Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7768628" data-attributes="member: 5142">I am not sure how accurate of a generalization that is either, though I (hopefully) see where you are coming from with this perspective. If I speak inaccurately, I hope someone will correct me of my misconceptions here, as I am a comparative novice to gaming, only starting with the release of D&D 3.0. My own understanding of Early Gen 1 era TTRPGs is that it stems closely from (a) its wargame origins, and (b) the adversarial and authoritative position of the GM in relation to the players, among other things. One of the effects of these two facets was a "play to win" subtext to the game. Gary Gygax speaks often of "skilled/good play," sportsmanly conduct, and the like. There is an almost competitive presumption in the framework of play. And Gygax created a number of modules for such purposes. Tomb of Horrors was a module designed to humble players. (Nothing of story being bigger than characters here. The purpose was transparently metatextual: expert players vs. DM/Gygax.) It was not about the characters achieving their goals in the story, but, rather, about the players exercising skilled play to achieve a variable victory condition of the game (e.g., retire the character, defeat the dungeon). The players showed mastery over the game through good/skilled play with their characters. This may approach may even be a precursor the "git gud" mindset of video gamers. Learn to improve or keep dying. In regards to (b), the GM was effectively Metatron, the voice of God. And what real difference is there between the voice of God and God? The effect of (b) was a reliance of the players on tactfully probing the GM such that they could skillfully navigate their characters within the imagined space. The GM was the opposition, or at least placed and played the opposition, and the players were also reliant on the GM to defeat said opposition. The players exercise good play by asking the GM appropriate questions and by navigating their spaces "correctly," whether this navigation entails skillful spacial or social maneuvers. Naturally, much as you allude to, there would certainly be consistency in the world given that it is per solam auctor, with the GM as both the "author" and "narrator" of the world space.* * Herein I also suspect that one major difference between Old School and New School games rests in the presumed power dynamics in play between the DM/GM/MC/Referee/Narrator and the players. I believe that you have indicated that this is your own idiomatic play and GMing preference when it comes to the game, but I would be reluctant to characterize your play preference therein as indicative of the whole OS mindset or approach. To a certain extent what you say is likely true, though likely also romanticized, and you may believe that I peddle in semantics here. However, I suspect that, in part, the emphasis here may be on the wrong syllable. Or possibly a difference of framing. I would suggest that it is not that the story is bigger than the characters. Instead, it's that the player's play is the emphasis. The player experiences a penalty of bad play or the misfortune of play. The player must start over. The player loses a pawn, but the player then switches to a new pawn. The infamous stack of premade character sheets at the ready to replace the ranks of deceased characters does not suggest that "the story is...bigger than any character within it." I even recall discussions of the player practice that characters were often not named until they survived to reach a certain level. IMHO, this suggests that the purpose of the game is not necessarily about either the characters or the story. In fact, story and characters may even be incidental or orthogonal to the OS approach, a Thomistic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)" target="_blank">accident</a> that may not reflect its actual substance.</blockquote>

Verification