Using D&D instead of PLAYING D&D

[machfront]

Some time ago (about a year perhaps?) I created a thread in which I expressed thoughts on playing D&D but not really playing D&D.
My point was terribly obfuscated by my own rambling leaving others, including Mr. Monard, to be confused and basically say: "What the hell are you doing?".

I attempted to explain until I finally exposed my meaning. By that point, the discussion had essentially run it's tired course.

So.
With that mess in mind allow me to try again. Ugh.

At some point a handful of years ago I realized I do not "play D&D".

Instead I use D&D simply as an 'engine', as I would any and every other RPG I'm partial to, for use in action-fantasy-adventure-RP.

I do not approach OD&D/S&W/Holmes/BX or whatever in any significantly different way in plans, imagining, at-the-table, etc. as I would...say...RISUS or T&T or Barebones Fantasy or Advanced Fighting Fantasy or whatever else.

The rules may differ and foster and lean towards a certain/specific kind of play, but to me, it's 'just another fantasy rpg'.

No, of course I don't mean that in a "Sigh. Whatever." kind of way. Obviously. I LOVE truly old-school D&D (except AD&D which I can't stand).
But I have finally come to point wherein I fully understand it isn't "a fantasy rpg" but "it's own game", and that I do NOT...PLAY D&D. I utilize the D&D rules of such-and-such an edition or print, etc.

I've seen that most folks who have a love for old-school D&D play it as such. That is, this or that class is played and used as that class. It is what it is (and I hate that phrase). This or that mechanic IS used because it IS a part of THE GAME and it has a useful purpose to the WHOLE of THE GAME. This or that rule is part and parcel to the overall experience because of this or that reason connected to this or that rule for this or that reason.

To me... it's simply...just and only...really just a rules-lite and easy rpg 'window' to doing cool stuff with fantasy characters in a fantasy world and that's it.

I guess I'm an old-school D&D simpleton.

I have a D&D rulebook at the table in the same way some of you might have GURPS or RISUS at the table for whatever fantasy one-shot or some such.
I admire and read and learn from those who PLAY D&D as a game in whole, but I've found that's not how I see it or use it.

I have to wonder though... Am I alone? It seems I may certainly be in the minority.
After all, it would indeed be weird to be the guy amongst chess players who uses a chess board, pieces and some rules to play 'kill the dragon'.

[Zenopus]

I think I understand, but how in practice how is this different from running a D&D game with house-rules?

Perhaps to help clarify you could explain how a D&D game that you run based on this philosophy would be different from someone else's game?

[kesher]

Yeah! I second the Zen master!

[monk]

I think I do the same thing you do, but I don't see the difference between what you're describing and what I call "playing D&D". Maybe I just haven't seen people "Play D&D" the way you're describing they do (that is very possible since I haven't interacted with a lot of D&Ders outside of my own group). I think what we do is one way of playing D&D. In fact, that might be the original way a lot of folks were playing D&D. (Not that that means it's the RIGHT way to play, and other people "aren't really playing D&D").

[Deleted]

Feb 21, 2015 2:56:42 GMT -6 machfront said:

I have to wonder though... Am I alone? It seems I may certainly be in the minority.

I know what you mean. I see an RPG rulebook as simply a list of tools that I can use to resolve a character's action. It doesn't even matter which rulesbook it is.

[tetramorph]

machfront, sounds to me like you are just exactly playing "D&D." The original one.

I think I get what you mean, but I think that the idea that you must strictly follow a certain game rule-set is very "AD&D," not very 0e. From what I am learning it seems that 1e influenced the "feel" of much subsequent D&D and RPGs in general. But, from what I get, most of us around here on these boards "play D&D" the way you are describing "using" it. And it seems to me that that just is playing 0e.

I'm echoing what others have said better. But there are my 2cp.

[Deleted]

So, you're saying that you play D&D as a form of "Free Kriegspiel?"

