Quote from: tenbones;1026388Part of the issue we see with OSR folks vs. the new generation of players are assumptions about what D&D is supposed to emulate. This is easier (somewhat) to peg down once you apply it to a setting. But in reality, most adventures are relatively setting-free both in the old-school and new-school. But the modern conception of D&D is more likely to be a freakshow which dilutes the wargaming-semi-realistic conceits of the old-school assumptions.

I guarantee you that the number of gamers who know what the odds are of a warrior with three years of battle experience dealing damage to an opponent with four years of battle experience wearing chainmail and holding a medium round shield while attacking with a falchion fighting in a rainstorm is low. If two gamers did know it is highly likely they will disagree about the importance of one detail over another.

Hence they rely on rules as written to tell them. OSR comes off as different because many are experienced gamers who are either willing to do or have the knowledge to say "Hey the rules don't make sense here, we need to adjudicate this differently."

It has nothing to do with specific genres, settings, or styles. It about people starting out with gaming,  view it as a light leisure activity, or just really don't give a fuck about the details. These folks rely on rules as written to tell them what is permitted or not permitted in a tabletop campaign.

There are plenty of segments of the OSR who like to run freakshow D&D for example the recent release of Operation Unfathomable or the years the DCC RPG been sold.

If there is a problem, then it is a meta-game issue born of a lack of communication about what the campaign is about and what the setting is like. The way to fix it is to use the same technique people been using for generations to deal with small group interactions. And it work, sometimes hard work, often more work people are willing to put into a leisure activity.

Quote from: tenbones;1026388Does the system itself handle those tiers well, and does it keep that cohesion throughout those tiers? In a Class-based system like D&D where you're an above average person at level 1, and by level 10 you should be a powerhouse of the realm (at least in the old-school view) and if you get into the high-teens you're a world power dealing with the gods etc. - those are essentially the same tiers of play, relative to the assumed power-levels of the game.

If that how the setting of the campaign works then I would say to the individual quit whining about it and deal with it. Or run a different campaign with a different setting, and a different set of rules. More often the case is one of unexpected consequences. That the rules mostly work but there are unacceptable outliers.

In that case, fuck the rules as written and fix the issue. Either for the next session if the players agree, or for the next campaign if they don't.

Steven, I love that answer.
 
It reminds me of artist's or writer's block. Or even better, audience ambivalence to what they want to eat for dinner, ("Just throw out restaurant options for me to say 'no' to,"). 'I know what I like when I see it, but I don't know what I like yet.' Beautiful, like a quintessential human condition.

Well, no one ever said knowing yourself at the moment, or being inspired, was easy! Happy gaming travels!

Let me ask folks this, can you run a tabletop roleplaying campaign without a rulebook?

Just sit down with a group of players with some dice, pen, and paper. Describe the setting to them, have them tell you want kind of character they want to play. Everybody writes down notes. Then the next session you start playing. Using just what the players have on their notes, and you using your experience about the setting and genre to figure out when the dice needs to be rolled and what are the odds.

If you say you can't. Then I ask you to consider that if you were able to do the above and make it fun and enjoyable even if only for one session. You will that much better when you use your favorite set of rules. It will help you understand what really important about the rules and what not. That there are many elements to running a tabletop roleplaying campaign that rules don't and can't address. That heart of the experience is the player interacting with a setting as their character.

Quote from: estar;1026453Let me ask folks this, can you run a tabletop roleplaying campaign without a rulebook?

I can do it.  I have done it.  I don't enjoy it.  When I try it, I spend a lot of time answering questions about what is possible instead of getting on with them trying things and the fun of the back and forth dialog.  Maybe it is the particular players, because I've been on the other side of the table with a GM doing precisely that, and enjoyed it just fine.  If pushed into that role, my inevitable response is to begin developing rules to push some of that responsibility back onto the players, so that I can get back to having fun again.  

My reaction to it is why I do not quite agree with the degree of emphasis you put on the point of running the setting.  I agree it is important.  Based on my understanding of your points, I don't agree that it is as important as you say it is.

