Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Hehe, thanks man.
Palace Politics
- Thread starter squeen
- Start date
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
As a footnote: Anthony Ruso posted on Melan's "End of the OSR" post here.
I should state up front that I never have (nor likely never will) participated in G+, Facebook, or any other similar social platform---just bulletin boards (pre-internet dial-up in the 80's) and a small handful of forums over the decades (like this one). After reading Melan's and Huso's articles I am convinced that OSR meant/means something very different to those that witnessed it first-hand on those platforms, versus what it means to me.
Personally, it is an abstract notion of rediscovering the D&D of my youth. For me, it is very much archaeology and ancient texts. Reconstructing the past so that we can salvage what was great (and then carry it forward, along with new innovations and insights). The word they both dislike (renaissance) seems polluted by the "movement" they both soured on. For me, the word is just connotes that rediscovery of the ancient Greek and Roman knowledge that took place in Europe after the dark ages. From my viewpoint, 3e/4e, represent a dark-age where the spirit of the game got lost---it held no appeal and squashed my desire to play. The OSR (to me) is just a "go back" for some of that original fire.
I should state up front that I never have (nor likely never will) participated in G+, Facebook, or any other similar social platform---just bulletin boards (pre-internet dial-up in the 80's) and a small handful of forums over the decades (like this one). After reading Melan's and Huso's articles I am convinced that OSR meant/means something very different to those that witnessed it first-hand on those platforms, versus what it means to me.
Personally, it is an abstract notion of rediscovering the D&D of my youth. For me, it is very much archaeology and ancient texts. Reconstructing the past so that we can salvage what was great (and then carry it forward, along with new innovations and insights). The word they both dislike (renaissance) seems polluted by the "movement" they both soured on. For me, the word is just connotes that rediscovery of the ancient Greek and Roman knowledge that took place in Europe after the dark ages. From my viewpoint, 3e/4e, represent a dark-age where the spirit of the game got lost---it held no appeal and squashed my desire to play. The OSR (to me) is just a "go back" for some of that original fire.
Last edited:
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Fuck this editor which just deleted my post, again.
While the “OSR Community” had things to teach in terms of procedures I hadn’t figured out back in the day, I wasn’t really at home there. Given my gaming proclivities, claiming to be an old school anything in most of those circles just invited abuse. “OSR” as a descriptor is not available to me.
That which has allegedly disappeared I will not miss. My favourite sites (like Bryce’s) seem to be (a) more inclusive, (b) discussing why things work instead of proselytizing that old is better, and (c) continuing undiminished. I note that few of them self-proclaim as OSR, although they are often attributed as such by others.
While the “OSR Community” had things to teach in terms of procedures I hadn’t figured out back in the day, I wasn’t really at home there. Given my gaming proclivities, claiming to be an old school anything in most of those circles just invited abuse. “OSR” as a descriptor is not available to me.
That which has allegedly disappeared I will not miss. My favourite sites (like Bryce’s) seem to be (a) more inclusive, (b) discussing why things work instead of proselytizing that old is better, and (c) continuing undiminished. I note that few of them self-proclaim as OSR, although they are often attributed as such by others.
gandalf_scion
*eyeroll*
Agree on all points. Here's what it boils down to, "From my viewpoint, 3e/4e, represent a dark-age where the spirit of the game got lost---it held no appeal and squashed my desire to play." Well said.
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
I'm curious as to why you feel that way squeen.
I can't speak to 4e as well as others can, but 3e revitalized my love of the game - I was drawing maps on graph paper and coming up with all sorts of zany dungeon stuff all over again. Yeah it was mechanically dense and very number-crunchy, but it's not like all the imagination and wonder was sucked out of the game. It actually got my creative juices really flowing, and kicked off my desire to write D&D adventures.
I've said this a billion times, but I still maintain that mechanics are largely disconnected from whimsical, evocative adventures. Just because 3e was filled with shovelware splatbooks and junk Dungeon adventures doesn't mean that good adventures were impossible to create using the 3e system. You can just ask the millions (yes, millions) of people who enjoyed 3e if the system has its merits. There were/are people out there who like/liked the system, so I wager this comes down to a personal preference in your case (understandably).
To reiterate, we know the system means different things to different people - I'm not looking to start a debate about whether it was good or bad. I'm asking why you say "the spirit got lost"? Was it the glut of poorly-reviewed materials that "squashed your desire to play"? Was it the unwillingness to learn a bunch of new game mechanics?
