Something I've attempted to articulate multiple times on threads talking about certain characteristics of the O/AD&D paradigm of play, such as level limits, save or die and system shock, long natural healing recuperation times and the like, was that there's an underlying assumption that players have multiple characters at different levels, play their henchmen or even upgrade them as PCs, that players switch between characters back and forth, that the composition of adventuring parties and their relative levels might vary from game to game, are not all smoothly aligned with each other at any one time, etc etc, during the campaign.

Well Tim Kask spoke about this on his blog recently:

Quote from: Tim KaskYes, Virginia, we really did play like that. All of us had PC’s that were “retired” or “semi-retired”; we did not use them except for special circumstances. Learning at Gary’s knee, so to speak, as I did, I had a whole stable of PC’s because he did, as well as the rest of the original players. It seems today that too many players get way too involved in just one PC; to say that some seem to obsess over their PC’s is fair, I think. When you had a stable of PC’s, as we did, you could view the PC’s as you might a pack of fine hunting dogs. Each dog in the pack had its strong and weak points, but you seldom develop a deep attachment with more than one or two of the pack. Certainly it hurts to lose any of them, but the pack endures.

Also this post from Old Geezer on RPGnet:

Quote from: Old GeezerFrom Tim's blog:  http://www.eldritchent.com/category/Tim-Kask.aspx

His comments on "end game."

I've already noted that the "end game" of D&D was you settle down and build a castle.

I've also already noted that the game was not originally "One band of adventurers permanently bonded and indivisible;" in playing almost 2 years of Greyhawk, I don't think I played with exactly the same group twice.  Gary had some 15 players or so and mixed them up in groups of 3 to 5.

Tim puts the last piece in place in the first part of his essay above.  To quote:

" I had a whole stable of PC’s because he did, as well as the rest of the original players. It seems today that too many players get way too involved in just one PC; to say that some seem to obsess over their PC’s is fair, I think. When you had a stable of PC’s, as we did, you could view the PC’s as you might a pack of fine hunting dogs. Each dog in the pack had its strong and weak points, but you seldom develop a deep attachment with more than one or two of the pack. Certainly it hurts to lose any of them, but the pack endures."

That is dead on the money.  We also had a much broader definition of "PC;" for instance, not only did I have Gronan of Simmerya and Lessnard the Magnificent, but also we would play our own henchmen.  Henchmen only got half experience when we dragged them along with our higher level PCs, but if a henchman went adventuring on his or her own (sorry, "henchmen/women" is horribly clumsy) they got full XP.  Gronan had a henchman named Pseudolys who I used as my PC a good number of times.

So, not only did we have a "stable" of PCs we'd roll up, but any of the henchmen NPCs were also possible characters to play.  "Don't take your ninth level magic user, Tim's character is only fifth level."  "Okay, hey!  I got a sixth level magic user flunky, I'll play him."

And so it went.

Just thought some people here might be interested.

My reply from the linked thread at Big Purple:

At the time I started playing, our version of D&D consisted of the Holmes blue box, the 1e AD&D Monster Manual, Arduin Grimoire, and some Judges Guild stuff. At first the friend who introduced me to the game refereed and I created a party of adventurers to explore the dungeon he created, so the whole party consisted of my characters. That was how things continued until the 1e AD&D PHB came out and talked about henchmen and hirelings, and slowly I whittled down to just a couple of 'player characters' with an increasing number of henchmen in tow.

The distinction between the two was less than one of player and non-player character, as OG notes, and more one of 'here's the player character I created and here's the henchman pre-gen my dungeon master handed me.' I ran both the adventurer and the henchman as 'my guy' in actual play, and as they increased in levels, it wasn't uncommon for one to go adventuring without the other from time to time.

So from the very beginning of my D&D experience, I never really thought of myself as running a character. My 'character' has always been more of an expedition: the adventurer, three or four henchmen - all run by me - and a bunch of hirelings, run as needed by the dungeon master.

Kask'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.

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.

Every "school" is full of that attitude.