In that case, congratulations, so do must of us.

[machfront]

Well, perhaps then it's only my misconception of how many others seem to play.

Reading these and other forums it seems as though so many play D&D as a game of it's own. Gah. I apologize I've not the strength of mind to explain more clearly. Hmmm...

What I mean is: A fantasy game at my table using RISUS would look, sound and behave just the way a D&D game would. The only difference would be the basic mechanics.
I don't track encumbrance (and, yes, that is something many ignore). I don't tick off torches or arrows. I don't worry about movement or distance except in an extremely basic and rough and hand-wavy fashion. I almost never pay attention to time...or rounds...or turns and thus almost never track spell durations/wandering monsters/rest accurately.
I eyeball nearly everything, if I even acknowledge it at all.
I rarely have anything that may be called a dungeon (as I prefer wilderness, city and...whatever).

Did I mention I'm a lazy DM?

[Deleted]

Yeah, I think you are playing D&D the way the majority of people play it. What you are also describing about a fantasy game played with Risus or D&D looking and sounding the same is because most people do a handful of actions when they play rpgs and to an outside observer would look and sound like the same game. I hit the goblin is I hit the goblin regardless of whether or not you roll a d20 and look on a to hit chart or roll a d100 and compare it to your skill.

[Deleted]

Whereas I do keep track of time, and torches, and wandering monsters, and encumberance, etc, and would do so whether I was using D&D or Risus or tossing coins or playing strip poker.

Once again, it just sounds like you're playing the way most people do... that is, "play the game the way you want."

[coffee]

Feb 21, 2015 22:36:32 GMT -6 machfront said:

Did I mention I'm a lazy DM?

Here's the acid test (paraphrased from Tim Kask):

* Do your players keep coming back, every session?

* Are they leaning forward in their seats?

If the answer to either of these is yes, you're on the right track.

If the answer to both is yes, you're definitely doing it right.

[thorswulf]

Rules simply provide a structure as how the mechanics work. Sure the setting provides tone and filler info. At the end of the day the adventure, or rather the sense of adventure is what it is all about. I'd say Tim Kask has the right of it.

[inkmeister]

In recent years there was a huge resurgence of interest in the Gygaxian way of playing D&D. In some way, it seems almost like an ideological extreme (I don't mean this in any negative way). If you choose to read the rule books in a literal way, you get this very particular sort of picture, and it is far more so if you read the AD&D books in a literal, complete way. (AD&D seems to me to be Gygax's expanded opportunity to explain what D&D meant to him; he had much more space than in the original game).

In reality, I've never known anyone who plays any version of D&D (including 2e, 3e, 4e) at all as the books describe it. In my groups where people played the more advanced editions (3e and 4e), I often wondered why they bothered with the more expensive and fancy rule books, since they just did whatever they wanted anyway (and in many ways, it felt like the free form 2e days of my youth, except with some of the rules trappings - and they were just trappings - of the later editions). So it is no surprise to me that this is how it is with the earlier versions as well.

In many ways, for most people, I think the rules of D&D (and other games as well) largely get in the way of what people want to do. Why else, then, would so many people largely ignore the written game?

At any rate, I think OD&D and classic D&D give an excellent framework for playing a very particular sort of strategy/exploration game where resource management is especially emphasized. I think that game is probably really fun for the right mix of people. In reality, I think most people - and generally myself included - are more into what you describe, machfront. D&D for me is largely just this: level, hit dice, d20 combat system (in a generic sense), saving throws, and so on along those lines. Even the magic system, races, monsters, etc are strictly optional. The basic framework of the game can be distilled down to one page or less. In other words, D&D is a very rules light framework for doing generic fantasy or any particular brand of fantasy I like, including modern post apocalyptic, or futuristic space exploration, etc. Just like you describe, really. This is why D&D is so awesome for me. I can make it whatever I want it to be with minimal effort. IT would take far more effort to follow the written rules of OD&D or B/X than it does to simply take the basic ideas and then run with those in the way I want to.

