The state of Post-OSR content

[squeen]

When I defend 4e, I accept, and sometimes even point out, valid criticisms. It is your treatment of the 1e core books as interpreted by you as scripture that drives me bananas.

EOTB has been extremely helpful explaining practical work-around(s) for some of 1e's stickier issue, and never over-reaches with advise. The misconception (which you are constantly pushing) is that the system is unplayable and needs to be fixed. This is simply not the case.

Why do you want EOTB to admit AD&D "fails" in some way shape or form so earnestly? It comes off as a self-serving justification for abandoning 1e for later editions (which is what you personally decided to do) or else proving it requires heavy DIY adjustments as justification for opening Pandora's Box 'O Mods (e.g. Mechanics Cross-Pollination)---which again is a false conclusion. The system is playable as-is "even if thou likest it not"....and even is preferred by some folks of a certain mind-set (e.g. K&KA, Huso, BG, etc.). So, why is it important to you that this empirically-backed truth be publicly acknowledges as false? Does it irk you that the Pope won't go on TV and discount the parts of the Bible you don't like?

Just because you are magnanimous about 4e's problems doesn't require the rest of the world to behave as you chosen. That's a fallacy at the heart of many of the world's ideologies that gets us all into hot water. EOTB has never said AD&D is optimal---just that it works for what he wants it to do. Every time someone points out "It doesn't do X" he just responds, "I don't really need it to do X"---which in turn leads to this weird defensiveness of "What's wrong with X?!?".

Understanding the way he (or someone like Prince, or even someone like you) communicates without antipathy is at the heart of getting along with others. "That's just EOTB's way" is the kind of community spirit I find in short supply on the internet, but seems far more common face-to-face. (It is, of course, different when someone starts to target you as their punching-bag---no one should have to tolerate an ounce of that.)

Just please don't bad-mouth someone whom has been (to me) a genuine mensch. It's hard to ignore.

I'm on a whole "minimalist" trip right now. Rather than constantly trying to adjust D&D to be what I want, I'm trying to adjust my DMing to harmonize with the system I've chosen (AD&D). It's a mental inversion I've found (ironically) liberating. I'm not fighting the tide, I'm surfing it. Join me on the experience, or don't---your choice....doesn't really matter. I write posts here about what I've discovered because I've gotten some positive feedback indicating they are some others out there for whom my hobby-rediscovery resonates AND because folks have helped me course-correct. If and when that stops, I'll stop too (no doubt!). I've learned that my style of play has long-since fallen out of fashion---so maybe my efforts are just archival in nature: a testament to the fact that the old-school style can work too (if your head and all-the-supporting-pieces are in a certain place).

 

[EOTB]

No, the way to bust through alleged misconceptions is to support your argument with evidence. All you do is make bald statements. And your arguments are not balanced, you accept no criticism of 1e and treat it as a perfect whole. When I defend 4e, I accept, and sometimes even point out, valid criticisms. It is your treatment of the 1e core books as interpreted by you as scripture that drives me bananas.

I'm quoting right from the books. I criticize the btb evolution of backstab in the same post I also explain where conventional wisdom errs greatly in its refereeing of other thieves abilities. If I interpret an ambiguity, I explain it's an interpretation. But if I'm rebutting an invalid interpretation by another, no, I do not say "well we just both have different interpretations"; I don't leave room for an observer to think the other opinion is equally valid. If I believe an interpretation is flatly mistaken, I state so plainly.

 

[Melan]

I believe the real "red pill" of role-playing games is the understanding that "role-playing" was not originally meant to refer to "you are now playing the role of Robin the Woodsman, so behave accordingly", but "how would YOU proceed if YOU were placed in the position of Robin the Woodsman?" That has a lot of repercussions on approaching play, using the rules to your advantage, interacting with your fellow players and the GM, and so forth. It puts the experience in - perhaps not in its proper place; that would be arrogant to assume - but how about "in a place that is both logical and comfortable"?

 

[Malrex]

I'm in the roleplaying camp vs metagaming. Don't think either way is necessarily right or wrong. 1e doesn't have proficiencies, etc. 2e does---to 'help' with the reasons for metagaming knowledge. At least that's how I see it. Some of the roleplaying can get ridiculous ("that's what my character would do!") but if you are with the same group for awhile, you avoid that or its pretty minimum. Oh well, no argument here really, I could play either way, but I do believe a new player finds more enjoyment in the game when the other players aren't spouting off rules and creature information...it takes away their awe and wonder of the game. Example: Instead of figuring out how to fight a troll on their own, they are told what to do....I'll compare it to 'power-leveling' in a video game. Part of the fun is figuring out stuff...no? Or if your character dies in a pit...you roll up a new character and magically know where the pit is now and avoid it?...just doesn't really do it for me. But at the same time, being presented a challenge and you need to use all your knowledge of the game to pull something off---I can see that as being fun too. It's just a different mindset of playing the same game.