But you're right, that attitude totally sucks.  Have fun playing a game, what more do you need?  Seeking validation of your "playstyle" is just sad.

Quote from: KenHR;595805But you're right, that attitude totally sucks.

That's what ultimately turned me off to the big OSR blog--the author himself never overtly slammed non-old schoolers, but a lot of the commenters said *really* obnoxious and insulting things about such people, and the blog author let it slide. And it's not like this guy has an aversion to deleting posts--but he only does it when someone dares to question him about something (such as asking how work is going on a project that a lot of people already paid for).

I think what people are missing is that when D&D first started, the concept of 1 character was new.  Most gamers were used to controlling units of people, so Tim's attitude is extremely logical.  Obviously the game has progressed and changed, but it shouldn't be a surprise that in the early days, PCs were treated as a resource, instead of something special and unique.

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.

Well, likewise, oft times when guys like me come up and say "look, these elements of the O/AD&D game actually make sense when you consider that there are these assumptions here in the background and that the ducks align this, this, and that way" we're being told we're a bunch of assholes coming up with "one true way", we're "pompous" and "narcissistic."

Well. No. We're just saying "hey, the assumption in the O/AD&D game is this this and this; this stuff makes sense because of that." Like for instance the fact that the AD&D First Ed rules form an ADVANCED set of rules for the OD&D game originally, which then you pick and choose as a referee to apply to your campaign with an eye towards the integrity of the framework which makes AD&D what it is, as opposed to the minutia of this or that instance of the rules, which explains the disjointed aspect of the rules included in the books, how they relate to one another and how the role of the referee is construed from there, and again we're being told "well that's one true way! The rules played RAW obviously don't make sense and that later version is an OBJECTIVE improvement herpie durp durp LOL" and so on.

Likewise, when I'm pointing to these assumptions and say "here, look, the assumptions of the game shifted dramatically between this book and that book, and between this edition of the game and that edition of the game" I'm getting "herpy derp derp the games are 95% compatible you twat it's the same thing trololololol!"

So ... yeah. I guess I get where you are coming from in a way.

Quote from: akiva;595804I 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.

And vice versa by many others (not including you). The same range of personality types are found within the OSR as there without.

If you want the easy going OSRites then the OD&D Discussion Forum is where a lot of them hang out.  http://odd74.proboards.com/. Other forums have varying mixes.

As for Kask's post, a lot of what he talks about happened in my hometown in rural NW Pennsylvania. I wouldn't say that it fell by the wayside because of greed. Basically it changed to a single character focus largely because campaign hopping died out (both with characters and players). With that, the referee will fast forward the healing process, update the game date and pick it up from there as there only a single group that played constantly.

Note this is what I experienced in my hometown back in the late 70s and early 80s.

And what Kask doesn't mention or didn't experience was the crazy issues experienced by people hopping from campaign to campaign. One DM would handle out magic items like crazy and so on.

Of course when it starting everybody want to play as much as possible and were willing to put with a lot in order to play. At least among us junior high and senior high gamers. Finally within a handful of years, still in high school, various groups solidified and campaigns became largely about a core group starting out and seeing it through the end game of high level.

Some made the end game about becoming a god or gaining god-like powers, others (like myself) went the "build a castle establish a barony" route.

What I was personally noted for back then was allowing people to make substantial changes to my setting and then using that as part of the background for the next campaign. A lot of referees back then got really bent out of shape if you "trashed" their campaign world.

The stuff I create today and write about is a consequence of my learning to keep with my players tampering with my setting and to keep subsequent campaigns interesting.

Quote from: akiva;595804I 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.

So is this site, apparently, with prolific posters DeadDM, Mr. GC, Mistborn, etc.  All of which profess 3.x as the one true way to play the game.


Point is, that's hardly an OSR only thing.