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Totally. There were tons of people who liked 3e etc. It made WotC lots of money and inspired Pathfinder. Not to re-open that can-of-worms...
...but it just wasn't for me. "Those people" seemed to want to play a different game that had a totally different vibe. Playing D&D (and its associated geek-stigma) felt a bit white-washed. The magic, wonder, and terror was replaced by video-gamey mechanics, making the magical mundane (2e did this too), and a distancing of oneself from the visceral. Again (not to offend), this is just my personal take at the time it happened. Understandable from WotC's perspective: video games were cool and profitable---D&D was not.
Perhaps the single most significant shift I perceived was a catering to the players and their wishes. Without a doubt---whether the rules enabled this or not (another debate/well-trodden topic)---that was my perception. It seemed players had gotten control of the steering wheel and were over-indulging in their characters and wish-fulfillment. I've said before that I'd played D&D two ways---starting-out with kids my own age in which it was all about the characters and player's desires (Basic Rules and AD&D when it appeared), and then with an older group in which the world was far bigger (and badder) than you in which struggling to survive and facing the unknowable was the norm (heavily house-ruled OD&D). After experiencing the latter, I had no desire to return to the former. Simple as that, so I stopped playing.
Here-and-now, 30+ years later, a few things still fascinate me. What happened in those original Lake Geneva games that spawned so much amazing content? Who is running successful campaigns/sandboxes/world now and what works for them? And ultimately, what can make me a better DM and give my players a superior experience?
Sometimes I am also (morbidity?) fascinated by "How did [it all] go wrong?". My interest of the cycle of boom-and-bust of human endeavors extends well beyond D&D. Failure as a cautionary tale. (Sorry to quote Mao Tse-tung at you---I'm not a disciple of his---but he nailed this: "Founders come first---then the profiteers." I've also come to realize and the latter produce only one thing: money---something that admittedly gets us up off of our collective arses, but is not terribly uplifting to the spirit. I'm old, you see. Dog-eat-dog , 'mass market appeal', etc. does not hold my attention.)
What I think is really neat is what I'm finding in isolated pockets of cyberspace: That the D&D I loved is not dead and buried (OSR!). What I experienced was rare, but not a fluke. The game now has a (well-documented) rich history and legends of its own. Information about D&D is much easier to find than it was in the 70's/80's---and some very talented folks are willing to share their creations/methods. Last, but not least, Bryce is willing to heroically sift through all the garbage for me at a phenomenal rate!
Last edited:
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I wanted to touch on this as "the spirit got lost" resonated with me. I remember buying 3rd edition and hanging out with my DM one day with some beers and we tried to make a character together just to check it out....and we got extremely agitated through the process. We messed with it for about an hour trying to create a bard and had to quit. Admittedly, we can both be pretty dim witted and probably just two old dogs who can't learn new tricks...but that process devoured my spirit for the game and I didn't like the edition. I think one of the major reasons---1e and 2e seemed to just flow together so easily and 3e felt like hitting a iceberg. Now, saying all that, I think 3e had some cool stuff/ideas and we took what we liked to incorporate into our house rules. I've played some of the video games utilizing 3e rules and it was ok.
Also, in response to Squeen...2e did start to cater to player's wishes--and I loved it. I was such a freak about D&D that I was jealous of the DM (a friend's older brother) who was always browsing through the books and creating the adventure for us. With 2e, I felt I could be doing something too...reading the splat books and really defining my characters. I could "research" through all the kits and figure out what sounded like fun to play. Getting all the 'perks' was kinda cool. And I viewed them as just that--perks (not min/maxing). We still play that way now and the monsters and NPC's all have the same sort of stuff (weapon specialization, skills, etc.). So the world is still dangerous, grimy, and grim. Combined with our wacky house rules--skills are important. An armorsmith became one of the more popular characters in our party because with our armor absorption and armor falling apart--having that skill kept us in the dungeon longer.
But admittedly all the flash and flair is getting a little old for me. It started with feats in 3e, where you could really min/max and had to do things a certain way to be 'the best'. I hardly ever make 'best' characters--they bore me.. It sprung up on me again when I looked through 5e. I felt like all the classes were superheroes rather than the grim, bloodied heroes that I was used too...that needed to rely on dwindling resources rather than being able to cast a cantrip every round. I remember reading 5e and getting excited until I got half way through the Cleric and scratched my head and said...wha? I don't want to make it sound like I'm bashing 5e as I have never played it (and wiling to try it) and I did LOVE some of their ideas (warlocks, etc.) so I'll stop as that is not my intention.
and...christ..what was my intention? rambling.....