Quote from: estar;1026453Let me ask folks this, can you run a tabletop roleplaying campaign without a rulebook?

Just sit down with a group of players with some dice, pen, and paper. Describe the setting to them, have them tell you want kind of character they want to play. Everybody writes down notes. Then the next session you start playing. Using just what the players have on their notes, and you using your experience about the setting and genre to figure out when the dice needs to be rolled and what are the odds.

If you say you can't. Then I ask you to consider that if you were able to do the above and make it fun and enjoyable even if only for one session. You will that much better when you use your favorite set of rules. It will help you understand what really important about the rules and what not. That there are many elements to running a tabletop roleplaying campaign that rules don't and can't address. That heart of the experience is the player interacting with a setting as their character.

Another good question. My initial response is: Yes I can do that. But I also think it depends on the player(s).

A lot of players, especially veteran players, have specific mechanical likes/dislikes that often preclude them from entire genres or styles of play. One merely has to look at the revolt against 4e by various edition loyalists. Noobs to gaming didn't know better and simply went along with it.

It's funny because I have extremely opinionated players. One of the big issues we have is my desire to do a Star Trek campaign - and my entire group loves Star Trek (we've never played a Star Trek game before) - but one of our players vehemently hates Trek for no particular reason. But I asked him if I ran a Star Trek game (no mention of any system), he said "Well you know how I feel about Trek. But, if you run it, I'll play it."

But that takes us back to the premise of my question - if I'm going to run such a game, I need to decide what system I'd use to express whatever my vision of Star Trek is going to be based on the scale of the game. That's where all of this kinda comes together. I COULD say "Well I'm skilled enough as a GM to take B/X and make a Star Trek game... or I could just pick up Modiphius's Star Trek RPG sight unseen, and run it. Or I could use a system that I know well like Savage Worlds that's designed to be tinkered with as a universal system." etc. What's going to give me as a GM the best bang for my buck? And... does it matter enough?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026440Well, in that case, I'm not sure where I fall, because it's a question I still struggle with (as in, what exactly I want), because of the inherent compromises required.  Consider something as simple as this.  Assume a character in the system can grow from novice to big damn hero (to be deliberately vague):

1. What kind of numbers of lesser beings can the hero reasonably and consistently handle?

2. What kinds of terrible, powerful creatures can the hero have a shot at handling?

Because no matter how you answer that, you have to set the underlying math/system somewhere, and it is bound to not be what some people are expecting.  You get the same kind of issue with, "Can one shot kill, and if so, what are the chances?"  Reason I'm unsure even what I want, is that I don't much care for either extreme.  I don't want the big damn hero mortally afraid of 3 common soldiers, and one unlucky hit away from a crossbow bolt through the throat, but I'm also not terribly fond of big damn hero effectively invulnerable to 30 orcs, either.  I don't want a simulation of realism, but I don't want it dialed up to action movie emulation, either.  It seems to me sometimes that systems try to have it both ways, satisfying no one, me included.  

This feeling is hardly limited to combat.  I have the same reaction to most skill systems--either incredibly punishing to characters or giving away the store.

Man I love this post. It really hits the nail on the head of what I'm talking about. How does this synch up with your preferred systems you use in play?

For example - I like Big Damn Heroes but I also like danger when it's dangerous. So I use Savage Worlds in my D&D settings. Its easy for me to establish the baseline without having to go full-freakshow without making a lot of qualifiers. i.e. if I wanna go freakshow, I'll just say Spelljammer is in play or I set it in a specifically exotic setting/setup. But the mechanics of SW imply a lot of different things that traditional D20 doesn't automatically. Nor would using Runequest, or Rolemaster in a similar setting.

Quote from: tenbones;1026465Man I love this post. It really hits the nail on the head of what I'm talking about. How does this synch up with your preferred systems you use in play?

