SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?

Started by Shrieking Banshee, January 03, 2021, 06:49:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thondor

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 12:00:56 PM
Quote from: Zalman on January 03, 2021, 11:46:20 AMThe reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!

So why not have no rules, or a foundation of actual good rules (to ignore)?

Why insist to keep the bathwater with the baby?

The real innovation of OD&D -- the great "rules" it has are actually the first principles of RPG play that exist in pretty much every RPG since. The actual mechanics aren't nearly as important.

Some of those first principles are thing's like:
There is a GM (referee) who creates and controls the world.
You control a character on an adventure.
The referee asks you "What do you do?"
The referee then uses the rules or a ruling to allow you to do anything that a real person could do.
Dungeons!
Monsters!


Story-games often change one of the first principles above in some fashion and this is why some feel they aren't RPGs.




Two Crows

#16
Also, just how many OD&D players are on this website?

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's and I don't think I've met enough people who actually played pre-1st Ed AD&D to play Bridge with.

Or has everything pre-D20 become labeled "OD&D" now?


- Various notes:

Skills/Non-weapon Proficiencies were in 1st Ed.  They showed up in the Dungeoneers Survival Guide.

- The Wargame Clubs that gave birth to RPG's had GM's (who you told what you did), had monsters (they often played the battles from LOTR), etc.  What they had never had was the player controlling a single identity.  It was a LARP that inspired the idea of what wargamers would call a "man-level refereed wargame".
If I stop replying, it either means I've lost interest in the topic or think further replies are pointless.  I don't need the last word, it's all yours.

Thondor

Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:24:58 PM
Also, just how many OD&D players are on this website?

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's and I don't think I've met enough people who actually played pre-1st Ed. to play Bridge with.

Or has everything pre-D20 become labeled "OD&D" now?
I admit I have only played a few relatively short games that could be considered OD&D. My old school games have tended to be 1e/OSRIC.

Shrieking Banshee

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik on January 03, 2021, 12:21:39 PMShrieking Banshee, is it fair to assume you've typed these questions without having played OD&D or even having read the rules recently?

Reading the rules recently after years of having it hyped up is what caused me to post these questions. Of course, what constitutes 'OD&D' rules changes massively within the first few years of release as the content was added and removed.

Often your talk about rules fitting on a postcard is accurate because the rules use vague terminology or just reference chainmail. That's not clever design nor does it speak too elegant minimalist rules.

Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:20:39 PMAh, but that is not a counter, you have shifted the statement from a question of taste into a judgement of them.

Almost all questions require a degree of judgment.

But perhaps more specifically: 'Why not get food that's more amicable to salt? You talk about just how much you like salt and how terrible all modern food is for not having enough salt in it when the food you loved to eat was watermelon. You just added the salt later. And if adding the salt later is all it takes, how can you judge modern food for not having enough salt in it? Its more a case of judging the modern diner for not adding enough salt to the food they eat".

Two Crows

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 12:28:38 PM
Almost all questions require a degree of judgment.

But perhaps more specifically: 'Why not get food that's more amicable to salt? You talk about just how much you like salt and how terrible all modern food is for not having enough salt in it when the food you loved to eat was watermelon. You just added the salt later. And if adding the salt later is all it takes, how can you judge modern food for not having enough salt in it? Its more a case of judging the modern diner for not adding enough salt to the food they eat".

Who judges what is "amicable to salt"?

You are not asking why people like the rule structure, you are looking for someone to justify the structure to you.  They are not the same.  It may be ultimately that you have no taste for that style of rule. 

You simply can not make universal statement of quality when it comes to matters of personal taste.

No matter what you or I think of a fried Peanut Butter & Banana Sandwich, Elvis loved 'em.  He is not going to be "wrong" in any objective sense.  Nor will his taste be "poor", "inferior", or what ever relative judgmental evaluative term anyone desires to use, beyond expressing their personal opinion.

There are no "better" rules. 
If I stop replying, it either means I've lost interest in the topic or think further replies are pointless.  I don't need the last word, it's all yours.

christopherkubasik

I'm playing OD&D Volumes I, II, and III.

I never said the rules fit on a postcard. But I can see what sort of games you'll be playing from how you'll alter my words.

In any case, it's clear you have no actual curiosity about the matter. Not a big deal of course. But there it is.

Pat

Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:39:55 PM
There are no "better" rules.
That's objectively false. Our desires and motives are subjective, but rules are means of achieving those ends. So given a certain set of preferences, some rules are better than others. And some rules don't help achieve any reasonable set of goals.

It's fine to talk about the subjectivity of preferences, and there's plenty of room for interpretation on the effectiveness of different rules, but rules can nonetheless be graded based on how they help meet different sets of preferences.

