Why the sudden hate for Roleplaying?

[DangerousPuhson]

Seen a few posts on blogs lately rallying against keeping the "roleplaying" in their "tabletop roleplaying games"... people touting a more "pure" form of Fantasy/Classic Adventure Game that apparently doesn't include making decisions in-character. They claim a "proper" game of D&D can't be played so long as people are focused on an ongoing narrative and seeking exciting situations, as if story-driven narrative and emergent, dynamic gameplay somehow can't coexist.

As an example of the mindset, summed up nicely per JB's blog (who pulls heavily from EOTB's blog as source):
"We are here to play a game of fantasy adventure; we are not here to play-act, explore alternate personalities, or craft delightful narratives...all things the "role-playing" term has come to represent. "

I think it should be obvious by now that I disagree with this stance, if at the very least because it grossly misrepresents modern gameplay as being just a bunch of folk play-acting and preening over little fictional Mary-Sue characters.

JB, EOTB, my dudes... surely you realize those things are not mutually exclusive, no? You can fight a troll with fire AND do it as part of a delightful narrative. One does not exclude the other.

Where the heck did all this come from? Since when does the inclusion of roleplaying suddenly make any version of D&D beyond AD&D "not a game?" I'm pretty dang sure I'm still "playing a game" when I set up at the table with six other folk who use silly voices and make all the choices a Wizard in a fake fantasy world would make. We still kick in doors and tip-toe past sleeping dragons; we just do it with an accent and some background music.

If the issue is focus at the table (i.e. your players are getting too into the roleplaying part), then the solution is clear expectations and topic-wrangling, not "let's condemn an entire style of play because I don't jive with it". Baby stays with the bathwater, boys.

A lot of the criticism seems to take aim at the idea that RP-heavy games can't be sustained if they involve too much worldbuilding and scenario creation... like, what? Tell that the the RP-heavy games I've kept going for *years* (look at that - no endpoint in mind)! Are you sure the problem is the system paradigm, and not the idea that maybe - just maybe - you might lack certain skills to be an effective modern DM? No.... it's the children who are wrong...

The word "fantasy" literally means using imagination and playing pretend - are you sure you guys aren't just looking to play a game of Talisman or HeroQuest, where your character is a little cardboard standee, and all that matters are the numbers you roll and the loot trinkets you find? Because it sure as heck sounds like some of you folk would be happier with a board game.... just sayin'.

This restrictive, gate-keepy compartmentalization is exactly why the OSR died, you guys. People keep trying to fracture something that's unified by inventing more and more restrictive definitions, until nobody wants to interact with any facet that isn't exactly the same as their own. What is even the purpose of delineating between either set of game archetypes, other than driving wedges between play groups?

 

[Beoric]

It would be helpful if you had linked the blog pages. But, having listened to @EOTB in the Classic Adventure Gaming podcast, I suspect all they are objecting to is Trad or OC/Neotrad play, in favour of Classic/OSR play. I watch some AP videos, and the "game" part of RPG has largely been dropped, to the extent that there is no risk, and the session is just an exercise in group narration. Dice and the rules may supplement narrative choices, but are not permitted to signal a failure state that has a significant impact on the session or campaign. And, frankly, neither do player choices, except to the extent that the DM may write that in to future sessions. It is literally impossible for a player or character to screw up.

Which is fine, if that is the experience you are looking for. It lends itself to AP videos and podcasts,* which is why I think it is becoming more widespread. It may be a game in the sense that group improvisation is a form of play, and it may be a challenge to the extent that in-character improvisasion is challenging. But it is not a game with any stakes, and it is not a challenge in the sense that there are obstacles to be overcome in order to acheive success.


*If you enjoy watching pompous and inane improvisation by a bunch of voice actors, as they prove the value of screenwriters.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Blog posts are here:

What is Classic Adventure Gaming?

