TheRPGSite

I want to discuss in this thread the appeal and attraction of playing old school style game systems, especially to younger gamers who enjoy them with nostalgia not being a factor. I have introduced old school gaming to young players who were pre-schoolers in the early 2000's so nostalgia for them goes back to 4E or 3E at the earliest. Some of them really enjoyed these games and were interested in finding out more about them and others didn't really care for them. So for everyone, especially for folks who were not around when these were the only games in town, what is it about old school games, if you enjoy them, that attracts you when newer games are plentiful?

For myself as an old fart gamer, nostalgia is indeed a part of it honestly. Beyond that on a practical level is the enjoyment of quick and simple character generation, along with ease of prep of homebrew material for play. Monster & NPC stats are a breeze and I don't have to factor in so many regimented procedural rules to what I am writing up.

How about you?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 21, 2023, 02:06:47 PM
I want to discuss in this thread the appeal and attraction of playing old school style game systems, especially to younger gamers who enjoy them with nostalgia not being a factor. I have introduced old school gaming to young players who were pre-schoolers in the early 2000's so nostalgia for them goes back to 4E or 3E at the earliest. Some of them really enjoyed these games and were interested in finding out more about them and others didn't really care for them. So for everyone, especially for folks who were not around when these were the only games in town, what is it about old school games, if you enjoy them, that attracts you when newer games are plentiful?

Well, it is a bit like chess being a centuries-old game. Some older RPGs just got it right from the get-go (or shortly after) like classic D&D, classic Traveller, Runequest 2e, and so on.

Right in the sense of RPGs means that easily understood by novices who tend to focus on the mechanics. And still flexible enough to be useful in the hands of experienced players and referees.

And some of their original shortcomings have been overcome. Mainly the ones that result from the author(s) assuming too much about their audience. Flash forward a couple of decades we have versions of these RPGs that are almost identical but now come with examples and advice that make them even more approachable.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 21, 2023, 02:06:47 PM
Beyond that on a practical level is the enjoyment of quick and simple character generation, along with ease of prep of homebrew material for play. Monster & NPC stats are a breeze and I don't have to factor in so many regimented procedural rules to what I am writing up.

I have found there is such a thing as being too minimalist.

In my view mechanics among other things, offer a terse explanation how the setting works and what character can do. When the mechanics are too minimalist hobbyist are left to question the referee as to what they can do. Often they don't bother asking.

Also it has been my observation that most hobbyists want some options to have meaning in the mechanics. My Majestic Fantasy RPG is on the low side but has been mostly acceptable among friends who like 5e. While OD&D 3 LBBs would not be. On the other side GURPS is definitely overkill in most hobbyists' opinions, and 5e with all its supplements now is feeling that way as well.  The ideal point seems to be above what I do in the Majestic Fantasy RPG and the D&D 5e core rules.

I'm another old fart who is highly nostalgic about OD&D but currently play a lot of 5E, if that helps anyone see where I am coming from, and may not at all fit your target demographic for this thread. When my original gaming group transitioned from OD&D to AD&D I could already feel a shift in the style of play because the game was starting to stress the details instead of the big picture. My current 5E group plays in a style similar to the old days, but using a framework of rules which are current, so maybe I can respond some to how they react to my "old school 5E" style campaign.

A few thoughts about the "old school" style of play as I have experienced it:

1. Rulebooks were a lot simpler, and the game was easier to learn. Rules were loose and a player didn't have to "master" them in order to have fun. Players would try stuff without looking at a complex character sheet to see if they "could" do it.

2. Character generation was quick, so if you died it wasn't as big of a deal. If a character takes an hour to create, it hurts a lot more to lose it. Not to say that we didn't care if we lost a character back then, but instead that we could make a new one and get back into the adventure quickly.

3. Characters were developed during play, without a pre-determined personality imprinted. Nowadays with backgrounds (and all of the extras) all determined before the first adventure, I feel like we're picking up the timeline halfway into the characters career instead of at the start.

4. Resource management was very different. Spells and hit points were precious, and it took more than a short or long rest to fully recharge the character. With that in mind, players were more cautious and usually didn't just charge into peril. Also, we didn't have "game balance" back then so players had to continually judge if attack or retreat was the best plan.

I'm not at all sure if this is what you are looking for, but these are the first ideas that popped into my head. After playing a few sessions of 5E, my son's friend happened to see one of my old OD&D rulebooks and asked to read it, then he told me that a lot of stuff in 5E made more sense once he could see where it came from. Instead of studying a textbook he felt like he had been given the "spark notes" for the game.

I started at the tail end of the old-school period.  I only got as much of the old-school experience as I did because we were rural, isolated, and couldn't afford many rules.  So we did stuff with Chainmail, Swords and Spell, B/X, and AD&D somewhat out of order, but had some of the same experiences of having to figure it out ourselves.  I wouldn't trade that experience for gold--and also have zero nostalgia for it.  I'm just not built that way.  I remember the fun and the warts.  Some of the fun was the massive screw ups (mainly on my part as a GM learning the hard way), but I have no desire to recreate that part of the experience.  :)

My players are at least 75% casual--will learn the bare minimum of any system to get by, and then pick up other things slowly by osmosis as they play.  We've never had a player that couldn't remember what "AC" was for after the first session, or anything quite that stark, but no one would mistake most of them for system gurus.  I've had a lot of younger players recently, mid-twenties down to pre-teens.  None of the younger ones had played any RPGs before they played in my groups, though some of them have since played 5E in other groups.

I ran 5E partly old-school style.  I house ruled it to make it a bit more deadly, but it was still 3-strikes to die.  And there's only so much you can do about the hit point distribution.  The players enjoyed it, both how I ran it and what it was.  Most of the complaints were about lack of meaningful customization.

With my own system, I consciously chose to get something closer in style to BEMCI/RC (if not in rules), though there are some sprinklings of Rune Quest and Dragon Quest in there, with a fair amount of my own ideas.  The way in which it most resembles D&D is in the old-school approach, though there are exceptions. 

The big positive response has been exactly the same thing others have said.  They've all liked that the threat of death is there.  It's shocking when it happens, but that makes the game more interesting. You scout and run and approach with caution or hope that you get lucky when you don't, or you die.  It's more rulings than rules.  The rules that are there are a mix of player and character things, such that the players are encouraged to act as their character in the setting as opposed to pushing buttons on their sheets.  I wrote spells with Gygaxian Naturalism in mind.  Resource management is a thing with bite.  Money is far more scarce than even B/X, more like Dragon Quest.  I had a player get excited because her character found a pair of boots.  Mundane, well-worn boots, as opposed to the home-made sandals she had been wearing--in the snow to the detriment of her ability to recover damage.  No kidding!  All of that is well-received.

A fine line I'm trying to walk is still a work in progress.  Many of these players like having "skills".  They felt like 5E didn't have enough.  I thought 5E/4E/3.*E list, the problem wasn't the number but the choices, how you got them, and how they worked.  I've pushed back on that some by minimizing the scope of skills, rearranging the ability scores, and setting it up so that using a skill is sometimes like getting into a fight in early D&D.  You'd be better off to act on the setting such that you got what you wanted without having to test the skill.  There's no doubt that the "skills" have detracted from the ease of character generation--though I knew that a certain amount of that was inevitable with the design goals.  I'm just trying to minimize it as much as possible within those designs goals.  If we can't do character gen in 5-10 minutes, at least I don't want it ballooning up past the 20-30 minute range.  So for the purposes of your question on that front, I can only say that I can observe a growing appreciation for keeping it as simple as we can, even while wanting some options that make it more complex.  The players are more minimalist than they were, but are not what I would call minimalist.  And really, with the Dragon Quest influence, there was no way it was ever going to be a truly minimalist game. 

I've always run games that were highly focused on develop in play, even with systems that didn't support that as well as others.  Near as I can tell, new players coming in seem to like that aspect a lot, though of course that could be self-selecting, since anyone that loves the opposite is unlikely to like my GM style for several reasons.  I do have a "random background" system as a means of speeding up character development by removing some of the choices.  I think I'm getting schizophrenic results on that.  The players like that it gives them interesting characters.  In every group, 1 or 2 players always gripe about something that they got randomly.  While still saying that they like the end result.  My instinct is that some people can't separate process from results in their heads when evaluating things.  :)

My counter in the design has to been to create a few key decisions that the player does have control over, while leaving the rest of the background random.   As I've said elsewhere, I started with ability scores being 3d6 down the line, options to toss "unplayable".  Now I have 3d6 down the line, swap any 2.  If your highest score is less than 14, set it to 14 (about the same effect as getting one 13 in B/X).  Everything is now "playable".  I've always preferred methods that are likely but not guaranteed to give one or two weak scores.  Didn't much like 4d6, drop lowest, even in AD&D, but we played that way for convenience.  But the B/X method is a little too much even for me.  In any case, I have demonstrable results that the former way, which on average produced slightly stronger characters, is preferred less than the current way.   Some key choice for a slight reduction in character power seems to be a winner.  This is not unlike the B/X trade ability score 2:1 option in effect.

Once you get off the Internet and messageboards, the average person who has never played any sort of RPG is going to respond better to something that is succinct and easily understood. No one new to the hobby wants to fucking read a 500 page book; something like S&W Whitebox (^^^^^) or whatever is much less overwhelming. Similarly, most people are willing to play a boardgame like Sorry or Yahtzee or Monopoly, but when you start dragging out Advanced Third Reich you aren't going to find anyone to stick around.

That said, my current gaming group is consists of 90% the gaming group I got together with almost 20 years ago with one new guy who had never played up until we introduced it to him (coworker of my buddy). He liked renfaires and crap like that, so it seemed like he would be interested in gaming in general. We played AD&D for a while until the DM found a good stopping point now I'm running Palladium FRP. Why? Because these games just provide a better gaming experience. When we originally met, we played D&D 3.X. Exclusively. I would have preferred AD&D, but since I wasn't running the game I went along with it. All the players with the exception of me were newbies. Over the years we played a variety of games, usually whatever I was willing to run which ran the gamut of WEG Star Wars, AD&D, Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades, Chivalry & Sorcery, Traveller, Marvel Superheroes, FUDGE, and a ton of other stuff. Fast forward to today. We were talking about what to play next and we all agreed that 3.X was too much like a videogame. We all are married with kids (except the new guy) and don't have hours to spend doing all the accounting associated with more complex games. AD&D provides the right level of meaningful choice without tons and tons of rules. Half our gaming sessions are spent bullshitting about stuff while drinking anyway, so using a system that allows for a large degree of DM fiat is really almost required or we'd never get through a combat or encounter. And by fiat I don't mean arbitrary behavior, contrary to what a lot of people who dislike OSR games seem to think that is. I literally mean being a judge in the AD&D sense of the word. Whoever the DM is will sometimes ask the players what they think would be reasonable in certain situations based on real-world knowledge, and apply an appropriate decision to the situation. Once instance that stands out is when I was running a game and the characters were doing something on a ship, I asked my buddy what would make sense during a sea battle in some situation because he has degree in nautical archeology (yeah, I know) and so I used him as a resource to maintain verisimilitude. Try doing something like this with "current year RPG" with "current year players"...I can just imagine the shrieks about it not being in the rules. OSR games assume the DM is going to make decisions based on what seems reasonable, which makes for a better game. There is no arguing against this because it bears out once you have lots and lots of experience. Yeah, a bad DM will totally fuck up a game for sure, but who didn't have dumbass Monty Haul games in the 8th grade lunchroom? Eventually you learn how to improve; a set of rules aren't going to do this, only being forced to make meaningful choices and having to reflect on them will. The players are also expected to make meaningful choices to accomplish their goals, they can't just simply rely on die rolling to get out of sticky situations. I quit a 5th edition gaming group a while ago because I cannot count how many times the PCs would encounter problems that some of the players would just ask if they could roll a d20 for some skill they had. Zero questions or problem solving whatsoever. No thanks.

So that's a lot of words to basically say that OSR games are better because they expect that a good DM will run good games and a bad DM will run bad ones. More modern games try to curtail the DM to solve whatever problem they think exists, but in turn make bad DMs worse and hamstring good ones. They also tend to foster rules-lawyers which exacerbates the issue quite a bit; when I first learned the play it was pretty much verboten to argue with the DM unless you wanted to die. Now it's almost like you have to put the DM in his place or some crap.

And the new guy likes AD&D quite a bit. He looked over a copy of the 3.5 PHB and pretty much said "fuck this".

I can pretty much go along with what's been said: nostalgia (gaming since '81), encyclopedic knowledge of AD&D and B/X, and rules that fit what our group is comfortable with.

I just got done a few months ago running a campaign in the World of Greyhawk, based around Castle Greyhawk (the Adventures Dark and Deep version). I used Hackmaster 4E rules. Now, I love Hackmaster 4E. That's what brought our group together some 20+ years ago. But for me, the system now is way too bloated to the point where even at mid levels, it's difficult to come up with encounters to challenge the characters.

So I said I've got to end it. They did a huge battle with a dragon (Trogdor the Burninator) and took him out pretty much no problem. done and done.

I had to take a break. so my best friend Jeff took on running his campaign for a few months while I played in his, I did some research.

During that time, I looked at all of the OSR rules I liked to try. My final choice was between OSE and Adv LL. OSE looks real slick and the rules were in a nice binding. Adv. LL looked really good too. It's like the best of AD&D 1st ed and B/X put together. Plus the books are less expensive. So I decided upon Adv LL.

LL really does remind me of the days when we were kids. we had no idea what rules we could or could not use together. We used some of B/X, used the AD&D Monster Manual, maybe even the Fiend Folio. Some of us didn't have AD&D DMGs or PHBs. It was a mish-mash of all sorts of stuff.

And it was glorious.

I want to bring that back to my table. A sense of wonder and mystery. Where nobody had any idea what was going to happen. I think LL can bring that for me. The rules are light. No bloat to make the PCs to powerful. No over the top Talents and Skills. Just the few based around your character class. All you have left is your wits.

What's going to be even more of a leap for me, is the game world will be set during the Hyborian Age. Old school sword and sorcery. It will have elements of Robert E Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and HP Lovecraft. NO demi-human races. Only humans. Ability scores and what classes available to you is based upon what kingdom/race you are. I'm really excited about it. Can't wait to begin next month.

Quote from: blackstone on June 22, 2023, 07:33:46 AM
What's going to be even more of a leap for me, is the game world will be set during the Hyborian Age. Old school sword and sorcery. It will have elements of Robert E Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and HP Lovecraft. NO demi-human races. Only humans. Ability scores and what classes available to you is based upon what kingdom/race you are. I'm really excited about it. Can't wait to begin next month.

Are you familiar with the free "Age of Conan" for OD&D: https://www.grey-elf.com/hyborian-age.pdf (https://www.grey-elf.com/hyborian-age.pdf)? There are several additional resources there. Given your other inspirations above you might want to look at Hyperborea 3e too: https://www.hyperborea.tv/ (https://www.hyperborea.tv/).

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 21, 2023, 02:06:47 PM
I want to discuss in this thread the appeal and attraction of playing old school style game systems, especially to younger gamers who enjoy them with nostalgia not being a factor. I have introduced old school gaming to young players who were pre-schoolers in the early 2000's so nostalgia for them goes back to 4E or 3E at the earliest. Some of them really enjoyed these games and were interested in finding out more about them and others didn't really care for them. So for everyone, especially for folks who were not around when these were the only games in town, what is it about old school games, if you enjoy them, that attracts you when newer games are plentiful?

For myself as an old fart gamer, nostalgia is indeed a part of it honestly. Beyond that on a practical level is the enjoyment of quick and simple character generation, along with ease of prep of homebrew material for play. Monster & NPC stats are a breeze and I don't have to factor in so many regimented procedural rules to what I am writing up.

How about you?

Speaking for myself, I think nostalgia is over-credited when it comes to the appeal of old school gaming. That's not to dismiss anyone who feels genuine nostalgia. It's just that nostalgia is a quick and easy go-to for haters to explain away the allure. It's also a quick and easy go-to for people who love old school and don't feel the need to chart out a doctoral dissertation just to defend what they like. But the most expedient explanation is not necessarily the best or most honest one.

I violate the jaded internet formulation of the edition wars, where it is assumed that whatever edition you started with is your favorite. I started on B/X, moved onto a BECMI/1E/2E mish-mash, then moved on to pure 2E, even flirted with pure RC D&D, before I eventually settled on a pure 1E campaign. And that's where I stayed. Because despite not being the edition I started with, that's the one that actually is the best. If I were driven by nostalgia, I'd be playing B/X.

Now over the past 8-10 years, I have ramped trying to tap back into how I did things when I was a kid. Because I think when we look back fondly at old memories of gaming, it's not just nostalgia. I think there may have actually been things we did better in our ignorance and immaturity, and I think adults really do have a way of stomping all the fun out of things. We could see that quite clearly when we were kids. And I think a lot of the values of modern game design sensibilities are exactly that sort of stodgy, fun-killer stuff.

Like I've never once in all my years got up after a great game session and heard any player glowing about how awesome the unified mechanic is. Yeah, I can see how it's a nice thing to have for all the obvious reasons. But if you look at how tight, tidy, and neat a lot of more modern RPGs are, it's clear this sort of thing is given high priority, if not the absolute highest priority. And I have to wonder what displaced because it wasn't a neat fit.


My best guess is the reason 1E is peak RPG experience is because it came around at a time when there was already a lot of mileage and play experience to draw from, but it was before the one standard playstyle of ragtag band of borderline sociopaths getting caught up in wacky adventures took hold. And that's why all those little rules in the DMG especially provide so much support for so many different styles of play. Also, the mission statement for 1E was something like, to provide as much fun for as many people for as long a time as possible. That's forward-looking and visionary. After that, once the industry figured out what the market wanted, it started optimizing to that. 2E's mission statement became, hey, we're going to clean up and refine, we're going to look at what people are already doing and codify it. And that's backwards-looking. To me, the difference in the feel of the two games is palpable despite the level of similarity in their rules (in fact, if you look at the spell descriptions in 2E, you'll find that most of them were plagiarized word-for-word from 1E, just swapping out "magic-user" for "wizard" and so on).


There are other RPGs I like that I feel bring something new and different, and at a certain point trying to say they're better or worse than 1E is like comparing apples to oranges. But as far as D&D goes, as far as fuel for your game, it peaked at 1E and it's been nothing but rehash since. Though I do give some credit to DarkSun as being a cool game world. I'd love nothing more than to see some more exceptions that prove me wrong. But let's face it. Their best selling adventures are Return to [insert module published 40 years ago].

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 21, 2023, 02:06:47 PM
So for everyone, especially for folks who were not around when these were the only games in town, what is it about old school games, if you enjoy them, that attracts you when newer games are plentiful?

For myself as an old fart gamer, nostalgia is indeed a part of it honestly. Beyond that on a practical level is the enjoyment of quick and simple character generation, along with ease of prep of homebrew material for play. Monster & NPC stats are a breeze and I don't have to factor in so many regimented procedural rules to what I am writing up.

How about you?

While I started playing around the late '80s, I would not call myself nostalgic for games of the time, because I  no longer play the games I played the most at first (GURPS, WoD). I am nostalgic of certain experiences, and these are hard to replicate.

Anyway, I've played some TSR D&D, then moved on to other things, thought 3e to be too complicated, disliked 4e, went back to D&D with the OSR and 5e (I wrote several OSR books and even a few 5e books). 5e eventually became too burdensome for us,  and I am not excited with 6e.

Something closer to B/X is more fun for me because I don't have to  spend that much time dealing with the rules during the game. My players have an easier time playing these games too -  they would often get lost in 5e with all the powers and features.

I also appreciate having monster stats that occupy only a couple of lines.

One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

But overall I find the experience much easier and more enjoyable.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:36:42 AM
One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

The actual treasure tables in eg BX or 1e MM are not that generous. The problem is with the competition modules that became regarded as normative. The published adventures are vastly more generous than what you get from the treasure tables.

I'm also not a fan of editions wars.

Many D&D fans, especially "editions warriors" (i.e., those who fight seriously to defend one edition over others) are commonly affected by two logical fallacies: appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitatem) on one hand, and appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem) on the other. The fallacies are often disguised in something else.

They are both fallacies for a reason: a game is not better or worse because it is newer or older, and the fact that this was the first version of D&D you played does NOT affect quality whatsoever. It is obvious to me that improvements are inevitable, especially in a game that was born in a very rough shape like OD&D. However, some games are timeless (e.g., chess), and I'm sure that certain parts of D&D share the same trait.

We are allowed to have our preferences, of course, but we can also separate good design from nostalgia and "the shiny new thing".

In my case, I love basic D&D. Moldvay's Basic is my favorite, but I also like BE, some parts of the RC and AD&D, and even some aspects of newer editions. I might be biased when defending Basic over other formats, but even in Basic I can see where the game is clunky or just wrong (e.g., plate armor costing 12 garlic).

I also love minimalism and game design as much as I love Basic D&D... which means, I am always trying to improve my favorite game (the whole reason for writing my own clone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Quote from: S'mon on June 22, 2023, 11:39:31 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:36:42 AM
One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

The actual treasure tables in eg BX or 1e MM are not that generous. The problem is with the competition modules that became regarded as normative. The published adventures are vastly more generous than what you get from the treasure tables.

Interesting! That could be the problem, yes, as I only run published adventures nowadays.

I wanted something grittier and more S&S (although not even in epic fantasy literature you find that many magic items).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:41:35 AM

Quote from: S'mon on June 22, 2023, 11:39:31 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:36:42 AM
One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

The actual treasure tables in eg BX or 1e MM are not that generous. The problem is with the competition modules that became regarded as normative. The published adventures are vastly more generous than what you get from the treasure tables.

Interesting! That could be the problem, yes, as I only run published adventures nowadays.

I wanted something grittier and more S&S (although not even in epic fantasy literature you find that many magic items).

I just replied to you on Facebook a moment ago Eric, come to RPGsite and you're replying to me here! You own the Net!  ;D

(Simon has had some Birra Moretti)

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:41:35 AM

Interesting! That could be the problem, yes, as I only run published adventures nowadays.

I wanted something grittier and more S&S (although not even in epic fantasy literature you find that many magic items).

I think it's ok to remove items from published adventures, and even take a 0 off the end of treasure values, until they feel right.

Quote from: S'mon on June 22, 2023, 11:58:55 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:41:35 AM

Interesting! That could be the problem, yes, as I only run published adventures nowadays.

I wanted something grittier and more S&S (although not even in epic fantasy literature you find that many magic items).

I think it's ok to remove items from published adventures, and even take a 0 off the end of treasure values, until they feel right.

It didn't occur to me at first, until I started noticing that now my B/X players have to keep track of more items than 5e's features and itens combined. I'm certainly doing that for the next modules.

I'm thinking I should have replaced some magic items by "masterwork" items of ancient civilizations, maybe with +1 to hit OR damage. I think that would be appropriate and flavorful.

Still undecided on gold versus silver TBH.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I should have considered this before... Letting them pick tabaxis and running modules with goblins and kobods were not a great start to a S&S campaign!

Quote from: S'mon on June 22, 2023, 11:57:24 AM
I just replied to you on Facebook a moment ago Eric, come to RPGsite and you're replying to me here! You own the Net!  ;D

(Simon has had some Birra Moretti)

Hahahhaha, yes, it's been crazy trying to keep in touch after the demise of G+! I'm trying to run multiple medias at once... and now they are talking about ending Reddit. Just added you in FB BTW!

Quote from: S'mon on June 22, 2023, 11:39:31 AM
The actual treasure tables in eg BX or 1e MM are not that generous. The problem is with the competition modules that became regarded as normative. The published adventures are vastly more generous than what you get from the treasure tables.

I created a set of random treasure generators for OD&D RAW that folks can use on-line.
https://www.batintheattic.com/tables_1974/

Examples
Type A Land
2,000 SP; Gems: 10 GP; 3 x 50 GP; 11 x 100 GP; 2 x 500 GP; Jewels: 1 x 600; 1 x 700; 1 x 800; 4 x 1,000; 1 x 1,100; 1 x 1,200; 1 x 1,400; 2 x 2,000; 2 x 3,000; 5 x 4,000; 2 x 5,000; 2 x 6,000; 1 x 8,000; 1 x 9,000; Ring of Djinn Summoning; Map To (Scroll of 1 Wizard Spell; 14 Magic Arrows +1; Scroll of Prot: Elementals; Potion of Plant Control; Scroll of Prot: Magic); Lawful Sword +1, Locate Objects

Type C
12,000 CP; Gems: 100 GP; 500 GP;

Type E
Scroll of Prot: Elementals; Map To (Lawful Sword +1, +3 vs Dragons with Detect Metal, See Invisible, Detect Gems, Empathy; Ego 7); Ring of Delusion, Ring of Weakness; Scroll of 2 Wizard Spells

And Type H the Dragon Hoard
16,000 CP; 50,000 GP; Gems: 4 x 10 GP; 8 x 100 GP; 500 GP; Map To (Gems: 3 x 10 GP; 6 x 50 GP; 21 x 100 GP; 9 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP; Jewels: 3 x 1,000; 1 x 1,200; 2 x 2,000; 2 x 3,000; 2 x 5,000; 1 x 6,000; 2 x 7,000); Scroll of 3 Wizard Spells; Scroll of 1 Cleric Spell; Lawful Sword +1; Potion of Clairvoyance; Scroll of 2 Cleric Spells

Also there are tables for unguarded treasure based on Dungeon Level

Level 1
500 SP; 20 GP

Level 5
6,000 SP; 1,000 GP; Scroll of Prot: Magic

Level 13+
50,000 SP; 10,000 GP; Jewels: 1 x 900; 1 x 1,200; 1 x 1,400; 1 x 2,000; 1 x 3,000; 1 x 5,000; 1 x 6,000; 1 x 10,000

Greetings!

Hmmm...*Treasure*.

I understand you do not like lots of treasure, Eric Diz.

However, allow me to suggest that you seek to grapple with a new attitude or perspective.

Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? In GMing, I have often erred on the side of being generous, and giving out treasure with a lavish hand. Treasure is a key component of the game, both in gaming, but also within the fantasy literature. (Ref Conan, and who can forget Bilbo and the rest gathered at the door of Smaug's horde? I know when I was a kid reading that, it certainly inspired me! *Laughing*)

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? Let them! Of course, make them work for it, but still. Why be purposely miserly? It begs the question, as a Player, if "Adventuring" is not bringing in the gold, then perhaps it is time to consider a different, more prosperous line of work that is more rewarding, right? I am also reminded that historically, say in the Roman Empire, a key driver and motivation for enlisting in the Legions was the regular, decent pay—and a retirement plan of land, and citizenship—but also, participating in war allowed you to potentially get RICH. Legionnaires were allowed to sack and plunder everything—gold, weapons, jewels, women! —even animals. Everything could be plundered or sold as slaves for GOLD. Those soldiers that showed courage and got bloody gained even more rewards and recognition—as well as bonus rewards of booty. If you survived, it was a good profession to build a home, a family, and have a reasonably prosperous and good life after 20 years of service in the Legions.

Adventuring, in my mind, certainly should be a prosperous activity and vocation.
The same thing could be said of being a Viking. Gold, jewels, weapons, slaves, women, and respect from your peers.
Remember, Eric, ask yourself this ONE QUESTION.

"What is Good in Life?" ;D *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rhialto on June 22, 2023, 08:27:17 AM

Quote from: blackstone on June 22, 2023, 07:33:46 AM
What's going to be even more of a leap for me, is the game world will be set during the Hyborian Age. Old school sword and sorcery. It will have elements of Robert E Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and HP Lovecraft. NO demi-human races. Only humans. Ability scores and what classes available to you is based upon what kingdom/race you are. I'm really excited about it. Can't wait to begin next month.

Are you familiar with the free "Age of Conan" for OD&D: https://www.grey-elf.com/hyborian-age.pdf (https://www.grey-elf.com/hyborian-age.pdf)? There are several additional resources there. Given your other inspirations above you might want to look at Hyperborea 3e too: https://www.hyperborea.tv/ (https://www.hyperborea.tv/).

I derived much of my material for my Hyborian Age campaign from https://hyboria.xoth.net/ (https://hyboria.xoth.net/) . I'll take a look at the others. Thanks!

EDIT: Oh yeah! hyperdorea.tv! Seen their stuff on DriveThruRPG.net! I bought the Lemuria mini-campaign setting and I'm going to see how I can fit it in.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:40:34 AM
especially in a game that was born in a very rough shape like OD&D.

The three little brown books of OD&D was perfectly fine.

---

As long as you were a miniatures wargamer from the upper midwest who happens to share the common assumptions about wargame campaigns that Gary Gygax assumed the reader would know after buying D&D.

Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 01:39:20 PM
Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? ...

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? ...

I think there is at least three different things going on in relation to treasure, and probably more:

1. There is how much shiny gold and gems (and magic) characters are pulling in compared to copper and silver and spare swords. 
2. There is the value of those things relative to what other characters are doing in the world.
3. There is how much this scales as characters progress.

Naturally, one thing has an effect on the others, but there is some room for independent action.  For example, I like it when characters start poor and very gradually become more wealthy.  I prefer that "wealth" be more grounded in reality, where silver has meaning.  And I want PCs to be neither the poorest nor the wealthiest denizens of the world.  Though they certainly can move into the upper end later in their careers.  This necessarily means that I can't have all of that, and also have hordes of gold coins found at Level 3, such that all that gold has driven the price list through the roof.  I'm giving up on the aesthetic of huge treasure hauls to get something else.  Doesn't mean that powerful characters don't become quite wealthy.  It just means that a lot of that wealth is in silver trade bars, with which you can buy a lot. 

This is contrast, for example, to the 5E default, where you get treasure coming down like rain, but it's almost meaningless, because there is very little to buy with it.  Unless of course the GM contrives something in the setting, like large armies, which 5E itself has zero support to manage.  There's plenty of other ways to mix it up, too.  The AD&D model has lots of money coming in and lots of money going out. 

I suppose I should reply on this thread, since I'm in the target demographic. I started playing RPGs right around the launch of 3rd edition. The only exposure I had to the older editions was from people who played 2nd edition, and frankly few of them had anything good to say about it. I think people sometimes forget now that when 3e came out, it was generally regarded as an improvement. I was largely tuned out of the hobby between 2009 and 2015 when the OSR really started picking up momentum, and only became aware of it around 5 years ago. So it's safe to say I came into the OSR without any nostalgia influencing my judgment.

What attracted me to the OSR was a number of what I'll describe as "promises" made by advocates for it around the internet, the chief ones being that the games were innovative, easier to run and play, more grounded and/or immersive, more flexible, and more focused on roleplaying. I use the word "promises", because my actual experience with OSR games has left me disappointed to varying degrees on all those fronts.

This is actually the second version of this post. Yesterday I typed out a longer version, that went into detail on exactly why I've become increasingly disillusioned with the OSR, but I felt it wasn't really in the spirit of this thread, so I ditched it. If people want further explanations, I'll expound.

These days I play OSR games for three reasons: 1) They're popular and easy to find games/players for (at least relative to the other games I'm interested in), 2) D&D is still the "lingua franca" of RPGs, so it's easier to just play a version of D&D rather than try to teach people a new system (and I prefer the OSR version to the current one), and 3) the average caliber of the players in OSR circles is noticeably higher than it is in the TTRPG scene at large.

Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 01:39:20 PM
However, allow me to suggest that you seek to grapple with a new attitude or perspective.

Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? In GMing, I have often erred on the side of being generous, and giving out treasure with a lavish hand. Treasure is a key component of the game, both in gaming, but also within the fantasy literature. (Ref Conan, and who can forget Bilbo and the rest gathered at the door of Smaug's horde? I know when I was a kid reading that, it certainly inspired me! *Laughing*)

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? ...

The problems come in with what happens after the players get rich. If you go back to those fantasy stories you referenced, you'll notice that the point at which the hero acquires a horde of treasure is usually not far off of the end of the story. That's because most sensible people, upon acquiring an vast fortune, would use that opportunity to stop adventuring. Bilbo takes his small share of Smaug's treasure and never goes on another adventure again, and Conan has to conveniently lose all of his treasure offscreen between adventures. I've seen more than one campaign fall into the death spiral of players refusing to go on an adventure unless it will make them rich, and then refusing to take on any other adventures because they're already rich.

Add to that the fact that in a lot of RPGs there isn't anything worth spending all that money on, other than buying and maintaining real estate. I might not enjoy being dirt poor, but I don't find roleplaying as a property manager to be much fun either.

Then there's the tendency of certain GMs to hand their players massive piles of coins, only to spend the rest of the campaign complaining about how they're carrying too much money around. At a certain point you just want to say "Fuck it. Fine, I spend all my gold on buying a country house. I'll spend the rest of the campaign sitting around in my underwear, drinking cognac and nailing call girls. Happy now?"

Ironically, huge piles of treasure work better in "new school" games where you have readily available magic item shops to go and spend it on. But personally I'd rather just not have getting riches be a main motivation in my games. I spend entirely too many hours of my real life trying to make money to ever want to it to be the focus of my fantasy games.

Quote from: Brad on June 21, 2023, 05:29:05 PM
Once you get off the Internet and messageboards, the average person who has never played any sort of RPG is going to respond better to something that is succinct and easily understood. No one new to the hobby wants to fucking read a 500 page book; something like S&W Whitebox (^^^^^) or whatever is much less overwhelming.

Although I agree with, some folks are really drawn to art which is the one thing most OSR games don't take as seriously. I think Pathfinder covers probably explains a large number of sales (that and being 3.6).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:36:42 AM



One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

But overall I find the experience much easier and more enjoyable.

Hey there!  I ran an AD&D game some years ago and contemplated the same issue. I have read and taken to heart the advice in the DMG about the placement of treasure but being stingy wasn't going to do the trick. The insane amounts of xp required at mid levels and up would mean being a miser with treasure would lead to way too low a leveling pace that I wanted. I did want to keep treasure as the primary source of xp so the party wouldn't have to attack everything they met like a pack of rabid dogs. Also I liked the idea of them coming up with clever ways to get loot without endless slaughter. I had heard of a system by which xp was only given for treasure that was squandered. Rather than just having the PC have to drop their cash into an endless black hole just for xp I devised several ways to do it so that they get fringe benefits along with their xp. I collected ideas from around the internet and put together several ideas for squandering. They could give it to nobles which would earn favor, they could spend it on lavish parties for the public earning them renown with the populace. They could donate it to a church which could lead to benefits such as free healing etc. So after every treasure haul each pc decided how much to squander and how much to keep for supplies, equipment and other costs. So big piles of treasure could still be given out but the group would have a reason to keep on adventuring. It worked out pretty good. The benefits of the squandering can even affect late game considerations. A fighter who has been financing a powerful noble might be awarded a keep and title for good deeds done and generous donations received. That way the fighter can still get the keep without having to have a mountain of money to build it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 22, 2023, 10:06:30 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:36:42 AM



One thing I'm starting to dislike running OS and OSR adventures is they insane amount of treasure and magical items that you find. The more I read TSR stuff the more I feel they were just too generous with treasure and had to come up of endless ways of spending it (training, upkeep, research, the disenchanter, etc.).

But overall I find the experience much easier and more enjoyable.

Hey there!  I ran an AD&D game some years ago and contemplated the same issue. I have read and taken to heart the advice in the DMG about the placement of treasure but being stingy wasn't going to do the trick. The insane amounts of xp required at mid levels and up would mean being a miser with treasure would lead to way too low a leveling pace that I wanted. I did want to keep treasure as the primary source of xp so the party wouldn't have to attack everything they met like a pack of rabid dogs. Also I liked the idea of them coming up with clever ways to get loot without endless slaughter. I had heard of a system by which xp was only given for treasure that was squandered. Rather than just having the PC have to drop their cash into an endless black hole just for xp I devised several ways to do it so that they get fringe benefits along with their xp. I collected ideas from around the internet and put together several ideas for squandering. They could give it to nobles which would earn favor, they could spend it on lavish parties for the public earning them renown with the populace. They could donate it to a church which could lead to benefits such as free healing etc. So after every treasure haul each pc decided how much to squander and how much to keep for supplies, equipment and other costs. So big piles of treasure could still be given out but the group would have a reason to keep on adventuring. It worked out pretty good. The benefits of the squandering can even affect late game considerations. A fighter who has been financing a powerful noble might be awarded a keep and title for good deeds done and generous donations received. That way the fighter can still get the keep without having to have a mountain of money to build it.

Oooohhh, I like this!  I'm stealing this and using it in my games... and there's nothing you can do about it!  ;D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 22, 2023, 03:09:28 PM

Quote from: SHARK on June 22, 2023, 01:39:20 PM
Players cannot achieve much without treasure. Being poor is how you stay trapped in the gutter and mud as a nobody. That is true in real life, as much as it is true in the fantasy game.
When you have been a Player, would you enjoy—or did you enjoy being a poor, mud-covered peasant?

I imagine that most players would not find such grasping poverty as being very "Fun," right? ...

Beyond that, though, what is wrong or bad about Players getting rich? ...

I think there is at least three different things going on in relation to treasure, and probably more:

1. There is how much shiny gold and gems (and magic) characters are pulling in compared to copper and silver and spare swords. 
2. There is the value of those things relative to what other characters are doing in the world.
3. There is how much this scales as characters progress.

Naturally, one thing has an effect on the others, but there is some room for independent action.  For example, I like it when characters start poor and very gradually become more wealthy.  I prefer that "wealth" be more grounded in reality, where silver has meaning.  And I want PCs to be neither the poorest nor the wealthiest denizens of the world.  Though they certainly can move into the upper end later in their careers.  This necessarily means that I can't have all of that, and also have hordes of gold coins found at Level 3, such that all that gold has driven the price list through the roof.  I'm giving up on the aesthetic of huge treasure hauls to get something else.  Doesn't mean that powerful characters don't become quite wealthy.  It just means that a lot of that wealth is in silver trade bars, with which you can buy a lot. 

This is contrast, for example, to the 5E default, where you get treasure coming down like rain, but it's almost meaningless, because there is very little to buy with it.  Unless of course the GM contrives something in the setting, like large armies, which 5E itself has zero support to manage.  There's plenty of other ways to mix it up, too.  The AD&D model has lots of money coming in and lots of money going out.

Greetings!

Excellent, Steven Mitchell! Indeed, I run my campaign pretty much in a similar manner. Largely silver-based, rather than gold. Then, well, there are many forms of wealth that come in the form of weapon armouries, fine goods, herds of good animals, beautiful slaves, and actual, physical resources, such as X amount of wagons of Iron Bars, or wagons of good timber, and so on. The resources that make society function and Work.

Of course, a mark of true wealth and power is having bands of fighting men that have pledged to loyally serve you, and fight, and kill at your command. Gaining that kind of true power requires some combination of silver, weapons, animals, and women--as well as generally providing integrity, strength, honour, and respect. These intangible social dynamics are strong forms of wealth as well, as being known for them tends to result in gaining more resources, weapons, animals, and women. *Laughing*

People admire and trust strong men, armed. Everyone in a society and local community wants to see the strong men armed, are well-fed, and kept happy. People offer them food, or offer to cook for them. People eagerly offer you a place to live at their farm. Fathers and Mothers are always eager to have you marry their daughters. Older men reward you with silver or other resources, such as goods or animals, for you to work about, or also just "Being." The community approves, and wealth tends to flow in the various forms into the hands of such men--even in societies that are Barter based, and do not even use a coin-based economy.

I'm kind of mind boggled by some of the dynamics in 5E. I run 5E like I have always run my campaigns, so the whole idea of having "Nothing worthwhile to spend gold on" is just a huge head-scratcher for me. *Laughing* I'm not even being sarcastic, either. I genuinely don't understand how a campaign can even manage to work under such dynamics. How are you supposed to run 5E to get that going, my friend? All these years I've been somehow doing it wrong? You gotta explain this to me, Steven!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 21, 2023, 02:06:47 PM
I want to discuss in this thread the appeal and attraction of playing old school style game systems, especially to younger gamers who enjoy them with nostalgia not being a factor. I have introduced old school gaming to young players who were pre-schoolers in the early 2000's so nostalgia for them goes back to 4E or 3E at the earliest. Some of them really enjoyed these games and were interested in finding out more about them and others didn't really care for them. So for everyone, especially for folks who were not around when these were the only games in town, what is it about old school games, if you enjoy them, that attracts you when newer games are plentiful?

For myself as an old fart gamer, nostalgia is indeed a part of it honestly. Beyond that on a practical level is the enjoyment of quick and simple character generation, along with ease of prep of homebrew material for play. Monster & NPC stats are a breeze and I don't have to factor in so many regimented procedural rules to what I am writing up.

How about you?

Answered your own question  ;D

Ease of play is a key game design element. Roll up a PC in (literally) 5 minutes and off to the dungeon you go. No hassle with over-complicated rules that don't even belong in the game. Nothing to figure out other than "What would my character do here?" A group should not need to unravel some ridiculous codex of rules. That just gets in the way of the intention, which is to play the game. Just look at how WotC buried the intent of D&D underneath a mountain of rules text.

Old-School D&D was about real exploration: players poking and prodding their way through dungeons by asking questions. "How tall is it?" "How deep is it?" "What does it feel like?" "How far does it go?" "How much rope do we need?" "What do I hear?" "How does it sound" and ALL that. Not what the game has become"

Player: I make a Perception check *rolls*

GM: For what?

Player: To know what Justin Nimbleflake sees. I got a 17!

GM: *sigh*

It's number-fishing, not dungeon-crawling. Blades in the Dark is the current TTRPG Hotness and here's how the core mechanic works:

QuoteEvery action you take has the same odds but the positioning varies from controlled, to risky, to desperate. The worse the position, the more you have to lose. Then, before any dice are rolled, the GM states what the effect of this action might be. If everyone is agreed to the action, the positioning, and the outcome, the dice are rolled.

Oh really? So I can't just roll one die and get on with things? I need multiple dice, degrees of success AND failure, a GM hovering over my decisions like Helicopter-Mom™ and finally, the consent of the group just to perform one action.

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/JpmFGfCKiFqjVAODoW/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952wajifsgs80vzaz6te9l8l38yebizaaxrbexhmsnh&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)

OSR is roleplay-focused, but easy to get into. Not the 500-page nonsense games that we see on Kickstarter.

Quote from: SHARK on June 23, 2023, 12:45:55 AMI run my campaign pretty much in a similar manner. Largely silver-based, rather than gold. Then, well, there are many forms of wealth that come in the form of weapon armouries, fine goods, herds of good animals, beautiful slaves, and actual, physical resources, such as X amount of wagons of Iron Bars, or wagons of good timber, and so on. The resources that make society function and Work.

Of course, a mark of true wealth and power is having bands of fighting men that have pledged to loyally serve you, and fight, and kill at your command. Gaining that kind of true power requires some combination of silver, weapons, animals, and women--as well as generally providing integrity, strength, honour, and respect. These intangible social dynamics are strong forms of wealth as well, as being known for them tends to result in gaining more resources, weapons, animals, and women. *Laughing*

People admire and trust strong men, armed. Everyone in a society and local community wants to see the strong men armed, are well-fed, and kept happy. People offer them food, or offer to cook for them. People eagerly offer you a place to live at their farm. Fathers and Mothers are always eager to have you marry their daughters. Older men reward you with silver or other resources, such as goods or animals, for you to work about, or also just "Being." The community approves, and wealth tends to flow in the various forms into the hands of such men--even in societies that are Barter based, and do not even use a coin-based economy.

I'm kind of mind boggled by some of the dynamics in 5E. I run 5E like I have always run my campaigns, so the whole idea of having "Nothing worthwhile to spend gold on" is just a huge head-scratcher for me. *Laughing* I'm not even being sarcastic, either. I genuinely don't understand how a campaign can even manage to work under such dynamics. How are you supposed to run 5E to get that going, my friend? All these years I've been somehow doing it wrong? You gotta explain this to me, Steven!

The things to spend money on you brought to the game.  5E didn't do that.  It doesn't help you manage it, track it, give guidelines for how much it costs. The implied economy of the price list is not terribly helpful (though better than 3E!).  Now, in fairness, 5E doesn't actively work against you as badly as some other games do, either.  Because it really doesn't do much of anything, there isn't anything to tear down before you start layering your own stuff on it.  It's pretty easy to make your own price lists, after all, and there's not much explicit costs in the magic that needs to be adjusted (ignoring particular supplements).  The general tone of the game is so player-oriented, you have to ignore that, but that's not hard with a GM with some modest experience and backbone.

Now think outside your prior experiences, and what would happen if you were 14 and trying to run 5E out of the box?

Thanks for all the answers!

I certainly don't want to derail the thread with a discussion about treasure, so I'll be brief...

1 -  Magic items. This is my main issue. There are too many to keep track of. Each has different powers. The party has around 10 magic items now. Not even in the highest of high fantasy book a small party has that many magic items at a "medium level".

2 -  Earning and spending. My PCs are level 5 and don't have much to do with their money, unless I start charging for small expenses, note keeping, etc. At least now it will you start affecting their encumbrance (and they find  cleric willing to cure a curse for a steep price). Conan, Grey Mouser etc. would spend some money drinking and gambling, but I can't force the PCs to do the same. Even Conan didn't buy a kingdom - he took one!

3 -  Gold standard. I'm finding increasingly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that a ONE POUND silver dagger it costs THREE pounds of gold, while simultaneously making gold 10 times the value of silver. Of course, changing these absurd weights will you make it too easy to carry a fortune  without affecting encumbrance.

However, most of these things boil down to a matter of taste, there is no right or wrong.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 23, 2023, 09:03:42 AM

3 -  Gold standard. I'm finding increasingly difficult to wrap my head around the idea that a ONE POUND silver dagger it costs THREE pounds of gold, while simultaneously making gold 10 times the value of silver. Of course, changing these absurd weights will you make it too easy to carry a fortune  without affecting encumbrance.

Encumbrance weights are generally inflated a bit.  Furthermore, a completely silver dagger would be all but useless for anything except ceremonial functions, and even then would be difficult to maintain.  Think of the silver dagger as "silvered" on the outer surface.  Not that considering both of those points answers all objections, but it does leave quite a bit of wiggle room in the assumptions.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 23, 2023, 09:03:42 AM
2 -  Earning and spending. My PCs are level 5 and don't have much to do with their money, unless I start charging for small expenses, note keeping, etc. At least now it will you start affecting their encumbrance (and they find  cleric willing to cure a curse for a steep price). Conan, Grey Mouser etc. would spend some money drinking and gambling, but I can't force the PCs to do the same. Even Conan didn't buy a kingdom - he took one!

Errrr, there are ways... ;)

Seriously, though, you can drain gold pretty easily without much bookkeeping.  Just demand "upkeep" from the players.  A flat "tax", if you will, that players must pay and that they get to partially determine.  For example, I'll look at all of the mundane weapons, armor, gear, etc. that a player has and round it out in my head to a value that is about 1/5 of the total.  That's what it costs per month to maintain the gear (sharpening, repairing, replacing damaged items, etc.).  If the players aren't up to date with their costs, they get a generic penalty to actions involving gear or they can discard gear up to that value.  Henchmen?  Easy.  Get too late on your payments, and they leave (or stop working).  The big one is "lifestyle."  I pick a general tenor of living that I'll describe to the players (Like "Poor" would be living in a communal room in an Inn, eating gruel with shabby clothes, people look down on you in the streets; or "Wealthy" might be a private room at an Inn; meat, cheese, and wine; and people begin to recognize you and want to associate with you) and then pick a monthly cost for that lifestyle (I usually have 4 or 5 levels).  I always make the cost way more than it should be, and the players don't seem to care.  But, when they are able to move up to their private room, good food, etc., the players see it as a win (even though they are spending treasure on it).  It works well, and requires almost no bookkeeping at all.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:40:34 AM
It is obvious to me that improvements are inevitable, especially in a game that was born in a very rough shape like OD&D. However, some games are timeless (e.g., chess), and I'm sure that certain parts of D&D share the same trait.

Worth noting about chess being timeless though is that the goal of chess is not emulating real battles (at least not any more), but technical mastery of the established  ruleset. The rules don't change because the goal is work entirely within those rules.

However, that hasn't stopped people looking for other experiences to alter its mechanics regularly; 3D chess, Glinski's hexagonal chess, chess on a 12x12 board, double chess, infinite chess, masonic (in this case the staggered tile arrangement) and rhombic chess, random draw chess (the king and 15 randomly drawn pieces), peasants revolt, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_variants

The only thing that makes chess timeless is the agreement among its players (and tournament organizations) to use the specific set of rules they do. The goal of chess isn't to emulate a real world, it's technical mastery of chess' rules... in essence it's become a thing shaped like itself and that's the only reason it's "timeless."

The motive behind rpgs though is still generally "emulation" of some sort of 'real world' which means all mechanics are at best going to be an approximation of thing they're attempting to emulate and approximation mean you're always going to see fiddling to either attempt to improve the quality of the emulation (more detailed mechanics) or the quantity of emulation (faster to resolve mechanics) and those two will always be in dynamic tension where people will at best find a balance they get a group to agree upon.

A platonically ideal rpg would perfectly emulate an entire setting in real time, but with several quantum leaps in computer development that's going to happen and there's nothing native to ANY edition of any rpg that comes close. Which is why there will never be a "timeless" rpg system or even part of one that is... at best you might achieve a "current best practices" consensus around a few elements.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 23, 2023, 09:57:08 AM
Encumbrance weights are generally inflated a bit.  Furthermore, a completely silver dagger would be all but useless for anything except ceremonial functions, and even then would be difficult to maintain.  Think of the silver dagger as "silvered" on the outer surface.  Not that considering both of those points answers all objections, but it does leave quite a bit of wiggle room in the assumptions.

You're right.  Unfortunately, this makes things even worse: you are paying 30 pounds of silver to add a fraction of a pound to your dagger.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 23, 2023, 10:50:01 AM
Errrr, there are ways... ;)

Seriously, though, you can drain gold pretty easily without much bookkeeping.  Just demand "upkeep" from the players.  A flat "tax", if you will, that players must pay and that they get to partially determine.  For example, I'll look at all of the mundane weapons, armor, gear, etc. that a player has and round it out in my head to a value that is about 1/5 of the total.  That's what it costs per month to maintain the gear (sharpening, repairing, replacing damaged items, etc.).  If the players aren't up to date with their costs, they get a generic penalty to actions involving gear or they can discard gear up to that value.  Henchmen?  Easy.  Get too late on your payments, and they leave (or stop working).  The big one is "lifestyle."  I pick a general tenor of living that I'll describe to the players (Like "Poor" would be living in a communal room in an Inn, eating gruel with shabby clothes, people look down on you in the streets; or "Wealthy" might be a private room at an Inn; meat, cheese, and wine; and people begin to recognize you and want to associate with you) and then pick a monthly cost for that lifestyle (I usually have 4 or 5 levels).  I always make the cost way more than it should be, and the players don't seem to care.  But, when they are able to move up to their private room, good food, etc., the players see it as a win (even though they are spending treasure on it).  It works well, and requires almost no bookkeeping at all.

My problem with upkeep is that it is not fun for me or the players (they hate it). Having less treasure would be easier.

But I agree  that dealing with downtime, lifestyle, society to be a good solution. I think I'll do just that! Thanks!

Old school D&D has enough things to spend money on. The problem is my PCs are hoarders.

A good solution I've seen elsewhere is giving XP for money spent. This will give them a reason to drink, gamble, etc. And maybe you can occasionally find a trainer that doubles the amount of XP you get for the money spent.

EDIT: I started a treasure thread to avoid derailing this one.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/my-problems-with-old-school-treasure/msg1257427/#msg1257427

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 23, 2023, 11:20:31 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:40:34 AM
It is obvious to me that improvements are inevitable, especially in a game that was born in a very rough shape like OD&D. However, some games are timeless (e.g., chess), and I'm sure that certain parts of D&D share the same trait.

Worth noting about chess being timeless though is that the goal of chess is not emulating real battles (at least not any more), but technical mastery of the established  ruleset. The rules don't change because the goal is work entirely within those rules.