For example - I like Big Damn Heroes but I also like danger when it's dangerous. So I use Savage Worlds in my D&D settings. Its easy for me to establish the baseline without having to go full-freakshow without making a lot of qualifiers. i.e. if I wanna go freakshow, I'll just say Spelljammer is in play or I set it in a specifically exotic setting/setup. But the mechanics of SW imply a lot of different things that traditional D20 doesn't automatically. Nor would using Runequest, or Rolemaster in a similar setting.

D&D 5E does a good job for me in some areas, but I doubt I'd ever run it with the healing system set as is.  I want it a little more deadly than that. Or more specifically, since I could always just throw a lot of over-powered encounters at the party if all I wanted was deadly, I prefer something more like the RC or AD&D effect where characters get worn down.  I just like that style.  I even modified Fantasy Hero to get some of that effect deliberately.  Part of the focus of my own system tinkering (and part of why I struggle so much with this question) is that I want an effect that might be described as: "Big Damn Heroes are heroes until they take some big hits.  If they keep going or must, then they are competent, regular guys.  Then if things really go bad, they are mooks with an edge--where one crossbow bolt can finish them off."  You'll note that D&D-style hit points only addresses about half the needs of such a system, and it implies a very shallow death spiral.  I have learned to my displeasure that getting that mix to suit me, while not overcomplicating a system, is not easy.  It's constantly walking a tight-rope between deadliness and staying power and clear mechanics. I'm not even sure it is possible.

In contrast, I think the 5E skill system is vapid.  It's redeeming virtues are that it is easy to use, doesn't take up a lot of mental space, and is probably adequate enough for a class-based system.  Those aren't small things.  So I tolerate it, because I recognize to get something that I'd enjoy would require a complete rewrite of the underlying system, and at that point, why bother to play 5E?  There are no skill systems that I've either played or had explained to me that I like.  I might be difficult to please in this area.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026440Well, in that case, I'm not sure where I fall, because it's a question I still struggle with (as in, what exactly I want), because of the inherent compromises required.  Consider something as simple as this.  Assume a character in the system can grow from novice to big damn hero (to be deliberately vague):

1. What kind of numbers of lesser beings can the hero reasonably and consistently handle?

2. What kinds of terrible, powerful creatures can the hero have a shot at handling?

Because no matter how you answer that, you have to set the underlying math/system somewhere, and it is bound to not be what some people are expecting.  You get the same kind of issue with, "Can one shot kill, and if so, what are the chances?"  Reason I'm unsure even what I want, is that I don't much care for either extreme.  I don't want the big damn hero mortally afraid of 3 common soldiers, and one unlucky hit away from a crossbow bolt through the throat, but I'm also not terribly fond of big damn hero effectively invulnerable to 30 orcs, either.  I don't want a simulation of realism, but I don't want it dialed up to action movie emulation, either.  It seems to me sometimes that systems try to have it both ways, satisfying no one, me included.  

This feeling is hardly limited to combat.  I have the same reaction to most skill systems--either incredibly punishing to characters or giving away the store.

This is pretty much where I'm at, I'm in the exact same boat.

Quote from: tenbonesMan I love this post.

Quote from: OpaopajrSteven, I love that answer.

Quote from: Christopher BradyThis is pretty much where I'm at, I'm in the exact same boat.

YEs, let me also say good show. We need more posts like these around here. :-)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026472D&D 5E does a good job for me in some areas, but I doubt I'd ever run it with the healing system set as is.  I want it a little more deadly than that. Or more specifically, since I could always just throw a lot of over-powered encounters at the party if all I wanted was deadly, I prefer something more like the RC or AD&D effect where characters get worn down.  I just like that style.  I even modified Fantasy Hero to get some of that effect deliberately.

5e, in a few places (healing and the rest mechanic rules, in particular), feels very much like they set the default at a very design-convenient spot, and kind of expected most people to modify in one direction or another (and included example options for doing so in the DMG). I suspect they've been rather surprised at the number of people who've just gone with the default and then complained.

QuoteThere are no skill systems that I've either played or had explained to me that I like.  I might be difficult to please in this area.