Classic Adventure Gaming is not a Roleplaying Game . It is not "OSR", even if it uses rulebooks the OSR also claims. It is the style of g...

csio.blogspot.com

Basic Adventure Gaming

Some years back, I decided that I would stop referring to what I do as 'role-playing' and instead refer to these things (what I once called ...

bxblackrazor.blogspot.com

I watch some AP videos

What are AP videos?

Dice and the rules may supplement narrative choices, but are not permitted to signal a failure state that has a significant impact on the session or campaign. And, frankly, neither do player choices, except to the extent that the DM may write that in to future sessions. It is literally impossible for a player or character to screw up.

I understand the drive to push against these kinds of outcomes, but one group's games do not the entire experience make. Why do we (the community) feel compelled to ascribe commonalities and generalities to such a diverse tabletop landscape, as if it were beneficial (or even possible) to categorize them in any meaningful way? Why must others be made to conform?

Rallying against the way other people play the games you're not involved with is just needlessly combative, fruitless, and ultimately does more harm than good - no matter how much people excuse it by saying they're just "showing off alternatives" or "reaching out to fringe fans", it all still reeks of that "I don't even own a TV, let alone watch the same kind of things as you plebeians do" type of smugness.

 

[Beoric]

Blog posts are here:
What are AP videos?

Actual Play. Like Critical Role or Acquisitions Incorporate, or a host of copycats. I sometimes watch Keith Baker's as well, but they are behind a paywall.

I understand the drive to push against these kinds of outcomes, but one group's games do not the entire experience make. Why do we (the community) feel compelled to ascribe commonalities and generalities to such a diverse tabletop landscape, as if it were beneficial (or even possible) to categorize them in any meaningful way? Why must others be made to conform?

Rallying against the way other people play the games you're not involved with is just needlessly combative, fruitless, and ultimately does more harm than good - no matter how much people excuse it by saying they're just "showing off alternatives" or "reaching out to fringe fans", it all still reeks of that "I don't even own a TV, let alone watch the same kind of things as you plebeians do" type of smugness.

Hey, man, I'm just the messenger. I figure people ought to be able to play the way they want to play. I do, however, think the dominance of Neo-Trad/OC in WotC's presentation of the game ends up losing players who don't quite jibe with Tad/OC but aren't aware that there is a different way to play using the same rules.

I read EOTB's post, and I have comments with respect to his first and last bullet points.

The players and DM are fundamentally interacting with each other, as people around a table (virtual or otherwise), not as the controllers of PCs and NPCs. No player is ever required or expected to supersede their own personality at the table with a fictional one. (bold in original)

To the extend that EOTB claims to play a Gygax-style game, I don't think this statement, particularly the bolded part, is accurate. In the 1e DMG, Gygax talks a lot about roleplaying from the point of view of the character. I'm not going to hunt for all of it, but a good example is the way training cost relates to the accuracy with which the player plays the archetype of his character. Ditto for paladins and clerics losing their powers if they don't act in accordance with their alignment. These are examples of mechanical enforcement that pushes the player to have their character behave in a manner that is consistent with class, race and alignment.

In addition, there are the various cursed magic items that change the character's gender or alignment - accompanied with an admonishment that the character must resist all efforts to change it back. And I'm pretty sure there are other examples of times when the character is dominated or replaced, and Gygax tells the DM to instruct the player to play his character accordingly, without alerting the other players.

(As an aside, I hate to think how EGG expected a character to behave if his gender was change dot female.)

From the glossary on p. 228 of the DMG: "Experience — The reward (expressed in points, or x.p.) for slaying monsters, winning treasure, and playing the character role..." (italics added).

And p. 229: "Persona — The role or identity of the character the player is portraying."

P. 15-16:

As a general rule, the player will develop the personality and other characteristics of his or her personae in the campaign, and little or no DM
interference is necessary in this regard. ... Alignment must certainly affect, if not dictate, much of the actual behavior of each PC, and so it will affect characteristics as well. In this regard it is important for you to see that the particular characteristics of each persona meet with the overall character and alignment of the individual adventurer concerned. Racial characteristics can also be a factor. Consider the following guidelines.