But I only popped on here to say that thieves rule. They are one of my favorites. EOTB had a good post up above about how useful they could be in a guild/city, but I don't think there are too many good city adventures, or at least I haven't been in many good ones...I've received a small taste of what he wrote about and it was pretty cool. I think a city is where thieves AND bards could really shine for a group but most weigh in on dungeon usefulness.

Admittedly, the mage/thief is my hands down favorite and I'll usually pick that combo anytime I can. But true thieves can be fun and interesting too. But I don't usually play them as a team player as much because then they become useless. Because they try to do their part with damage and taking even more risks....pfff... Be selfish...have your goal be 'get loot' and to survive. Help when its safe, be wary when its not. Is that a dick move? pffft...this group of people are sending you ahead to scout by yourself or fiddle with traps---they see you as completely expendable for the safety of the group!--what do you owe em? I'll gladly scout though....if I see loot, its mine. No risk, no reward punks. (Although, having said that, in my current game, my mage/thief has saved the party several times from a TPK...but they still don't like him and treat him like crap--because he is a thief).

But this might be a another rift in the roleplaying vs metagaming as I see metagaming usually meaning that everyone gets along and works as a team and using their combined knowledge of the game, where as roleplaying, characters (not players) mostly get along because its for survival, but still have their own goals and ambitions. I don't think if I was in a metagaming group that a thief would be as much fun, compared to a roleplaying group. Metagaming has more player expectations, while roleplaying has more character expectations...if that makes sense.

 

[The1True]

My group has been playing together too long to pretend like Metagaming isn't a thing. Every once in a while the DM just has to step in and say "you wouldn't know that" if there's something game-breakingly egregious going on, but most of the time it's ignored. If you don't like the players blasting their first troll with fire right from the get go, then reskin the troll or change him up to vex the default troll-bane attack. I've read strong arguments FOR metagaming at Angry..GM and Alexandrian and I am a convert.

Thieves have always been rad. Cleric-Thieves are where it's at though; so much self-buff, so much morally ambiguous necromancy...

 

[Malrex]

My group has been playing together too long to pretend like Metagaming isn't a thing. Every once in a while the DM just has to step in and say "you wouldn't know that" if there's something game-breakingly egregious going on, but most of the time it's ignored. If you don't like the players blasting their first troll with fire right from the get go, then reskin the troll or change him up to vex the default troll-bane attack. I've read strong arguments FOR metagaming at Angry..GM and Alexandrian and I am a convert.

Thieves have always been rad. Cleric-Thieves are where it's at though; so much self-buff, so much morally ambiguous necromancy...

Yeah, both the Angry DM and Alexandrian seem to want a DM railroad game and not a player run game. Or a roll-playing game and not a roleplaying game. Just roll dice guys and get along! If things 'get out of hand, they will take them to the other room and have a talk with that player, or kick them from the group'!! That will teach em!

What if in Angry DM's example, it wasn't just Aaron who wanted to play that way, but all the players? Would all the players then be "railroading" the game in different directions? Wouldn't that be more of a sandbox then? But the DM would flip out and not be able to handle it? "Sorry guys, I know it says roleplaying on the front cover of the book, but I can't handle your roleplaying, I'm going to head home."
Or
"Hey all, we got to ignore those pages because they talk about the alignment system, and we just simply ignore that because we all MUST get along and work as a team or.....else, I'm going to have to take you to the back room and put a stop to it because it's not how I want it to go."
The AngryDM wants to railroad everything himself as DM? I thought most of you guys like more of a sandbox gaming style?

Or would the DM just sit back and watch the roleplaying as the players negotiate with one another and figure things out themselves. The DM doesn't actually have to control everything!!! It becomes a heated argument between characters (not players)???...that's when you decide to take those troublesome players to the back room? Or instead, wouldn't it make a huge amount of sense to roll on the wandering encounter table then..no?

"That’s the Dramatist streak in me, and if I’m GMing a group that’s having problems refraining from these actions OR roleplaying naturally despite possessing metagame knowledge, I’ll start pulling players into private side-sessions in order to resolve these moments. (Because if I don’t, valuable and cool moments of game play will be lost.)"