I'm in that boat. I think the very concept of 'skills' is somewhat problematic in that there are some things that a novice should have a 0% chance at and an expert only 33%. Other things where it should be 0%/99%, others 70%/90%, and so on. I don't think trying to find a universal emulation for such has been all that successful (without making the game so convoluted it can only marginally be considered a 'simplification' of reality.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026440Assume a character in the system can grow from novice to big damn hero (to be deliberately vague):

1. What kind of numbers of lesser beings can the hero reasonably and consistently handle?

2. What kinds of terrible, powerful creatures can the hero have a shot at handling?

Because no matter how you answer that, you have to set the underlying math/system somewhere, and it is bound to not be what some people are expecting.  You get the same kind of issue with, "Can one shot kill, and if so, what are the chances?"  Reason I'm unsure even what I want, is that I don't much care for either extreme.  I don't want the big damn hero mortally afraid of 3 common soldiers, and one unlucky hit away from a crossbow bolt through the throat, but I'm also not terribly fond of big damn hero effectively invulnerable to 30 orcs, either.  I don't want a simulation of realism, but I don't want it dialed up to action movie emulation, either.  It seems to me sometimes that systems try to have it both ways, satisfying no one, me included.  

Honestly, a think the best systems I have seen to answer that question are ones with 1) a very hard and fast genre, and 2)where the character doesn't really grow from zero to hero. Traveller being a good example. GURPS and Hero System being decent in that if you start out at say 100 points, you rarely make it to 200 (much less 5-10x as powerful as starting, as most leveling games will have), but being generic systems, they try to split the difference all ways on things like lethality.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1026518Honestly, a think the best systems I have seen to answer that question are ones with 1) a very hard and fast genre, and 2)where the character doesn't really grow from zero to hero. Traveller being a good example. GURPS and Hero System being decent in that if you start out at say 100 points, you rarely make it to 200 (much less 5-10x as powerful as starting, as most leveling games will have), but being generic systems, they try to split the difference all ways on things like lethality.

I agree.  The problem is, I want the zero to hero (or at least most of that range).  Maybe I ask to much.  But yeah, Fantasy Hero in practice does a good job on the lethalness question for me.  It's the nature of the system that holds me back there--not as complicated as people make it out, but too much accounting.  With GURPs, I think it's less accounting, but I'm not as enamored with the way it works, as it edges more towards the realism side than I want.  The way skills work in GURPs is almost a deal-breaker --not because it is bad, but because for what I want, it is so tantalizingly close in some ways while completely and utterly wrong in others.  The scaling of skills on the lower and upper ends irritates me just thinking about it, but you couldn't change it without a complete rewrite from the ground up.

Quote from: estar;1026453Let me ask folks this, can you run a tabletop roleplaying campaign without a rulebook?

Yes.

Of course, I've also practically memorized almost every detail of TFT and GURPS, so I can run those without any books.

But I could also do it without using those, though how I did it would probably still be influenced by my experience playing those.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026520I agree.  The problem is, I want the zero to hero (or at least most of that range).  Maybe I ask to much.  But yeah, Fantasy Hero in practice does a good job on the lethalness question for me.  It's the nature of the system that holds me back there--not as complicated as people make it out, but too much accounting.  With GURPs, I think it's less accounting, but I'm not as enamored with the way it works, as it edges more towards the realism side than I want.  The way skills work in GURPs is almost a deal-breaker --not because it is bad, but because for what I want, it is so tantalizingly close in some ways while completely and utterly wrong in others.  The scaling of skills on the lower and upper ends irritates me just thinking about it, but you couldn't change it without a complete rewrite from the ground up.

Hmm, how do they irritate you, and how would you want the skills to work?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026458I can do it.  I have done it.  I don't enjoy it.  When I try it, I spend a lot of time answering questions about what is possible instead of getting on with them trying things and the fun of the back and forth dialog.  Maybe it is the particular players, because I've been on the other side of the table with a GM doing precisely that, and enjoyed it just fine.

Did you ever find out why they were asking so many questions? When I dig into it, most of the time it because I wasn't supplying enough information. So things devolved into a game of twenty questions.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026458If pushed into that role, my inevitable response is to begin developing rules to push some of that responsibility back onto the players, so that I can get back to having fun again.