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Well all that does sound miserable, but it isn’t my experience. Similarly to DP, it was 4e that got me interested in the game again. The combat rules made it run pretty close to the way I wished it ran in my head, much better than the mess of houserules I had been jury-rigging to 1e, and the rest I could work with.
The character generation learning curve was a lot simpler than what Malrex describes, mainly because the PHB suggested powers and feats for first level – and when I got the Character Builder it had a feature to randomly generate your character. I can actually generate 5 characters in about a minute.
However, the modules from that period are miserable. They usually seemed like they ought to be fun, but turned out to be miserable to run, and it took me a long time to realize what was wrong with them (would that I had discovered Bryce’s site earlier). And the presentation of how the game ought to be played – written as though that was the way 4e had to be played – was god-awful.
I was, however, fortunate that one of the people I played with in high school also got interested in 4e, and then had an extended period of unemployment with lots of time to make things up according to the same aesthetic he followed in the 80s, so from the beginning I had a DM who never ran it the way WotC kept presenting it.
Having just written that, I realize another parallel from my kid’s gaming groups, who play 5e; the ones who enjoy it most, and have kept at it, are the ones who were broke and couldn’t afford the published modules and had to make it up for themselves.
Having just written that, I realize that the original D&D players went several years before the first module was ever published, and had to make it up on their own. And while I started in 1979, I couldn’t find modules (I lived in the sticks) and was also building from scratch. I do think someone I played with had Hommlet (I remember a birthday party in grade 7 when we were fighting three ancient red dragons in the village), and somewhere along the way I picked up Tamoachan, but for the most part we were on our own.
Well, isn’t that interesting. Maybe we were better off figuring out for ourselves what the “spirit of the game” is. Anyone else have this experience?
The character generation learning curve was a lot simpler than what Malrex describes, mainly because the PHB suggested powers and feats for first level – and when I got the Character Builder it had a feature to randomly generate your character. I can actually generate 5 characters in about a minute.
However, the modules from that period are miserable. They usually seemed like they ought to be fun, but turned out to be miserable to run, and it took me a long time to realize what was wrong with them (would that I had discovered Bryce’s site earlier). And the presentation of how the game ought to be played – written as though that was the way 4e had to be played – was god-awful.
I was, however, fortunate that one of the people I played with in high school also got interested in 4e, and then had an extended period of unemployment with lots of time to make things up according to the same aesthetic he followed in the 80s, so from the beginning I had a DM who never ran it the way WotC kept presenting it.
Having just written that, I realize another parallel from my kid’s gaming groups, who play 5e; the ones who enjoy it most, and have kept at it, are the ones who were broke and couldn’t afford the published modules and had to make it up for themselves.
Having just written that, I realize that the original D&D players went several years before the first module was ever published, and had to make it up on their own. And while I started in 1979, I couldn’t find modules (I lived in the sticks) and was also building from scratch. I do think someone I played with had Hommlet (I remember a birthday party in grade 7 when we were fighting three ancient red dragons in the village), and somewhere along the way I picked up Tamoachan, but for the most part we were on our own.
Well, isn’t that interesting. Maybe we were better off figuring out for ourselves what the “spirit of the game” is. Anyone else have this experience?
gandalf_scion
*eyeroll*
We played 1e by the book back in the early 80s and had a blast. After three (real) years, my ranger made it as far as 11th level and survived the Giant Series. Then high school got serious so games took a back seat. Almost 20 years later, I found time to try the then-new 3e, what a bust. Character generation took an hour and combat was a tedious inventory of feats, too much detail. The pendulum swung back with the OSR. Labyrinth Lord was a great compromise. 5e came close, but it lacked the “quirkiness” of the original game, which is part of the charm. My one regret is that we never used armor class adjustments for weapons. That oft abandoned 1e rule really accounts for the medieval arms race and adds a lot to the game.
