old school gming

[jimmy corrigan]

i read this article, and i agree with much of it. especially the parts about "rulings, not rules" and "heroics, not heroes" and "the ming vase." very cool and important concepts.

chime in and let me know what you other gm's out there think. is "old school gming" the way to go?

[Dragonkin]

I just finished reading it, and it reminded me of alot of techniques which, over the last couple editions of D&D, I've forgotten. I also agree that most gamers new to the hobby (especially those who entered the hobby with D&D 3.0) relegate everything to die rolls, leading to "roll-play," rather than a great, co-operative story-telling that any RPG should be. Thanks for finding and posting this article. I hope it helps make me a better player and GM.

[jimmy corrigan]

yeah, i happen to be one of those gamers who fell into the hobby at d&d 3rd edition and i really think i missed out on a lot of what the author's talking about. some of the indie games of the new guard are changing that, and re-introducing larger story-driven mechanics. but i think it would've been cool to play the white box like the examples in the article.

[Wintermute]

While I think the author has a very rose-tinted view of old gaming, they make some very valid points. The way of the moose-head and player skill bits rang very true for me, and I miss the old school game balance when a character's continued existence could feel downright precarious.

[Skyman]

Geez these bring back memories. What the author tends to glaze over is the fact that it gets very tedious and veteran players can get into a funk of canned routines such as checking for pits, looking up and down before entering a room...In fact entering a room is like a ritual of listen to door, check door for traps, check floor infront of door, check ceiling above door, see if it open out or in, are there any wards, Henchman opens it ajar...you get the picture. He forgot to explain how GM's had to really explain the room in detail and that every detail had a huge laundry list of questions.

Aside from that my sentiments is like Winters. The No guarantee balanced game and the figuring out stuff was cool. Puzzles in 0D&D were fun like that

[Barrier Peaks]

[quote="Skyman"]In fact entering a room is like a ritual of listen to door, check door for traps, check floor infront of door, check ceiling above door, see if it open out or in, are there any wards, Henchman opens it ajar...you get the picture.[/quote]

Ahhhh, the memories! I think I'd prefer to leave them as memories and go on, because that sort of thing got really old. It could very easily turn into a "DM vs. the Players" sort of thing, and in many cases that's exactly how the rules were written.



With DMs who were willing to fudge regardless of the circumstances, it also became a "fuck with the players" fest of limitless proportions.



It depends a lot on what you enjoy in a game. If you don't mind playing Twenty Questions every time someone opens a door, fine.



And here I thought "old school gaming" was crawling through sewer tunnels with Bink Pulling in my best "Frodo" outfit.

[cczernia]

Actually, I don't really like old gming style and I think the best example is given in with "Ninja Jump."

Essentially the examples are the same up until this point:

Modern
John the Rogue: “I’m just saying there’s nothing in the rules that says I should end up prone after making that attack.”
Frank the Cleric: “I attack the goblin.”
GM: “Okay, I’ll tell you what. Roll against your jump skill with a target number of 10, and if you succeed then you stay standing.”
John the Rogue: “I rolled a 9, but I have a dex modifier of +2, so it’s an 11.”
GM: “Okay, you’re still standing.”

Old
John the Rogue: “I don’t see why I should be down on the ground.”
GM: “You rolled a 2, that’s a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you’re on the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit.”
John the Rogue: “Where’s that in the books?”
GM: “It’s not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit.”

If I was in the game I would be happy with the modern game and pissed at the GM in the old style. At least in the modern game the GM backtracks and spells out how is changing the rules. In old the GM doesn't tell anyone how he changed the rules and when the player argues he blows him off.

The more options you give players in a game the more power they have. When a GM comes up with rules on the fly it is one thing but how about option 3 where the players and GM comes up with the ruling.

John the Rogue: “I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving the sword blade deep into the goblin’s back using the weight of my body and the fall to cause tons of extra damage. Can I take a -5 to hit to get an extra die of damage.”

GM "Sounds good."

Frank the Cleric: " But that is one of my special abilities."

GM "Ok, how about if John fails he becomes prone."

Frank the Cleric: "That is fair."

John the Rogue: “Cool. Dang I got a 2."

GM "Looks like you are prone. Frank, your turn."

Frank the Cleric: “I attack the goblin.”

[Skyman]

[quote="Barrier Peaks"]


With DMs who were willing to fudge regardless of the circumstances, it also became a "fuck with the players" fest of limitless proportions.



It depends a lot on what you enjoy in a game. If you don't mind playing Twenty Questions every time someone opens a door, fine.
[/quote]

Yeah I agree with the 'Fuck with the players" fest and players know it so it becomes GM vs players pretty effin quick



When my players went through the against the GIant series we streamlined the checks to a standard expectations and had declarations of anything outside of that. We did that change half way through the Fire GIant stronghold. We continued through the Drow and demon Web pits. As it turns out it made the game go quicker. The longers session turned out to be the first in the series against the Hill GIants as a result

[opwunder]

Being someone who bought their first RP game in a little white box, I can remember this style quite well. As the games became more and more rule oriented, I always felt that they stepped each time a little further away from the basic role-playing experience. While I appreciated the mechanics and the security that all of these rules presented I felt that there needed to be a compromise. It is why I eventually came up with my own system.

Now, if someone wants to jump onto someone's back from above, I look logically at the problem, inform the player of the skills and/or abilities that will be needed to perform the task. They then roll their die(ce) to determine the outcome. How well they roll is reflected in that outcome. If it is a new or novel approach to something, I will find a way to reward the player's character even if they fail the attempt.

[BlanchPrez]

I pretty much agree with everything Chris posted. I tend to run my games that way. It's one of the reasons I loved D20 so much. It was crunchy, sure, but it sure was flexable, and made ruling on the fly super easy.

Chris

[Count Zero]

The examples really don't seem that different to me. In fact, the "old style" gaming seems a little more like narrativist gaming which is pretty modern and the "modern style" gaming feels more like what is "classic D&D" gaming to me. Really, it feels like the author of the article isn't aware of a single indie game that has come out in the past four or five years.