Eirikrautha

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 11:42:24 AM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 10:12:27 AMAnyone who has ever houseruled is guilty of "ignor[ing] them or ma[king] up your own."  It's about what the rules are meant to represent and what you are trying to do with them.  I would argue, because the rules evolved from wargaming, that the original intent of the rules were to simulate reality, and that they rules grew and changed to simulate a particular fantasy "reality."  If you approach the rules as attempts to quantify the possible outcomes of a real problem, then no one ruleset is going to be able to effectively simulate those outcomes.  You will constantly have edge cases and "unrealistic" results from your rules that you will need to ignore or develop secondary mechanisms to handle.  Hence the "rulings, not rules" mentality you hear associated with "old school" gaming.

I find so much of this largely inaccurate. Because wargames mimick an enjoyable combat simulation meant to be fun for both players. Any mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from this experience.

QuoteSo it's easy to understand why gamers who grew up viewing their rulesets as attempts to guide them through the resolution of "reality-based" situations would prefer systems where incompleteness and inadequacy are base assumptions of the ruleset.

I also find your assumptions on why people might like things more spelled out to be disconnected from why people ultimately like such systems or experiences. This is more a way to fluff up your own interests.

But ultimately you didn't answer my question. Which was:

Why do you prefer BAD rules, on the principle that you can ignore them? With all the touting of how 'Rulings not rules' OD&D was, one would think it would be a single page with 'I dunno roll a 20' on it. But it's not. Its pages and pages of contradictory (mostly just unfinished) resolution mechanics, with specific examples and things to do in multiple scenarious.

OD&D is far from rules-lite. It's more just fragmented. It's very rules-heavy in many ways. With pages and pages of how stuff interacts, specific effects, powers and abilities.

The reason you don't understand is because you refuse to.  You have rejected out of hand the most probable reason for this.  The idea that wargamers feel that "mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from [the enjoyable] experience" is belied by many of the documents of the time.  Not only did wargames develop as a military tool specifically to realistically simulate military engagements, but also many of the players are doing so as a speculative exercise, dependent on the realism of the game.  The same people who wargame are the same people who argue about what would have happened had Pickett not charged, and they want their game to help represent those outcomes.

So what you consider "bad" rules are just rules that have been glommed together, each intending to simulate a certain kind of thing.  They evolved over time; they weren't developed based off of a unified vision or mechanic.  And, because of this, they might seem more realistic than systems developed later based on a system-based perspective to some people.  But you've already defined the terms of discussion to reject the obvious reasons, so you'll never understand.

You are also being grossly unfair to early RPGs.  It would be like asking why people like to collect or drive Model Ts, when modern cars have so many new inventions.  Well, for some people, the feel is better.  The same is true with RPGs.  Those early RPGs have a very different feel than later, more cohesively designed games.  Maybe it's not for you.  But unified-systems games are not objectively "better."  Which is what you seem to be suggesting...
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

VisionStorm

Quote from: Zalman on January 03, 2021, 11:46:20 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 06:49:39 AM
When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all?

No!

The key point here is you can "make your own" rules. That doesn't mean the rules don't exist during play, it just means that the players have derived a modified (or codified) set of rules from those vague and contradicting ones. That's very different from not having rules at all, which would be, as you suggest, "just improv".

The reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!

But you can make your own rules out of any edition of D&D or any other game system. I used to have tons of rules and options based out of AD&D 2e, to the point where my game became unrecognizable from the original. OD&D/BX isn't unique to that, but it still gets held as the gold standard for some insane reason, like early RPG designers not knowing how to write a game is somehow a good thing because "I like to make my own rules", which is a completely unrelated point to whether a rule is well written or good, and isn't even unique to OD&D.

Abraxus

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 01:39:00 PM
But you can make your own rules out of any edition of D&D or any other game system. I used to have tons of rules and options based out of AD&D 2e, to the point where my game became unrecognizable from the original. OD&D/BX isn't unique to that, but it still gets held as the gold standard for some insane reason, like early RPG designers not knowing how to write a game is somehow a good thing because "I like to make my own rules", which is a completely unrelated point to whether a rule is well written or good, and isn't even unique to OD&D.

Its like in many older products from Palladium books where Kevin would essentially say "Remember all rules are optional!" and no longer does so because it's an excuse at least on his end to hide all the flaws of the Palladium ruleset and kind of defeats the purpose of someone buying the rules in the first place. I am not spending money on rpg to be told to make it up. Note many newer fans who like 4E and 5E tend to do the same thing and can be very vocal. The D&D Grognards always seem to have the same counter arguments as to why pre-#E was golden age.

"You obviously have not read let alone understand the rules"
"You don't get OSR rpgs and the movement in general"

and so on. It was the same in the other thread as it is in this one. I houserule when I need to and I hate it. I like using RAW as possible and it's not my fucking job to fix any issues or flaws with an older set of rules.

I enjoyed and still enjoy D&D as it was my first rpg to this hobby and with the right DM would still join and maybe ever run a campaign. I can also acknowledge that the Pre-3E D&D is far from perfect. Looking at the 1E DMG much of what Gary gave as advice was very adversarial style of approaching DMing and making very much as DM vs player Not to mention that the Players should not have access to the DMG in the introduction to the DMG was fucking epic levels of stupid imo. How is a player going to ever learn how to be a DMG without the book on how to run the game in the first place.

