The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Then I apologize unreservedly.
Bryce said...
- Thread starter squeen
- Start date
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
No worries. I think we will eventually reach a point were I prefer vanilla and your prefer chocolate. So be it. But that's edition agnostic in a sense (although editions do have a base-flavor they encourage out-of-the-box---I think you'll agree) and speaks more fundamentally about style-of-play. The more I learn about your game, the closer I feel we are in our thinking. There are "things that work" in RPG in the sense that they encourage a certain atmosphere at the table. Understanding that, is what I'm chasing.
Take EOTB and myself. It's clear to me his style-of-play, even within the same edition (+/-1) is not precisely the vibe I am seeking to create as a DM. Still, as you know, I have great respect for his knowledge and insights about the game. I have learned a lot from him, and I am trying to do the same from you (all). I also think I have a pretty good idea precisely where we diverge. If I ever want to "try it his way", I think I know what to tweak. It's a credit to his communication skills that (I think) I understand our differences so clearly.
Another example is Ben L.'s Through Ultan's Door. I have NO IDEA WTF edition/rules he plays---but I dig what he's doing (up to a point!), and am excited to see each issue and will try to connect it to my campaign world.
I also enjoy what James M says in Grognardia---even though lately he's headed off on a pro-B/X / anti-AD&D agenda I think is short-sighted.
I probably need to branch out a bit more soon and start playing with other groups in order to keep growing as a DM. I've thought several times recently about a play-by-forum-post with a small group here---maybe with updates every other day. I'll see if I can fit that in sometime in the late Spring (if there are any takers).
To the topic at hand: This thread is intended as a quick-capture for Bryce and others to quick-reference his original posts.
A Reader's Digest version at best. It's mostly what catches MY eye---until others pick up the ball. Folks should follow the links for more context.
Take EOTB and myself. It's clear to me his style-of-play, even within the same edition (+/-1) is not precisely the vibe I am seeking to create as a DM. Still, as you know, I have great respect for his knowledge and insights about the game. I have learned a lot from him, and I am trying to do the same from you (all). I also think I have a pretty good idea precisely where we diverge. If I ever want to "try it his way", I think I know what to tweak. It's a credit to his communication skills that (I think) I understand our differences so clearly.
Another example is Ben L.'s Through Ultan's Door. I have NO IDEA WTF edition/rules he plays---but I dig what he's doing (up to a point!), and am excited to see each issue and will try to connect it to my campaign world.
I also enjoy what James M says in Grognardia---even though lately he's headed off on a pro-B/X / anti-AD&D agenda I think is short-sighted.
I probably need to branch out a bit more soon and start playing with other groups in order to keep growing as a DM. I've thought several times recently about a play-by-forum-post with a small group here---maybe with updates every other day. I'll see if I can fit that in sometime in the late Spring (if there are any takers).
To the topic at hand: This thread is intended as a quick-capture for Bryce and others to quick-reference his original posts.
A Reader's Digest version at best. It's mostly what catches MY eye---until others pick up the ball. Folks should follow the links for more context.
Last edited:
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Beek Gwenders
*eyeroll*
That’s a long standing theme in James’ blogs. He’s been pro-OD&D/BX vs AD&D for a long time; the main point of contention being that OD&D pushes the idea of ‘making your own individual game’ whereas AD&D has a strong undercurrent of standardisation and commercial focus.
James also pushes the idea that the ongoing, long term campaign (and world development) is the highest form of the game; which is something I feel he should acknowledge is where AD&D truly shines. I think it might be fair to say though that OD&D is a vehicle for creating your own fantasy campaign; AD&D is a vehicle for creating a particular sort of fantasy campaign (Gygaxian).
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
To be fair to James, we’re all biased to the products we want to make and sell. And we want to make and sell them because it’s what we prefer.
I’m not ever going to give B/X a fair shake in the eyes of a B/X fan - even if I were familiar with the system (I’m not), I’m going to pump AD&D because that’s what I want to make, and others to choose to acquire
I’m not ever going to give B/X a fair shake in the eyes of a B/X fan - even if I were familiar with the system (I’m not), I’m going to pump AD&D because that’s what I want to make, and others to choose to acquire
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
BG I think you bring up a good point about AD&D and long-term campaigns. I also think he's missing the crucial difference between making your own monsters, spells, classes, magic-items, settings, etc. and making up new rules. I don't think James is truly after the latter---which was to a certain extent an OD&D thing (out of necessity). But neither B/X (or OSE which is what he plays now) or AD&D is really about making new rules. Rulings, sure, but not rules.
Honestly, AD&D is just as open to creativity as B/X. It's a false dichotomy.