The "spirit" of the original game - rough and tumble adventure - really comes through via the GP = XP mechanism. That's what seemed to be missing in other editions. I remember reading in 3e, "Character is King." I beg to differ and say, "Adventure is King." It's interesting note that in the 1e PHB Gary offered only a few lines on developing character background; it was an after thought at the end of the character generation section. Later versions of the game added and padded so that we now have a whole chapter on this. I'm not saying that's "wrong," but it's a far cry from Gary's original. His design and games seemed to be more about the "foreground." Generate a character, with most of your choices defined by your class, and then go at it and develop the character through game play.
The "spirit" of the original game - rough and tumble adventure - really comes through via the GP = XP mechanism. That's what seemed to be missing in other editions. I remember reading in 3e, "Character is King." I beg to differ and say, "Adventure is King." It's interesting note that in the 1e PHB Gary offered only a few lines on developing character background; it was an after thought at the end of the character generation section. Later versions of the game added and padded so that we now have a whole chapter on this. I'm not saying that's "wrong," but it's a far cry from Gary's original. His design and games seemed to be more about the "foreground." Generate a character, with most of your choices defined by your class, and then go at it and develop the character through game play.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
This one makes my D&D blooper reel. I keep giggling whenever I think about it. The documentary goes like this in my head,
Act III...
Middle-school DMs
Thanks for sharing it.
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
I'm wondering how much of the disenfranchisement around here is about the loss of a nostalgic version of the game from youth, and a sort of resistance to the adoption of newer editions as a result, vs. how much is based on older editions being genuinely objectively better.
Like, I get it - when 5e rolled out, 3.5e was my main game, and I was vehemently dead-set on not getting 5e. I resisted it for years, insistent that 5e was 3e but dumbed down, and that it didn't have all this extra stuff like 3e had so therefore wasn't as fleshed out, or that the old system was working for me and I had spent hundreds of hours in it so it would be dumb to upgrade.
Turns out, I was wrong. I gave 5e a fair shake once my group changed up and we brought on some new players who wanted to give 5e a shot. Going to 5e meant I never returned to 3.5e, just as going to 3e meant never returning to editions prior to 3e.
A lot of what changed in 5e was an improvement on 3e and all the other editions before it, and I realized I was latching on to 3e so strongly specifically because I had invested so much into it. It wasn't about "capturing a magic" or "losing the feel of the game" - in my case, it was straight-up just being set in old ways. It was the same when I jumped from AD&D (my main system at the time) to 3e.
The feel was the same to me because it wasn't about game-feel, it was about better mechanics. I've argued the point to death (and apparently most everyone else on here disagrees), but I still maintain the position that mechanics are just a framework for determining outcome, and don't dictate the feel of a game as much as everyone seems to think it does. Tone, pace, strategy, logistics, decisions, interactions... these are all totally system neutral: the proof I have for this claim is that they all vary from DM to DM, session to session, module to module, which means they must therefore be independent from edition rules. Mechanics dictate outcome, and to me, the crunch of it is largely inconsequential to the feel of the game.
For this reason, I think there's something underpinning the opinions of most people about newer and older editions of the game that's coloring their logic - the most obvious culprit is that you all grew up with OSR-style D&D, and so you have a nostalgic attachment that you can't get from newer versions. Which is a real shame, because I still believe that 5e is fundamentally a better-designed system than old D&D and that you do yourself a disservice by writing it off without a fair chance.
I mean, it's fair that you get this feeling from one thing and not another, and I can't very well migrate the feeling over to another edition on your behalf through debate and reason, but I also can't help but notice that I have yet to see an objective reason given why older rulesets are better than newer ones beyond "it doesn't feel right".
Like, I get it - when 5e rolled out, 3.5e was my main game, and I was vehemently dead-set on not getting 5e. I resisted it for years, insistent that 5e was 3e but dumbed down, and that it didn't have all this extra stuff like 3e had so therefore wasn't as fleshed out, or that the old system was working for me and I had spent hundreds of hours in it so it would be dumb to upgrade.
Turns out, I was wrong. I gave 5e a fair shake once my group changed up and we brought on some new players who wanted to give 5e a shot. Going to 5e meant I never returned to 3.5e, just as going to 3e meant never returning to editions prior to 3e.
A lot of what changed in 5e was an improvement on 3e and all the other editions before it, and I realized I was latching on to 3e so strongly specifically because I had invested so much into it. It wasn't about "capturing a magic" or "losing the feel of the game" - in my case, it was straight-up just being set in old ways. It was the same when I jumped from AD&D (my main system at the time) to 3e.
