Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7357602" data-attributes="member: 82106">Eh, I think it is not quite the same thing. In the Arnesonian dungeon, the content ALL belongs entirely to the GM. In no case do the players establish what the game is 'about'. If the GM puts undead into the dungeon, then its about undead. If the GM puts orcs in the dungeon, then its about orcs, etc. While players can establish character agendas, &quot;I want to find the Girdle of Giant Strength made by my ancestor Glorf the Great!&quot; its entirely up to the GM as to when, how, where, or if such an agenda will be addressed. In fact, in the perfect ideal of sandbox dungeon play that is often espoused, for the GM to author content deliberately aimed at addressing this character's agenda is considered to be 'not kosher'. I think its possible for some very limited elements of player-facing techniques to exist within a skill-test Arnesonian dungeon concept, but to the extent that they do, they begin to move outside that paradigm. So, for instance, it is possible for the Reaction Roll system to produce such results. The PCs encounter the orcs and they convince the orcs, via a good reaction roll, that they should join up with the characters to wipe out the hobgoblins on level 2 and split the loot. Later the thief backstabs the orc leader because he wants a bigger share and thus precipitates some specific action (IE a battle). These are some of the elements of player agency which Gygax and Arneson wrote into their game along with certain spells and items (IE scrying and such). Still, every such element requires specific fictional positioning which may be subject to hidden elements, and/or a character resource (spell, potion, etc). Note how in OD&amp;D there is no 'skill system', meaning there isn't an established always available technique for doing this kind of thing, except 'listen rolls' and 'find secret doors', and dwarf's ability to sense slopes and such.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7357602, member: 82106"] Eh, I think it is not quite the same thing. In the Arnesonian dungeon, the content ALL belongs entirely to the GM. In no case do the players establish what the game is 'about'. If the GM puts undead into the dungeon, then its about undead. If the GM puts orcs in the dungeon, then its about orcs, etc. While players can establish character agendas, "I want to find the Girdle of Giant Strength made by my ancestor Glorf the Great!" its entirely up to the GM as to when, how, where, or if such an agenda will be addressed. In fact, in the perfect ideal of sandbox dungeon play that is often espoused, for the GM to author content deliberately aimed at addressing this character's agenda is considered to be 'not kosher'. I think its possible for some very limited elements of player-facing techniques to exist within a skill-test Arnesonian dungeon concept, but to the extent that they do, they begin to move outside that paradigm. So, for instance, it is possible for the Reaction Roll system to produce such results. The PCs encounter the orcs and they convince the orcs, via a good reaction roll, that they should join up with the characters to wipe out the hobgoblins on level 2 and split the loot. Later the thief backstabs the orc leader because he wants a bigger share and thus precipitates some specific action (IE a battle). These are some of the elements of player agency which Gygax and Arneson wrote into their game along with certain spells and items (IE scrying and such). Still, every such element requires specific fictional positioning which may be subject to hidden elements, and/or a character resource (spell, potion, etc). Note how in OD&D there is no 'skill system', meaning there isn't an established always available technique for doing this kind of thing, except 'listen rolls' and 'find secret doors', and dwarf's ability to sense slopes and such. [/QUOTE]

Verification