Here is the last bullet point:

Adventure gaming is not a low-treasure, "magic is rare and wonderous" affair. "Mudcore" gaming as personified by low-resource, "realism" games such as HARNMASTER are thematic mismatches. Player agency requires ample player resources, and the GM is not intimidated by players rapidly growing in wealth, power, and independence as the early game is escaped. The first games were light on built-in character class powers because it was expected the PC would have several magical items giving an ever-changing de facto suite of "character powers" that would morph with time as items were used up (or destroyed) and replaced with new and different items.
(Emphasis in original)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that late edition D&D is low magic. If anything, I hear accusations of the opposite, at least with 3e and 4e. I'm looking at the treasure tables in my 5e DMG, and it certaily doesn't appear to be stingy with magic items. So I'm not certain who this is directed at, unless it is that portion of the OSR crowd that liked to criticize later editions for being Monty Haul.

I will say of 4e, that as presented, at least 75% of the magic items handed out by the DM are just used to make the math of the game work. Every 5 levels, each character is expected to receive on average four magic items, which must include (to keep up with the match of the game) one item that gives a bonus to attacks, one item that gives a bonus to AC, and one item that gives a bonus to non-AC defences (the equivalent of saving throws in othe reditions). If you use two weapons, or a weapon and some sort of magical implement like a wand or holy symbol, then all four of your slots are used just to keep up, unless you buy or make items, which you have limited cash to do.

I will also say that, as is so often true of this edition, it doesn't break anything if you also hand out a whole bunch of weird miscellaneous magic ("wondrous" items, in the parlance of 4e). The edition is, as usual, more robust than the designers recognized it to be, and there are a ton of wondrous and single use items already published that is available to hand out. And you can also hand out the "common" versions of +X items freely without breaking anything, because a player can only wear one suit of armor, and can wield a limited number of weapons at one time. As long as you stay within certain boundaries for the value of "X", you can hand out as much as you want.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Actual Play. Like Critical Role or Acquisitions Incorporate, or a host of copycats. I sometimes watch Keith Baker's as well, but they are behind a paywall.

Ah, you can't use any of that stuff as a basis of comparison for anything - it's all performative for an audience, so it's automatically not the norm. "A test subject aware of its observers taints the results" and all that...

I read EOTB's post, and I have comments with respect to his first and last bullet points.

I have comments about all the bullet points in that post, but I don't want to start down that road again....

 

[EOTB]

Nobody is trying to get rid of roleplaying, we're talking about a playstyle that doesn't value it and recruiting like-minded people.

Those who aren't like-minded aren't on our radar at all, that's the point. Go forth and roleplay to your heart's content.

Also - specifically talking about play-acting. Yes, there's also "playing a role" which doesn't strictly require personalization. But we use roleplaying as it is most commonly meant when said - which is creating an alternate personality and faithfully acting according to that alternate personality.

Nobody thinks fighters shouldn't play the function of their class well, or adhere to archetypes.

In general, if you read something and think "WELL THAT DOESN'T DESCRIBE ME" you're probably right, how should I know? I don't have specific people in mind when I'm writing stuff like this. I'm discussing stuff "people" say which you may not yourself say or believe. If you can identify that you like something else than what I'm talking about, that's a win for everyone, not something to argue about.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Freaking forum isn't posting my long-ass replies

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Nobody is trying to get rid of roleplaying, we're talking about a playstyle that doesn't value it and recruiting like-minded people.
...
In general, if you read something and think "WELL THAT DOESN'T DESCRIBE ME" you're probably right, how should I know? I don't have specific people in mind when I'm writing stuff like this. I'm discussing stuff "people" say which you may not yourself say or believe. If you can identify that you like something else than what I'm talking about, that's a win for everyone, not something to argue about.

Well yes, but also no.