That understandable, having a printed rulebook as a referee saves on the verbal bandwidth so to speak. Otherwise you will have to spend time explaining why the odds are what they are when you try to attack a warrior with 4 years of battle experience wearing chainmail, holding a shield while fighting in a rainstorm.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026458My reaction to it is why I do not quite agree with the degree of emphasis you put on the point of running the setting.  I agree it is important.  Based on my understanding of your points, I don't agree that it is as important as you say it is.

A humanoid duck trying to hit a rabbit with a sword is a very different thing in Toon than it is in Runequest. The reason what one set of rules uses the setting of Looney tune cartoons and the other is using the world of Glorantha. The rules of Toon versus Runequest are an expression of the reality of their respective settings. And using one set of the rules for the other setting would entail a lot of work for the referee to making the settings still feel the same for a campaign.

Now if you talking about using Runequest for Glorantha, vs. Middle Earth, vs. Forgotten Realms. The difference are so dramatic and the work is correspondingly less.

Quote from: tenbones;1026463Another good question. My initial response is: Yes I can do that. But I also think it depends on the player(s).

While player temperament does make a difference I think it more about good communication including tailoring to the needs of a specific player. And I have to stress while I feel what I said is accurate, what we do, we do for enjoyment. Using a specific set of rule in particular way is part of the enjoyment factor.

The design of the rule system can do little to address preference. It solely on the shoulder of the referee and his player to communicate with each other over what they like or don't like. What the author of a rulebook can do to make this easy is clearly state the assumptions that they are using to design the system with. What they are emphasizing and what they are not.

Quote from: tenbones;1026463A lot of players, especially veteran players, have specific mechanical likes/dislikes that often preclude them from entire genres or styles of play. One merely has to look at the revolt against 4e by various edition loyalists. Noobs to gaming didn't know better and simply went along with it.

My opinion that the bulk of D&D 4th edition issues are meta-game issues. Marketing, how it built on past editions (it did not), what style of campaign the supplements supported (fantasy superheroes 24/7 only), etc.

The rules themselves worked well for what they were designed to do. Allow a broad spectrum of players to play tactically detailed combat encounters and outside of that function as a lite set of rules for a fantasy campaign.

The lack of commonality with past editions gave birth to Pathfinder and had an impact on the OSR. The lack of variety in its supplement meant that interest didn't last long among those who did like it. In short many of it fans got tired of being fantasy superheroes 24/7.

Quote from: tenbones;1026463It's funny because I have extremely opinionated players. One of the big issues we have is my desire to do a Star Trek campaign - and my entire group loves Star Trek (we've never played a Star Trek game before) - but one of our players vehemently hates Trek for no particular reason. But I asked him if I ran a Star Trek game (no mention of any system), he said "Well you know how I feel about Trek. But, if you run it, I'll play it."

I get that with GURPS. I have players who would never touch GURPS with a ten foot pole but will gladly use it provided I am running the campaign. Experienced referees make a huge difference in the enjoy-ability of a tabletop roleplaying campaign. If a company wants to sell more  the best payoff in the long run is to focus on making better referees for their products. Get it to the point where a newcomer can say "Yeah I see what you are getting at, I can do that as well.".

In part that what made the OSR enjoy the success it had. Many of those involved explained how to use older edition D&D in a campaign to the point where people were going "Yeah I see what you mean..."

Quote from: tenbones;1026463But that takes us back to the premise of my question - if I'm going to run such a game, I need to decide what system I'd use to express whatever my vision of Star Trek is going to be based on the scale of the game. That's where all of this kinda comes together. I COULD say "Well I'm skilled enough as a GM to take B/X and make a Star Trek game... or I could just pick up Modiphius's Star Trek RPG sight unseen, and run it. Or I could use a system that I know well like Savage Worlds that's designed to be tinkered with as a universal system." etc. What's going to give me as a GM the best bang for my buck? And... does it matter enough?