Again, there has been a certain almost ideological emphasis in the old school world, and I think it is only because people have taken interest in what the old books actually say. That's a good thing, but for many of us, I think it is more of a novelty or merely an interesting contrast to what we understand as being D&D. Regardless of what the books say, why not play the game in a way that is fun for you and your group?

I've tried the dungeon exploration strategy game, and while I think the concept is fascinating, my group (myself included) doesn't really seem to like it so much as the more open ended style that my friends and I were doing when we were kids playing 2nd edition (ignoring most of the rules of that edition, by the way).

In short, I feel very similarly to you, machfront. I also get the sense that probably at least half of the old school community is doing things more along the lines you laid out than in any strict, fundamentalist sort of way.

[mgtremaine]

Feb 21, 2015 23:35:18 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Whereas I do keep track of time, and torches, and wandering monsters, and encumberance, etc, and would do so whether I was using D&D or Risus or tossing coins or playing strip poker.

Once again, it just sounds like you're playing the way most people do... that is, "play the game the way you want."

Of course Encumbrance is the POINT of strip poker so that was bad example. ;P

[Deleted]

Feb 23, 2015 10:29:51 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

In recent years there was a huge resurgence of interest in the Gygaxian way of playing D&D.

And those of us who played with Gary saying "The Gygaxian way of playing D&D is 'it's your game, do what you want' " get roundly ignored.

GARY didn't even play the game exactly as written in the rules.

[Deleted]

Feb 23, 2015 17:02:44 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Feb 23, 2015 10:29:51 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

In recent years there was a huge resurgence of interest in the Gygaxian way of playing D&D.

And those of us who played with Gary saying "The Gygaxian way of playing D&D is 'it's your game, do what you want' " get roundly ignored.

GARY didn't even play the game exactly as written in the rules.

GARY didn't even play the game exactly as written in the rules.

That is worth repeating over and over and over!

[inkmeister]

Mike, I don't think most people have ignored the idea that "it is your game, do what you want." Actually, it is the opposite; that is probably one of the most basic assumptions of D&D players, right from the beginning. My own experience is that no one plays at all like the rulebooks, or in the way that people say Gygax played the game, for that matter. The vast majority of people who play D&D, in my experience, do whatever they want, and it tends to be a lot more loose than anything appearing in any D&D rule book.

Ironically, while you sometimes say the game is whatever one wants it to be, there have been times where I've suggested some alteration of the rules, and you (and others) will say things like "at some point, it's not D&D anymore!" I don't think you are wrong here, either. There is a real tension between the idea of D&D as a particular game - or type of game - and D&D as fantasy role playing in general. I think all of us sometimes switch between our definitions without realizing it. My nephew uses "D&D" to mean any roleplaying game, and I don't think that is particularly unusual for a lot of people.

In recent years, there has been an almost experimental movement to take the old rule books seriously, because after several decades of people doing whatever they want (and D&D meaning fantasy role playing in the most generic sense), the actual books present a style of game that seems alien, and very fascinating. People have discovered that rules that seemed silly or pointless actually have meaning and value in the right context. Mike, I'm not sure you really grasp what this is like for many people, since you were there at ground zero; to you, the thing that was strange or mysterious to a lot of folks was just "the game" for you. At any rate, Machfront doesn't seem to like the more literal interpretation of D&D - even in the sense of following the general style of Gygax, if not the exact word. Well, whether or not most people like the actual written word or Gygaxian style in general, most seem to do as Machfront does, and simply use whatever they want.

Most people I've gamed with don't use dungeons, don't track encumberance, don't track ammo, don't do XP for gold, and don't follow probably 70% of the rules of whatever edition they are using, and so on. (In quite a few cases, I would have much preferred a higher level of adherence to whatever rule system we were using).

I think for Machfront the tension is between his love for these D&D communities, his enjoyment of D&D as a rules light generic fantasy system, and the fact that the way he plays diverges much from the Gygaxian style, both in word and spirit. I could be wrong, but I suspect he feels as I do; that the Gygaxian style is incredibly fascinating and rich in a certain way, and yet the play experience somehow doesn't deliver for us or our particular groups. I would be interested to know if Machfront agrees with this assessment.

[machfront]

Feb 24, 2015 10:38:15 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Ironically, while you sometimes say the game is whatever one wants it to be, there have been times where I've suggested some alteration of the rules, and you (and others) will say things like "at some point, it's not D&D anymore!" I don't think you are wrong here, either. There is a real tension between the idea of D&D as a particular game - or type of game - and D&D as fantasy role playing in general. I think all of us sometimes switch between our definitions without realizing it.

YES. This! Every bit of this!

Feb 24, 2015 10:38:15 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

In recent years, there has been an almost experimental movement to take the old rule books seriously, because after several decades of people doing whatever they want (and D&D meaning fantasy role playing in the most generic sense), the actual books present a style of game that seems alien, and very fascinating. People have discovered that rules that seemed silly or pointless actually have meaning and value in the right context. Mike, I'm not sure you really grasp what this is like for many people, since you were there at ground zero; to you, the thing that was strange or mysterious to a lot of folks was just "the game" for you. At any rate, Machfront doesn't seem to like the more literal interpretation of D&D - even in the sense of following the general style of Gygax, if not the exact word. Well, whether or not most people like the actual written word or Gygaxian style in general, most seem to do as Machfront does, and simply use whatever they want.

Right on the nose.
I find it fascinating. I enjoy thinking about it and discussing it. Then it began to seem (to me) through reading and discussing that a number of folks were playing just so. It would seem I was mistaken.

Feb 24, 2015 10:38:15 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Most people I've gamed with don't use dungeons, don't track encumberance, don't track ammo, don't do XP for gold, and don't follow probably 70% of the rules of whatever edition they are using, and so on. (In quite a few cases, I would have much preferred a higher level of adherence to whatever rule system we were using).

I think for Machfront the tension is between his love for these D&D communities, his enjoyment of D&D as a rules light generic fantasy system, and the fact that the way he plays diverges much from the Gygaxian style, both in word and spirit. I could be wrong, but I suspect he feels as I do; that the Gygaxian style is incredibly fascinating and rich in a certain way, and yet the play experience somehow doesn't deliver for us or our particular groups. I would be interested to know if Machfront agrees with this assessment.

Sometimes I do have to ask myself: Why am I even using this? Something like (sorry I'm a broken record here) RISUS would clearly suffice for my purposes. I suppose I never have a solid answer. Not even to myself. Sometimes a part of my brain simply says: "Because D&D is so freakin' cool, man!"
But, really, a good portion of the reason is simply that it(D&D) is so simple for me to modify due to familiarity and predictability. That and I've seen nothing in my play or experience of like play to break the game despite so much insistence that one must always have a cleric or that this or that bit should not be ignored, etc.

[kesher]

@droll and I had a fascinating email exchange about exactly this last point, machfront: why ODD and not RISUS?

I'll see if I can track it down--it ties right in to the larger topic, too...

[machfront]

I'd be very interested to read that, kesher.

[inkmeister]

Machfront, I'm glad that I seem to be understanding your perspective - it seems we are on a similar page.

I keep coming back to D&D, and OD&D and B/X in particular, because they are so simple. It is clear what is there and what everything does, and it is clear how to change things to get certain results, and not only that, it is fun to play with things, overhauling the magic system for example. Really, everything that D&D is to me is easily held in my brain at this stage; I don't need any of the books. Whatever I play would resemble OD&D or B/X, but I largely ignore most of those rulesets (even though, ironically, I enjoy reading those books)

Ultimately I find the history of D&D and the old school movement fascinating. I have no disrespect for those things at all. But really, for me, the old D&D is great because it is so simple and there is so little there. I could make 3rd edition whatever I want it to be, but there is so much more to modify, discard, or re-balance. Why not just start with OD&D or B/X?