Sure, AD&D just has more little detaily rules that take more effort to learn (and they do affect game-play). And sure, there is a mindset that says, "I don't want to be bothered with more specific rules, I'd rather just make something up on the fly each and every time" --- but while that's certainty more casual and easier, it's not necessarily more creative. Conflating the two allows one to pat oneself on the back for mental lassitude.
Still, at the end of the day, whatever brings you joy. James has found his (OSE). Don't see why AD&D can't coexist as something separate and different.
Full disclosure, I've played way more OD&D than AD&D---and B/X feels nothing like OD&D to me (other than it's simpler than AD&D).
Honestly, AD&D is just as open to creativity as B/X. It's a false dichotomy.
Sure, AD&D just has more little detaily rules that take more effort to learn (and they do affect game-play). And sure, there is a mindset that says, "I don't want to be bothered with more specific rules, I'd rather just make something up on the fly each and every time" --- but while that's certainty more casual and easier, it's not necessarily more creative. Conflating the two allows one to pat oneself on the back for mental lassitude.
Still, at the end of the day, whatever brings you joy. James has found his (OSE). Don't see why AD&D can't coexist as something separate and different.
Full disclosure, I've played way more OD&D than AD&D---and B/X feels nothing like OD&D to me (other than it's simpler than AD&D).
Last edited:
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
This is basically how I handle perception in my games. Here's a post I wrote about it on my blog.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
@Pseudoephedrine : It's an elegant little system. I guess I don't object to it in principle, but I do think there is a danger of mechanizing things to that level. A mini-game, so to speak.
I do generally prefer keeping the players on their toes and making them verbally explore the descriptions by asking simple questions like "I look at the dresser, what's there?". Sure, it's intentionally game-y, but it allows for the opportunity to cloak surprises in an assortment of the mundane. --- that way, they players can kick themselves later!
It's a stylistic choice, I know. Thanks for sharing that.
I do generally prefer keeping the players on their toes and making them verbally explore the descriptions by asking simple questions like "I look at the dresser, what's there?". Sure, it's intentionally game-y, but it allows for the opportunity to cloak surprises in an assortment of the mundane. --- that way, they players can kick themselves later!
It's a stylistic choice, I know. Thanks for sharing that.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
It's basically treating it the same as the Thief's skill checks. If you can find the trap without relying on the Thief's random chance, so much the better. When I explained to my players that I am doing it this way, they quickly weaned themselves off of relying on skill checks as their default option and started treating them as safety nets. Especially when it comes to searching for treasure; they gleefully tear rooms apart and slit open monster bellies.@Pseudoephedrine : It's an elegant little system. I guess I don't object to it in principle, but I do think there is a danger of mechanizing things to that level. A mini-game, so to speak.
I do generally prefer keeping the players on their toes and making them verbally explore the descriptions by asking simple questions like "I look at the dresser, what's there?". Sure, it's intentionally game-y, but it allows for the opportunity to cloak surprises in an assortment of the mundane. --- that way, they players can kick themselves later!
It's a stylistic choice, I know. Thanks for sharing that.
The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
It also gets the rest of the party involved in exploration instead of everyone spinning dice while the Thief has all the fun clearing the way to the next monster/treasure.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
I don't know that I would categorize being the sole person to take the risk of triggering traps as "fun".
The1True
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Yeah, yeah, but at least he's doing something. I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that in the 3e game the classes with the most Skill Points to throw around have the most fun/do the most stuff, and that's definitely a mark against the system. If the DM isn't extremely mindful, certain classes end up doing basically fuck-all in city or exploratory scenarios which is bad bad for engagement.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Well, that's sort of the nature of D&D. Rogues have the most to do during exploration, and everyone else is bored. Fighters have the most to do during low level combat, with the degree of boredom of everyone else inversely proportional to their odds of hitting. Wizards have the most to do during high level combat (and possibly high level exploration, and high level just-about-everything-else). Clerics always have the fun of trying to convince the rest of the party that doing something other than healing everyone is a good plan. If only there was an edition that tried to give everyone something to do in every pillar of the game...
Yeah, yeah,, I know I am exaggerating.
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
I like Pathfinder 2e as well!
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
Yeah, Call of Cthulhu is great! That's what you meant, right?
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Not sure that CoC is an edition of D&D, but sure.
PF 2e might be though. You find 4e popping up all over!
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
Woosh!
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
Yeah, PF 2e is inspired by a lot of what 4e tried to solve about 3.x, and borrows some of 4e's strongest ideas, but also has the benefit of 11 years of reflection on what people loved and hated about 4e. It's a solid system if you don't mind crunch.Not sure that CoC is an edition of D&D, but sure.
PF 2e might be though. You find 4e popping up all over!