Quote from: LordVreeg;595992Company took a beating.
Main servers in NJ and NYC are still offline, but everyone seems safe.

I know that sucks and it's a lot of worry, but the main thing really is for everyone to be okay. The material things... they get replaced, rebuilt, you can still do something about it afterwards.

Quote from: Silverlion;595879On the other side of the coin this is where Story games runs smack dab back to Gary's door. The whole "character is a unit which we do things around/too" rather than a person who is played. The emotional aspect and aims are different but it is the same relegation of the PC to a pawn/token

Quite astute. I never thought about that.

The "fun" thing is that storytelling games and railroads and special snowflake characters became an option once the pawn mode was exchanged for a more immersive mode.

Regarding the OP:

When I started playing (A)D&D in 1985 the group that I met played exactly that "roster" type of game. Which is strange as I am on record for claiming that we never had a chance to encounter real old school style gaming in Germany.
But I also remember that I was very puzzled by this as this was not something I had taken from my reading of Mentzer's Red Box.

I have to admit that I am responsible for destroying this culture in our group when I took the reins as DM. The old DM had just ended his run with a mega-adventure in which all players played all their characters--most of which died--and I started with a clean slate. New world (and my world, to boot) und new characters (one each).
The old DM did the same, and we took turns DMing our own campaigns (no shared setting anymore, no campaign hopping).

But the players liked it. It was a new experience for them to identify with one character only. They were all LotR fans (who wasn't back then?) but they never tried this "fellowship" style campaign before.
They never looked back, they wanted to explore the setting though the eyes of their single character. They identified with their characters, the setting, and the game as a whole in a way as they never did before.



(And when I started Dragonlance about half a year later their journey to the dark side was complete...)

Quote from: Silverlion;595901Why should I bother running a game you aren't investing in? I can pull out say Talisman, or OGRE, or a board game for everyone to play if the pawn stance is what someone wants. It is an non optimal use of the RPG.
 It is very much like using butterknife to drive a screw. It is possible, it takes more time and effort, and will have more slippage than just getting a screwdriver and using it.

The whole implicit aspect of taking on a "role," requires if one is honest investment into the person and the role.

Having multiple characters active in the campaign does not mean an automatic "pawn" characterization is applied to them. The DM needs to assume multiple roles during each game session. Why shouldn't players get this experience during the course of the campaign?

What matters is the investment in the role being currently played. If Jeb the fighter is busy fighting in a far away war and the campaign focus shifts back to what's going on at home then assuming the role of Rolf, Jeb's trusty seneschal, during an adventure doesn't mean either of them are considered expendable pawns.

There are multiple ways to handle the stable of characters in a campaign. Treating them as "extra men" in a videogame is only one of them.

Here's how our campaign was set up in the olden days (79-85):

Each player could run two PCs (and most did). This was necessary because old-school modules usually called for 6-8 PCs, and we had 3-5 players. Also, the game was so lethal that you wanted to have a backup if one of your PCs died. And given their low survivability at low levels, most players were reluctant to run only a spellcaster in a new group.

We didn't have any problem getting emotionally invested in 2 PCs. They all had rich in-game histories and personalities.

We also had two main DMs, and one occasional DM. The two main DMs typically ran adventures for the main group that progressed to 9th level over a period of years. The occasional DM ran a group of lower-level PCs through a couple long-term series (the UK series, then something else).

So we had multiple PCs each, often in the same adventure. The party makeup was fluid. We switched between PC rosters of various levels. And none of this hurt our ability to roleplay.

Quote from: akiva;595804Kask's quote is a good example of what turns me off about a lot of the old school people--he remarks that people began to pay "too much attention" to a single character. Because clearly that's the wrong way to play, it's certainly not what Gary did, so therefore anyone who does it that way is a moron.

I don't like old school gaming that much, but I recognize that others do. You can dislike what I like, but don't imply that I'm wrong or a moron for having different taste. The OSR is full of that attitude.

I've suspected for a while now that when people have lots of characters on the go [in totally different games] and lots of different opportunities to play RPGs, they have far fewer problems with their inner munchkins than when they only get to roleplay one or two different characters for an extended period of time.

I'm not saying it could be less fun or moronic to only pay attention to a single character. In fact, for the four hours or so of a single session, I pretty much insist on it. But if you're asking me do I think it brings out a person's inner munchkin that he only has one character on the go at a time, I would have to consider it a serious possibility.

I'm glad people play the way they want to play and find it fulfilling.  I think it would be healthier, though, if we stopped equating precedent with validity.

Quote from: Gib;596451I'm glad people play the way they want to play and find it fulfilling.  I think it would be healthier, though, if we stopped equating precedent with validity.

Establishing precedent is sometimes a nice way of saying, "this is not badwrong, I did this too and it was fun."

But God forbid it cease to be encouraging and become constraining, as in "that's not how the The Author intended the game to be played".

Quote from: The Butcher;596455Establishing precedent is sometimes a nice way of saying, "this is not badwrong, I did this too and it was fun."

But God forbid it cease to be encouraging and become constraining, as in "that's not how the The Author intended the game to be played".