I've never played D&D with anyone who is particular about any of this stuff. I never gamed with anyone or even knew anyone in person that reads gaming forums, thinks about the theory of different game styles, or delves into the minutia of various editions of D&D. Most people just want to "play D&D." I think it is best summed up in the words of a player I convinced to try older style D&D: "I don't care what edition it is as long as I can be a dwarf and bash things with a huge battle ax!"

[machfront]

+1 to all of that.

If I had to be brutally honest, I guess my biggest problem with old-school D&D is:

"Oh, I love B/X. I'll use B/X. B/X knows how I like it. ....d**n. Swords & Wizardry Core is how I always wanted D&D when I first began to really grasp it. Yeah. S&W. S&W is the one. Aahh... this whole OD&D 3LBB thing is so incredibly neat and fun and wild and weird and gorgeously hairy. Man. Those book covers at my parents' book store when I was five? Yeah. Come to life. OD&D is here to save my fun. Ooo. Look. Swords & Wizardry: WhiteBox. Single Save. That's where it's at. Even simpler and to the point and easier for me than OD&D and still OD&D. I've found my great love. Ya know... Swords & Wizardry Complete is like AD&D how I imagined it/wished it once I started to buy every Dragon Magazine around in in the mid 80s. I could use some Ravenloft done easy. I'll use S&W Complete. There. Done. Wait. No. S&W:WB. No. Oh, I love B/X. Oh, Holmes. I didn't forget you. You're always there. You're SO EFFIN' COOL, MAN!!! Turn up the YES, and let's play! I'm gonna take you and build my own. Fantasy '77! Oh, yes."

Yeah. That.

[exploderwizard]

Feb 26, 2015 19:48:43 GMT -6 machfront said:

+1 to all of that.

If I had to be brutally honest, I guess my biggest problem with old-school D&D is:

"Oh, I love B/X. I'll use B/X. B/X knows how I like it. ....d**n. Swords & Wizardry Core is how I always wanted D&D when I first began to really grasp it. Yeah. S&W. S&W is the one. Aahh... this whole OD&D 3LBB thing is so incredibly neat and fun and wild and weird and gorgeously hairy. Man. Those book covers at my parents' book store when I was five? Yeah. Come to life. OD&D is here to save my fun. Ooo. Look. Swords & Wizardry: WhiteBox. Single Save. That's where it's at. Even simpler and to the point and easier for me than OD&D and still OD&D. I've found my great love. Ya know... Swords & Wizardry Complete is like AD&D how I imagined it/wished it once I started to buy every Dragon Magazine around in in the mid 80s. I could use some Ravenloft done easy. I'll use S&W Complete. There. Done. Wait. No. S&W:WB. No. Oh, I love B/X. Oh, Holmes. I didn't forget you. You're always there. You're SO EFFIN' COOL, MAN!!! Turn up the YES, and let's play! I'm gonna take you and build my own. Fantasy '77! Oh, yes."

Yeah. That.

So your biggest "problem" is that there are a whole bunch of old school rule sets and different people prefer the flavor or presentation of certain ones? All of these are just different tools in the box the people can use to make the game that they find to be the most fun for them. More cool stuff to choose from to play with and modify isn't problem as I see it. Quite the opposite actually.

[inkmeister]

Machfront - I get you.

Speaking only for myself, edition fetishization is the enemy. It's the obsessing on all those kinds of details that will kill whatever gaming momentum I have.

I like Jeff Rients' post on that subject some time back. He borrowed, half jokingly, some eastern philosophy stuff along the lines of how the true D&D can never exist in any book or any edition, sort of like "the way that can be named is not the true way." Or the idea that you can point at the moon, but the finger is not the moon. D&D editions point at what the game is, but they are not the game. At this point, I try much more to adhere to the D&D in my brain, rather than the D&D in various books.