The feel was the same to me because it wasn't about game-feel, it was about better mechanics. I've argued the point to death (and apparently most everyone else on here disagrees), but I still maintain the position that mechanics are just a framework for determining outcome, and don't dictate the feel of a game as much as everyone seems to think it does. Tone, pace, strategy, logistics, decisions, interactions... these are all totally system neutral: the proof I have for this claim is that they all vary from DM to DM, session to session, module to module, which means they must therefore be independent from edition rules. Mechanics dictate outcome, and to me, the crunch of it is largely inconsequential to the feel of the game.
For this reason, I think there's something underpinning the opinions of most people about newer and older editions of the game that's coloring their logic - the most obvious culprit is that you all grew up with OSR-style D&D, and so you have a nostalgic attachment that you can't get from newer versions. Which is a real shame, because I still believe that 5e is fundamentally a better-designed system than old D&D and that you do yourself a disservice by writing it off without a fair chance.
I mean, it's fair that you get this feeling from one thing and not another, and I can't very well migrate the feeling over to another edition on your behalf through debate and reason, but I also can't help but notice that I have yet to see an objective reason given why older rulesets are better than newer ones beyond "it doesn't feel right".
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
This is such a elusive subject.
Beoric is reporting good experiences with a modified 4e, Malrex likes 2e, and DP touts the superiority of 5e. Personally, I saw good and bad DMing in the AD&D era, did not like where I saw the game heading in 2e, and was completely turned off on the arrival of 3e.
I like the fact that this topic always generates so many interesting posts---in particular I enjoy reading about everyone's personal journey to "the Greater D&D" (even though Melan and I don't use the term the same way...and I'm still waiting for him to post something on his blog about it!).
I keep trying to formulate in my mind some sort of Statement of Truth or at least a small insight, but it's difficult and my thoughts remain in flux.
On a related note I recently re-read many of Anthony Huso's post on DMing over at Blue Bard. He makes such a compelling argument for the mechanics of AD&D, that I began to waiver on my AD&D to OD&D migration---like often before, I've begun wondering if I could make it better for my players "if only...".
I currently don't agree with DP's assertion that the rules are entirely independent of game-feel. I think each edition lends itself to a different-flavor of game. When I read the 5e SRD as he suggested, there were certainly elements in there that I knew were incompatible with the experience I enjoyed as a player and wanted to pass on in my current home campaign. Too many differences that would notably alter something I particularly enjoyed. We all may not be master sophists, but I think each and every one of us has a pretty good personal sense for "...but that would ruin it!" and/or "That's not the same thing at all!"
It's not just nostalgia---that belittles the true differences. Steak does not taste like chicken, vanilla is not chocolate. The fundamental difficulty in arguing this point is (as in DP's post above) insistence on objective evidence of what is better. When it comes to "better" and "gaming-fun"---there is no objectivity. You either like chocolate (or coconut, or beans, or tree bark, etc.), or you don't.
What would be really cool to see (if it exists) is a table/matrix of editions and exactly what changed between each of them---not that such a thing would fundamentally move anyone's needle, but it still would be handy. Delta's D&D Hot Spot does a bit of this with spells.
You can certainly argue, "Come on! Just try edition Chocolate. It tastes great too.". However, no matter what you do or say, chocolate will not be vanilla, and everyone will still have a favorite flavor. The logical mistake is to claim (despite however satisfying it is to say publicly) "Fools! Chocolate objectively tastes better!" (Just to be clear, no one is saying that here.)
I am always interested to hear when (like on Huso's, Gus L's, Melan's, Ben L's, and others posts) that things are really working well for a DM. I am also slightly suspicious that their/your tastes differ from mine and that I might not enjoy it as much as they/you think I will. What's more, it seems a Fool's Errand to debate with me or others of "what's best". Instead, just tell me your story...I will listen (if it's good).
Sorry if this was stuffed with too much "Mom and Apple Pie" to be of interest, but I can only speak passionately about my preferences (and please don't take it personally when I do).
Anyways...at some point I'm going to re-hijack this thread and tell you all about the game I ran last weekend in the Royal Palace. As you might have guessed, not all went according to plan. (...which is what makes DMing so much fun!)
Lastly, @Beoric : I think you are on to something about the necessity of taking ownership of the game. Maybe we can kick that topic around some more later.
(he he...3 ancient red dragons in Hommlet!)
