|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 25, 2012 10:37:51 GMT -8
Well I suppose those that have splashed out have had time to peruse and reflect on this reprinted ancient tome. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were, as memories are fickle creatures and often AD&D 1st ed has been misquoted and/or confused with other editions. More to the point, given the lack of mechanics in maintaining player balance (being instead a function of role playing and adjudication), it occurred to me to ask: how difficult would it be to make a system breaking character? . . . Especially when one considers the lack of player options as variables to be manipulated . . . could the solution to player balance be simplification rather than this seemingly never ending arithmetic reworking? (I mean sometimes RPG's feel more like micro$oft crippleware with their endless patches and version releases). . .
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jul 25, 2012 11:16:18 GMT -8
Very cogent question. <wheezy old man voice>Back in my day we didn't have fancy things like feats and skills. All we had was ability scores ... and we liked it that way.</wheezy old man voice>
I have long questioned whether the added complexity of more modern games was actually a benefit to role playing.
I think the answer depends on a great many more variables than just is it more complicated (and by extension how is it more complicated). In particular, the players in the game are going to inform the answer to the question.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 25, 2012 11:52:21 GMT -8
Cheers JiB . . . you have enunciated precisely my own musings of late. <wheezy old man voice> The only really breaky character I can recall was one that was more a result of unprecedented luck with generated abilities scores that defied statistical probability . . . you know the type 18/00 STR and Psionics and Noble Birth (using the social standing table from Unearthed Arcana) witnessed at home by another player but not the DM . . . I've often felt that the myth of adversarial Game Mastering in the 'Old Skool' was more often than not simply a response to this sort of player munchkinism/cheating . . . they cast first stone so to speak (ie: "so you want a challenge do you? but you want to cheat? . . . okayyyy let's see how may shades of bastard I can paint this encounter")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2012 18:33:54 GMT -8
I don't know, every 2e AD&D game I played as a kid, and the very few 1e AD&D games I played as a kid were all very much of the dungeon crawl with absolutely know rp and the DM just trying to kill us. Now granted we were kids so that was more responsible then anything to do with the systems.
On the same point I don't think I ever played more then a single game of 2e by the rules as written. We house ruled everything, the actual rules just seemed rather broke half the time. Again very possible broke was more us not understanding them then the actual system.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 26, 2012 0:12:03 GMT -8
I don't know, every 2e AD&D game I played as a kid, and the very few 1e AD&D games I played as a kid were all very much of the dungeon crawl with absolutely know rp and the DM just trying to kill us. Now granted we were kids so that was more responsible then anything to do with the systems. I tend to agree as I ply my way through this venerable tome I can't actually see where it says it's player vs DM . . . With the object of the exercise being win or lose as measured by survival. Rather it suggests that there is no win or lose there is just playing the game and the experience forthwith. I tend to think, as you suggest, that the adversarial style was more result of kids being kids in combination with a failure to fully understand/digest the rule set. Many house rules I recall from the early days were unintentionally very system breaking and usually attempts to correct a misunderstanding of the rules as written. 2e however I do absolutely believe was especially prone to generating breaky/rapey characters due to its handling of non-weapon proficiencies and the later 'complete blah blah' splat books. I won't even mention the final evolution of 2e with its hideously over complex and unbalanced 'character options' (how many character attributes?!!) and 'spells and powers' tomes
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jul 26, 2012 1:02:41 GMT -8
More to the point, given the lack of mechanics in maintaining player balance (being instead a function of role playing and adjudication), it occurred to me to ask: how difficult would it be to make a system breaking character? . . . Especially when one considers the lack of player options as variables to be manipulated . . . could the solution to player balance be simplification rather than this seemingly never ending arithmetic reworking? I would agree to that observation. “What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee.” With these thirteen words prefacing the first Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master’s Guide, Gary Gygax tells the reader that the DM and no one else applies rules to this game. Thus, every game of D&D is exists as a unique experience requiring a symbiotic existence between players rather than with a book to occur. He carried that message throughout the book, referencing players and player character interchangeably and in his many references to the game in other media. By making the DM God (to use the inflammatory modern nomenclature) players had to decide whether the DM was a douche, and players had to engage the DM in a dialogue. And the seat of that responsibility is worth highlighting: players had to make decisions and engage the dialogue. It was not something that could be forgone through reliance on a rulebook (a book, of rules) because such a published control book was not up for discussion. So how do you jury-rig a black box? If the DM is not a douche, why worry about a black box? If the DM is a douche, all the rulebooks published won’t help. A good DM found as much joy from the play of the game as did the players. That was the payoff for designing. Designing was never to be out of the hands of the DM (as Gygax has specifically said numerous times in numerous quotations I have read). AD&D 1e player balance rests in the DM’s hands, as it was understood. Players needed to trust, or be open to trust, the DM and that was a decision inseparable from attending the DM’s table. Very cogent question. I have long questioned whether the added complexity of more modern games was actually a benefit to role playing. I would say no. That does not say it is necessarily a hindrance. But the best possible effect is null. The worst effect is that a clunky system breaks player engrossment – what was once termed game engrossment and became immersion. I think the answer depends on a great many more variables than just is it more complicated (and by extension how is it more complicated). In particular, the players in the game are going to inform the answer to the question. I think the simpler the system, the greater the impact the players will have on game balance. The simpler the system, the greater will be the player communications just to understand it/it’s GM. (More communication based on in-game role-playing, and out of game negotiation.) This certainly is one of the reasons D&D was the hobby’s gateway game. The observation is not a condemnation of games like GURPS. But GURPS is for progressive players like Stu. J And the issue of DM trust exists with Stu as much as with a newbie DM. Stu’s game of GURPS is not a good game because it is more complicated same as AD&D is not a bad game because it has less rules. But less rules certainly puts more onus on player interaction at all levels.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jul 26, 2012 1:16:02 GMT -8