It is a problem with several variables and the design of the rules are just one component. Does it work with the way you think about the setting? How much work does it take to use it? Do the players like the rules you want to use? How much time in a session does it take to adjudicate various situations with the rules?

I argue that it more important to teach referee what to look for than it is try to make the ultimate set of rules. Your equation will change once you change the setting from Star Trek to Babylon 5. It will change again if you want to run a fantasy campaign using Forgotten Realms, or a campaign involving the War of the Rose in historical England.

This thread started by asking about Scalability, what does scalability mean in Star Trek? Babylon 5? Fogotten Realms? England? Does the rules that you want to work reflect how things scale in those settings?

Since characters are free to whatever they could do as if they existed in said settings, what will happen if they become socially powerful? Materially rich? Achieve high rank? Are you prepared? Does your chosen set of rules help you with this preparation? Or do you have to do the work yourself?

And there always the option of just living with the consequences. My view is that it is only an issue when it something you didn't expect. For example long ago I learn about the consequences of the PCs acquiring a lot of magic items. That in many campaigns no matter how stingy you are the PCs will check off everything on their "shopping list". So rather than throwing up my hands and saying "that it for the campaign" I learned how to live with it and still run things that are fun, interesting, and challenging. My concern with Scalability is that I know how it works in the given rules and does it fit with how I conceive the setting.

Quote from: estar;1026727Did you ever find out why they were asking so many questions? When I dig into it, most of the time it because I wasn't supplying enough information. So things devolved into a game of twenty questions.

I have some insight and opinions into why.  I haven't rigorously tested or researched the thing, because I found it easier to simply use some rules.  But taking that for what it's worth, what I usually found was that I often had players that had trouble properly generalizing from specifics.  

To use a crude example, say that a situation comes up a few times in this setting where they need to climb a rickety ladder.  I give them a 50/50 shot to succeed, and implement this by rolling a d6 out in the open.  Some players will take that into account, recognize the odds, make extrapolations from other situations, and have a decent guess as to what is going on.  I think these are the types of players you are discussing.  If I tell them that the ladder looks rotten, they may not know whether I'm rolling a d8 or only giving them success on a 1-2 on a d6, but they know the odds are worse than 50/50, and will react accordingly. Likewise, if they need to climb some vines on a wall.  In contrast, the kind of players I'm talking about will base almost everything off of whether they succeeded or failed.  It won't matter if they rolled a string of 1s or a string of 6s, they'll decide the thing is inherently easy or hard based on their outcomes.  Already, any extrapolation is shot to hell.  You'll note that hiding the roll from them helps, but doesn't completely mitigate this.  In effect, such a person that has had a bad or good streak of luck will extrapolate things about the world based on their own limited anecdotes, instead of filing that away as a possible outlier.  

Yeah, I know, welcome to the real world.  This is a part of reality that I don't find particularly charming in characters.  Now as to why I attract player like that, that's another question, possibly a chicken or egg one, since I take steps to provide a game they can enjoy.

Quote from: Skarg;1026723Yes.

Of course, I've also practically memorized almost every detail of TFT and GURPS, so I can run those without any books.

But I could also do it without using those, though how I did it would probably still be influenced by my experience playing those.

Sure, my nearly decades of refereeing GURPS has influenced how I currently run OD&D. Not so much in actual die rolls and modifiers but more in procedures. So a player wants to put the guy in a head lock with his legs while swinging from a chandler?* How did GURPS handle that? Then I dial it back and have the player make his rolls.

*I would have the player make a to hit roll at -4, and the target would get a saving throw to avoid getting trapped in the headlock. If the target fails the save the character can do 1d3 +strength mod for damage.

GURPS has several more steps, skill rolls, defense rolls and modifers. But with OD&D I am assuming that the character is competent enough to grab and swing from a chandelier. That getting one's legs around an opponents head is about as difficult as trying to hit a known invisible opponent. That in OD&D to avoid bad things happening to your character, you make a saving throw. So his target gets a save. That if the headlock fails to occur the character still gets to deal damage by kicking.