The problem is that while you are apparently able to state what "Classic Adventure Gaming" *isn't* ("play-acting" etc.), you can't seem to define what it actually *is*. You might think you have defined it in your blog post, but you haven't - what you've actually done in that post is codify a series of tabletop gaming best practices, and then claimed ownership of those practices as hallmarks of "Classic Adventure" play (when in reality they are just good generic DM habits - I am going somewhere with why this matters, just wait).

Per your blog, these are the qualities you've outlined that supposedly define Classic Adventure Gaming (my reply in italics):

1) No player is ever required or expected to supersede their own personality at the table with a fictional one.
Beoric spoke of this above; in short, the original AD&D game most certainly emphasized (albeit not expounded) roleplaying in the game. OD&D was basically just small-scale Chainmail with custom enemies and weapon mechanics re-skinned to work as spells - AD&D's (and every iteration since) whole deal was taking that fledgling concept and turning into a proper RPG; the only reason it appears to "downplay" the roleplaying element is because roleplaying (as a concept) was literally being invented in those pages, and so all the elements and terminology wasn't there yet.

2) Players are expected to get better at the game and demonstrate a growing mastery of its rules in play.
This is expected of all things people do in great quantities. To imply otherwise is to imply that one cannot "master" non-Adventure Games, which is of course totally absurd. This is not an element exclusive to any play style.

3) Players are expected - not discouraged - to use what the modern hobby mistakenly disparages as "metagaming".
Knowing that trolls are weak to fire out-of-character is not metagaming; knowing that trolls have AC4 and 6 hit dice is metagaming. One instance is lore that's plausible for a character to know in-world as a part of existing inside that fictional world; the other is numbers and math and stuff that applies only to calculations - the literal "meta" of the game. (Good) DMs don't have issues with players knowing about trolls and fire - they have issues with players knowing that it will only take a single fireball spell to finish off the troll because it only has 8 hit points left and it's saving throws suck.

4) Because a GM has perfect knowledge, they must limit themselves.
It took me a while to decipher this point, but unless I'm mistaken, you seem to basically saying that the DM shouldn't weaponize DM-only knowledge against the players, yes? Like, if the DM knows that one party member is weak to acid they'll throw a bunch of acid monsters at them, or if the DM knows that the party has a bunch of Wizards then they'll set up some anti-magic fields, etc. Is that right? If so, that's just generic good DMing habits; the way all versions of the game are intended to be played, not just your version of the game.

Cont.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Ah BS forum wont let me post the rest

I'll abbreviate the rest of the points if this stupid site will let me -
5) A single ruleset is used for long periods of time (who switches rules mid-campaign? Not an issue, not exclusive to CAG)
6) High level play is embraced, it is the goal of every campaign (high level play is the goal of every RPG with level advancement, that's why players chase XP)
7) No attempt is made to predetermine a course that the party chooses (railroading is bad in all systems, not just CAG; this is more generic best-practices advice)
8) Players are allowed to "win" situations without artificial tension or danger imposed by the DM (you might be confusing "artificial tension" with "deliberate encounter design" - one is a faux-pas because it changes the game after the choices are made and the dice are cast; the other is just sound design practice for making your adventures actually interesting.)
9) Adventure gaming is not well-paired with a table made up of passive players (no games are - name one game that plays well with passive players. You can't even play checkers with a passive player. A non-issue, again)
10) GMs enjoy worldbuilding for its own sake (not CAG exclusive, check the r/worldbuilding subreddit for yourself and count the all the 5e players. Worldbuilding is a whole hobby in itself, and has nothing to do with CAG or not-CAG games)
11) As players master the rules, play becomes faster (again, this can be said of everything. It is not a CAG maxim - it is simple a law of life)
12) 1st level character do not have an at-will timestop spell (DM-dependent, not system dependent. Some DMs allow for pauses in game play for clarification purposes, others don't)
13) Adventure gaming is not low treasure (Beoric spoke to this already, but the efficacy of treasure parsing is a DMing skill, not a system feature)

 

[Beek Gwenders]

I'm sure EOTB will come along soon and respond properly, but I'll just add my two cents from what I know about what CAG is saying. A lot of the points in the blogpost are responses to current trends within the OSR/5e, which you seem to be unaware of as trends, though they appear obvious to me when I look through a lot of the common themes being discussed in OSR sites, by key influencers or by the hordes in r/osr reddit.

