Quote from: Exploderwizard;543740The inherent problem here is one that has infected new school and continues to be enabled by game systems:

Me   Me    Me!!

The fixation of the player on their little snowflake and all the kewl stuff he/she can do has led to a very egocentic view of play. Good times, fun adventures with friends, and exploring a fantasy world have taken a backseat to showboating wankery.

The kind of crap passed off in that example further disconnects the players from the game world and reinforces the view that the game world is just a two dimentional cardboard backdrop constructed to be chewed on by the psychoctic wish fufillment fantasies of the players.

I completely disagree with this being associated with the 'new school' of playing.

Wouldn't the new school obsession with say, balance, and of course the strong trend towards rules-light 'indie' games be the literal opposite of 'all the cool shit I can do'? (which I sort of associate with 90s and some 2000s ie high level 3e)

I agree with most here in that, while GMPCs are a bad idea, the GM is still a player. A great deal of the fun, at least for me when I GM, is playing interesting NPCs. Interesting != spotlight hogging.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543742I completely disagree with this being associated with the 'new school' of playing.

Wouldn't the new school obsession with say, balance, and of course the strong trend towards rules-light 'indie' games be the literal opposite of 'all the cool shit I can do'? (which I sort of associate with 90s and some 2000s ie high level 3e)

When you consider the new school balance concerns to be primarily all about making sure nobody can be cooler than me and the rules light indie games being centered around making sure nobody else gets a smidge more spotlight time or "influences the narrative" more than ME!.........Nope.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543742I completely disagree with this being associated with the 'new school' of playing.

Wouldn't the new school obsession with say, balance, and of course the strong trend towards rules-light 'indie' games be the literal opposite of 'all the cool shit I can do'? (which I sort of associate with 90s and some 2000s ie high level 3e)

I tend to associate spot light management with new school design.

Edit: spotlight parity is probably a better wayto phrase it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;543745When you consider the new school balance concerns to be primarily all about making sure nobody can be cooler than me and the rules light indie games being centered around making sure nobody else gets a smidge more spotlight time or "influences the narrative" more than ME!.........Nope.

You're wrong - here's why.

Players of 'new school' style games are entitled. They feel that by playing the game in good faith, they're entitled to have fun. If you think this is wrong, fine - I'd disagree very strongly.

That's why they all get to 'influence the narrative' the same, or why they prefer systems without trap choices in character generation. Because these actively hurt players (not characters) - and yes, it does easily lead to players feeling shafted at the table.

This has nothing to do with making a character all-powerful or a 'special snowflake', and everything to do with having a creative, exciting, social, fantasy world-based game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543746I tend to associate spot light management with new school design.

Edit: spotlight parity is probably a better wayto phrase it.

Spotlight parity is very new school and explicit in 4e. But it isn't about being a super powerful snowflake, its about having a character who is supported by the rules and the playstyle of the game.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543748Spotlight parity is very new school and explicit in 4e. But it isn't about being a super powerful snowflake, its about having a character who is supported by the rules and the playstyle of the game.

I myself never use the "special snowflake" language to describe it, but When people do I think they have spotlight parity in mind. It is a matter of taste. If you enjoy that kind of game more power to you. Personally I find 4E's spotlight parity greatly reduces my pleasure for a range of reasons.

I would say it goes beyond having a character concept that is supported by the rules, and really comes down to ensuring everyone has a chance to shine. For some this is golden, it makes the game better. For others, it takes away some of the challenge, some of the risk vs. reward. I do come from a competitive background and so for me, i prefer not to be assured of spotlight, but to have to work for it a bit. I think a little healthy competition between the players can make for a more exciting game. But that is just my preference.

So I dont hold it against you if you like this kind of design. Where I start to get a bit prickly is when people talk about spotlight parity and class parity as if they are universally better design approaches, which they aren't...they are just well suited for particular tastes. This is where I see a lot of 4e people getting into trouble. Taking their preferences and assuming they are universal.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543747You're wrong - here's why.

Players of 'new school' style games are entitled. They feel that by playing the game in good faith, they're entitled to have fun. If you think this is wrong, fine - I'd disagree very strongly.

That's why they all get to 'influence the narrative' the same, or why they prefer systems without trap choices in character generation. Because these actively hurt players (not characters) - and yes, it does easily lead to players feeling shafted at the table.