That said, why not borrow great ideas from whatever source?

[machfront]

Oh, I was only joking that it was a problem. I just love all of those editions/iterations/clones/etc. There's no way I can ever settle on one and wish I could use them all all at once. I just have to use one for a while, then another, then another. It's not a problem. It's a "problem".
That is, a wonderful problem to have. It drives me crazy, but I love it. Dig?

[tetramorph]

machfront, yes, I dig you.

My solution is to make up my own house rules.

You make up yours. Then share it so I can borrow form it and make my house rules better!

[Falconer]

I think it’s worth pointing out that tinkering with rules is not an aspect of the hobby that every referee enjoys. Some referees are more about world-building, or coming up with clever puzzles, or drawing, or the communion of the game table; you get the picture. So, while for one referee it’s freeing to know he has the power to change anything and everything in the rules, for another referee it’s freeing to just say: the rules are what they are. This week we’re going to play a game called DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, in which wizards don’t wear armor, because that’s just the rule — and we’re going to have a blast. We’ll keep playing it until we get tired of it and want to play something different.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2015 21:20:35 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I think it’s worth pointing out that tinkering with rules is not an aspect of the hobby that every referee enjoys. Some referees are more about world-building, or coming up with clever puzzles, or drawing, or the communion of the game table; you get the picture. So, while for one referee it’s freeing to know he has the power to change anything and everything in the rules, for another referee it’s freeing to just say: the rules are what they are. This week we’re going to play a game called DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, in which wizards don’t wear armor, because that’s just the rule — and we’re going to have a blast. We’ll keep playing it until we get tired of it and want to play something different.

Falconer you make a great point and for some of us it is all of the above (well within the limits of our RL abilities). I love the tinkering and the world building and the communion of the game table. I can't draw but really wish I could produce the maps I see in my mind and I am not much of a clever puzzle guy but also wish I were. I like all of it and some of you like pieces of it and that is ok. I like to see the pieces that each of you are good at. I love to see what others do in the areas I am good at and I love (and need) to see what others do in the areas I am weak or weaker in.

[monk]

Feb 28, 2015 21:20:35 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I think it’s worth pointing out that tinkering with rules is not an aspect of the hobby that every referee enjoys. Some referees are more about world-building, or coming up with clever puzzles, or drawing, or the communion of the game table; you get the picture. So, while for one referee it’s freeing to know he has the power to change anything and everything in the rules, for another referee it’s freeing to just say: the rules are what they are. This week we’re going to play a game called DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, in which wizards don’t wear armor, because that’s just the rule — and we’re going to have a blast. We’ll keep playing it until we get tired of it and want to play something different.

This is a good point. I happen to like being able to custom tailor my D&D just the way I like it at my table, but it doesn't mean I don't also yearn, sometimes, just to play the rules as written (and most commonly interpreted).

[Falconer]

And, that’s another neat thing: the ability to chat it up with any random D&D player you may meet from anywhere, and to have some sort of shared language and shared experience. To be able to take your character from when you were a kid and be able to play him in my campaign today (like Fat Neil in Abed’s game), and not having to worry about anything being different. Maybe even to swap stories about betrayal at the Caves of Chaos, chilling encounters with broos in Snakepipe Hollow, or that epic TPK in the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giants. That’s something beautiful that came out of the late 70s games that standardized the fantasy RPG around their relatively cohesive and comprehensive rulesets (mainly AD&D and Runequest).

Though, admittedly, OD&D fandom (i.e., this forum) is largely about going back to a time when hundreds of homebrew or even regional variants abounded, all springing forth from the raw OD&D (likely +Greyhawk) baseline but being semi-distinct (like Caltech, Bay Area, Detroit, Twin Cities, etc.), and recapturing that magic from before the game re-coalesced into the major published RPGs.