Beoric is reporting good experiences with a modified 4e, Malrex likes 2e, and DP touts the superiority of 5e. Personally, I saw good and bad DMing in the AD&D era, did not like where I saw the game heading in 2e, and was completely turned off on the arrival of 3e.
I like the fact that this topic always generates so many interesting posts---in particular I enjoy reading about everyone's personal journey to "the Greater D&D" (even though Melan and I don't use the term the same way...and I'm still waiting for him to post something on his blog about it!).
I keep trying to formulate in my mind some sort of Statement of Truth or at least a small insight, but it's difficult and my thoughts remain in flux.
On a related note I recently re-read many of Anthony Huso's post on DMing over at Blue Bard. He makes such a compelling argument for the mechanics of AD&D, that I began to waiver on my AD&D to OD&D migration---like often before, I've begun wondering if I could make it better for my players "if only...".
I currently don't agree with DP's assertion that the rules are entirely independent of game-feel. I think each edition lends itself to a different-flavor of game. When I read the 5e SRD as he suggested, there were certainly elements in there that I knew were incompatible with the experience I enjoyed as a player and wanted to pass on in my current home campaign. Too many differences that would notably alter something I particularly enjoyed. We all may not be master sophists, but I think each and every one of us has a pretty good personal sense for "...but that would ruin it!" and/or "That's not the same thing at all!"
It's not just nostalgia---that belittles the true differences. Steak does not taste like chicken, vanilla is not chocolate. The fundamental difficulty in arguing this point is (as in DP's post above) insistence on objective evidence of what is better. When it comes to "better" and "gaming-fun"---there is no objectivity. You either like chocolate (or coconut, or beans, or tree bark, etc.), or you don't.
What would be really cool to see (if it exists) is a table/matrix of editions and exactly what changed between each of them---not that such a thing would fundamentally move anyone's needle, but it still would be handy. Delta's D&D Hot Spot does a bit of this with spells.
You can certainly argue, "Come on! Just try edition Chocolate. It tastes great too.". However, no matter what you do or say, chocolate will not be vanilla, and everyone will still have a favorite flavor. The logical mistake is to claim (despite however satisfying it is to say publicly) "Fools! Chocolate objectively tastes better!" (Just to be clear, no one is saying that here.)
I am always interested to hear when (like on Huso's, Gus L's, Melan's, Ben L's, and others posts) that things are really working well for a DM. I am also slightly suspicious that their/your tastes differ from mine and that I might not enjoy it as much as they/you think I will. What's more, it seems a Fool's Errand to debate with me or others of "what's best". Instead, just tell me your story...I will listen (if it's good).
Sorry if this was stuffed with too much "Mom and Apple Pie" to be of interest, but I can only speak passionately about my preferences (and please don't take it personally when I do).
Anyways...at some point I'm going to re-hijack this thread and tell you all about the game I ran last weekend in the Royal Palace. As you might have guessed, not all went according to plan. (...which is what makes DMing so much fun!)
Lastly, @Beoric : I think you are on to something about the necessity of taking ownership of the game. Maybe we can kick that topic around some more later.
(he he...3 ancient red dragons in Hommlet!)
Last edited:
TerribleSorcery
Should be playing D&D instead
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
That's right! I don't want to go full-throlle random/feats, but when I'm straddling the fence and want to eliminate personal bias, that's perfect.
Damn...why am I always forgetting how this game is suppose be played?
Thank you.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Hate to derail again...but gave you guys a shout out of thanks on my blog: https://www.themercilessmerchants.com/post/launch
Have learned some good stuff since lurking around here. Thanks guys!
Have learned some good stuff since lurking around here. Thanks guys!
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Not to stir things up again, but as Melan's OSR post continues to reverberate through cyberspace, I liked this retrospective a lot.
TerribleSorcery
Should be playing D&D instead
Yeah I liked that one a lot too! For a fellow who hardly blogs ever, seems to have a real insight into the scene.
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
The OP looks like a fun setup with lots of trouble to get into, so I think it's on the right track. I also like the posts/ideas about organizing NPC info in this direction. Malrex's and Melan's work is top-notch for intrigue, Melan's Nocturnal Table especially being a great example of bottom-up encounters that beg the DM to consider their wider effects.