Well yes, but also no.

The problem is that while you are apparently able to state what "Classic Adventure Gaming" *isn't* ("play-acting" etc.), you can't seem to define what it actually *is*. You might think you have defined it in your blog post, but you haven't - what you've actually done in that post is codify a series of tabletop gaming best practices, and then claimed ownership of those practices as hallmarks of "Classic Adventure" play (when in reality they are just good generic DM habits - I am going somewhere with why this matters, just wait).

Per your blog, these are the qualities you've outlined that supposedly define Classic Adventure Gaming (my reply in italics):

1) No player is ever required or expected to supersede their own personality at the table with a fictional one.
Beoric spoke of this above; in short, the original AD&D game most certainly emphasized (albeit not expounded) roleplaying in the game. OD&D was basically just small-scale Chainmail with custom enemies and weapon mechanics re-skinned to work as spells - AD&D's (and every iteration since) whole deal was taking that fledgling concept and turning into a proper RPG; the only reason it appears to "downplay" the roleplaying element is because roleplaying (as a concept) was literally being invented in those pages, and so all the elements and terminology wasn't there yet.

I think EOTB answered this upstream. Roleplaying a character is entirely valid and what is expected, having to make silly voices to do so is another thing and a turn off for some. CAG is saying: 'If you don't like this part of the game, we don't either, come see how we play'.

2) Players are expected to get better at the game and demonstrate a growing mastery of its rules in play.
This is expected of all things people do in great quantities. To imply otherwise is to imply that one cannot "master" non-Adventure Games, which is of course totally absurd. This is not an element exclusive to any play style.

Again, addressed above. Player metagame knowledge is not to be discouraged, but there are elements within the gaming sphere that think this is unacceptable, as you also do in point 3 below.

3) Players are expected - not discouraged - to use what the modern hobby mistakenly disparages as "metagaming".
Knowing that trolls are weak to fire out-of-character is not metagaming; knowing that trolls have AC4 and 6 hit dice is metagaming. One instance is lore that's plausible for a character to know in-world as a part of existing inside that fictional world; the other is numbers and math and stuff that applies only to calculations - the literal "meta" of the game. (Good) DMs don't have issues with players knowing about trolls and fire - they have issues with players knowing that it will only take a single fireball spell to finish off the troll because it only has 8 hit points left and it's saving throws suck.

Again, see point above. Honestly, not quite sure what you're getting at, players never have all of the 'math' information, they might just know that trolls have 6+6 HD or whatever, but not know how many hit points a particular troll has. But yes system mastery is encouraged in CAG and knowing this kind of information is a part of system mastery.

4) Because a GM has perfect knowledge, they must limit themselves.
It took me a while to decipher this point, but unless I'm mistaken, you seem to basically saying that the DM shouldn't weaponize DM-only knowledge against the players, yes? Like, if the DM knows that one party member is weak to acid they'll throw a bunch of acid monsters at them, or if the DM knows that the party has a bunch of Wizards then they'll set up some anti-magic fields, etc. Is that right? If so, that's just generic good DMing habits; the way all versions of the game are intended to be played, not just your version of the game.

Agreed in that I don't see why this is unique to CAG, other than EOTB might've been highlighting it to contrast it with player system mastery.