In any case I expect to be told "You simply don't get the OSR or learn to read" etc..

mightybrain

Quote from: sureshot on January 03, 2021, 01:59:32 PMLooking at the 1E DMG much of what Gary gave as advice was very adversarial style of approaching DMing and making very much as DM vs player Not to mention that the Players should not have access to the DMG in the introduction to the DMG was fucking epic levels of stupid imo.

I always took that as tongue in cheek. He didn't say they should not have access, he said any player reading it was "less than worthy of honorable death." It's clearly a joke. He wasn't suggesting you should actually kill your players to stop them from becoming DMs.

Two Crows

Quote from: Pat on January 03, 2021, 01:09:50 PM
Quote from: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:39:55 PM
There are no "better" rules.
That's objectively false. Our desires and motives are subjective, but rules are means of achieving those ends. So given a certain set of preferences, some rules are better than others. And some rules don't help achieve any reasonable set of goals.

It's fine to talk about the subjectivity of preferences, and there's plenty of room for interpretation on the effectiveness of different rules, but rules can nonetheless be graded based on how they help meet different sets of preferences.

You've lost me.

You claim my statement is objectively false, then go on to explain how it is true, except for your imposition of "reasonable set of goals" ... which is in itself a subjective standard.

Pretend for a second that your taste and desire deviates from mine, and that you are not the authority of what is "reasonable"; What makes a rule "better"?

Give a specific example, please.  And keep in mind the OP, with it's foundation of "why choose rules that require arbitration/abandonment-at-will" when making your selection.

If I stop replying, it either means I've lost interest in the topic or think further replies are pointless.  I don't need the last word, it's all yours.

Shrieking Banshee

To be clear: I'm actually gravitating to OSR OD&D inspired games, away from D&D 3e and pathfinder. I'm actually not against houserules and the like.

But the emphasis on the inspired. If the rules are to fit on a postcard, its because they fit on a postcard. If the rules ask for improv: Its not because the writer referenced compendium G (when G doesn't exist).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 01:21:46 PM
The reason you don't understand is because you refuse to.  You have rejected out of hand the most probable reason for this.  The idea that wargamers feel that "mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from [the enjoyable] experience" is belied by many of the documents of the time.  Not only did wargames develop as a military tool specifically to realistically simulate military engagements, but also many of the players are doing so as a speculative exercise, dependent on the realism of the game.  The same people who wargame are the same people who argue about what would have happened had Pickett not charged, and they want their game to help represent those outcomes.

So armchair generals think that battlefield conditions can really accurately be gathered by the roll of a d8 (or 800 rolls of the d8). I guess things don't really change with age or time.

'Nathaniel! Put away your damn dolls!'
"Their not dolls ma! Their war miniatures to accurately simulate warfare!'

The amount of ego at play here is staggering.

Eirikrautha

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 02:22:13 PM
To be clear: I'm actually gravitating to OSR OD&D inspired games, away from D&D 3e and pathfinder. I'm actually not against houserules and the like.

But the emphasis on the inspired. If the rules are to fit on a postcard, its because they fit on a postcard. If the rules ask for improv: Its not because the writer referenced compendium G (when G doesn't exist).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 01:21:46 PM
The reason you don't understand is because you refuse to.  You have rejected out of hand the most probable reason for this.  The idea that wargamers feel that "mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from [the enjoyable] experience" is belied by many of the documents of the time.  Not only did wargames develop as a military tool specifically to realistically simulate military engagements, but also many of the players are doing so as a speculative exercise, dependent on the realism of the game.  The same people who wargame are the same people who argue about what would have happened had Pickett not charged, and they want their game to help represent those outcomes.

So armchair generals think that battlefield conditions can really accurately be gathered by the roll of a d8 (or 800 rolls of the d8). I guess things don't really change with age or time.

'Nathaniel! Put away your damn dolls!'
"Their not dolls ma! Their war miniatures to accurately simulate warfare!'

The amount of ego at play here is staggering.

Your last statement is embarrassingly true.  Wargames were not invented by armchair generals, but real generals.  Look up the history of wargaming.  Even today, wargaming is a serious pursuit in the military, with lots of resources expended to try and accurately simulate even the most subjective of variables (like morale).  While the precursors of RPGs may not have had the kinds of resources and detail behind them as a full modern military simulation, they are fruit of the same tree.  And they were state-of-the-art for their time, which became adopted by civilians for entertainment as well.  Dude, you should stop talking while you are behind...
"Testosterone levels vary widely among women, just like other secondary sex characteristics like breast size or body hair. If you eliminate anyone with elevated testosterone, it's like eliminating athletes because their boobs aren't big enough or because they're too hairy." -- jhkim

Krugus

For me the rules are just the base to work with.   If I find a rule that does not fit in how my World works then I change it to fit my world.  I don't change my world to fit the rules.  I am after all the DM/GM.
Common sense isn't common; if it were, everyone would have it.