Politics and palace intrigues are one item I've been most comfortable starting top-down instead of bottom-up (a big reason why Nocturnal Table inspires me). I've used external big-picture movement; what PCs see move around when looking out the window of their party, as a way to A/B test what makes my players tick. But that's not easily translatable to players abruptly deciding to head down to the casino when the moon is full, and what might happen on the way.
I'm a table-guy too, which I like to use creating what happens in rarefied circles while the PCs are in a place, and also while they are gone (presuming this is somewhere they'll visit at least semi-regularly. I made up a bunch of tables for this and posted them at a different forum. Squeen (or anyone else), feel free to look them over and cut-and-paste them for personal use if they're helpful.
Since I determine a political scene at town creation, the tables start with basic demographics. Skip to down to the second group of tables if you'd just like some juicy ideas.
I'll be putting this in something in the near-future, but always appreciate feedback from other DMs on how it works for them to fine-tune it prior.
Politics and palace intrigues are one item I've been most comfortable starting top-down instead of bottom-up (a big reason why Nocturnal Table inspires me). I've used external big-picture movement; what PCs see move around when looking out the window of their party, as a way to A/B test what makes my players tick. But that's not easily translatable to players abruptly deciding to head down to the casino when the moon is full, and what might happen on the way.
I'm a table-guy too, which I like to use creating what happens in rarefied circles while the PCs are in a place, and also while they are gone (presuming this is somewhere they'll visit at least semi-regularly. I made up a bunch of tables for this and posted them at a different forum. Squeen (or anyone else), feel free to look them over and cut-and-paste them for personal use if they're helpful.
Since I determine a political scene at town creation, the tables start with basic demographics. Skip to down to the second group of tables if you'd just like some juicy ideas.
I'll be putting this in something in the near-future, but always appreciate feedback from other DMs on how it works for them to fine-tune it prior.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
@EOTB : Hello and welcome! As you have probably noticed, I have recently been exploring and enjoying your blog. Your writing there (and posts here) are semantically dense, and I find myself re-reading your sentences several times in order to wrestle out their meaning and implications. While that may sound like a complaint, it's not. On the contrary, it's been a pleasure.
It also seems you've been helping Malrex out with his kickstarter (which I'm eager to see become a reality)---so thanks for that too.
Lastly, you have unwittingly become a benefactor in my home campaign as well. A few days ago I cribbed your map for the village of Groat's End. I needed (in a hurry, of course) a way-point for a kidnapped PC, but also some sort of starting-point to play out a thinly veiled "Brexit" farce I had in mind (which my players will probably blissfully ignore). The fishermen on "Loden Isle" are looking to politically divorce themselves from the (continental) village of Bonhom---even though they probably can't feed themselves should they ever succeed. (Silly premise, I know, but I play the wack-o NPCs all earnestly straight-faced.)
Here's my initial ham-fisted bit of digital thievery (I really hope you don't mind)
Don't worry, when I'm done, it should be nearly unrecognizable in terms of names/places/pixels---but right now its been a wonderful source of inspiration. Sometimes it's quite hard to get over writer's block. I've already decided the old-coot living in the wizard's tower will have lost the ability to do real magic years ago, but persists as a local legend---more of a Miracle Max than Merlin.
I must say that the content of the village is extremely logically thought-out. The overall size is very manageable. The placement and distances are realistic (I was particularly impressed with the layout and scale of the surrounding farms necessary to support the population). I like that there are clear social strata, and that each class has it own segregated business/social establishments (I'd love to know what GAOL or ACATER stand for---as well as OP in the above post). I even like the street layout! All in all, I imagine your players really enjoyed their time there (2 years ago?). Bravo and thanks for sharing it!
Back to the topic at hand...
I can't seem to follow the forum link you posted at the moment, but I will happily try again later tonight. Thank you in advance for that, and I will give you feedback if I'm able.
Either "top-down" or "bottom-up" are, as you said, interesting ways of looking at the problem of building the world-engine. I think I have been doing both, but it helps to have articulated terminology. When I do the former, I am leery of becoming the "rail road conductor" as my concocted notion of world-event threatens to overwhelm. Introducing more randomization (bottoms-up content) may help to mitigate a monopolized vision for the future. It's probably best I incorporate it more. Maybe random tables for Palace actions is the way to introduce some dynamics to that particular setting.
You mentioned random tables for "What Happened While You Were Away...". That seems like a gem of an idea.