This has nothing to do with making a character all-powerful or a 'special snowflake', and everything to do with having a creative, exciting, social, fantasy world-based game.

I think everyone here wants to have fun at the table. But for many of us spotlight parity doesn't produce fun, it works against it. There are two key issues raised by your post that relate here. One is giving players narrative control is immerssion breaking for some (and if immersion is part of the fun...). The other is building the game so everyone always has x number of big shines per encounter, x number per day, etc takes away some of the challenge and creates a much more uniform experience of the game. At leSt it does fpr some of us.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543751I myself never use the "special snowflake" language to describe it, but When people do I think they have spotlight parity in mind. It is a matter of taste. If you enjoy that kind of game more power to you. Personally I find 4E's spotlight parity greatly reduces my pleasure for a range of reasons.

I would say it goes beyond having a character concept that is supported by the rules, and really comes down to ensuring everyone has a chance to shine. For some this is golden, it makes the game better. For others, it takes away some of the challenge, some of the risk vs. reward. I do come from a competitive background and so for me, i prefer not to be assured of spotlight, but to have to work for it a bit. I think a little healthy competition between the players can make for a more exciting game. But that is just my preference.

So I dont hold it against you if you like this kind of design. Where I start to get a bit prickly is when people talk about spotlight parity and class parity as if they are universally better design approaches, which they aren't...they are just well suited for particular tastes. This is where I see a lot of 4e people getting into trouble. Taking their preferences and assuming they are universal.

For starters, I'm a 3/3.5 player at heart. I don't own a 4e book, even.

I like some of 4e's ideas because to me - they encourage more risk and reward. Lots more.

When you have a highly codified and tactical combat system, for instance, you have a lot more control over the stakes. As a player, you take clearer choices with clearer effects on the battle rather than having to negotiate for these. Therefore, the DM doesn't have to play the monsters with a hand tied behind his back and the players know this - it is truly competitive, in the strictest sense of the term. Players aren't entitled to shine - they're able to if they play well - and they know the DM's going to play well.  

(I'm more of a combat light guy and prefer to play faster!)

And no, I certainly don't believe every group or every system should have spotlight parity (and certainly not every instance!)  (quick edit: I'm not trying to imply I was accused of this) But I do have a strong preference for systems that encourage equally powered characters as to not shaft players.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543756When you have a highly codified and tactical combat system, for instance, you have a lot more control over the stakes. As a player, you take clearer choices with clearer effects on the battle rather than having to negotiate for these. Therefore, the DM doesn't have to play the monsters with a hand tied behind his back and the players know this - it is truly competitive, in the strictest sense of the term. Players aren't entitled to shine - they're able to if they play well - and they know the DM's going to play well.

This is what I feel is good about 3 and 4, if anything. Both botched the pace and lethality, and while I've got my fixes in 3 I'm still working on a game to address these issues.

I don't like spotlight parity as a design goal, both because of it's faulty premise (all players do not crave the spotlight) and because of it's faulty application (players must be able to do something every round... where do something almost always means deal damage).

Narrative control I don't like because I wield the unknown elements of the environment to generate suspense and mystery. Even without SoD issues, narrative control of elements outside the PCs would tend to fuck that up.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543747You're wrong - here's why.

Players of 'new school' style games are entitled. They feel that by playing the game in good faith, they're entitled to have fun. If you think this is wrong, fine - I'd disagree very strongly.

That's why they all get to 'influence the narrative' the same, or why they prefer systems without trap choices in character generation. Because these actively hurt players (not characters) - and yes, it does easily lead to players feeling shafted at the table.

This has nothing to do with making a character all-powerful or a 'special snowflake', and everything to do with having a creative, exciting, social, fantasy world-based game.

Here is why I think you are wrong.

Entitlement to fun is bullshit. A roleplaying game is a cooperative entertainment experience. Therefore sitting around with an entitlement to fun equates to a demand to be entertained.

Instead, each and every participant (including the GM) has a responsibility. This responsibility is to do your utmost to make sure everyone involved in the experience has good time. It is the exact opposite of head-up-your-ass entitlement. It involves putting the shared activity (the fun of the adventure) ahead of personal gratification.