Yeah? what if the cool moments of game play are player driven with roleplaying rather than the DM controlling everything because they have a vision on how things are going to go that evening. I guess I'm not into a heavy handed DM--you must play my way because I'm the only one that knows about cool moments, otherwise you will need to go home. Ok...cool...are you going to roll dice for me when we play Monopoly together too and tell me how many steps I can take?

It doesn't work with every group. You got to read the table. There is definitely a time and place for roleplaying. I wouldn't roleplay at a convention or with a group I don't regularly play with until I figured out how the players wanted to play. That's gaming etiquette, not meta-gaming.

It definitely slows things waaaay down...but slows down what exactly? Exploring the next room? When your group has played together for 20+ years, do you think they will find the next room more interesting? Or if goals and ambitions of characters come to a head because of how the DM set the stage and negotiations and roleplay need to happen to figure things out---seems like all the players (including the DM) are actually playing the game then, rather than an iron-fisted DM telling the group how to do things.

I realize most of you are DMs and not trying to piss anyone off here, but I think DM's fear what they can't control. You immediately label a player as a problem player if they try to roleplay (and some are...some don't have gaming etiquette), because roleplaying brings in the unknown, and when things are unknown its hard to control. So you freak out. Stop it! Just set the stage as narrator, let the players play, and stop trying to control every little thing. You got enough to worry about then trying to control your players too.

And yes, cleric/thieves are bad ass too.

 

[squeen]

We didn't roll-play as defined in the current discussion, but the players still betrayed each other and every ounce of co-operation was a big negotiation of "what's in it for me". Don't conflate meta-gaming with "peace and harmony". Realpolitik is really the best description.

 

[EOTB]

I don't really have issues with roleplaying unless it is placed above the game instead of a fun aspect within the game. But as soon as that one player going for their Oscar starts burning material table time with what I would term "gratuitous roleplaying" of mundane, clearly non-advancing interaction, or the classic "this isn't what I would do IRL but..." action that spikes things up in same way, for no other reason than roleplaying uber alles, or the "this character hasn't discovered how to permanently kill a troll" bit, where each character must act out the basic game rules in real time in order to make use of player knowledge - that's beyond what I'm interested in.

But roleplaying something that comes naturally, unforced, and that raises the laughter/fun/excitement/wonder aspect at the table instead of paying homage to an abstract ideal? All for it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Did people forget what the "RP" in "TTRPG" stands for?

Who is seriously saying roleplaying doesn't belong in roleplaying games? How is this conversation even happening?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.

 

[EOTB]

I think, instead, it is how many people who firstly pay homage to roleplaying dislike that the "G" is still present (and something RP only adjectivizes as opposed to replacing) that they came up with an entirely redundant term of "metagaming" to disparage treating a game like a game.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think, instead, it is how many people who firstly pay homage to roleplaying dislike that the "G" is still present ... that they came up with an entirely redundant term of "metagaming" to disparage treating a game like a game.

So you're suggesting there's a persistent problem of people who get so far into the roleplaying aspect that they deem anyone using the actual rules of the game as "metagamers"? Where are you getting that kind of impression from? Like, genuinely curious - I haven't seen anything about this mentioned in blogs or other communities.

 

[Palindromedary]

I don't know about the idea that it's metagaming specifically, but there was definitely a feeling that a group of people appeared by the mid-80s that wanted to move beyond what they saw as D&D's primitive early days and emphasize the storytelling aspect. Gygax wrote a lengthy article on this in Dragon #102 (October 1985), in which he tried to emphasize that role-playing was only an appendage to game, and in his opinion it was becoming seen as the reverse: game as an appendage to role-playing.

One of the things I find fascinating about early D&D is that it's so unapologetically a game, in a way steadily chipped away at in favour of D&D becoming a fantasy reality simulator: I'm working on a blog entry on it because I think it's something that tends to get overlooked (or, if noticed, again dismissed as "primitive origins"). What I also find interesting is that sometimes those "gamey" elements are subsumed into the RP framework by players with unquestionable old-school bonafides: for example, Philotomy's interesting essay on the mythic underworld, which essentially takes a game conceit and No-Prizes it.

 

[EOTB]

So you're suggesting there's a persistent problem of people who get so far into the roleplaying aspect that they deem anyone using the actual rules of the game as "metagamers"? Where are you getting that kind of impression from? Like, genuinely curious - I haven't seen anything about this mentioned in blogs or other communities.