I generally do try to let the party "simply walk away"---ignoring prepared content to concentrate on whatever catches their fancy. So much of my sandbox creation is the making of side-jaunts, dangling hooks, and obscure places of mystery that will never present themselves as "the main event" without some curious exploration. (Some things have sat untouched for years---but it is so rewarding if and when it finally gets uncorked. This is when Bryce's tips regarding good layout and presentation kick in---after so much time has passed, you are effectively (re)reading your own pre-written adventure as a stranger.)
But the "Big City's seat of power" is a bit different. It seems to have increased potential to dominate the landscape and has me nervous in terms of heavy-handedness. In the campaign, I introduced an invading army moving up from the south. Suddenly, all the elements of the world which previously had been co-existing in relative quasi-static isolation, are now being forced to react and interact. It's weird, and pushes events along a bit quicker than I'm used to (or can handle?).
Cheers.
It also seems you've been helping Malrex out with his kickstarter (which I'm eager to see become a reality)---so thanks for that too.
Lastly, you have unwittingly become a benefactor in my home campaign as well. A few days ago I cribbed your map for the village of Groat's End. I needed (in a hurry, of course) a way-point for a kidnapped PC, but also some sort of starting-point to play out a thinly veiled "Brexit" farce I had in mind (which my players will probably blissfully ignore). The fishermen on "Loden Isle" are looking to politically divorce themselves from the (continental) village of Bonhom---even though they probably can't feed themselves should they ever succeed. (Silly premise, I know, but I play the wack-o NPCs all earnestly straight-faced.)
Here's my initial ham-fisted bit of digital thievery (I really hope you don't mind)
Don't worry, when I'm done, it should be nearly unrecognizable in terms of names/places/pixels---but right now its been a wonderful source of inspiration. Sometimes it's quite hard to get over writer's block. I've already decided the old-coot living in the wizard's tower will have lost the ability to do real magic years ago, but persists as a local legend---more of a Miracle Max than Merlin.
I must say that the content of the village is extremely logically thought-out. The overall size is very manageable. The placement and distances are realistic (I was particularly impressed with the layout and scale of the surrounding farms necessary to support the population). I like that there are clear social strata, and that each class has it own segregated business/social establishments (I'd love to know what GAOL or ACATER stand for---as well as OP in the above post). I even like the street layout! All in all, I imagine your players really enjoyed their time there (2 years ago?). Bravo and thanks for sharing it!
Back to the topic at hand...
I recently purchased and received the Nocturnal Table (thanks Melan!) and I'm slowly digesting it. While it seems very good, I haven't previously been much of a random table user up until this point---either for direct content or inspiration---but I'm getting the impression that as time goes on (and the players tromp further and faster than I can manage or prepare for) I'll have to get the hang of using them. I'm also beginning to suspect I've similarly missed out by not purchasing Matt Finch's Tome of Adventure Design.EOTB said:
I can't seem to follow the forum link you posted at the moment, but I will happily try again later tonight. Thank you in advance for that, and I will give you feedback if I'm able.
Either "top-down" or "bottom-up" are, as you said, interesting ways of looking at the problem of building the world-engine. I think I have been doing both, but it helps to have articulated terminology. When I do the former, I am leery of becoming the "rail road conductor" as my concocted notion of world-event threatens to overwhelm. Introducing more randomization (bottoms-up content) may help to mitigate a monopolized vision for the future. It's probably best I incorporate it more. Maybe random tables for Palace actions is the way to introduce some dynamics to that particular setting.
You mentioned random tables for "What Happened While You Were Away...". That seems like a gem of an idea.
I generally do try to let the party "simply walk away"---ignoring prepared content to concentrate on whatever catches their fancy. So much of my sandbox creation is the making of side-jaunts, dangling hooks, and obscure places of mystery that will never present themselves as "the main event" without some curious exploration. (Some things have sat untouched for years---but it is so rewarding if and when it finally gets uncorked. This is when Bryce's tips regarding good layout and presentation kick in---after so much time has passed, you are effectively (re)reading your own pre-written adventure as a stranger.)
But the "Big City's seat of power" is a bit different. It seems to have increased potential to dominate the landscape and has me nervous in terms of heavy-handedness. In the campaign, I introduced an invading army moving up from the south. Suddenly, all the elements of the world which previously had been co-existing in relative quasi-static isolation, are now being forced to react and interact. It's weird, and pushes events along a bit quicker than I'm used to (or can handle?).
Cheers.
Last edited: