Quote from: The Butcher;769555I can't presume to speak for everyone but I'm not crazy about gambling (other than the odd poker night, less for the gambling and more for socializing) and I am risk-averse as fuck.

And I relish running and playing risky, gritty, lethal games. I figure it's the one place I feel can go out on a limb and do stupid things without fear.

   Reasonable enough. It was a theory, not a Definitive Statement of Truth. And your final sentence may explain another factor of the appeal.

   Another crazy theory: Is the 'fail forward' ethos in modern design an effort to bring some of this unpredictability back while at the same time preserving the character continuity and other elements of post-Old School play? (I hesitate to use the term 'New School' because I'm not convinced a single New School exists. A definable Old School does, even if it wasn't the only method of play in those days.)

He's definitely onto something here. All the games I find most exciting to play have one thing in common, despite a huge range in settings, approaches to rules, etc.: it is really easy to die. The highest fatality rate games I know are Boot Hill, Behind Enemy Lines, The Fantasy Trip, and low level pre-3E D&D. All are a total blast. Every game I can think of that is 'well designed' but has minimal chances of character death is usually a bit of a bore.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548I'm not so sure the conclusion follows from the premise. I admit I've never played in a truly 'old school' game (I started in 1989 with a 1E/2E hybrid informed heavily by early JRPG styles), but through listening to discussions, analogies and imaginative sympathy, I think I can get some understanding. Not as full or immediate an understanding as comes from personal experience, but some. And I think that for me, it would be enjoyable in small doses, but would grow frustrating or pall over the longer term.

Ok, fair enough.  Want to discuss why?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548Others do differ. I have to wonder how well different tastes in play styles correlate with other personality traits--gambling, risk-taking, competitiveness, etc. I tend to have little interest in gambling and am generally risk-averse, for example, so that may be a factor in why the old school/roguelike style holds little appeal to me, at least in theory.

Nevermind, you did discuss why.  

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548Or are we going to argue that only personal experience counts? That's a dark and purple-shaded path to wander ...

I don't have a problem with people saying they don't like AD&D, I houseruled the fuck out of it myself.  What always gets me piping in is when someone claims "Oh, D&D was always like this." or parroting some other "It is known" web mantra from The Gaming Den, awfulpurple or wherever, when it is completely and lots of times downright provably false.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548I think that Batman had it right; there's a sharp distinction between "can't understand" and "understand but prefer other styles of play".

This is a true statement, but I can honestly say I've read and played games from all sides of the spectrum.  When I actually talk specifics about a game, it's from the text and my experience, not the phantom version of the game in my head created by an echo chamber.

A LOT of the "common wisdom" I see surrounding older versions of D&D is frequently of the "Extractibus Ex Recto Meum." school of game theory.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769548Now you're just flattering me.

I give credit where credit is due. :hatsoff:...that, however, won't save you from the guillotine.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;769559Reasonable enough. It was a theory, not a Definitive Statement of Truth. And your final sentence may explain another factor of the appeal.

   Another crazy theory: Is the 'fail forward' ethos in modern design an effort to bring some of this unpredictability back while at the same time preserving the character continuity and other elements of post-Old School play? (I hesitate to use the term 'New School' because I'm not convinced a single New School exists. A definable Old School does, even if it wasn't the only method of play in those days.)

I think the "Fail Forward" ethos is entirely from the "Dramatic Logic" school of thought (someone always derails using the term narrative).  What are the key elements of Fail Forward?  Pretty much all implementations have the following features.

• Keep the story moving, no "dead" dice rolls.
• Never say no to the player, build on what he does (a hallmark of collaborative storytelling).

More on this later, but I think that's the gist that really differentiates it from Old School play.  Now is this done for unpredictability in that Success or Fail Forward is based on a die roll and the "Complication" many times can just be declared by the GM?  Maybe.  More later, gotta head to work.

I was surprised at TBP they didn't have a 30 page thread about how horrible the article is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;769534Point taken, Raven drew first blood, but to be fair from reading posts from the people he's actually talking about, he's right, they will never understand the playstyle, because they've never done it.

