluff checks' or 'diplomacy checks'. However, that's only true if the tables procedures of play treat, "I make a bluff check..." or "I make a search check..." as a valid proposition. 3e doesn't really call out it's procedures of play, so granted it allows some tables to play in that way if they prefer. On the other hand, those mechanics don't actually invalidate older procedures of play, and in my opinion I think that they can be used to support them. After all, the root of a "search check" in 3e D&D is only a "find secret doors" check "check for traps" check in 1e D&D, and has the same difficulties for the table. I think the problem there is the writers of 3e were so familiar with "D&D" that they don't even realize that they needed to actually explain how to play. Instead, they think it's enough to describe how propositions are resolved, even if they don't explicitly state very often how propositions are created or validated. This is one of the things I'm trying to explain when I say that two tables that are both playing by the RAW can be playing very different games. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Has Caused the OSR Revival?
Top