Do the math. If you are doing your best to make sure everyone else is having fun and the others are doing likewise then you will have fun without any particular rules entitling you to such.

New school rules are developed with the assumption that everyone participating is a selfish prick out to seize their slice of fun from the rest of the group via force of rules. Thats the sort of thinking that necessitates entitlements over social responsibilities.

I don't like the tone of a game that assumes I am an asshole to my friends from page 1. YMMV.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;543759Here is why I think you are wrong.

Entitlement to fun is bullshit. A roleplaying game is a cooperative entertainment experience. Therefore sitting around with an entitlement to fun equates to a demand to be entertained.

Instead, each and every participant (including the GM) has a responsibility. This responsibility is to do your utmost to make sure everyone involved in the experience has good time. It is the exact opposite of head-up-your-ass entitlement. It involves putting the shared activity (the fun of the adventure) ahead of personal gratification.

Do the math. If you are doing your best to make sure everyone else is having fun and the others are doing likewise then you will have fun without any particular rules entitling you to such.

New school rules are developed with the assumption that everyone participating is a selfish prick out to seize their slice of fun from the rest of the group via force of rules. Thats the sort of thinking that necessitates entitlements over social responsibilities.

I don't like the tone of a game that assumes I am an asshole to my friends from page 1. YMMV.

This is why I specified that if you go play 'in good faith' I think you have a reasonable entitlement to fun - I'd agree completely that everyone has a 'responsibility' to make sure everyone involved has a good time, that's the thought I was trying to express.

I'd agree completely with your first three paragraphs.

I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree with your assertion that new school rules believe the players involved are selfish pricks, and that the rules are there to keep them in line. However, if the tone of the rules is an issue for some, I would fully support changing it.

I don't feel accused by new school rules - I just like (generally fairly mundane) character concepts that aren't completely shafted by these rules, and to have adventures where player choice is important, rather than 'whatever the DM says'.

Quote from: pryingeyes;543760This is why I specified that if you go play 'in good faith' I think you have a reasonable entitlement to fun - I'd agree completely that everyone has a 'responsibility' to make sure everyone involved has a good time, that's the thought I was trying to express.

I'd agree completely with your first three paragraphs.

I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree with your assertion that new school rules believe the players involved are selfish pricks, and that the rules are there to keep them in line. However, if the tone of the rules is an issue for some, I would fully support changing it.

I don't feel accused by new school rules - I just like (generally fairly mundane) character concepts that aren't completely shafted by these rules, and to have adventures where player choice is important, rather than 'whatever the DM says'.

Its a mindset difference. What can I do to make this fun for everyone? VS Whats in this for me?


As a DM, I feel player choice is very important. Not knowing what the players will do or how a situation will end up is what holds my interest in running games.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;543765Its a mindset difference. What can I do to make this fun for everyone? VS Whats in this for me?

That's a good way to put it. I prefer, of course, as we all do, 'fun for everyone' - for me, that comes out of both a sense of fairness and because I prefer a 'fun for everyone game' and don't enjoy the 'me me me' approach.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;543765As a DM, I feel player choice is very important. Not knowing what the players will do or how a situation will end up is what holds my interest in running games.

Absolutely. How the rules interact with this, though, is debatable. I feel that the rules should emphasize player choice and give the DM a good framework in which to work, rather than retreating and leaving DM choice to fill the void.

Quote from: every old school vs. new school RPG debate everkids these days entitlement yadda yadda

Some people can only have fun when they're in the spotlight; they want to be like Conan or Aragorn or whoever and they don't want to die an ignonimious death in some dark, damp tomb, poisoned by a trap or surprised by a lucky goblin.

Some people can only have fun clawing their way through lethal obstacles and opponents, and prying the much-vaunted spotlight from an owlbear's cold, dead paws. They don't even mind burning through a few dead characters on their way to glory.

For the first group, there's games with protagonism mechanics. This can be as simple as bail-your-ass (hero, fate, drama, action, whatever) points or as complex as a full-blown "storygame".

For the second group there's the more hardcore trad stuff.

And there you have it why no edition of D&D will ever satisfy both camps; because they're fundamentally at odds. 3.0e/3.5e were probably the closest to the middle of the road that we'll ever get.