From what I see in a large segment of the current OSR discourse is the following trend: A focus on publishing low-level adventures and supplements. This indicates that not many groups are making it past level 6 and indeed are playing in low-magic, mudcore-type games. This seems to imply that the full range of the D&D experience is not being experienced by a large section of the OSR and in fact this appears to be a preference. The ongoing prevalence of ultra-lite rulesets that focus on mudcore or low-level play supports this hypothesis. OSR is being equated with low-level, deadly mudcore D&D, when if one reads the full range of AD&D or BECMI books from the 70s and 80s, it's much more than this. CAG is making a statement that 'No, old school D&D is not just that, it's all of this and this too' and let's run games that encourage this type of campaign and make the full spectrum of play possible. If you're interested, get on board; if not, happy gaming!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

From what I see in a large segment of the current OSR discourse is the following trend: A focus on publishing low-level adventures and supplements. This indicates that not many groups are making it past level 6 and indeed are playing in low-magic, mudcore-type games. This seems to imply that the full range of the D&D experience is not being experienced by a large section of the OSR and in fact this appears to be a preference.

I wanted to address this specifically, because I see a ton of this specious reasoning behind posts that fret over new and worrying "trends in the community". Someone throws a statement like this out there, others point to it as evidence that no further elaboration is needed, and suddenly we begin to take as gospel that which was made on a whim.

In the scientific world, this kind of conjecture would be unsustainable. You can't say for sure that most OSR play happens only at low levels, only that publishers (a very small, specific subset of players) publish OSR adventures for low levels. There could be a few reasons for that beyond "it's all people are playing" - for instance, maybe so many OSR adventures are low-levels because they are intended to roll-out with a new ruleslite system, or maybe it's because authors are more comfortable writing for characters within a limited band of power, or maybe it's just because new authors tend to start things at the beginning.

To clarify, I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily - OSR players may well indeed be playing solely at lower levels. All I am saying is that we should all be a little more wary when ascribing our "general sense of things" as factuality, especially with regards to the habits of using videos and blogs (aka someone's curated opinions) as if they were primary research.

 

[Beoric]

Ah, you can't use any of that stuff as a basis of comparison for anything - it's all performative for an audience, so it's automatically not the norm. "A test subject aware of its observers taints the results" and all that...

By being readily available to watch, it is what new DMs are trying to emulate now. If you aren't introduced to the game by someone who plays using another stye, then this is the only example of play you are exposed to. I talk to newish gamers about their games, and this is exactly what they are describing to me. And the DMs get super stressed about pulling it off, and the players are reluctant to DM because they don't think they are capable of producing that sort of story.

And I have listened to a number of AP podcasts with younger players, and this is exactly what they do (with the exception of gg no re, which I recommend). And guess what? Other youngish gamers are learning from those podcasts as well.

I really like the idea of some sort of outreach effort to expose new players to Classic play. But I don't think CAG pulls that off, because I don't think it is tailored for a younger audience.

@EOTB, I've listened to you on CAG, and on reflection I don't think you are against roleplaying as I define it, which is making decisions in character. I do think the way you phrased that bullet point gives the impression that you are.

But if I am understanding you correctly, and having listened to you on CAG (and the "funny voices" debate), I think what you are trying to describe is players and DMs who treat rolepleaying as a performance. Would that be an accurate statement?

FTR, I run pretty much a Classic game, but dip into Trad sometimes for the players who like that stuff. If you don't want a backstory, that's fine. If you want to make up a backstory, that's fine too, I will help you make it consistent with the game world, and I will riff off it from time to time. I don't do funny voices, but if you as a player want to, go nuts. My T1 game has been pretty lethal, I think mostly because of poor player decisions; my other games have proven less lethal. I don't generally erect guardrails, but neither do I actively try to kill the PCs. I prefer campaign play, but don't get to play nearly as often as I would like, which gets in the way of that. I don't try to tell a story, but sometimes I do build narrative archetypes into the choices available to my players, which players are free to follow or not as they choose. I give a lot of agency to players, enough to have received complaints from players who want more direction; I'm trying to modify my approach to give more hints as to available choices. I let players make mistakes, but will allow do-overs if the mistake results from errors in communication on my part. My thoughts on magic items are above.