However, that hasn't stopped people looking for other experiences to alter its mechanics regularly; 3D chess, Glinski's hexagonal chess, chess on a 12x12 board, double chess, infinite chess, masonic (in this case the staggered tile arrangement) and rhombic chess, random draw chess (the king and 15 randomly drawn pieces), peasants revolt, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_variants

The only thing that makes chess timeless is the agreement among its players (and tournament organizations) to use the specific set of rules they do. The goal of chess isn't to emulate a real world, it's technical mastery of chess' rules... in essence it's become a thing shaped like itself and that's the only reason it's "timeless."

The motive behind rpgs though is still generally "emulation" of some sort of 'real world' which means all mechanics are at best going to be an approximation of thing they're attempting to emulate and approximation mean you're always going to see fiddling to either attempt to improve the quality of the emulation (more detailed mechanics) or the quantity of emulation (faster to resolve mechanics) and those two will always be in dynamic tension where people will at best find a balance they get a group to agree upon.

A platonically ideal rpg would perfectly emulate an entire setting in real time, but with several quantum leaps in computer development that's going to happen and there's nothing native to ANY edition of any rpg that comes close. Which is why there will never be a "timeless" rpg system or even part of one that is... at best you might achieve a "current best practices" consensus around a few elements.

Well said. There is more to D&D than emulation, however, and if you compare the monsters and magic items between 1e and 5e you'll see that not that much was added. In addition, there are things in D&D that try to emulate fiction rather than real life (e.g., gold).

But yes I agree, emulation can always be improved, and I find little justification for thinking a one-handed sword should weight 6 pounds nowadays, etc..

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 23, 2023, 11:20:31 AM
A platonically ideal rpg would perfectly emulate an entire setting in real time, but with several quantum leaps in computer development that's going to happen and there's nothing native to ANY edition of any rpg that comes close. Which is why there will never be a "timeless" rpg system or even part of one that is... at best you might achieve a "current best practices" consensus around a few elements.

The problem is assuming that is the platonic ideal. That there is even a platonic ideal to being with.

Certainly that kind of setting emulation would be interesting to me, but I know many individuals who are perfectly happy with how classic D&D, D&D 5e, GURPS, and so on emulate the setting.

See we do is a form of entertainment. The only platonic test is one of endurance through time. Many people throughout the world continue to choose to play games like chess, backgammon, etc. without knowing or caring about organized chess play. Just as many people continue to choose to play D&D in all its forms.

We can analyze this to death, figure out all the things one can do with the RPG but at the end of the day it boils down to "it is popular because the vast majority of the hobby likes it." Now in 2033 if some other RPG that is not related to D&D has captured the market share of RPG that D&D currently enjoys, feel free to call what i just said bullshit.  But I am willing to bet that in 2033 that D&D related RPGs will continue to enjoy the same dominance as they do now. Just as in the 2010s it was Pathfinder a closely related RPG to D&D that finally dethroned D&D itself. And it did so on the strength of being perceived as being more true to the spire of D&D than D&D 4e was.

If your character can actually fail, actually die, etc.; then your character is being challenged, and victory or success actually means something.

Quote from: estar on June 23, 2023, 12:52:04 PM
Just as in the 2010s it was Pathfinder a closely related RPG to D&D that finally dethroned D&D itself. And it did so on the strength of being perceived as being more true to the spire of D&D than D&D 4e was.

Thats because it was.

I don't play exclusively OSR games, but most of my OSR experience was in AD&D 2e (only learned later we were using a ton of AD&D 1e stuff interchangeably). Now I've been looking back at B/X and other variants that I did not personally experience growing up. What I like most about TSR-era D&D and modern OSR variants are a few things:

• A real threat of death or other permanent harm.
• Quicker character generation.
• A greater focus on exploration and actual game structure to support that (exploration turn, random encounters, ingenuity solves traps/puzzles, gold for XP).
• Tighter design that's actually developed from a culture of play rather than just inventing stuff in one's head.
• The game designer doesn't speak down to you or try to protect you too much from yourself - it assumes you're intelligent and leaves you room to figure stuff out.
• Content density - there's a ton of great content packed into fairly short books (usually less than 150 pages). Seems like most modern games are competing for higher page counts, and packed to the gills with content that can't justify its pagecount.
• Less game-destroying goodies or entitlements handed out to players compared to modern D&D.
• A general focus on verisimilitude and developing rules to support something resembling a plausible fictional world.
• Culture - the culture is much more open to homebrewing and building bespoke solutions to problems experienced in actual play at the table. Less of an "industrial" feel demanding conformity.
• Stages of play - from desperate, to heroic, to name level. The rules scale reasonably well through these phases (compared to mid/high-level play in modern D&D).
• Formats of play - I like how sandbox, open table, and hex crawls are considered more "normal" in the OSR than the modern narrative/quest-driven adventure style.
• More, higher quality adventures and content coming from the community.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on June 25, 2023, 02:41:03 AM
I don't play exclusively OSR games, but most of my OSR experience was in AD&D 2e (only learned later we were using a ton of AD&D 1e stuff interchangeably). Now I've been looking back at B/X and other variants that I did not personally experience growing up. What I like most about TSR-era D&D and modern OSR variants are a few things:

• A real threat of death or other permanent harm.
• Quicker character generation.
• A greater focus on exploration and actual game structure to support that (exploration turn, random encounters, ingenuity solves traps/puzzles, gold for XP).
• Tighter design that's actually developed from a culture of play rather than just inventing stuff in one's head.
• The game designer doesn't speak down to you or try to protect you too much from yourself - it assumes you're intelligent and leaves you room to figure stuff out.
• Content density - there's a ton of great content packed into fairly short books (usually less than 150 pages). Seems like most modern games are competing for higher page counts, and packed to the gills with content that can't justify its pagecount.
• Less game-destroying goodies or entitlements handed out to players compared to modern D&D.
• A general focus on verisimilitude and developing rules to support something resembling a plausible fictional world.
• Culture - the culture is much more open to homebrewing and building bespoke solutions to problems experienced in actual play at the table. Less of an "industrial" feel demanding conformity.
• Stages of play - from desperate, to heroic, to name level. The rules scale reasonably well through these phases (compared to mid/high-level play in modern D&D).
• Formats of play - I like how sandbox, open table, and hex crawls are considered more "normal" in the OSR than the modern narrative/quest-driven adventure style.
• More, higher quality adventures and content coming from the community.

Great points, especially "Content density"!

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 23, 2023, 11:35:03 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 23, 2023, 09:57:08 AM
Encumbrance weights are generally inflated a bit.  Furthermore, a completely silver dagger would be all but useless for anything except ceremonial functions, and even then would be difficult to maintain.  Think of the silver dagger as "silvered" on the outer surface.  Not that considering both of those points answers all objections, but it does leave quite a bit of wiggle room in the assumptions.

You're right.  Unfortunately, this makes things even worse: you are paying 30 pounds of silver to add a fraction of a pound to your dagger.

Go check what master gunsmiths charge. Real gunsmiths. The ones where you pay $100 to have them change the sights, because if they slip and mess up your slide or sights, they spend $500 refinishing the slide or replacing the sights.

30 silver for a silvered dagger makes complete sense. There is more to master crafts than material costs. You have to charge enough for the project to make money, when you could be doing more inherently lucrative jobs.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on June 25, 2023, 02:41:03 AM
I don't play exclusively OSR games, but most of my OSR experience was in AD&D 2e (only learned later we were using a ton of AD&D 1e stuff interchangeably). Now I've been looking back at B/X and other variants that I did not personally experience growing up. What I like most about TSR-era D&D and modern OSR variants are a few things:

• A real threat of death or other permanent harm.
• Quicker character generation.
• A greater focus on exploration and actual game structure to support that (exploration turn, random encounters, ingenuity solves traps/puzzles, gold for XP).
• Tighter design that's actually developed from a culture of play rather than just inventing stuff in one's head.
• The game designer doesn't speak down to you or try to protect you too much from yourself - it assumes you're intelligent and leaves you room to figure stuff out.
• Content density - there's a ton of great content packed into fairly short books (usually less than 150 pages). Seems like most modern games are competing for higher page counts, and packed to the gills with content that can't justify its pagecount.
• Less game-destroying goodies or entitlements handed out to players compared to modern D&D.
• A general focus on verisimilitude and developing rules to support something resembling a plausible fictional world.
• Culture - the culture is much more open to homebrewing and building bespoke solutions to problems experienced in actual play at the table. Less of an "industrial" feel demanding conformity.
• Stages of play - from desperate, to heroic, to name level. The rules scale reasonably well through these phases (compared to mid/high-level play in modern D&D).
• Formats of play - I like how sandbox, open table, and hex crawls are considered more "normal" in the OSR than the modern narrative/quest-driven adventure style.
• More, higher quality adventures and content coming from the community.

That's one of the best summaries of Old School I've ever read. Your view of the "old school" is much more in alignment with mine than those on, e.g. /r/OSR.

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 22, 2023, 09:46:50 PM

Although I agree with, some folks are really drawn to art which is the one thing most OSR games don't take as seriously. I think Pathfinder covers probably explains a large number of sales (that and being 3.6).

Yeah no argument there. I bought The One Ring because I love Tolkien and the production values are outstanding, but think the game sorts sucks. I then bought the second edition for the same reasons, knowing full well it wouldn't be any better...

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 25, 2023, 09:43:14 AM
Great points, especially "Content density"!

Yup. 1e PHB is like 120 pages, 2e PHB is like 250 (but mostly spell descriptions). 99% useful content. 3e, 4e, and 5e are all 300 pages (and you'll never get away with playing just core with the current culture). 3e was the high water mark for WotC content density and it's just gotten worse. For me personally reading 5e content is like pulling teeth. It's somehow dense enough that it's slow to read and filler enough that it's uninteresting.

Even the modern games I enjoy churn out these 400+ page monstrosities now with only like 50-60 pages of important, usable stuff and the rest is all filler. Obviously some OSR stuff has a lot of filler too (especially artpunk stuff), but the OSR doesn't seem to inflate pagecount just because it's expected of them. IMO a proper, complete game should top out somewhere between 150-250 pages maximum (I don't mind expansion stuff that's actually optional). If a game is less than 100 pages I'm skeptical that it's a complete and functional game, and if it's more than 300 it better be an amazing game to convince me to buy it and read all that.

Quote from: amacris on June 25, 2023, 08:06:36 PM
That's one of the best summaries of Old School I've ever read. Your view of the "old school" is much more in alignment with mine than those on, e.g. /r/OSR.

Thanks! There's a lot of cargo cultism going on in the mainstream - performing the rituals and invoking the names of the old-school while still retaining all the modern campaign structures, adornments, and cultural assumptions. It's a doomed proposition IMO. I'm working on my own game and even though it's a totally divergent ruleset (non-d20), I feel like I'll be able to capture some of these OSR principles and structure better than a lot of popular OSR products I've seen marketed as such.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on June 26, 2023, 02:04:04 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 25, 2023, 09:43:14 AM
Great points, especially "Content density"!

Yup. 1e PHB is like 120 pages, 2e PHB is like 250 (but mostly spell descriptions). 99% useful content. 3e, 4e, and 5e are all 300 pages (and you'll never get away with playing just core with the current culture). 3e was the high water mark for WotC content density and it's just gotten worse. For me personally reading 5e content is like pulling teeth. It's somehow dense enough that it's slow to read and filler enough that it's uninteresting.

Even the modern games I enjoy churn out these 400+ page monstrosities now with only like 50-60 pages of important, usable stuff and the rest is all filler. Obviously some OSR stuff has a lot of filler too (especially artpunk stuff), but the OSR doesn't seem to inflate pagecount just because it's expected of them. IMO a proper, complete game should top out somewhere between 150-250 pages maximum (I don't mind expansion stuff that's actually optional). If a game is less than 100 pages I'm skeptical that it's a complete and functional game, and if it's more than 300 it better be an amazing game to convince me to buy it and read all that.

Quote from: amacris on June 25, 2023, 08:06:36 PM
That's one of the best summaries of Old School I've ever read. Your view of the "old school" is much more in alignment with mine than those on, e.g. /r/OSR.

Thanks! There's a lot of cargo cultism going on in the mainstream - performing the rituals and invoking the names of the old-school while still retaining all the modern campaign structures, adornments, and cultural assumptions. It's a doomed proposition IMO. I'm working on my own game and even though it's a totally divergent ruleset (non-d20), I feel like I'll be able to capture some of these OSR principles and structure better than a lot of popular OSR products I've seen marketed as such.

Great summary of old school content. The Moldvay Introductory set is a complete game covering play to level 3 in just 64 pages. For me, that sets the standard of what can be accomplished in quite a bit less than 100 pages. It is my favorite presentation of the D&D game in part due to its brevity. I read the entire rulebook cover to cover at age 10 and it didn't take all day. The art was very inspiring as well. I just don't have the time anymore to slog through hundreds of pages of rules just to play a game. I have done so in the past and found that my actual play enjoyment at the table was not enhanced by doing so and sometimes actually diminished.

Quote from: Theory of Games on June 23, 2023, 07:27:27 AM
...
It's number-fishing, not dungeon-crawling. Blades in the Dark is the current TTRPG Hotness and here's how the core mechanic works:

QuoteEvery action you take has the same odds but the positioning varies from controlled, to risky, to desperate. The worse the position, the more you have to lose. Then, before any dice are rolled, the GM states what the effect of this action might be. If everyone is agreed to the action, the positioning, and the outcome, the dice are rolled.

Oh really? So I can't just roll one die and get on with things? I need multiple dice, degrees of success AND failure, a GM hovering over my decisions like Helicopter-Mom™ and finally, the consent of the group just to perform one action.

...

---

---

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 23, 2023, 11:40:37 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 23, 2023, 11:20:31 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 22, 2023, 11:40:34 AM
It is obvious to me that improvements are inevitable, especially in a game that was born in a very rough shape like OD&D. However, some games are timeless (e.g., chess), and I'm sure that certain parts of D&D share the same trait.

Worth noting about chess being timeless though is that the goal of chess is not emulating real battles (at least not any more), but technical mastery of the established  ruleset. The rules don't change because the goal is work entirely within those rules.

However, that hasn't stopped people looking for other experiences to alter its mechanics regularly; 3D chess, Glinski's hexagonal chess, chess on a 12x12 board, double chess, infinite chess, masonic (in this case the staggered tile arrangement) and rhombic chess, random draw chess (the king and 15 randomly drawn pieces), peasants revolt, etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_variants

The only thing that makes chess timeless is the agreement among its players (and tournament organizations) to use the specific set of rules they do. The goal of chess isn't to emulate a real world, it's technical mastery of chess' rules... in essence it's become a thing shaped like itself and that's the only reason it's "timeless."

The motive behind rpgs though is still generally "emulation" of some sort of 'real world' which means all mechanics are at best going to be an approximation of thing they're attempting to emulate and approximation mean you're always going to see fiddling to either attempt to improve the quality of the emulation (more detailed mechanics) or the quantity of emulation (faster to resolve mechanics) and those two will always be in dynamic tension where people will at best find a balance they get a group to agree upon.

A platonically ideal rpg would perfectly emulate an entire setting in real time, but with several quantum leaps in computer development that's going to happen and there's nothing native to ANY edition of any rpg that comes close. Which is why there will never be a "timeless" rpg system or even part of one that is... at best you might achieve a "current best practices" consensus around a few elements.

Well said. There is more to D&D than emulation, however, and if you compare the monsters and magic items between 1e and 5e you'll see that not that much was added. In addition, there are things in D&D that try to emulate fiction rather than real life (e.g., gold).

But yes I agree, emulation can always be improved, and I find little justification for thinking a one-handed sword should weight 6 pounds nowadays, etc..

---

---

Quote from: Jam The MF on June 23, 2023, 10:14:42 PM
If your character can actually fail, actually die, etc.; then your character is being challenged, and victory or success actually means something.

---

---

The entire design philosophy of the Forge seems to appease the fear of "touch move touch take", probably the best carry over from wargaming into roleplaying. Blades in the Dark took it one step further and opened player decision to comittee approval, which is basically letting someone else backseat drive your own character, let alone by the flashback mechanic: "I solve the problem by preventing it from happening," essentially the unlimited wishes spell mechanic.

Having something to lose in the mechanic given above doesn't really provide any solution the issue of the Mary Sue character design telos anyway.

Imagine a chess, or even a poker tournament played online, where all players have their own undo button, which consequently undoes the last move of your opponents. You could limit the number of times players are allowed to click that button, but you're not watching a tournament once the players have the ability to refute the game itself.

GM: "After reaching level 20 from XP rewards, you've realized that the warlord was in fact your own father."

Player: "I spend some 'oops lol points' to undo all my actions after entering my evident father's castle to manufacture the memory of a drunk fisherman info dumping me this very information in the tavern I rested in about three sessions ago, which I now also own."

GM: "Excuse me while I check my twenty volume world encyclopedia to figure out what happens next."

Rules-lighter play - whether it's O5R, OSR, TSR or whatever - is always going to draw an audience who enjoy faster play. Faster mechanics means more time for exploring and interacting and more dangerous mechanics means your choices matter.

The long term appeal of the hobby for new players are these games.

There will always exist some people who want to gather together in meatspace, eat snackage, roll real dice with their hands and share an imaginary adventure that's only happening in the collective consciousness of that group.

That will never be mainstream. And that's okay.

Me?  I love 1e AD&D because it's where the black magic is.

QuoteThe entire design philosophy of the Forge seems to appease the fear of "touch move touch take", probably the best carry over from wargaming into roleplaying. Blades in the Dark took it one step further and opened player decision to comittee approval, which is basically letting someone else backseat drive your own character, let alone by the flashback mechanic: "I solve the problem by preventing it from happening," essentially the unlimited wishes spell mechanic.

The flashback mechanics explictly forbade undoing anything. You may after noticing complication pay to buy flashback that allows you to find solution beforehand (Ocean Elvens style) but it cannot contradict anything estabilished so far. If your enemies break your leg - cannot undo it. But you may flashback that you hidden poisoned dagger in your sleeve or something to use it.
And it's not unlimited wish either - because you gain Stress points for it, which may eliminate you from further scores because you are on drinking binge.

Quote from: Wrath of God on July 16, 2023, 10:50:40 AM
The flashback mechanics explictly forbade undoing anything. You may after noticing complication pay to buy flashback that allows you to find solution beforehand (Ocean Elvens style) but it cannot contradict anything estabilished so far. If your enemies break your leg - cannot undo it. But you may flashback that you hidden poisoned dagger in your sleeve or something to use it.

It intends to be Oceans Eleven, it comes off as Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.


I think one important factor that is entirely neglected by most of the "let's make a story" crowd is that in RPGs the participants and the audience is one in the same. Certain storytelling techniques that are just accepted by passive audiences has a different feel to an active player. If a mechanic says you can implant some fact into the past, it feels like going back in time and doing it.

There are certain advantages RPGs have when it comes to storytelling. For some reason, certain folk seem hell-bent on ignoring those while aping the things that don't work so well in RPGs. Which leads me to think they're not serious people. If they really cared about good stories in their RPGs, they'd sort out where RPGs are strong and weak with story telling and play to the medium's strengths. Instead they've made "story" a naughty word in the RPG world which has rendered the reactionaries as functionally stunted in this regard.

In an rpg, stories are not a naughty word, they are simply a byproduct of active play. You can make a story out of last nights session. Stories are not a concern of the participants during actual play. The players simply react to the imagined game world environment through their characters. They are not working to create a story anymore than you or I are when we get up in the morning and go to work. In a story game, the participants work together to craft an interesting, exciting story. That's the difference. Nothing at all wrong with story games, if everyone involved is interested and wants to play that type of game. The conflict arises when some of the participants want to play a story game, and instead of finding a like minded group, join an rpg group and try to turn it into a story game. In any situation with differing expectations there will be friction.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 17, 2023, 09:37:29 AM
In an rpg, stories are not a naughty word, they are simply a byproduct of active play. You can make a story out of last nights session. Stories are not a concern of the participants during actual play. The players simply react to the imagined game world environment through their characters. They are not working to create a story anymore than you or I are when we get up in the morning and go to work. In a story game, the participants work together to craft an interesting, exciting story. That's the difference. Nothing at all wrong with story games, if everyone involved is interested and wants to play that type of game. The conflict arises when some of the participants want to play a story game, and instead of finding a like minded group, join an rpg group and try to turn it into a story game. In any situation with differing expectations there will be friction.

The thing is, story is a concern to plenty of participants. They often judge a session or an adventure or a campaign on the basis of whether or not it told or is presently (not in past tense but in real time, during actual play) telling a good story. And whether or not a course of action is interesting or would make a good story is certainly one of the possible motivations a player can have when deciding what to do next. It's like jury nullification. In many places it's against the law. But at the end of the day, it's next to impossible to prove what a juror's actual reason was for voting to acquit. So functionally it's always and everywhere fair game no matter how the law might protest. Same here. Story as a driving force during actual play is always on the table, no matter how much people in certain camps might want to deny it. Not that it's every player who's doing this. Maybe not even the majority, but at the very least a very large minority. But at most it could also be the lionshare of gamers who are doing it. It would be a humble claim to say anywhere between 40% and 80% of participants are concerned with story during actual play.

But as for those who actually tell a story about the game they played the night before? This isn't something that happens a lot. Even if this were standard practice, done 100% of the time at 100% of tables everywhere, assuming an average group size of 4, 1 person doing it sets as the upper limit 25% of gamers do it. But realistically, it's probably fewer than 2%. I'll grant as high as 5% to be generous for the sake of argument.

So you're talking somewhere between 12:1 and 30:1 ratio for gamers who care about story in the moment versus gamers who care about story next day.

And yet your response is to dismiss the 12-30 while tossing a cookie to the 1.

This is not how you have a serious conversation about the topic. This is how you shut down serious conversation. You can say it's not a dirty word all you want, but you are responding as if it is a dirty word. Your response is 100% spot on what I had in mind when I made the claim that "story" is being treated as a dirty word.


Well, this is 100% what I mean by treating "story" as a naughty word. It elicits these canned responses that are completely unrelatable. The number of people who tell a story about a game they played the night before is not zero, but it is a very low percentage. Almost no one does that. On the other hand, it's kind of daft, obtuse, even straight up ignorant this idea that stories are not a concern to participants.

Gygaxian tables of random adventure.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM


The thing is, story is a concern to plenty of participants. They often judge a session or an adventure or a campaign on the basis of whether or not it told or is presently (not in past tense but in real time, during actual play) telling a good story. And whether or not a course of action is interesting or would make a good story is certainly one of the possible motivations a player can have when deciding what to do next. It's like jury nullification. In many places it's against the law. But at the end of the day, it's next to impossible to prove what a juror's actual reason was for voting to acquit. So functionally it's always and everywhere fair game no matter how the law might protest. Same here. Story as a driving force during actual play is always on the table, no matter how much people in certain camps might want to deny it. Not that it's every player who's doing this. Maybe not even the majority, but at the very least a very large minority. But at most it could also be the lionshare of gamers who are doing it. It would be a humble claim to say anywhere between 40% and 80% of participants are concerned with story during actual play.

But as for those who actually tell a story about the game they played the night before? This isn't something that happens a lot. Even if this were standard practice, done 100% of the time at 100% of tables everywhere, assuming an average group size of 4, 1 person doing it sets as the upper limit 25% of gamers do it. But realistically, it's probably fewer than 2%. I'll grant as high as 5% to be generous for the sake of argument.

So you're talking somewhere between 12:1 and 30:1 ratio for gamers who care about story in the moment versus gamers who care about story next day.

And yet your response is to dismiss the 12-30 while tossing a cookie to the 1.

This is not how you have a serious conversation about the topic. This is how you shut down serious conversation. You can say it's not a dirty word all you want, but you are responding as if it is a dirty word. Your response is 100% spot on what I had in mind when I made the claim that "story" is being treated as a dirty word.


Well, this is 100% what I mean by treating "story" as a naughty word. It elicits these canned responses that are completely unrelatable. The number of people who tell a story about a game they played the night before is not zero, but it is a very low percentage. Almost no one does that. On the other hand, it's kind of daft, obtuse, even straight up ignorant this idea that stories are not a concern to participants.

So you are saying that a bunch of nerds getting together and talking about stuff that happened in their games almost never happens? Are you serious? Go into a game store or any con and that is everywhere. Every game played creates a story and whole lot of players want to talk about it to other gamers who were not there when it happened. Its lke talking to someone about a book you read or a movie you saw except this is for gamer nerds.

If you are thinking of what would make for a good story when supposedly role playing then you are not role playing. Imagine telling your boss to fuck off because you think getting fired would be good for your story. Does that make any sense? A character in an imagined world interacts and reacts to situations much like we do in our lives. If you are sitting around with a group of players collectively working to tell a story then its a story game. Why do you have a problem with that distinction? I don't think story game is a dirty word any more than a tabletop wargame is. Do you think different game types are non existent? Are board, card, and rpgs all the same thing?

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
The thing is, story is a concern to plenty of participants. They often judge a session or an adventure or a campaign on the basis of whether or not it told or is presently (not in past tense but in real time, during actual play) telling a good story.

My experience is that the vast majority of tabletop roleplayers care more about doing something interesting as their characters.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
Story as a driving force during actual play is always on the table, no matter how much people in certain camps might want to deny it.

In my experience, players thinking in terms of story are a niche. Most players want to do exciting things as a character they want to play. They won't care if the Temple of Death doesn't make sense narratively if you dig into it or winds up a result of a predictable railroad if the Temple of Death is exciting to play out as their characters.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
But as for those who actually tell a story about the game they played the night before? This isn't something that happens a lot.

You are right it something that doesn't happen a lot because story creation was never the point. Just like folk telling a story about going white water rafting doesn't happen a lot.

You are missing the point being made here. Most hobbyists don't play tabletop RPGs for the story, they play for the experience. Arneson and Gygax found an effective way of allowing gamers to take trips to other places and times and EXPERIENCE interesting adventures. A structure that has been successfully adapted to cover hundreds of settings and situations by others.

It was only later that folks got the idea of using games as a structure for collaborative storytelling.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
This is not how you have a serious conversation about the topic. This is how you shut down serious conversation. You can say it's not a dirty word all you want, but you are responding as if it is a dirty word. Your response is 100% spot on what I had in mind when I made the claim that "story" is being treated as a dirty word.

This is because creating a story is the exact opposite of creating an experience.

Or to put it another way story games are about the group collaborating to create a story about a group of characters. While tabletop roleplaying are about the group experiencing a setting as characters having adventures. Not the same goal at all.

What you have to do for the two different focuses are also at odds with each other. Participating in storygames means that you have to metagame. The only way they work, if the participants consider how everything they do fits in the narrative being created including acting on the knowledge that the players knows that the characters don't.

Doing this in a tabletop roleplaying game is considered cheating in fact one of the few things that are considered cheating. In tabletop roleplaying the only consideration is "What can I do as my character in the setting given the circumstance?" For the referee of a tabletop RPG campaign, their job is to bring the setting to life and adjudicate what the players try to do as their character.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
Well, this is 100% what I mean by treating "story" as a naughty word. It elicits these canned responses that are completely unrelatable. The number of people who tell a story about a game they played the night before is not zero, but it is a very low percentage. Almost no one does that. On the other hand, it's kind of daft, obtuse, even straight up ignorant this idea that stories are not a concern to participants.

Your arguments are no better. You latch on to that one point failing to understand Exploderwizards overall point. Trying to refute a thesis he didn't make.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 16, 2023, 01:23:42 PM
It intends to be Oceans Eleven, it comes off as Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

It sounds like you are using Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure as a negative but that's not possible for such a brilliant perfect movie.

Quote from: estar on July 17, 2023, 03:26:20 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
The thing is, story is a concern to plenty of participants. They often judge a session or an adventure or a campaign on the basis of whether or not it told or is presently (not in past tense but in real time, during actual play) telling a good story.

My experience is that the vast majority of tabletop roleplayers care more about doing something interesting as their characters.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
Story as a driving force during actual play is always on the table, no matter how much people in certain camps might want to deny it.

In my experience, players thinking in terms of story are a niche. Most players want to do exciting things as a character they want to play. They won't care if the Temple of Death doesn't make sense narratively if you dig into it or winds up a result of a predictable railroad if the Temple of Death is exciting to play out as their characters.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
But as for those who actually tell a story about the game they played the night before? This isn't something that happens a lot.

You are right it something that doesn't happen a lot because story creation was never the point. Just like folk telling a story about going white water rafting doesn't happen a lot.

You are missing the point being made here. Most hobbyists don't play tabletop RPGs for the story, they play for the experience. Arneson and Gygax found an effective way of allowing gamers to take trips to other places and times and EXPERIENCE interesting adventures. A structure that has been successfully adapted to cover hundreds of settings and situations by others.

It was only later that folks got the idea of using games as a structure for collaborative storytelling.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
This is not how you have a serious conversation about the topic. This is how you shut down serious conversation. You can say it's not a dirty word all you want, but you are responding as if it is a dirty word. Your response is 100% spot on what I had in mind when I made the claim that "story" is being treated as a dirty word.

This is because creating a story is the exact opposite of creating an experience.

Or to put it another way story games are about the group collaborating to create a story about a group of characters. While tabletop roleplaying are about the group experiencing a setting as characters having adventures. Not the same goal at all.

What you have to do for the two different focuses are also at odds with each other. Participating in storygames means that you have to metagame. The only way they work, if the participants consider how everything they do fits in the narrative being created including acting on the knowledge that the players knows that the characters don't.

Doing this in a tabletop roleplaying game is considered cheating in fact one of the few things that are considered cheating. In tabletop roleplaying the only consideration is "What can I do as my character in the setting given the circumstance?" For the referee of a tabletop RPG campaign, their job is to bring the setting to life and adjudicate what the players try to do as their character.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 17, 2023, 01:12:57 PM
Well, this is 100% what I mean by treating "story" as a naughty word. It elicits these canned responses that are completely unrelatable. The number of people who tell a story about a game they played the night before is not zero, but it is a very low percentage. Almost no one does that. On the other hand, it's kind of daft, obtuse, even straight up ignorant this idea that stories are not a concern to participants.

Your arguments are no better. You latch on to that one point failing to understand Exploderwizards overall point. Trying to refute a thesis he didn't make.

And making up numbers out of thin air as if they could possibly be relevant.  The vast majority of people I've ever played RPGs with have never had their characters act in a particular way "because it would make a better story."  The good roleplayers act the way their characters might in that situation.  The rest act the way that they would in that situation.  None have ever said, "Well, my character (or I) probably would have done X, but I'm going to do Y because it will make for a better story," nor have they ever indicated they even thought that way.  So his assertions are... implausible.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 17, 2023, 07:52:35 PM
The vast majority of people I've ever played RPGs with have never had their characters act in a particular way "because it would make a better story."  The good roleplayers act the way their characters might in that situation.  The rest act the way that they would in that situation.  None have ever said, "Well, my character (or I) probably would have done X, but I'm going to do Y because it will make for a better story," nor have they ever indicated they even thought that way.  So his assertions are... implausible.

Anecdotal, but it's funny because something much like this just happened to me. In the Conan game I was playing, the Stygian sorcerer that had already attacked the PCs twice, imprisoned them, and declared his intent to use them as human sacrifices, suddenly offered to ally himself with them and lead them to a treasure store. Deciding that my character already hated this guy,  I said no, and pointed out that this looked like an obvious trap. But the entire rest of the party was pushing hard to go along with him. Five minutes later, when he inevitably betrayed us and led us into a trap, I asked the rest of the players what they were thinking. One of them just said "Oh I knew he was going to betray us; I just thought that would be more interesting".

I was pretty miffed at first, but if I'm being honest, there have definitely been times when I made a less than rational choice in order to keep the game interesting. It might not be great roleplaying, but I suspect it's something we all do from time to time. I usually create characters that are less then totally rational to try and square the dissonance a bit.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 17, 2023, 02:52:27 PM
So you are saying that a bunch of nerds getting together and talking about stuff that happened in their games almost never happens?

Actually, no Cathy Newman. I did not say that at all. I said the exact opposite. So how about some basic respect by refraining from dishonest responses?

QuoteEvery game played creates a story and whole lot of players want to talk about it to other gamers who were not there when it happened.

Every game played creates a story. True.

A lot of players talk about it to other gamers? Talk about what, exactly? What is "it?"

A lot of players tell war stories in general? Sure. But does every single one of those games that made a story get talked about by a lot of players? Definitely not.

If your predicate is "every game" then I should be able to choose any one I like and check to see if there was a story told about it afterwards. And what if I find after doing that a bunch of times that only one player in four on average talks about that one game out of a dozen that was truly legendary? That would make a story-tell rate of 2.1%, less than the 5% threshold I generously offered and very close to the 2% I thought was probably more realistic. Exactly what I said.

QuoteIf you are thinking of what would make for a good story when supposedly role playing then you are not role playing.

Speak for yourself. Like most non-blondes, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

QuoteImagine telling your boss to fuck off because you think getting fired would be good for your story. Does that make any sense?

Many successful people literally do this. Sometimes it's even advice people take to heart as they get older. What will your obituary say about you? What will be on your tombstone? Will anyone want to read your biography?

This may not be your cup of tea. You could hate on Tony Robbins if that's your thing. That's 100% your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But seeing as how other people do live life this way, that some people do find happiness in the sense of purpose that comes with thinking about their life this way, that some people have been very successful by living this way, you are objectively incorrect to take the position that it doesn't make any sense. It may not make sense to you. But all that means is you lack the ability to understand it.

Which does not bode well for your roleplaying skills either. If you seriously cannot make sense out of how someone might have this perspective in life, how could you ever hope to do a good job roleplaying a character who believes him- or herself destined to complete some grand narrative arc? Even if that isn't your cup of tea and that's a character you would never play, the most fundamental skill of a roleplayer is empathy--the ability to understand a perspective other than your own.

So just understand, by insisting that makes no sense you're saying you're no good at doing the one very thing you insist RPGs are about doing. If anything, what's crazy is that is the position you want to take.

QuoteA character in an imagined world interacts and reacts to situations much like we do in our lives. If you are sitting around with a group of players collectively working to tell a story then its a story game. Why do you have a problem with that distinction?

For one, it's a false dichotomy. Fallacy of the excluded middle. And the middle you're excluding here is the exact domain I was talking about. And what that means is that in addition to your responses being dishonest, disrespectful, and straight up ignorant, the entire thing was one huge non-response with literally nothing of redeemable value. Why wouldn't I have a problem with that? I can respect an asshole who at least knows what they're talking about, stays on point, and brings value and insight to the table. That's not you.

Quote from: estar on July 17, 2023, 03:26:20 PM
My experience is that the vast majority of tabletop roleplayers care more about doing something interesting as their characters.