If you think you're painted with that brush and it isn't true, then argue why not.
If you think you're not painted with that brush, well then, no one is sneering at you, are they?

To complain about sneering by countersneering is...an interesting take.

Frankly "One True Wayism" is beneath you, you've come up with much better and comedic ways to mock everyone here.

Indeed. If you don't spend all your time online talking about how unfair and unfun old school play is, or how TSR D&D is a messy, random collection of poorly thought out house rules that only nostalgic neckbeards enjoy, or telling me I'm doing it wrong because I enjoy those things, then it's safe to assume I wasn't talking about you.

I guess I bring "OSR" mentality to all my games regardless of what I run. I think the main points of that article are spot on. I don't *need* to play OSR-Taliban Approved systems to bring that kinda thunder to my "non-approved" games.

When I run my campaigns - bad ill-thought decisions will get you fucking killed. Good well thought out decisions will *also* get you killed if the Gods of Probability aren't flowing through your hands when you toss the dice - but hopefully it will be a good death.

I do agree with Krueger's assertion that if you've never played *like* that before it's a *very* different mindset.

Good article. But I learned nothing from it I didn't already know.

Quote from: Raven;769594Indeed. If you don't spend all your time online talking about how unfair and unfun old school play is, or how TSR D&D is a messy, random collection of poorly thought out house rules that only nostalgic neckbeards enjoy, or telling me I'm doing it wrong because I enjoy those things, then it's safe to assume I wasn't talking about you.

  Well, I don't think I'd find it very enjoyable, but using Laws' division of player types from the 4E DMG, I'm primarily an Actor/Storyteller, and Old School play sounds like it falls more along the Explorer/Thinker axis.

  I'd argue that TSR D&D is a bit messy in spots--that's part of its charm. Cf. "The Game Wizards" in DRAGON #126. You should be able to find that article if you don't know it already, Raven; you use that issue's cover as your avatar. I wouldn't call them random, although I think a few parts are poorly thought out or explained--the initiative system, for example, or the extremely harsh requirements for atoning for an alignment change on p. 25 of the 1E DMG. (If I understand those rules and the XP for treasure rules correctly, a PC will have to have reached 6th level or so before atonement even becomes possible.)

  But TSR D&D is very good at creating its own unique fantasy experience. It's sort of 'psychotronic' in that way, at least using the definition from Lucha Libre Hero.

  I have to wonder if part of the problem is that D&D became the 800-lb. gorilla of the hobby. If it weren't the market leader, it could have sustained itself on its own unique model of play and other games would have filled other niches. Instead, it's reached the point where a) a lot of different styles of play have been tried by the game in various editions and ranges (cf. my "Flavors of D&D" threads over on TBP) and b) a lot of players have latched on to each style in turn and find that style enjoyable.

  Now, whether the game should have mutated beyond the original Gygaxian/Old School vision is a matter of debate. But it did mutate, each edition and style brought new people into the hobby, and each one of those audiences has a legitimate stake in the game.

  I'm not convinced that 5E will be flexible enough to cover all those different flavors, despite WotC's marketing. It's looking promising, but we'll have to wait for the 3 core books--especially the DMG--to see if it can cover more than the current style, which sounds like it's predominantly a sort of 'middle ground' between 2E and 3E. Even if it's not quite as flexible as the claims made for it are, though, hopefully once it's settled what exactly it is, we can reach some sort of negotiated peace in the Edition Wars. I'm expecting to wind up in Middleschoolland, Newest Grognardia, and the Outlier Colonies, myself.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;769099Yeah...yeah, I'd definitely toss "death save".  -10 HP = you dead, sucka.

I'll play in that game!   You can literally NEVER die. You will abolish death saves and by RAW there is no such thing as negative HP.

Quote from: Scott Anderson;769498Thanks for this.