 

[EOTB]

@EOTB, I've listened to you on CAG, and on reflection I don't think you are against roleplaying as I define it, which is making decisions in character. I do think the way you phrased that bullet point gives the impression that you are.

But if I am understanding you correctly, and having listened to you on CAG (and the "funny voices" debate), I think what you are trying to describe is players and DMs who treat rolepleaying as a performance. Would that be an accurate statement?

Play-acting, yes. And also the desire of at minimum some DMs in the hobby that their players are creating characters with different core personalities than themselves and then making decisions based upon this fictional personality. This is why I use the term "superseding". When I make a character, all of them are essentially me, some variation of. If I'm playing a character like a druid or a paladin, it's still me, just staying within the archetype.

I also have no idea what 5E encourages or allows for magic items per se. Notice that my example was a game that's been in print for a very long time.

RE: the rest of the objections, mainly from DP, this is getting upset over something not stated, and not the position of anyone on the podcast - that we are claiming these things are exclusive or whatever to the playstyle. Not true at all. Anything we talk about might be done by people who object to other parts of what we advocate. Anything we talk about can be done with any set of game rules, although it may be swimming upstream against what certain sets of rules presume or encourage. It's a style of play. Just how styles of cooking all use similar ingredients or prep techniques, and yet also end up with an output noticeably of a certain type, same here. If someone is contrarian to it, that's fine. I'm not negotiating with people who don't agree or don't get it, because the reception is already beyond what we expected so there are more than enough people who do get it.

Edit - also, FYI, I fully expect my players to read the monster manuals and DMG and any other book in their off time and am not bothered at all if they know what AC something is or whatever detail. The game is not about ignorance of what you face, it is about how to handle the situation you face it in.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

And also the desire of at minimum some DMs in the hobby that their players are creating characters with different core personalities than themselves and then making decisions based upon this fictional personality.

We all get that one player - the "I'm only stealing because it's what my thief character would do" characters. The "my loner Ranger would never travel with other people" characters. The "I'd attack the lich before it can speak, because my paladin always destroys all evil on sight" characters. We get it. Nobody likes those people.

Tempering those types at the table is not a style of play though.

And this is basically the crux of my position - your points about what makes a game a CAG... they're almost entirely universal to all other games too. Not just in the "yeah, they apply to other editions too" way. What you are describing as it's own style is just common sense, good DMing. Like, take the bullet points from a Sly Flourish Book - voila, a "gaming style" is born, apparently.

It's like somebody putting up a blog post saying "It's considered part of the Modern Adventure Game dogma that the campaign must have some kind of dynamic plot, that enemies be made diverse and interesting, and that dungeons are well-designed. All those things make up a Modern Adventure Game". You can see how the nature of that kind of post gets controversial; how it implies things.

...that we are claiming these things are exclusive or whatever to the playstyle. Not true at all. ... Anything we talk about can be done with any set of game rules, although it may be swimming upstream against what certain sets of rules presume or encourage. It's a style of play.

Fair, but then why even bother with the distinction? It sounds like "Classic Adventure Gaming" isn't a "style" so much as it is a list of your personal preferences (ones which also happen to align with the preferences of most gamers: to have a good group who knows what they're doing).

 

[Beoric]

Play-acting, yes. And also the desire of at minimum some DMs in the hobby that their players are creating characters with different core personalities than themselves and then making decisions based upon this fictional personality. This is why I use the term "superseding". When I make a character, all of them are essentially me, some variation of. If I'm playing a character like a druid or a paladin, it's still me, just staying within the archetype.

I haven't encountered DMs requiring their players to create personas different from their own. I certainly haven't seen any suggestion of it in the 5e materials. I suspect this happens with the same frequency as other DM behaviors that are abusive or poorly considered.

I do think the game sometimes requires players to act according with an artificial persons, as with cursed items forcing alignment change.

