4E and OD&D

[blackmoor]

ODD was for guidelines. It was, and is the referee that makes it work (Then and now!( It was much more free form with all the pitfalls and errors that that implies. The more rules you add (AD&D) the more likely it is you will constrain the players and the game. Rules are good, too many rules are bad. And you will screw things up.

Modules/Scenarios are not the same thing. That is why I always tended to paly the game fast and 'loose'.

Dave Arneson
"Dark Lord Of Game Design"

[dwayanu]

I just DMd a 4E scenario for the first time, drafted for the job on the spur of the moment. Refereeing an RPGA session is analogous to running a tournament round in terms of being constrained by the scenario and rules. I had only a few minutes to scan the first encounter, while a player drew the "game board," because the game really ought to have been underway already.

My familiarity with the rules is not much more than what I've gathered from a few sessions of play, but they pretty much consist of variations on the same few themes. The "stat blocks" for monsters very elegantly present the relevant special rules. Under the circumstances, it's not surprising that I did not play them with much tactical finesse -- but only once did I have to look up something in a book (a moment's pause) to apply the mechanics with technical proficiency.

Things moved along quite briskly relative to my previous experience. We actually got through the whole program of eight "encounters" before the youngest players had to call it a night!

I got no complaints when I ditched a wacky social-interaction "skill challenge" in favor of simple role-playing (with some skill rolls as seemed called for along the way). It also pleased me when the players used some common sense and stipulated that they were trying not to kill, but simply to overcome, certain foes. I didn't modify the rules (and don't yet know whether there is BTB provision for that eventuality), but reflected their aim in describing the results.

Another, pretty anti-climactic, encounter could have been avoided altogether -- or "defeated" with a skill challenge in place of combat. In the event, the players took out the (literal) boss in the blink of an eye. Considering the underlings' perspective, I figured it was pretty reasonable that their morale might be broken enough to make them vulnerable to the players' attempt at Intimidation. It helped that circumstances made it clear that some of the PCs actually would and could take opportunity of an excuse to slaughter their foes -- but would likewise be bound to honor a pledge. Through role-playing, I actually got the most powerful (but less honorable) PC to let them go ... whereupon the other players over-ruled him! They ended up turning over the captives to the proper authorities.

Based on this experience, I can see how one could "loosen up" things even more in a home-brewed campaign. One of the youngsters described and played his character as an android, although I doubt that there's any official rules package for that (and while I don't know what template he used, I'm sure it was RPGA approved). That brought me right back to my early OD&D experiences, when a (game-mechanically) "plain vanilla" Fighting Man could be almost anything -- depending on how one played it! While the other characters were sipping whiskey, he enjoyed another kind of lubrication ...

To a perhaps surprising extent, players seem to take their lead from the GM. Because of the peculiar "meta-game" situation, I let the rules be the master on one point (of marksmanship aimed into a melee). If it had been more clearly my scenario rather than WotC's, I think these players would have taken the inconvenient ruling in stride.

IIRC the blog post referred to earlier, the author raised the point that a game is better when the rules design takes steps to support a style of play. The 4E style happens not to be one I prefer; I actually like a lot some things that fellow apparently considers just a drag -- and vice-versa.

[dwayanu]

Occasion arose for a certain old-timer to bruit his having played D&D back in 1966 ... and I'm pretty sure he previously had it in '68. It's the "characters" around the table who really make the "party"!

With but few exceptions (mainly "old school" before there was any other), I've found fantasy gamers good company while sharing our hobby. I remember telling my uncle (ca. 1979) that computer games could not replace paper-and-pencil RPGs because one thing programs did not bring to the game was pizza.

Maybe a new generation will find the allure of "virtual reality" greater, but for me the social aspect is fundamental.

[blackmoor]

ODD was for guidelines. It was, and is the referee that makes it work (Then and now!( It was much more free form with all the pitfalls and errors that that implies. The more rules you add (AD&D) the more likely it is you will constrain the players and the game. Rules are good, too many rules are bad. And you will screw things up.