Great. So you agree with me. Because that's exactly what I said. Playing characters doing things that are interesting matters. 100% agreed.

QuoteIn my experience, players thinking in terms of story are a niche. Most players want to do exciting things as a character they want to play. They won't care if the Temple of Death doesn't make sense narratively if you dig into it or winds up a result of a predictable railroad if the Temple of Death is exciting to play out as their characters.

You're using a different meaning of story and narrative than I am. The one thing Cathy Newman and I agreed on in the above exchange is that every game produces a story. It is an inherent byproduct of the RPG. That said, the notion of "the Temple of death doesn't make sense narratively" itself doesn't make sense. Not for the meaning of narrative I'm using. It just is what it is.

QuoteYou are missing the point being made here. Most hobbyists don't play tabletop RPGs for the story, they play for the experience.

I haven't missed that point. I'm well aware you and Cathy Newman and countless others have made that claim. I haven't missed the point. The point is just dead from the neck up. I don't understand how why you can't distinguish my disagreeing with your boring robot wrongness from my missing your boring robot wrongness.

The story IS what is experienced.  If you say hobbyists play for the experience, that does not contradict not one iota of anything I have said or am saying. It's almost like you're forcing my position to be what you need it to be (including insisting I'm missing things I haven't missed) just to argue against it.

And there's no playing fast and loose with wording on my end. I frequently hear gamers refer to their experience as a story. Particularly when they enjoyed the experience of playing the game, they often say things like, "That was a great story." I've seen and have even taken polls about what people enjoy about the hobby, and story always ranks near the top. Usually #1 at around 40%. Informal. Sure. Not scientific. I agree. I don't offer it as scientific evidence. I offer it as examples of what gamers report experiencing.

QuoteIt was only later that folks got the idea of using games as a structure for collaborative storytelling.

Later on when, exactly?

Quote from: 1E DMG ForewardBut, as all DM's know, the rewards are great — an endless challenge to the imagination and intellect, an enjoyable pastime to fill many hours with fantastic and often unpredictable happenings, and an opportunity to watch a story unfold and a grand idea to grow and flourish.

We've always known that what we were doing was, in part, a sort of collaborative story.

Now much later on after that, yeah, a bunch of wierdos hijacked the word "story" and slapped a bunch of appendages on it that force it to be something different than what roleplaying has always been. Something to justify new rules, I suppose. This is despite the fact that these meanings of terms like 'story" and "narrative" match neither the meanings used in casual, colloquial speech, nor the meanings in the academic study of narratology. It's just weirdos babbling nonsense.

And you want to know what the worst part is? The reactionaries just up and ceded that linguistic ground to the weirdos.

So serious question to you. Why do you bend the knee by insisting these words mean the things the weirdos insist they mean? Why do you insist on attaching those appendages, which I can say with 100% certainty were neither intended nor implied in anything I've ever written, commented, posted, etc, Why are you attributing those meanings to me?

QuoteThis is because creating a story is the exact opposite of creating an experience.

False. Stories are created in parallel with the experience, automatically, even without conscious effort. They're there, and you can't make them not be there no matter how you try.

QuoteOr to put it another way story games are about the group collaborating to create a story about a group of characters. While tabletop roleplaying are about the group experiencing a setting as characters having adventures. Not the same goal at all.

What you have to do for the two different focuses are also at odds with each other.

Just so your clear I haven't missed this boring robot wrongness. I literally just don't give a shit about story games and this is entirely non-responsible and comes off a little condescending as any unwelcome lecture would because I haven't said peep about story games here other than I'm not sure if I can take the story game crowd as seriously interested in story as their highest aim. The fact that I vehemently disagree that story games make good stories should be all the clarification needed to understand when I say story, it has nothing to do with story games, it's almost the total opposite.

QuoteParticipating in storygames means that you have to metagame. The only way they work, if the participants consider how everything they do fits in the narrative being created including acting on the knowledge that the players knows that the characters don't. Doing this in a tabletop roleplaying game is considered cheating in fact one of the few things that are considered cheating.

I'm not sure this is correct at all.

How are you defining metagame? Is it anything out of character? Is rolling up your character metagaming? Is choosing your class on the basis of what you anticipate will be most interesting to play, as opposed to what is most obviously implied by your scores metagaming? Is fleshing out appearance and personality characteristics on the basis of what sort of character you'd like to see in a story metagaming?

How about updating your character as you play. Let's say the character is betrayed by Lord Fancypants. Is updating your character with "hatred of Lord Fancypants" metagaming? I mean maybe not if it seems like the logical consequence of the Fancypants Screwjob. What if the character is snubbed by Princess Cherry? And a reasonable consequence of that might be adding a new motive to your character, "proving myself to win her heart," but another reasonable consequence might also be "fuck that bitch." Is the act of choosing which of those to update your character with metagaming?

How about mechanical stuff. Do I stay a fighter or do I switch classes to thief in hopes of someday being a Bard? Is that metagaming? And if so, is it still metagaming if I switch classes to thief because my character's been hanging out with a bad crowd lately? How about if I switch classes to thief because I want to eventually become a bard but I say it's to reflect the fact that my character's been hanging out with a bad crowd lately? Is that metagaming? Is it metagaming that I'm hanging out with a bad crowd in the firstplace? Sure. My character never wore a white hat, so to speak. Sure, the opportunity presented itself. Sure, we have a pretty strong truce with these guys. Sure, we've helped each other in the past. Sure, it makes sense to. But all the while, I was also thinking ahead to when I want to justify changing my class to a thief because, who knows, maybe one day I might be a bard. Is that metagaming?

I'm just curious which of these perfectly normal things in a tabletop RPG that gamers do all the time in D&D are considered metagaming? And of those that are considered metagaming, are they really all considered cheating? Because my sense here is you're casting an overly broad net with the term "metagame" lumping in together both things that we all would agree are cheating with perfectly non-cheating things that happen all the time in a roleplaying game, almost by necessity.

QuoteIn tabletop roleplaying the only consideration is "What can I do as my character in the setting given the circumstance?" For the referee of a tabletop RPG campaign, their job is to bring the setting to life and adjudicate what the players try to do as their character.

Eh.... I don't think that's quite right. I mean for one thing, there might be a concealed door the player doesn't know about that is technically an option, a thing he can do, a direction he can go, but as he isn't aware of it, it's not affecting the game at all in this moment. It's a thing he can do that does not matter at this time. For that matter, if you have highly inventive players, they often discover new things that they can do that the GM hadn't previously thought of and the rules hadn't anticipated. So they also aren't necessarily bound by what we think they can do in a given circumstance.

But even if I grant you this, what happens next? Well, nothing until either the player decides on doing one of those things, or one of those things are decided for him due to inaction. I would say the more accurate statement is the consideration is "What does the character do?" And that's a great question. If we've already got this list of options, how does the player go about choosing among them?


RP-bot would probably say something like, "I'll choose whatever it is my character would choose!" Okay. But that needs to be defined. The act of roleplaying requires making out-of-character decisions ABOUT the character to set the parameters to play the character. And if you can look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face you honestly believe that everything that could ever potentially happen to that character was foreseen and the character's response painstakingly defined in advance, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

In the good ol' days, we used to make these OOC decisions so frequently and seamlessly while playing our characters, nobody really bothered to notice. "Metagaming" was only invoked for things like when we memorized a good chunk of the monster manual and shaped our decisions and tactics accordingly.

And while we may have had a lot of negative feelings and things to say about the player who just got bored and decided to burn down the tavern, we never would have called that metagaming or insinuated it was cheating, that he had an OOC motive. We came down on it to the degree it was ruining other people's fun. Deciding to explore the moat house with no real in-character reason just because the players wanted to do something fun and interesting was also never considered metagaming. The fact that used to be normal made adventures come together a lot easier than if players all had lisps, saying, "Excuse me, excuse me, what's my motive?" "Oh no, Dandi the Fabulous would never agree to Old Ben's quest, he/they has a casserole in the oven."

[/quote] Your arguments are no better. You latch on to that one point failing to understand Exploderwizards overall point. Trying to refute a thesis he didn't make. [/quote]

You've made pretty clear that you never understood my argument to begin with, so you're in no position at all to render that judgement. When faced with boring robot wrongness, it does not mean I missed it if I ignored it. Maybe I just thought boring robot wrongness was boring. It does not mean I missed it if I dismissed it. I might have found it disrespectful to roll out a pre-canned argument rather than actually having a two-way dialog, and so maybe I just found boring robot wrongness too robotic. And if I didn't stop and immediately say "Gee, I never really thought of it that way! I guess that changes everything" then maybe it's just because I thought the boring robot wrongness was wrong.

But if you still think I'm missing the point? Fine. I call. Let's see your cards. Name that point I'm missing. Don't bury it within boring robot wrongness. Just state it directly without some stupid preamble or condescending lecture no one asked for. Don't obscure it with weirdo jargon. Don't use umbrella terms that mixes the real meat of the issue with rhetorical garbage. And then prove I'm missing it by comparing and contrasting that point to an ACCURATE version of my position. Not the version you want to pretend I'm holding. You don't have to put words in my mouth. I'm right here and can speak up for myself.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 17, 2023, 07:52:35 PM
And making up numbers out of thin air as if they could possibly be relevant.  The vast majority of people I've ever played RPGs with have never had their characters act in a particular way "because it would make a better story."  The good roleplayers act the way their characters might in that situation.  The rest act the way that they would in that situation.  None have ever said, "Well, my character (or I) probably would have done X, but I'm going to do Y because it will make for a better story," nor have they ever indicated they even thought that way.  So his assertions are... implausible.

.
For all you know, one of your players rubbed their junk all over your dice when you got up to go to the bathroom. Whether they did or didn't, you would believe it never happened. You don't know what you don't know. You not knowing it has no bearing on the truth value.

Outside of actual Storygaming, I don't think I've ever seen RPG players go into author stance "to make a better story". The idea that this is ubiquitous I find highly questionable at best. IME players are either thinking in actor stance/immersed in character, or in pawn stance/how best to win the game. Ideally and most commonly a mix of both, thinking in character about how to achieve the character's objectives.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 21, 2023, 02:06:47 PMquick and simple character generation, along with ease of prep of homebrew material for play.

It's this, along with depth of play.

I work as a trainer, and my hobby is rpgs. In both cases I'm big on accessibility. I want anyone to be able to come in and get under the barbell and start squatting, or at the game table and start playing, all within about 15 minutes of showing up. Most modern training methods or games don't offer that.

And those which do offer it, don't offer the depth of play. Compare tic-tac-toe and chess - both have very simple rules so that anyone can start play very quickly, but only one gives you depth, so that you can be literally years playing it and getting better. Similarly many other games and earlier editions of D&D, Traveller and so on.

Accessibility plus depth of play are a powerful and unusual combination.

Quote from: S'mon on July 18, 2023, 02:42:50 AM
Outside of actual Storygaming, I don't think I've ever seen RPG players go into author stance "to make a better story". The idea that this is ubiquitous I find highly questionable at best. IME players are either thinking in actor stance/immersed in character, or in pawn stance/how best to win the game. Ideally and most commonly a mix of both, thinking in character about how to achieve the character's objectives.

Wait what? You mean like actually role playing? Don't believe you. Mr insane in the membrane would have us believe that not only do people play games with a narrative focus, but they actually really live their REAL LIVES like that. "Well your honor my neighbor has been an annoying ass for years. I thought feeding him into a woodchipper would be great for my story. No your honor prison doesn't fit my narrative."

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM

Quote from: estar on July 17, 2023, 03:26:20 PM
My experience is that the vast majority of tabletop roleplayers care more about doing something interesting as their characters.

Great. So you agree with me. Because that's exactly what I said. Playing characters doing things that are interesting matters. 100% agreed.

Telling a story about a white water rafting trip is not the same as doing a white water trip. Likewise using a game to tell a story about a dungeon adventuring is not the same as using a game to do a dungeon adventure.

I choose "doing interesting things" to highlight the difference between storygames and tabletop RPGs. If you can't distinguish between telling and doing then there is little point to this debate.

QuoteIn my experience, players thinking in terms of story are a niche. Most players want to do exciting things as a character they want to play. They won't care if the Temple of Death doesn't make sense narratively if you dig into it or winds up a result of a predictable railroad if the Temple of Death is exciting to play out as their characters.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM
You're using a different meaning of story and narrative than I am.

How about we stick to the dictionary definition instead of whatever jargon meaning you are attributing the use of story, fiction, and narrative? 

Narrative - a spoken or written account of connected events; a story.
Story - an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. Or an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.
Fiction - literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.

If you mean something different than any of these then spell it out. It is something I try to do in my replies I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM
The one thing Cathy Newman and I agreed on in the above exchange is that every game produces a story. It is an inherent byproduct of the RPG. That said, the notion of "the Temple of death doesn't make sense narratively" itself doesn't make sense. Not for the meaning of narrative I'm using. It just is what it is.

When something doesn't make sense in an account of connected events it is because it lacks any connection to previous events. Since I am not familiar with the jargon you use I can speak about your definition of narrative. Although if you spell it out I will be glad to comment on it.

As for my Temple of Death I have known several referees over the years just threw something out there because they thought it would be something interesting for the group to adventure in. More rarely sometimes the group as a whole decides to throw something into the campaign because it sounds interesting. But in terms of an account of connected events, it just appears out of nowhere.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM

QuoteYou are missing the point being made here. Most hobbyists don't play tabletop RPGs for the story, they play for the experience.

I haven't missed that point. I'm well aware you and Cathy Newman and countless others have made that claim. I haven't missed the point. The point is just dead from the neck up. I don't understand how why you can't distinguish my disagreeing with your boring robot wrongness from my missing your boring robot wrongness.

The story IS what is experienced.  If you say hobbyists play for the experience, that does not contradict not one iota of anything I have said or am saying. It's almost like you're forcing my position to be what you need it to be (including insisting I'm missing things I haven't missed) just to argue against it.

An account of imaginary events (story) can only happen after the events occur not during. You are trying to obfuscate the facts by using jargon. Spell out what you mean by story as just I did.

The point of playing a storygame campaign is to create a story collaboratively. There is no mystery as to where the story will go only how it will be resolved. Blades in the Dark campaigns are explicitly designed to play out like a heist movie a well-known and well-understood trope. The same with other types of storygames It is fun but is a different type of fun then what tabletop roleplaying focuses on.

Tabletop roleplaying in contrast focuses on experiencing a setting. A dungeon, city, wilderness, being a four color superhero, travelling the starlanes,  and so on. Nobody in the group knows how things will unfold either broadly in terms of trope and genre, or specifically.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM
And there's no playing fast and loose with wording on my end. I frequently hear gamers refer to their experience as a story. Particularly when they enjoyed the experience of playing the game, they often say things like, "That was a great story." I've seen and have even taken polls about what people enjoy about the hobby, and story always ranks near the top. Usually #1 at around 40%. Informal. Sure. Not scientific. I agree. I don't offer it as scientific evidence. I offer it as examples of what gamers report experiencing.

In my life things that happened that make for great stories. I have experienced things that in hindsight felt like what happened in a show or movie I saw. The same thing happens with tabletop roleplaying. So yes, I also heard hobbyists speak of their experience after a session or campaign feeling they were in a story. However they were not acting like storytellers during the session, they were roleplaying their characters either responding to circumstances or being proactive.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM

QuoteIt was only later that folks got the idea of using games as a structure for collaborative storytelling.

Later on when, exactly?

Starting in the late 80s but picking up steam in the early 90s. For example Whimsy Cards for Ars Magica came out in 1987.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM
Now much later on after that, yeah, a bunch of wierdos hijacked the word "story" and slapped a bunch of appendages on it that force it to be something different than what roleplaying has always been. Something to justify new rules, I suppose. This is despite the fact that these meanings of terms like 'story" and "narrative" match neither the meanings used in casual, colloquial speech, nor the meanings in the academic study of narratology. It's just weirdos babbling nonsense.

I use the definitions found in the Oxford and Webster dictionaries. I am pretty sure that 1E DM Forward and ExploderWizards are using those terms in the same way. The only other definitions I encountered are jargon definitions used by the storygaming community.

As for narratology, I looked up what various university had to say and found this.
https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/narratology/

Then this

QuoteDiscourse and Story:
"Story" refers to the actual chronology of events in a narrative; discourse refers to the manipulation of that story in the presentation of the narrative. These terms refer, then, to the basic structure of all narrative form. Story refers, in most cases, only to what has to be reconstructed from a narrative; the chronological sequence of events as they actually occurred in the time-space (or diegetic) universe of the narrative being read. The closest a film narrative ever comes to pure story is in what is termed "real time." In literature, it's even harder to present material in real time. One example occurs at the end of the Odyssey (Book XXIII, pages 467-68); Odysseus here presents the story of his adventures to Penelope in almost pure "story" form, that is, in the chronological order of occurence. Stories are rarely recounted in this fashion, however. So, for example, in the Odyssey, we do not begin at the chronological start of the story but in medias res, when Odysseus is about to be freed from the isle of Calypso (which actually occurs nearly at the end of the chronological story which Odysseus relates to Penelope on p. 467). Discourse also refers to all the material an author adds to a story: similes, metaphors, verse or prose, etc.. In film, such manipulations are extended to include framing, cutting, camera movement, camera angles, music, etc..

I get what they are trying to do here but in doing so distort the meaning of story compared to how most people use it. Which I feel is reflected by the dictionary definitions I gave above. That a narrative is an account of a sequence of events. While a story is about describing those events generally in some entertaining way.

The above definition from narratology incorrectly conflates story with narrative. Especially when it talks about how film can be only a pure story if shot in real-time. I can see how the conversation is getting confusing as you are continually conflating story with narrative yourself. 

To be clear a sequence of events is being created as a tabletop roleplaying campaign is being played. And after the campaign, an account can be made of what happened thus creating a narrative. But it is only then it is available to be described as a story.

You are complaining about people redefining terms while falling into the same trap of defending terms yourself. The way to get out of the trap is to quit assuming people are using these terms the same way you are and spell it out like I just did.

It's the same appeal as NuSchool in general for me: quick to play & easy to prep (or improvise). PbtA, Blades in the Dark, The Black Hack, Trophy, Mothership, etc. all fall in this category and is the only stuff my group(s) play these days.

Actually, this "pick-up and play" quality seems like a tendency in games for some time now, videogames and boardgames included. As technology and game design practices advance, people seem less and less tolerant towards unnecessary complexity.

Quote from: Itachi on July 18, 2023, 11:14:23 AM
It's the same appeal as NuSchool in general for me: quick to play & easy to prep (or improvise). PbtA, Blades in the Dark, The Black Hack, Trophy, Mothership, etc. all fall in this category and is the only stuff my group(s) play these days.

Actually, this "pick-up and play" quality seems like a tendency in games for some time now, videogames and boardgames included. As technology and game design practices advance, people seem less and less tolerant towards unnecessary complexity.

Years ago I had more time for complex mechanics. These days I appreciate the faster startup that something like B/X offers. It is also interesting that some younger players would turn their nose up at trying B/X but are happy to give OSE a a try. It makes me laugh.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 18, 2023, 11:32:30 AM
Years ago I had more time for complex mechanics. These days I appreciate the faster startup that something like B/X offers. It is also interesting that some younger players would turn their nose up at trying B/X but are happy to give OSE a a try. It makes me laugh.

The presentation of OSE is way better.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 11:46:30 AM
The presentation of OSE is way better.

I like OSE quite a bit. Bought the advanced 2 volume set, but I wouldn't objectively say that. I see it more as being viewed through the lens of newness. Its the same thing with movie re-makes. The re-make is always better than the original to the young.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 18, 2023, 02:07:34 PM

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 11:46:30 AM
The presentation of OSE is way better.

I like OSE quite a bit. Bought the advanced 2 volume set, but I wouldn't objectively say that. I see it more as being viewed through the lens of newness. Its the same thing with movie re-makes. The re-make is always better than the original to the young.

I found it easier to look up stuff and make stuff using OSE than the original. The dozen or so people I know who I talked OSE with seem to feel the same way.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 02:39:00 PM
I found it easier to look up stuff and make stuff using OSE than the original. The dozen or so people I know who I talked OSE with seem to feel the same way.

It's a better layout, but lacks flavor. The second part is important if you have zero experience in RPGs, not so much when this is all old hat.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM
If your predicate is "every game" then I should be able to choose any one I like and check to see if there was a story told about it afterwards. And what if I find after doing that a bunch of times that only one player in four on average talks about that one game out of a dozen that was truly legendary? That would make a story-tell rate of 2.1%, less than the 5% threshold I generously offered and very close to the 2% I thought was probably more realistic. Exactly what I said.

Other commenters have pointed out how wrong you are in how many different ways, but I wanted to dig into this point a little more, where you seem to be offering data. Is there support for this number? Is it generalised personal experience? anecdote? Or are you just making it up?

In my *direct* experience the number is about 80%. (4 gamers in my family, all play in different groups outside the family, 3 of the four are _always_ sharing summaries and the fourth occasionally. My teenager still demands a before-school summary the morning after he knows I had a session.)

Quote from: Naburimannu on July 20, 2023, 06:34:44 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 18, 2023, 12:42:14 AM
If your predicate is "every game" then I should be able to choose any one I like and check to see if there was a story told about it afterwards. And what if I find after doing that a bunch of times that only one player in four on average talks about that one game out of a dozen that was truly legendary? That would make a story-tell rate of 2.1%, less than the 5% threshold I generously offered and very close to the 2% I thought was probably more realistic. Exactly what I said.

Other commenters have pointed out how wrong you are in how many different ways, but I wanted to dig into this point a little more, where you seem to be offering data. Is there support for this number? Is it generalised personal experience? anecdote? Or are you just making it up?

In my *direct* experience the number is about 80%. (4 gamers in my family, all play in different groups outside the family, 3 of the four are _always_ sharing summaries and the fourth occasionally. My teenager still demands a before-school summary the morning after he knows I had a session.)

I sort of glossed over these epic poems so I missed this point; but to backup what you're saying, 100% of the people I have gamed with "tell stories" about crap that happened in the games previously. We still talk about stuff from 20+ years ago. And not one storygame was played.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 18, 2023, 03:21:44 AM


I work as a trainer, and my hobby is rpgs. In both cases I'm big on accessibility. I want anyone to be able to come in and get under the barbell and start squatting, or at the game table and start playing, all within about 15 minutes of showing up. Most modern training methods or games don't offer that.

With a ready made character getting someone playing within 15 minutes is easy for most games I'd think.  5 minutes of describing the character and basic abilities and 10 minutes of the person observing the game being played.  What more is there to get someone going???

Quote from: Scooter on July 20, 2023, 12:20:54 PM

With a ready made character getting someone playing within 15 minutes is easy for most games I'd think.  5 minutes of describing the character and basic abilities and 10 minutes of the person observing the game being played.  What more is there to get someone going???

A ready made character is the issue. Yeah you can get going really fast with pre-gens. If you want to get going in under 30 minutes as a brand new player AND create your own character, it just isn't going to happen with WOTC D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 20, 2023, 12:36:55 PM
A ready made character is the issue. Yeah you can get going really fast with pre-gens. If you want to get going in under 30 minutes as a brand new player AND create your own character, it just isn't going to happen with WOTC D&D.

Why is it an "issue"?  For a new players you want them to start with what is simple to run for that game at the beginning. Later they can generate a character that is what they want and on their own time.  So, I don't get what the actual problem is.

Quote from: Scooter on July 20, 2023, 12:54:31 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 20, 2023, 12:36:55 PM
A ready made character is the issue. Yeah you can get going really fast with pre-gens. If you want to get going in under 30 minutes as a brand new player AND create your own character, it just isn't going to happen with WOTC D&D.

Why is it an "issue"?  For a new players you want them to start with what is simple to run for that game at the beginning. Later they can generate a character that is what they want and on their own time.  So, I don't get what the actual problem is.

Not sure if this is what they mean, but for me at least, the entire point of RPGs is getting to create my own character. There's also the whole "playing in a simulated world thing" and the like, but part of the reason I even care about that is because presumably I'd be playing my own character in that world. Pregens, IMO bypass the point of the game for me. There's little reason for me to get invested with a pregen.

I still tend prefer WotC era D&D for making my own characters, though. Basic D&D in particular is so..."basic" there's not enough customization in there for me to care about my character, other than getting lucky during character creation and rolling ridiculous stats (which has its own type of issues).

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 20, 2023, 05:09:28 PM
Not sure if this is what they mean, but for me at least, the entire point of RPGs is getting to create my own character.

Then once you know how to play the NEW game (from learning how via a simple to play pre-gen) make your own.  Why would that not be able to happen? 

Quote from: Scooter on July 20, 2023, 12:20:54 PMWith a ready made character getting someone playing within 15 minutes is easy for most games I'd think. 

Agreed. But two points. Firstly, with more complex systems the player won't always understand everything that's on the sheet. Secondly, a player who creates their own character (in whatever system) has a greater sense of investment in the game, and is more likely to show up for a second session.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 20, 2023, 09:22:45 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 20, 2023, 12:20:54 PMWith a ready made character getting someone playing within 15 minutes is easy for most games I'd think. 

Agreed. But two points. Firstly, with more complex systems the player won't always understand everything that's on the sheet. Secondly, a player who creates their own character (in whatever system) has a greater sense of investment in the game, and is more likely to show up for a second session.

Yeah, it's about personal investment. Once you put time into creating your own character you have skin in the game. If you don't keep playing them all that effort will be wasted. Creating a character also forces you to think about your character and (to an extend) their place in the game world, which helps build a stronger connection to them than just being handed a premade character you might not even like. Using pregens as an introduction to new players sort of robs them of that experience.

Pregens could still work, I suppose. But I see them more as something to have handy in case random people show up and there's no time create characters, or for conventions and such.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 20, 2023, 09:22:45 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 20, 2023, 12:20:54 PMWith a ready made character getting someone playing within 15 minutes is easy for most games I'd think. 

Agreed. But two points. Firstly, with more complex systems the player won't always understand everything that's on the sheet. Secondly, a player who creates their own character (in whatever system) has a greater sense of investment in the game, and is more likely to show up for a second session.

You aren't following the thread: 1) There is no need to understand EVERYTHING the first session.  2) This is about getting a new person playing within 15 minutes.

Don't create straw man arguments in reply to my points.

Got to agree with Scooter here.  There are different things that capture players' interests.  Some players are really into the "building" of the character.  I have a few of those in my home group.  But that tends to come after they've already caught the RPG bug.  Many of the new players in my school RPG club are more interested in the fantasy and roleplaying aspect.  If it took thirty or forty-five minutes for them to get started in the game, they'd be out after the first week.  Most of those players get captured by the roleplay, so you want to get them playing as quickly as possible.  Pregens are far more likely to sell the game than building a character... especially in systems like Pathfinder or 3e...

This thread made me remember the "early days" (1977).  Our DM kept a few basic characters on hand.  Because sometimes one of the players would bring an interested person to the game.  Back then no one knew about D&D.  So our DM would give the player who brought the person the char sheet and have him teach the new player while the game was going.  Since it was a role playing game that was easy because you start by asking the new player what they want their PC to do in reaction to what is happening in the game; you just help them do it. 

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 20, 2023, 09:22:45 PM
Agreed. But two points. Firstly, with more complex systems the player won't always understand everything that's on the sheet. Secondly, a player who creates their own character (in whatever system) has a greater sense of investment in the game, and is more likely to show up for a second session.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 21, 2023, 04:44:39 PMPregens are far more likely to sell the game than building a character... especially in systems like Pathfinder or 3e...

So two things are going on here, and both are true. It's true that more complex games work better with pregens (HERO comes to mind...the game itself is actually pretty fucking easy when you get down to brass tacks, but making a character is a game unto itself), while it's also true that players will tend to be more interested in games they created a character for.

Which is why most of us who are still in this hobby after years and years probably started with something like Mentzer D&D or whatever, got invested in RPGs as a whole, then moved on to systems we thought were better and then gained system mastery. Creating that first character yourself is A LOT different than simply being handed a character sheet; yeah, the second one will pique your interest, but you really need the first one as well to get the ball rolling so to speak. Hand-holding when teaching someone a new game is nothing new, but eventually you gotta take the training wheels off to see if they're legitimately interested, or just merely kinda sorta into it and will casually play but yeah who cares. There's nothing wrong with the second kind of player whatsoever, but it's a wide gap between that and the addicts like anyone posting on this board.

That said, I still prefer to do character generation even for newbies simply because it teaches them stuff about the game you cannot get strictly through play.

The issue with more complex systems as a whole is that there are just so many more mechanics on the players side. Hand someone a B/X pregen fighter and all they need to do is describe what they want to do and the DM handles it.

Contrast to a 3.5 pregen fighter:

"OK FNG it's your turn, what do you want to do?'

" I wanna do what Joe just did on his turn!"

" Sorry you can't do that. You don't have that feat."

" Can I get that feat? I see I have a couple feats on my sheet can I just swap out one for that one?'

" Um not really. You don't have the pre-reqs for that. Your Dex is only 11"

" So when can I get a higher DEX?"

" To qualify for that feat you would need to put 2 points in it so not until level 8."

" Wow ok, then I can get it?"

" Not exactly there are other feats you have to take first. Your fighter isn't built like that."

Other players " zzzzzzzzzz"

So pre gens are not exactly a cure all for mechanical bloat.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 21, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
So pre gens are not exactly a cure all for mechanical bloat.

The real problem of mechanical bloat is not being able to do something unless its on the character sheet, instead of being able to do something better because its on the character sheet. Free form vs button pushing, "What do you do?" vs "What ability do you activate?"

Quote from: Wisithir on July 21, 2023, 07:39:56 PM
The real problem of mechanical bloat is not being able to do something unless its on the character sheet, instead of being able to do something better because its on the character sheet. Free form vs button pushing, "What do you do?" vs "What ability do you activate?"

Which is why I like C&C.  Each class has their extraordinary abilities that cannot be used unless your class has them listed but the "skills" are free form.  Tied to attributes. Which are either a Prime or non-prime for your character.   So if you want to try something you tell the GM and he decides what attribute would be used to pull it off and assigns a difficulty.  The player then rolls die and away you go. You character isn't in a rule straight-jacket like in D&D or PF

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 21, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
The issue with more complex systems as a whole is that there are just so many more mechanics on the players side. Hand someone a B/X pregen fighter and all they need to do is describe what they want to do and the DM handles it.

Contrast to a 3.5 pregen fighter:

"OK FNG it's your turn, what do you want to do?'

" I wanna do what Joe just did on his turn!"

" Sorry you can't do that. You don't have that feat."

" Can I get that feat? I see I have a couple feats on my sheet can I just swap out one for that one?'

" Um not really. You don't have the pre-reqs for that. Your Dex is only 11"

" So when can I get a higher DEX?"

" To qualify for that feat you would need to put 2 points in it so not until level 8."

" Wow ok, then I can get it?"

" Not exactly there are other feats you have to take first. Your fighter isn't built like that."

Other players " zzzzzzzzzz"

So pre gens are not exactly a cure all for mechanical bloat.

As opposed to: "You can't do that ever, because you don't have the right class and multi/dual classing isn't a thing (B/X) or you don't meet the racial or ability score requirements (AD&D)"?

Also, how often are actions being gated behind a feat even a thing? I know 3.X fucked up by making certain common combat options Feats, which is moronic. But that's a 3.X exclusive not found in any other game I'm aware of (other games only gate actual special abilities behind Feats/Advantages, if at all, which players shouldn't bitch that they don't have, and if they do, they'll bitch about not having class-specific stuff as well). And how often does this come up in actual play?

Plus B/X doesn't even have many of those combat options that I recall anyway and you have zero guarantee that the DM would allow or even know how to handle whatever it is you want to do. So it's not like handing it off to the DM isn't a magic cure all.

Quote from: Brad on July 21, 2023, 05:20:19 PM
That said, I still prefer to do character generation even for newbies simply because it teaches them stuff about the game you cannot get strictly through play.

True, game mechanics and procedure can be an effective terse form of communicating what the setting and campaign are like and what characters can do.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 21, 2023, 06:11:51 PM
The issue with more complex systems as a whole is that there are just so many more mechanics on the players side. Hand someone a B/X pregen fighter and all they need to do is describe what they want to do and the DM handles it.

Contrast to a 3.5 pregen fighter:

The problem I found with 3.X is that there is too much of a game built into a system. Because that there are elements that only make sense in terms of the game being played rather than as if you were imagining what you would do if you there in that moment as the character.

While GURPS has it issues with complexity, one of the strengths it has that the detail isn't arbitrary it reflect either the reality of how things work in life or reality of how thing were described in some fictional setting especially when it comes to magic and other fantastic abilities.

So all a novice player needs to know for a GURPS campaign is how things work in life or within that setting (for example Conan versus King Arthur versus Vampire the Masquerade). They can describe things as if they imagine they were there as character. The referee has the tools to translate into a series of rolls that make sense given what the players want to do. If something work better in life or the fictional setting then it will work better using the GURPS rules.

However, what it really boils down to is the referee's ability to translate what the players describe into a ruling and then rolling accordingly. This is why minimal systems can work perfectly fine in addition to detailed systems like GURPS. This is how I made OD&D in the form of my Majestic Fantasy RPG work for me for how I run my fantasy medieval setting.

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 22, 2023, 07:13:49 AM

As opposed to: "You can't do that ever, because you don't have the right class and multi/dual classing isn't a thing (B/X) or you don't meet the racial or ability score requirements (AD&D)"?

Also, how often are actions being gated behind a feat even a thing? I know 3.X fucked up by making certain common combat options Feats, which is moronic. But that's a 3.X exclusive not found in any other game I'm aware of (other games only gate actual special abilities behind Feats/Advantages, if at all, which players shouldn't bitch that they don't have, and if they do, they'll bitch about not having class-specific stuff as well). And how often does this come up in actual play?

Plus B/X doesn't even have many of those combat options that I recall anyway and you have zero guarantee that the DM would allow or even know how to handle whatever it is you want to do. So it's not like handing it off to the DM isn't a magic cure all.

Only? I won't even go into 4E, that would be too easy. Lets look at 5E. Feats are indeed an optional rule so I won't use those. Generallly you want the new player to start off with the simplist class to play, which in classic D&D is the fighter. In 5E the closest model of that is the champion achetype. Now lets contrast that with a player who may already be playing a fighter of the battle master archetype, a more complex fighter with both short rest and long rest abilities to manage. I am not going to spell out the example of play but it would be similar to 3.X

Now, regarding B/X or OD&D when using a pre-gen (which is our assumption here) there is no issue of qualifying. The already created character takes care of that. B/X and OD&D have as many combat options as the player can think of. The chance of success depends on what they want to do. This example assumes a new player joining a group with an experienced DM who knows how to run the game in both classic and newer D&D examples.