I do often think that players who enjoy playing evil characters are telling on themselves.

We all get that one player - the "I'm only stealing because it's what my thief character would do" characters. The "my loner Ranger would never travel with other people" characters. The "I'd attack the lich before it can speak, because my paladin always destroys all evil on sight" characters. We get it. Nobody likes those people.

Yeah, those guys are not adopting a persona different from their own.

 

[EOTB]

First, they're not just my personal preferences. This isn't "The EOTB Podcast". We started it because multiple people after talking to one another realized we all wanted similar things out of games, and also similarly did not want certain things, and it was more common in the hobby to run into games that had stuff we did not want than stuff we did want.

Putting all of this under a name creates an easy way for people who happen to like all the things that those of us on the podcast like, to recruit people who are also looking for games ran in this way. It creates a flag for people to see and gather around who want more of this game play.

And it is a style. Many people who've played games with us say they've never played a game ran under all of these conditions, and the play experience is something they've not had before. You are focusing on individual inputs, we're talking about the output when all these elements are used together.

Good luck and good gaming for you and what you like to do.

 

[Malrex]

It's one of those things that it's easy to disagree with on a forum, but then if you played with other forum members here and their 'different' gamestyles, I think we would all still have fun at a table. I've said my peace over the years.

Our AP videos is actually our AP. I think I'm on my 4th or 5th character now? We definitely keep the risks in there and not going off a script. It's also something I have NO idea why someone would bother to watch, but one of our buddies enjoys the whole camera/equipment/streaming thing as a hobby so we do it to appease him.

I do have a question though---is it fun if you have several experienced players who plan and are encouraged to use ALL their knowledge/metagaming to their advantage...but your DM is brand new/relatively new to the game?

 

[EOTB]

Being the least experienced person at the table and also being the DM was my formation in the game.

fastest way to learn it.

 

[Beoric]

Our AP videos is actually our AP. I think I'm on my 4th or 5th character now? We definitely keep the risks in there and not going off a script. It's also something I have NO idea why someone would bother to watch, but one of our buddies enjoys the whole camera/equipment/streaming thing as a hobby so we do it to appease him.

I like watching/listening to AP in small doses, just to see how other people DM and play.

 

[Beek Gwenders]

I wanted to address this specifically, because I see a ton of this specious reasoning behind posts that fret over new and worrying "trends in the community". Someone throws a statement like this out there, others point to it as evidence that no further elaboration is needed, and suddenly we begin to take as gospel that which was made on a whim.

In the scientific world, this kind of conjecture would be unsustainable. You can't say for sure that most OSR play happens only at low levels, only that publishers (a very small, specific subset of players) publish OSR adventures for low levels. There could be a few reasons for that beyond "it's all people are playing" - for instance, maybe so many OSR adventures are low-levels because they are intended to roll-out with a new ruleslite system, or maybe it's because authors are more comfortable writing for characters within a limited band of power, or maybe it's just because new authors tend to start things at the beginning.

To clarify, I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily - OSR players may well indeed be playing solely at lower levels. All I am saying is that we should all be a little more wary when ascribing our "general sense of things" as factuality, especially with regards to the habits of using videos and blogs (aka someone's curated opinions) as if they were primary research.

I'm pretty sure that what I say is fairly accurate for a lot of the OSR, especially the B/X-OSE nexus part of it, but I'm not across everything that happens within the OSR. Those playing ACKS look like they are playing a much broader scope of game for example. But if you look at the majority of modules being produced or getting attention on reddit or various discords for B/X, they're invariably in the low-level range. The only OSE or B/X modules I've seen produced for high level play have been for the specific purpose of making an adventure for high level play for the NAP contest. There were several polls put up in r/osr over the last few years about what level ranges people play in and what level ranges they like. The data for B/X players followed this low-level pattern with only a minor number ever actually playing anything over 6th level. The data for AD&D players however pushes the numbers much more to the 9-12 level range.