(See above!)

Dave Arneson
Dark Lord of Game Design

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2008 21:30:21 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

Dubeers - calm down there, fella!

What I was attempting to do was state my opinion clearly. I'm not upset, nor was I upset when I made the original (now deleted) post. Is it possible you're overreacting?

I'm not sure what logical fallacy is obvious there

I thought of how to state this both simply and without upsetting you, the result follows. I assure you no disrespect is intended to you or anyone else:

A poorly written game is a poorly written game. There is simply no way around it. To take a generic FRPG example? A good referee and players could certainly overcome a bad set of rules, given the time and inclination. However, if the rules have to be heavily overwritten and expanded by the players; is what remains the original game? And if a similar but more clearly written set of rules exists, why not play that one, instead?

seems like ol' Wil is just stating a fairly common observation about game systems:

"Common" does not equal "correct", though of course the reverse is also true--a commonly held belief is not necessarily incorrect, either.

in the end it depends on the players and the referee.

I agree.

If there *is* something that doesn't feel quite right about that, 'splain it to us gently, please.

I've attempted to be "gentle," succinct, and clear. Let me know how I did.

(One of the things I like about this board is that generally we tend to disagree gently with one another - not sure I'm disagreeing here, but I'm curious about Dubeers strong opinions. Help me out?)

You're confusing "clearly stated" with "strongly held". The gentle part is somewhat harder to pin down, being somewhat subjective. In response to that assertion, let me repeat that it was not my intention to be offensive or rude. If I did hurt anyone's feelings, let me offer my sincerest apologies. If you feel you need a personal apology, feel free to e-mail me at (my user name) at gmail period com.

Thanks for your time.

[Falconer]

I thought dwayanu said it best: a game is better when the rules design supports your style of play.

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2008 13:49:38 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I thought dwayanu said it best: a game is better when the rules design supports your style of play.

I think that sums up the whole issue quite neatly. Err ... sorry; I'm supposed to keep it simple.

I agree! ;D

[badger2305]

dubeers: have an Exalt for your explanation! I understand much better now what you are getting at. A minor quibble only in "poorly written" is sometimes in the eye of the Beholder (ahem), I mean, beholder.

But yes, I agree with Dwayanu:

a game is better when the rules design supports your style of play.

[dwayanu]

I was actually paraphrasing Wil Wheaton.

Gamers who play an RPG have to decide for themselves why they're setting aside the time and making the effort to get together. Almost every time, whether people have fun comes down to the DM and the players. It took me years of gaming, and no small amount of frustration, to conclude that a system's rules should provide a structure and some basic expectations for the game, but that a campaign or adventure is more fun when it's supported by the rules, instead of being defined by them. (Caveat: No game is suitable for everyone.)

And I agree with Falconer's paraphrasing of my paraphrasing of Wil! (The Truth is Out There ... or In Here ... or somewhere!)
What Dave Said, too.

[Falconer]

Uh... group hug!

[Deleted]

Dec 21, 2008 22:49:27 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

dubeers: have an Exalt for your explanation! I understand much better now what you are getting at. A minor quibble only in "poorly written" is sometimes in the eye of the Beholder (ahem), I mean, beholder.

Thanks! I'm glad we could arrive at an understanding. An exalt for you, too.

[Finarvyn]

I like it when folks EXALT each other! Shows we agree on things!

One big thing that I think we all agree on here is that the philosophy of the rules trumps the letter of the law if one wants to create an OD&D-style game. My hope in starting this whole thread is to find ways to use the 4E guildelines and OD&D-ize them.

In other words, I accept the fact that the 4E rules will not be OD&D as written, and that they will not be OD&D in the minds of the designers, but I hope somehow that I can absorb an OD&D philosophy into a 4E game anyway.

What I may end up with is OD&D with a hit point "kicker" and a bunch of daily powers. That might be fun, too.