But likewise, if you say something like "level limits in AD&D suck" and that then you're telling you're playing single characters in story arcs and stuff, I should be able to tell you "well that's no wonder because actually level limits make sense when you play with stables of character in a humano-centric world as AD&D's default implicit setting clearly is" without getting in response "you badworngfunning me you OSR taliban I play the game however I want to and Gygax can go fuck himself".

Really? Well... duh? But then is it really a surprise level limits fuck with your expectations which, you know... was the actual fucking point I was making in the first place? I think many are way too fast to jump from one thing to interpret it as a condamnation of their playstyle, which it is not in the first place.

And really, when people basically, honestly don't know what the fuck they are talking about, that they say something like level limits or save or die or whatever else "objectively" sucks period the end, that they are shown that actually this works given this or that context of play with this and that assumption and way to play the game and that then they don't own up to their sheer ignorance to say "ah okay I didn't see it that way my bad, we don't play like that at home' and instead go with "lulwut wtf author's intent who cares it sucks there are no superior way to play ze game you tards" honestly, there's reason for me to have concerns about some people's ability to read sentences on a screen, or their intellectual honesty thereof.

Yeah, a little context goes a long way.

As a relative newcomer to the hobby (us 1990s gamers, the middle children of the roleplaying community ), I found the OSR's divulging of the game's history to be enlightening, and to make me look at old rules in new ways. Not necessarily agreeing, but better understanding the design decisions involved, and the context which shaped them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;596213Having multiple characters active in the campaign does not mean an automatic "pawn" characterization is applied to them. The DM needs to assume multiple roles during each game session. Why shouldn't players get this experience during the course of the campaign?

A GM is also not investing in a character (or shouldn't be) because the characters he should care about--are the PC's. (Even if he murders, maims, and otherwise abuses them.) All other characters are there to interact with those people (or set up situations for them to interact with.)

The GM gets the experience because that's his ROLE, it isn't the players. There role is to play a character, invest in it, and play it. Taking it too far lies either the GM having GMPC's, or the the players being the GM and becoming a Storygame of the swiney sort.


 

QuoteWhat matters is the investment in the role being currently played. If Jeb the fighter is busy fighting in a far away war and the campaign focus shifts back to what's going on at home then assuming the role of Rolf, Jeb's trusty seneschal, during an adventure doesn't mean either of them are considered expendable pawns.

It does assume separate adventures in my book. One is about Jeb. One is about Rolf. They may take part in the same universe but if it isn't about the original main characters (or their replacements) and what is being done by them, around them and too them? It is no longer the same adventure (story, etc etc terminology you want to use.)


I've nothing particularly problematic about switching characters for different adventures--but for parts of a campaign/continued set of adventures that connect? That becomes problematic.

Quote from: Benoist;596457But likewise, if you say something like "level limits in AD&D suck" and that then you're telling you're playing single characters in story arcs and stuff, I should be able to tell you "well that's no wonder because actually level limits make sense when you play with stables of character in a humano-centric world as AD&D's default implicit setting clearly is" without getting in response "you badworngfunning me you OSR taliban I play the game however I want to and Gygax can go fuck himself".

Really? Well... duh? But then is it really a surprise level limits fuck with your expectations which, you know... was the actual fucking point I was making in the first place? I think many are way too fast to jump from one thing to interpret it as a condamnation of their playstyle, which it is not in the first place.

And really, when people basically, honestly don't know what the fuck they are talking about, that they say something like level limits or save or die or whatever else "objectively" sucks period the end, that they are shown that actually this works given this or that context of play with this and that assumption and way to play the game and that then they don't own up to their sheer ignorance to say "ah okay I didn't see it that way my bad, we don't play like that at home' and instead go with "lulwut wtf author's intent who cares it sucks there are no superior way to play ze game you tards" honestly, there's reason for me to have concerns about some people's ability to read sentences on a screen, or their intellectual honesty thereof.

Level limits still suck though

Quote from: jibbajibba;596462Level limits still suck though

They've always sucked.

Quote from: Benoist;596457I play the game however I want to and Gygax can go fuck himself".

Yes exactly. If I don't like an assumption* I change it and the mechanics that it impacts. I don't need anyone to tell me what Gary had in mind, because I just don't care. I've been playing since fucking 1978 and I never fucking have. And you know what? I bet Gygax would have been totally comfortable with my attitude.



As far as Kask goes, well I think you know what I think of that... guy.

Furthermore, HAVING A LOGICAL UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE  FOR A GOOD RULE.  CONSISTENCY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS QUALITY.

Whatever, though, you should and could save yourself a lot of trouble by just making a series of blog entries similar to Philotomy's OD&D musings and linking people to it when you feel they've got it wrong. Or make a sticky thread "What your ignorant and fat American ass doesn't know about AD&D 1e, bitch" is my suggestion for the title. Something along these lines would be good for this site and good for you, imo**.







*Humanocentric goes down the well first, weapons restrictions and all the crap the go with them follow shortly thereafter.
** B/X is best.

Never much cared for running more than one character in a campaign.

Henchemen are ok ONLY if they exist as a natural flow of in game events.
Can't stand henchemen that are just extra abilities for a player.

Quote from: Silverlion;596463They've always sucked.

Level limits never made sense to me.

In hindsight, the rate of advancement might make more sense.

I can see an Elf taking his time over centuries to learm wizardry.

This Elf would surpass a human eventually, but it might take him far longer to do so.