"that they came up with an entirely redundant term of "metagaming" to disparage treating a game like a game. "

"So you're suggesting there's a persistent problem of people who get so far into the roleplaying aspect that they deem anyone using the actual rules of the game as "metagamers""

My statement and your statement don't say the same thing. This is often true of any response that begins with "So..."

 

[The1True]

Alexandrian seem to want a DM railroad

On behalf of the Alexandrian I demand satisfaction for this remark! How dare you sir!

 

[The1True]

Philotomy's interesting essay on the mythic underworld, which essentially takes a game conceit and No-Prizes it.

Link?

 

[The1True]

Yeah, both the Angry DM and Alexandrian seem to want a DM railroad game and not a player run game. Or a roll-playing game and not a roleplaying game. Just roll dice guys and get along! If things 'get out of hand, they will take them to the other room and have a talk with that player, or kick them from the group'!! That will teach em!

Seriously though dude, you seem to have taken quite serious umbrage to these three links and gotten something entirely different out of reading them than I did.

Maybe I provided bad examples? All I'm saying is the statement "Your character wouldn't do that" is mostly bullshit.

But sure, players passing off their game-monopolizing assholery with "because that's what my character would do" can also go to hell and get ostracized by the gaming group if they even survive the side-bar with the GM...

Metagaming reminds you that you're at a table (or online) playing a GAME with other real people who are ALSO playing a GAME. Like I said, sometimes it needs to be reigned in and I think most of us agree. Breaking D&D down to it's root equations suspends the wonder and joy of exploration and discovery for everybody and no one wants to play with that guy either.

You're welcome to slag Angry all you like. I stopped reading that long-winded blow-hard ages ago. But seriously. The Alex is a rock god and I demand you soothe my hurt feelings ...

 

[squeen]

Link?

PHILOTOMY'S MUSINGS

And agreed, we walk the line in a light way between player and character. Sometimes there can be a bit of rules-lawyering (reminding really), but I actually think that's healthy and keeps the DM (me) on his toes. The point being is there no attempt at character "acting" per se. You are essentially the character, but there's still immersion in the events taking place---because you care about the outcome. Some of the funniest bits are when you forget yourself and overreact to the imagined environment. But even then, it's got to be a genuine visceral reaction, not something you "put on" like a play---that's the performance artist's version of role-playing (which is a turn-off to me.)

Even calling the non-miniature version "theater of the mind" is a bit misleading. There are little to no theater skills involved in the style of D&D I prefer (from the players at least). Similarly, I gave an example in another thread of how the DM can abstract the NPC's reactions without going all the way to "first person" and assuming a "role".

Also, with regard to the rolling thief discussion: full disclosure is that except for the first year of two of (poor) playing when we were way into cake-and-eat-it-too D&D, I've never really did much with multi-classing. Not in the 10 years with my group in the 70/80's, nor in the past 8 years as DM. We just played the core 4-5 classes straight-up---although there have been elven fighter/magic-users NPCs in our campaign-world...I do kind of like that.

 

[Malrex]

Seriously though dude, you seem to have taken quite serious umbrage to these three links and gotten something entirely different out of reading them than I did.

Maybe I provided bad examples? All I'm saying is the statement "Your character wouldn't do that" is mostly bullshit.

But sure, players passing off their game-monopolizing assholery with "because that's what my character would do" can also go to hell and get ostracized by the gaming group if they even survive the side-bar with the GM...

Metagaming reminds you that you're at a table (or online) playing a GAME with other real people who are ALSO playing a GAME. Like I said, sometimes it needs to be reigned in and I think most of us agree. Breaking D&D down to it's root equations suspends the wonder and joy of exploration and discovery for everybody and no one wants to play with that guy either.

You're welcome to slag Angry all you like. I stopped reading that long-winded blow-hard ages ago. But seriously. The Alex is a rock god and I demand you soothe my hurt feelings ...

"All I'm saying is the statement "Your character wouldn't do that" is mostly bullshit."

Of course--we wouldn't want the player to have any control now would we? Even Bryce harps on that in adventure design when designers write "You walk into the room and...." No I don't, I sneak in, or I go through the window. Let the player be in control of their character--they don't tell the DM "your NPC wouldn't do that!" right? It should be a game, not a dictatorship where people are being sent in the backroom (poor gaming etiquette, then sure, but for roleplaying?).