I don't know, every 2e AD&D game I played as a kid, and the very few 1e AD&D games I played as a kid were all very much of the dungeon crawl with absolutely know rp and the DM just trying to kill us. Now granted we were kids so that was more responsible then anything to do with the systems. I tend to agree as I ply my way through this venerable tome I can't actually see where it says it's player vs DM . . . With the object of the exercise being win or lose as measured by survival. Rather it suggests that there is no win or lose there is just playing the game and the experience forthwith. I tend to think, as you suggest, that the adversarial style was more result of kids being kids in combination with a failure to fully understand/digest the rule set. Many house rules I recall from the early days were unintentionally very system breaking and usually attempts to correct a misunderstanding of the rules as written. 2e however I do absolutely believe was especially prone to generating breaky/rapey characters due to its handling of non-weapon proficiencies and the later 'complete blah blah' splat books. I won't even mention the final evolution of 2e with its hideously over complex and unbalanced 'character options' (how many character attributes?!!) and 'spells and powers' tomes I will add that Dungeons & Dragons was not meant to be a card game where the DM plays the house against the players. It was collaborative, not player vs. player. There is admonition (pg 21) not to have players play monster races. The modern gamers I have encountered tend to play to discover how to rule the system and believe it is the GM’s job to defend against this. (Reminds me of Aikido practice: you need an attacker to practice and we give thanks to the attacker for his/her help...) Once gamers break/game the system, these player feel compelled to move on like any video game. The idea appears to be that once they have played the environments and scenarios, there seems nothing left. What I have observed from my gamers is that game socializing centres on rules discussions and are out of character related events rather than remembering the shared fantasy at the table.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 26, 2012 1:24:26 GMT -8
But less rules certainly puts more onus on player interaction at all levels. Yeah it's precisely this interaction that I miss . . . The negotiation between DM and players in adjudicating an outcome eg: player: "I want to attempt xyz" DM: "ok I'll give you a chance of succeeding based on blah blah" player: "yeah but if you consider that . . . see I looked up a real world example" DM: " fair enough, I stand corrected I'll modify your chance by x . . . . (as an aside) that was an interesting fact you bought up, I'll remember that". The negotiation itself was a social exercise, the game related (but not in game) chatter relevant and often interesting (and dare I say educational?). A player in my 1st ed 'big old campaign of yore' knew that they'd be travelling across the wilds in winter and (meta gaming a little) surmised that I'd be a stickler for resources for this trek to add tension - so he went and looked up army survival guides and scout manuals etc . . . He utilised that knowledge to the party's benefit and I allowed it because he was a ranger and I surmised that his character would also have access to such knowledge plus we all learnt something about surviving in conditions of extreme cold as well (a butt naked hairy ranger and butch paladin hugging each other for warmth under fur skins . . . well the comedy and RP gold is obvious)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jul 26, 2012 2:16:53 GMT -8
RPGs, the way I remember it so it can be called nostalgia, can be an excellent social network-building tool. I am a heterosexual, never been married, career man, relatively handsome (did small bits in film) until I recently lost my waistline (now 5’11 and 175 pounds). So not everyone middle-aged is with wife and kids; and I imagine I am only one of a group wanting to increase my social circle in middle-age. OSR (and the systems recalling OSR-style) may be the answer to this social need and, maybe, receives the undeserved labeling of a mere nostalgia movement by those more system-tied. ca.shine.yahoo.com/best-friends-thing-past-age-30-160000686.html
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jul 26, 2012 6:39:49 GMT -8
I will simply add that the rules whether heavy or light exist to facilitate the story by providing a fair and unbiased adjudication of events. The implementation of those rules is in the hands of the gm and the players. Every game works or fails because of the implicit contract of play that exists between the players and the gm. Rules light systems place the onus of that contract on the players and the gm to be fair and unbiased. Rules intensive systems place that onus on the rules as written. Which is better is a matter of taste, but in my opinion neither should inhibit the ROLE (emphasis intended) play.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 27, 2012 11:11:56 GMT -8
My copy arrived today (UK . . . Quickest I could get it) . . . Just the PHB as I still have all my original tomes (PHB DMG MM MMII FF DD DSG WSG) on my book shelf . . . As well as a load of other systems (shadowrun circa 1994 anyone?) . . . It's shrink wrapped with a little insert about donating to the GG memorial fund. I kinda don't want open it up . . . I've never really been very good with the whole mint condition collectors item thing in the past . . . Argggh I'm conflicted . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2012 11:21:11 GMT -8
Having a book you never read is like having a toy you never play with or a car you never drive, whats the point?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 27, 2012 11:57:59 GMT -8
I've read it . . . Well my original copy . . . Which is beaten and battered but a testament to the quality of early binding . . . If it was my only copy yeah no choice I'd rip it open in the blink of an eye . . . Damned shrink wrapping . . . Never thought it would be shrink wrapped
|
|