I like the classic game because you are engaging the setting and circumstances when deciding what to do, not a menu on a character sheet. In WOTC versions players barely take notice of the setting and just choose a menu option. Sadly in my current situation if I want to play classic D&D then I have to DM.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 22, 2023, 09:37:05 AM
I like the classic game because you are engaging the setting and circumstances when deciding what to do, not a menu on a character sheet. In WOTC versions players barely take notice of the setting and just choose a menu option. Sadly in my current situation if I want to play classic D&D then I have to DM.

Then play a modern version of D&D that isn't WotC

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 22, 2023, 09:37:05 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 22, 2023, 07:13:49 AM

As opposed to: "You can't do that ever, because you don't have the right class and multi/dual classing isn't a thing (B/X) or you don't meet the racial or ability score requirements (AD&D)"?

Also, how often are actions being gated behind a feat even a thing? I know 3.X fucked up by making certain common combat options Feats, which is moronic. But that's a 3.X exclusive not found in any other game I'm aware of (other games only gate actual special abilities behind Feats/Advantages, if at all, which players shouldn't bitch that they don't have, and if they do, they'll bitch about not having class-specific stuff as well). And how often does this come up in actual play?

Plus B/X doesn't even have many of those combat options that I recall anyway and you have zero guarantee that the DM would allow or even know how to handle whatever it is you want to do. So it's not like handing it off to the DM isn't a magic cure all.

Only? I won't even go into 4E, that would be too easy. Lets look at 5E. Feats are indeed an optional rule so I won't use those. Generallly you want the new player to start off with the simplist class to play, which in classic D&D is the fighter. In 5E the closest model of that is the champion achetype. Now lets contrast that with a player who may already be playing a fighter of the battle master archetype, a more complex fighter with both short rest and long rest abilities to manage. I am not going to spell out the example of play but it would be similar to 3.X

Now, regarding B/X or OD&D when using a pre-gen (which is our assumption here) there is no issue of qualifying. The already created character takes care of that. B/X and OD&D have as many combat options as the player can think of. The chance of success depends on what they want to do. This example assumes a new player joining a group with an experienced DM who knows how to run the game in both classic and newer D&D examples.

I'm not sure how this refutes my point. If anything it reinforces it, since I brought up exclusive class abilities as a counterpoint to characters not having certain feats. In either case you end up with characters not able to do certain stuff cuz they lack either the feats or class abilities. Now you're bringing up how 5e has subclasses with different abilities. That's what I was saying.

Class complexity is a different set of claims I'm not really disputing. But Feats or Classes gating certain abilities does not mean that pregens don't work (to the extend that they do). That just means that some players may want to do stuff their pregen or even their own characters might not be able to do, which is normal in TTRPGs.

QuoteB/X and OD&D have as many combat options as the player can think of.

And so do players in (almost) every other system (except 3.x since it stupidly gates certain combat options behind Feats, which is why I brought it up), if you're going by the notion that the DM can/has to make up how those options work for them to show up in the game. B/X and OD&D is not unique to DMs technically being able to make things up. You can do that in every game.

QuoteI like the classic game because you are engaging the setting and circumstances when deciding what to do, not a menu on a character sheet. In WOTC versions players barely take notice of the setting and just choose a menu option.

This is a player/GM issue, not a system issue. You can engage with the setting and circumstances and decide what to do in just about every TTRPG there is. Having more defined abilities does not prevent that, though, that still relies on player/GM creativity.

Quote from: S'mon on July 18, 2023, 02:42:50 AM
Outside of actual Storygaming, I don't think I've ever seen RPG players go into author stance "to make a better story". The idea that this is ubiquitous I find highly questionable at best. IME players are either thinking in actor stance/immersed in character, or in pawn stance/how best to win the game. Ideally and most commonly a mix of both, thinking in character about how to achieve the character's objectives.

I never said anything about going into author stance.

Quote from: estar on July 18, 2023, 10:02:48 AM
Telling a story about a white water rafting trip is not the same as doing a white water trip. Likewise using a game to tell a story about a dungeon adventuring is not the same as using a game to do a dungeon adventure.

I choose "doing interesting things" to highlight the difference between storygames and tabletop RPGs. If you can't distinguish between telling and doing then there is little point to this debate.

Let's see how this tests.

Boring? Check. I've seen this exact patronizing analogy more times than I care to count.
Robotic? Check. Pre-canned response that has nothing to do with anything here.
Wrong? Check. I've never said anything about white water rafting nor anything analogous to that.

If you can't distinguish between what I'm actually saying and what you need me to be saying in order to make your point, there's no point in you responding. You really shouldn't be replying to anyone without the ability to accurately infer meaning.

As for debate? What debate? My point of saying "story" is treated as a dirty word is that it's next to impossible to find any meaningful or honest discussion about it. When raising the word "story" specifically in the context of roleplaying games results in you reflexively making it about story games, that only verifies my point. In order for there to be any debate to speak of, you first have to say something that actually challenges the point.

QuoteHow about we stick to the dictionary definition instead of whatever jargon meaning you are attributing the use of story, fiction, and narrative? 

Boring? Check. Avoiding the topic by making it about the dictionary.
Robotic? Check. Definition diarrhea is an argument with a universal adapter.
Wrong? Check. If you consult several major dictionaries, each of them is going to have multiple definitions for story, and collectively a dozen or more. And yet somehow you've managed to come up with just one.

So let's not pretend you are sticking to the dictionary definition. You're choosing one definition that fits the definition you were already using, so if we're being real here, you are very much using your definitions. I can also find my definitions in the dictionary.

QuoteNarrative - a spoken or written account of connected events; a story.
Story - an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. Or an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.
Fiction - literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.

If you mean something different than any of these then spell it out. It is something I try to do in my replies I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

Sure.
Story is a set of events. Period. They don't even need to be events that are told. That's why sometimes you want to hear the other side of a story before making a judgment. We understand there is almost always more to a story than just what is told.
Narrative is the telling of a connected set of events. There can be more than one narrator.
Fiction is a general term for invented stories. It doesn't have to refer to literature, since literature often implies something written and sometimes the term literature implies something about the quality. The root word is "fictive," an adjective that refers to something imaginative or inventive.

And I'll add a couple more.
Narrative style refers to the means of telling the narrative. "Once upon a time, there was a fair princess..."--the sort of telling you typically see in a novel--is only one style. A screen play is another style in which a story can be told. And the actual play of RPGs is another--one very similar to a screen play, stage instructions and all.
Plot is the actual sequence of events the narrative is telling. It's a subset of the story, and the specific events as well as how they are arranged emphasize cause-and-effect relationships. This is an important one because when people have these ideas of rules for telling a good story, like Chekhov's Gun, we're talking about plot, not story. If you have a pistol in one scene, it should be fired in the next one. That goes directly to how scenes are selected and arranged to emphasize a cause and effect relationship.

And I think it's at the point of plot that where things will vary most from roleplaying games to storytelling. It's also the thing that is being toyed with when a story game uses a flashback mechanic. But as a subset of the word story, when I talk about engaging with the story, it should never be assumed or taken to imply anything at all about going into author stance to properly arrange a plot.

QuoteWhen something doesn't make sense in an account of connected events it is because it lacks any connection to previous events. Since I am not familiar with the jargon you use I can speak about your definition of narrative. Although if you spell it out I will be glad to comment on it.

If nothing else, I would expect that in a roleplaying game the current scene is connected to the previous one by the PCs themselves. That's the problem I was punctuating about story being treated as a dirty word, thrown into the "story game" bin, and no one talks story elements in the actual roleplaying game. Simply by following the PCs wherever they go gives you a connection between events. And to harken back on what I was mentioning about plot, the fact that the game has rules and mechanics establishes cause-and-effect. So in RPGs, you don't need to heed rules like Chekhov's Gun to establish cause and effect. That's precisely why players can and often do enjoy the story aspect of RPGs without the DM or anyone else having to force literary devices into the game.

QuoteAn account of imaginary events (story) can only happen after the events occur not during. You are trying to obfuscate the facts by using jargon. Spell out what you mean by story as just I did.

Yeah, see, this is bogus baggage that gets smuggled in. This insistence that a story can only be there after the fact is not implied even by the definitions you're using. This was a completely made up thing by RPG forum weirdos.

QuoteStory - an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. Or an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.

It doesn't say here that an account has to be past event. In fact, the second sentence where it specifically says an account of past events, "past" would be redundant if this definition is assuming account as past tense.

Stories unfold in real time. This happens happens all the time. Even if you want to try to claim that your reading of your definitions preclude that, all that does is emphasize that your definitions are chosen as a cope. By all means, choose whatever words that make you comfortable. But you need to address the unfolding story in real time. If you define that away, you're only dodging the central issue, which again supports my original point about story being treated as a dirty word.

QuoteThe point of playing a storygame campaign is to create a story collaboratively. There is no mystery as to where the story will go only how it will be resolved. Blades in the Dark campaigns are explicitly designed to play out like a heist movie a well-known and well-understood trope. The same with other types of storygames It is fun but is a different type of fun then what tabletop roleplaying focuses on.

Well, my criticism of Blades in the Dark is that it tries to be a heist movie but comes of more like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Maybe sometimes it works out the way it's supposed to. But the fundamental problem I see is that if you want to do something well, you date the process and marry the mission. It's not like Blades in the Dark is saying, "Let's tell a great heist movie story no matter what mechanics it takes to do it." It's saying "Let's tell the best heist movie story we can using these particular mechanics." And it's in the method where story games differ from roleplaying games. The difference is not in the "point" or purpose or goal or creative agendas of the games because all of that is taking a back seat to using a specific set of mechanics. This is why I said I don't think the story game crowd is actually serious about telling good stories.

QuoteTabletop roleplaying in contrast focuses on experiencing a setting. A dungeon, city, wilderness, being a four color superhero, travelling the starlanes,  and so on. Nobody in the group knows how things will unfold either broadly in terms of trope and genre, or specifically.

And that's precisely why it makes good stories. Players have a certain vested self-interest in their characters provides a certain logic and consistency to the choices the characters make. Mechanics provide cause-and-effect that the participant-audience understands. And when the knight goes to slay a dragon and rescue the princess, there is actual danger to the knight precisely because we don't know how things will unfold and because the dice can often be unforgiving. If it were a movie, the jaded among us who would be bracing ourselves for yet another cheesy ending where everything works out. That it doesn't have to go that way in an RPG is what allows an old, played-out story to be engaging again. Someone writing a novel would have to throw every literary device in their arsenal at the knight-dragon-princess story to make it interesting. In RPGs, we don't have to work that hard. It's easy.

QuoteI use the definitions found in the Oxford and Webster dictionaries. I am pretty sure that 1E DM Forward and ExploderWizards are using those terms in the same way. The only other definitions I encountered are jargon definitions used by the storygaming community.

Okay. So then per that forward, story has been a selling point of RPGs at least as far back as May 16, 1979, and presumably well before that point since I really doubt Mike Carr was waiting at his typewriter with baited breath for the latest news that "story" has now been invented and approved for use in RPGs before keying the final strokes on the foreword.

If we're all in agreement here on this term (I'm partial to Oxford myself), then you're just clearly objectively wrong. What do you have left to argue about? Well, in 1974 nobody ever thought roleplaying games would ever be used to make stories. It wasn't until much later, somewhere around 1977-1979 that this newfangled idea emerged. Also note Mike Carr words it as "to watch a story unfold"--he's referring to the story happening in real time. So if you're claiming you're using the normal definition, just like Mike Carr, then you need to quit insisting stories are only something you have after the fact.

At some point, you're going to have to admit stories have always been a part of RPGs, and it wasn't until weirdos started obsessing over story that reactionaries in an extremely dishonest cope began pretending roleplaying games have nothing to do with stories.

QuoteI get what they are trying to do here but in doing so distort the meaning of story compared to how most people use it. Which I feel is reflected by the dictionary definitions I gave above. That a narrative is an account of a sequence of events. While a story is about describing those events generally in some entertaining way.

The above definition from narratology incorrectly conflates story with narrative. Especially when it talks about how film can be only a pure story if shot in real-time. I can see how the conversation is getting confusing as you are continually conflating story with narrative yourself. 

I've only used the word narrative once here, and it wasn't in a context you could use to infer that I was conflating anything. On the other hand, let's take another look at the definitions you claim you're using.

QuoteNarrative - a spoken or written account of connected events; a story.

According to this right here, one of the possible definitions of narrative is as a synonym to story. And, sure, laypersons do frequently use the two interchangeably. So I don't blame the dictionary here. I just find it kind of funny that you leap to conclusions with no evidence that I'm conflating the two words when even if I did use the two words interchangeably, that's actually 100% kosher by your own definition.

As for narratology, if the definition you found incorrectly conflates story with narrative, then why are you posting it? Why are you using that as representative of narratology? Why didn't you continue looking for a better source?

I mean, your every single point here smacks of bad faith. And the most charitable interpretation is you just know so little about the subject that you can't tell a good source from bad. But if you know so little about the subject, you ought to be a lot more deferential. Or just ask.


Here you go:

Quote from: The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Termsstory In the everyday sense, any narrative or tale recounting a series of events. In modern narratology, however, the term refers more specifically to the sequence of imagined events that we reconstruct from the actual arrangement of a narrative )or dramatic) plot. In this modern distinction between story and plot, derived from Russian Formalism and its opposed term fabula and sjuzet, the story is the full sequence of events as we assume them to have occurred in their likely order, duration, and frequency, while the plot is the particular selection and (re-)ordering of these. Thus the story is the abstractly conceived "raw material" of events which we reconstruct from the finished arrangement of the plot: it includes events preceding and otherwise omitted from the perceived action, and its sequence will differ from that of the plot if the action begins in medias res or otherwise involves anachrony. As an abstraction, the story can be translated into other languages and media (e.g. film) more successfully than the style of narration could be.

QuoteTo be clear a sequence of events is being created as a tabletop roleplaying campaign is being played. And after the campaign, an account can be made of what happened thus creating a narrative. But it is only then it is available to be described as a story.

Any sequence of events is a story. Since you agree a sequence of events is being created as a tabletop roleplaying game is being played, then therefore the group is collaborating on a story. It is also a narrative. We don't play out PCs going to the bathroom. We pick and choose out of everything going on what we focus on. Consider the Assassin function in 1E, where it's something you can use in blow-for-blow action during play, but also assassins can also do missions "off screen" using the Spy and Assassination tables. Which do we do? Do we play it out, or do we handwave it? That's a narrative decision, and it's a call that the rules set the DM up to make.

QuoteYou are complaining about people redefining terms while falling into the same trap of defending terms yourself. The way to get out of the trap is to quit assuming people are using these terms the same way you are and spell it out like I just did.

As I said, the word story's got a dozen different definitions. If I'm talking about stories in real time and you've selected a definition by which that is impossible, you have clearly chosen the wrong definition. If you really have no idea what definition I'm using, at the very least you can still conclude that a definition that doesn't fit what I'm saying is obviously not the one I'm using. And yet you insisted on going with that definition anyway. That's not a problem of a speaker not defining their terms. It's a problem of the listener not even trying to understand. You talk about courtesy in defining your terms, you have exercised no courtesy at all in doing an honest job at understanding. And at this point, I honestly have questions if you are using the definitions you provided out of courtesy.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 23, 2023, 01:57:57 AM
Let's see how this tests.

Boring? Check. I've seen this exact patronizing analogy more times than I care to count.

Adventuring while playing an adventuring type RPG is boring?
WTF???

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 23, 2023, 01:57:57 AM
I never said anything about going into author stance.

You didn't? If you are role playing a character and while doing so, are contemplating what to do based on what would be good for the story then you ARE in author stance. The character is part of the imagined game space and as such, is not aware that he/she exists solely for the amusement of players crafting a story. So when a character is making a decision and weighs story concerns as a factor then you have broken the author stance wall. A role played character can only react to game world stimuli and the results of those interactions is what crafts the story. In an RPG that is the only way to do it without going into author stance.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 23, 2023, 10:29:50 AM
You didn't?

Nope. Never once anywhere ever.

QuoteIf you are role playing a character and while doing so, are contemplating what to do based on what would be good for the story then you ARE in author stance. The character is part of the imagined game space and as such, is not aware that he/she exists solely for the amusement of players crafting a story. So when a character is making a decision and weighs story concerns as a factor then you have broken the author stance wall. A role played character can only react to game world stimuli and the results of those interactions is what crafts the story. In an RPG that is the only way to do it without going into author stance.

Emphasis mine. There seems to be a conflicting message here. In the former statement, if I'm role playing a character I can also be in author stance? But in the latter statement, a roleplayed character can only react to world stimuli? Which is it?

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 23, 2023, 09:22:56 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 23, 2023, 10:29:50 AM
You didn't?

Nope. Never once anywhere ever.

QuoteIf you are role playing a character and while doing so, are contemplating what to do based on what would be good for the story then you ARE in author stance. The character is part of the imagined game space and as such, is not aware that he/she exists solely for the amusement of players crafting a story. So when a character is making a decision and weighs story concerns as a factor then you have broken the author stance wall. A role played character can only react to game world stimuli and the results of those interactions is what crafts the story. In an RPG that is the only way to do it without going into author stance.

Emphasis mine. There seems to be a conflicting message here. In the former statement, if I'm role playing a character I can also be in author stance? But in the latter statement, a roleplayed character can only react to world stimuli? Which is it?

Reading comprehension wasn't your strongest subject was it? Obviously you like to play story games. Have at it.