Metagaming doesn't remind me that I'm playing a game. Metagaming to me is just a deep knowledge of the game and using it to your advantage. Game etiquette and general game rules reminds me it's a game and game etiquette is crucial--you need to be able to read the room and see what type of players (including the DM) you are playing with because the goal is for everyone to have a good time. Characters arguing is great!! Players arguing is bad.

Believing that roleplaying are just players trying to monopolize the game with assholery...or that they are all into theater and dramatics, is like me saying metagamers all sit around the table each with their own opened Monster Manual and DMs guide as well as a copy of the adventure they are going on. Pretty ridiculous, no?

I have nothing against Angry or The Alex and would love to soothe your hurt feelings because I like you, but looks like I'm being sent to the back room to get a talking too...

 

[The Heretic]

@EOTB, I wonder how you would react to me as a player at your table.

In the longest running 4e game I ever took part in, I played a Dragonborn Warlord. I played him as a kind of 'noble savage'. One session we vanquished an opponent, and I said that my dragonborn character was taking mementos from the dead, like teeth.
"Oh no you don't!"
"Hey! This is my character and that's what he's doing. Also, you're not the DM. Why do you care?"
It was a minor dustup, and really of the other player hadn't made a big deal about it then it wouldn't have been an issue.

How would you have reacted to that, as a DM in that situation?

On the flip side, another player got annoyed with me at a Con because I played a cleric (of one of those deities that HATES undead), and we came upon YET ANOTHER ROOM filled with skeletons and zombies and I said "Slam the door shut!". I mean sure, I had a lot of scrolls and potions* and turn undead, so if I was roleplaying the 'correctly' I probably would've lead the attack. But no, it was getting fucking tedious. Slam the door and find something more interesting!

* The person who was supposed to run the event at this particular con backed out, so it was a backup DM with some adventure he found online. It was a 3e game, he didn't have prepared characters for us, so he had us buy our own equipment. AND he used the wrong value. I think I was level 4 but I had the equipment of a level 8. It was supposed to be a dungeon filled with undead so I had 20+ potions, scrolls, and wands to help with that. Oy.

 

[EOTB]

I'd think the teeth-taking thing is "good" roleplaying. That's not making the game unnecessarily more ponderous in any way. It's just taking an action that's in line with your character's personal quirk.

As another example, in one game I'm in I play an illusionist. For whatever reason, the DM's urban encounter table is full of halflings, who are all thieves, who seem to be able to teleport only your most valuable treasure and never anything lesser away from your body. After about the third time of this, my illusionist just started going nutso on any halfling seeking him out on the streets of the city, regardless of their purported reason. Then, he was killed by a cone of cold from an ogre magi polymorphed into halfling form (raised afterward). And he is now convinced that ogre magi are all halflings' final form, and voices murderous thoughts and terrible illusions he's preparing whenever the game puts a halfling anywhere in visible vicinity. None of this takes up more than 15 seconds of table time, and is done humorously for table laughs. I also don't actually create a party problem in pursuit of this quirk.

But in another adventure we had to make a logistical decision about what to do next, and it involved when/how to level people who'd gained enough XP, and how to manage the treasure we'd found to take care of all of our pressing needs. This was earlier when the players hadn't all settled in, and at first there were objections about having this conversation between players clearly discussing what we needed to do based upon the mechanics of the game. Instead there was some concern we would talk using such concepts as "XP" and "hitting the XP level cap if delaying training". That's an example of it going over the line. I'm not going to go through D&D charades where I try to voice a conversation in character that other players will guess refers to game rules and concepts without referring to them plainly. And this is primarily out of obligation to the concept, because after I said "why make a necessary conversation more difficult" it was dropped.

An example of it toeing the line is how one of the players pauses everything to make a speech when a man-at-arms (who are protected like precious jewels - I don't say this sarcastically or unapprovingly) dies. He plays a cleric of a lawful good god of duty, so it's in line with their character. And its done well, so I'm OK with it. But its the type of thing I've seen go over the line into gratuitous RP in the past, when the same impulse is played out by those with less of a sense of social grace.

Perhaps one other trait I've seen more often in homage-first RPers as opposed to game players, that does really irk me, is a sense that so long as they are willing to RP their character, it relives them of any obligation to actually learn the mechanics at all. After the 45th time of going through what bonuses their character has, and when they apply to a roll, and when they don't, and how they actually hit a better AC then they called out from their score because they didn't add in the modifier we've mentioned 5 times in the past 6 sessions, it starts to get a little old when it allows an opponent to keep hitting us for extra rounds.