The kind of campaign described by Kask and OG is appealing to me (perhaps in large part because I've never played in a campaign like that - mine have always been of the "the same group of five guys getting together every other Thursday night" variety), but the obstacle of getting ~15 committed players plus a referee willing and able to run 3-4 sessions a week seems pretty much insurmountable. Maybe when we're all in retirement homes

Quote from: T. Foster;595815The kind of campaign described by Kask and OG is appealing to me (perhaps in large part because I've never played in a campaign like that - mine have always been of the "the same group of five guys getting together every other Thursday night" variety), but the obstacle of getting ~15 committed players plus a referee willing and able to run 3-4 sessions a week seems pretty much insurmountable. Maybe when we're all in retirement homes

Yes, I played in Old School games in this style in the late 70's and early 80s.  I remember having a stable of character and some of PCs having a stable as well, and a few had stables in D&D and T&T.  
And there were times that you'd get invited to a game at some GMs house (often mine), or in boarding school, where you had these 5 players who had no group together so you made it happen.

But now things are different.  I am older also, I run 3 groups, but the lives groups play once every three weeks or once every four weeks, and besides, I am much more into everything making sense and very strict sense of setting realism, so what I did and enjoyed 30 years ago was fun, but makes little sense based on how and what I play today...though it is amzing the OSR roots that do show up in different ways.

Quote from: T. Foster;595815The kind of campaign described by Kask and OG is appealing to me (perhaps in large part because I've never played in a campaign like that - mine have always been of the "the same group of five guys getting together every other Thursday night" variety), but the obstacle of getting ~15 committed players plus a referee willing and able to run 3-4 sessions a week seems pretty much insurmountable. Maybe when we're all in retirement homes

You don't need to have 15 regular players sitting at the table at every game session to get a game in that style off the ground. You can play with three players with one created character and two henchmen each and you're at 9 player-controlled characters in the group already. Likewise in the old times: players were sometimes playing solo, guys like Rob Kuntz etc. The game could be tailored to that and/or the player had a bunch of characters adventuring together along with henchmen and hirelings and the like.

The point is, there's no notion here that you have to have in the dozen of players for that style of play to be effective and fun at a game table, and on the contrary, it makes minimal groups of players more viable by virtue of each player having a stable of characters from which to choose, including a variety of character types and levels, henchmen and the like. Add to this that the game itself isn't ladden with that 4 characters average meeting level-appropriate stuff and the like, and the sky's the limit.

That's basically what I plan on doing with my online AS&SH game: open table, whoever shows up can play right away, you can have a stable of characters and adventure with different individuals (players and/or characters) as the campaign develops, whoever shows up for a particular session plays, whoever doesn't show up is just not there, and we proceed with the game like this.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;595811So is this site, apparently, with prolific posters DeadDM, Mr. GC, Mistborn, etc.  All of which profess 3.x as the one true way to play the game.


Point is, that's hardly an OSR only thing.

One true way?  Not from me.  3.x is my preferred game, and I have experience with a number of systems outside of D&D, as well as other versions of D&D.  

For myself, I have some interest in my 'followers' adventures, and enjoy that type of play, but I don't really care for the 'stable of characters' approach.  Of course, I'm actually involved in a number of different games, all with different characters in different worlds.  But mixing them up - that doesn't appeal to me.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;595835One true way?  Not from me.  

.

Your frequent agreements with GC seem to imply otherwise, since all he ever posts is "This is the way to play D&D or you're basketweaving gimps."

There's another interesting detail of D&D "back in the day" that's an important background detail to what Tim Kask is describing, but he doesn't mention directly: the term "NPC" meant something a little different back then. Nowadays, NPCs are the GM's characters; back then, NPCs were characters shared by the players and the GM, such as hirelings and, in a way, shopkeepers. The players tell the NPCs what to do, and the GM decides if they comply, based on loyalty or reaction. You can especially see this in the rules for inheritance: players could roll up an heir to replace a dead character, keeping wealth and items they'd found previously, but if they then had their deceased character raised, the heir reverted to an NPC with a low Loyalty.

The local baron, villains, and other GM-controlled characters who send PCs on quests or otherwise made stuff happen weren't NPCs. They were monsters.