Also of interest: in video games, roguelikes have made a comeback. That is, deadly, procedurally-generated adventure games. The digital version of OSR in a real sense. Also a kind of game that was pioneered in the late 70s-early 80s.  

On the topic of real death: -10 is for babies.

This is why OSR supporters catch a lot of shit. The good thing is, most of us can admit 1E is a massive load of minutiae and still play it. Wouldn't be me, though. If I was gonna actual old school (and not a retroclone), it'd be BECMI and all ITS minutiae.:-)

Quote from: tenbones;769598I guess I bring "OSR" mentality to all my games regardless of what I run. I think the main points of that article are spot on. I don't *need* to play OSR-Taliban Approved systems to bring that kinda thunder to my "non-approved" games.

When I run my campaigns - bad ill-thought decisions will get you fucking killed. Good well thought out decisions will *also* get you killed if the Gods of Probability aren't flowing through your hands when you toss the dice - but hopefully it will be a good death.

I do agree with Krueger's assertion that if you've never played *like* that before it's a *very* different mindset.

Good article. But I learned nothing from it I didn't already know.

I ran a WEG d6 Star Wars game for some guys who had only played RPGA style AD&D2 before about 10 years ago. One of the Players had his character, for no apparent reason, throw a grenade at a Hutt and its security entourage. The Hutt lived and its security entourage all foccussed their attention on the character and fired every weapon they had at him. Character was deader than ratshit in a single round.

That Player still to this day whines about how I was trying to deliberately kill his character, no matter how many times I point out that he threw a grenade at a Hutt first.

hey, I actually like the death save mechanic! During our very limited time with 4e we had several people go down and get to test that one out. My friend Mike in particular had it happen to his fighter 3 times, and 2 of those he squeaked by on his last chance. It was pretty exciting to see it in action. He still talks about it today.

Now I wouldn't port death saves over to ACKS or anything, but I look at 5e as more of a high action/cinematic alternative anyway. I also like spending HD during short rests (although full overnight heals is pushing it) and warlord-style shouty healing.

See, I'm not a total sneering grog!

Of course, if you go down to -10 and live you should also spend a few months game time recuperating.

Oddly enough I think GURPS is the game that most benefits from an old school outlook.  If that disadvantage kills you you're dead balances out a lot of the silliness that disadvantages can bring to the table.

Quote from: jeff37923;769611I ran a WEG d6 Star Wars game for some guys who had only played RPGA style AD&D2 before about 10 years ago. One of the Players had his character, for no apparent reason, throw a grenade at a Hutt and its security entourage. The Hutt lived and its security entourage all foccussed their attention on the character and fired every weapon they had at him. Character was deader than ratshit in a single round.

That Player still to this day whines about how I was trying to deliberately kill his character, no matter how many times I point out that he threw a grenade at a Hutt first.

That's fucking brilliant. If I had that player. I'd hold my belly and go... /Jabbavoice 'Ho ho ho! Stupid fucker thougth you could kill me? Put your blast-vest on your fucking face next time."

Actually in my last big Pathfinder (Forgotten Realms) game - I had a player who had the antidote to cure this plague (partially concocted and set loose by the fucking PC's themselves) that were wiping out this Drow city. So literally millions of Drow are dying (yes granted they're Drow), and he's got enough antidote to save one-thousand. He sets up a deal with this Drow Assassin (he's their head assassin) - and the deal was to bring all the antidote for an assassination the PC wanted done. The Drow did it, and the player decided to only give him half... and wanted another job for the other half. So the Drow said - "You're telling me, you won't give me what you promised, but you'll give me half now for services already rendered? You're no human. You're more like us." Player laughed, produced the half of the antidote and threatened to smash it unless the Drow agreed. So the assassin sneak-attacked him and killed him, took it and left.

To this day he still gripes at me about it. It's been like three years.

ACKS' Mortal Wounds table are a great way of handling "not quite dead at 0HP".

For so-called "cinematic" low-lethality stuff I generally skip D&D and BRP in favor of Savage Worlds. And I still wish I could get FATE to work for me, but there you go.