Quote from: Old Geezer;789952Meh.  I don't care what people do around their own tables.  I care when people talk shit about a game I happen to like, especially when they put it in semi objective terms.

Some people don't like OD&D.  Then they probably shouldn't come into a thread talking about it.

1) Anybody who's been here for more than a few weeks and has the brains of a planarian knows I like OD&D.
2) I started this thread to talk about things I like.
3) This then would include OD&D.
4) If you don't like OD&D, why are you here?

Generic you, not specific you.

That makes perfect sense. But you'll still end up with the irritation of people like me who play and love OD&D but are quick to point out its warts.

Quote from: cranebumpIn my experience, it's fun to DM UNLESS...I have players who expect everything to be resolved a dice roll, and they just can't get off that tack. Then I've got got problems. The players expect to have "23 ranks of skill X" instead of devising and executing a plan. They want their math to solve their problems, rather than their minds. Because so much of old school game interaction isn't strictly mechanical. It's so non-mechanical that I'd argue agency for players is, in a sense, much greater than in a rigidly codified rules set (take 3.5, for instance), because players interact with the scenario more often, and make actual proposals, because they can't solve a problem with a dice roll (and, yeah, this approach may lead to "mother may I," but I'd rather have my GM's [who are also my friends] listen to me then make the call, rather than point to rule Z and go, "Nope!").

That's the beauty of it, when it works -- in the absence of a specific mechanic, human beings step in and think their way through it -- this may include some negotiation with the referee, sure. It may mean the ref throws a flag on me. But at least I'm playing with other folks and not the mathematical conundrums of weapon X with power Y with maneuver Z.

Mind, I'm not saying this is YOUR preferred way of doing things. I'm just sort of free associating.

I absolutely don't understand why you believe having ranks in a skill prevents you from devising well-thought and elaborate plans. That is not my personal experience....at all.

Quote from: LarsdanglyOD&D is a fantastic game — better at face value than pretty much anything that was created by re-writing it. And its formal rules are a blasted wasteland of nothingness mixed with (something often ignored by the philosopher kings of the OSR) bizarrely specific and mechanically complex bits. That is the dilemma.

Hating it is shallow. Deciding it is useless to you as a DM means you don't understand what it says outside of to hit modifiers and so hit points and so forth. Arguing it is a flawless gem is equally fatuous. And the notion that the DM was supposed to arbitrate all action is a good description of the traditional practice but not the content of the books. The books are filled with ridiculously arbitrary rules you are supposed to follow.

So, its a complicated subject. It is rare to hear anyone say anything specific and insightful about it. Which is odd given that it is essentially the original statement of the core idea of the hobby.

Quote from: Old GeezerPeople who can't understand a game written for grown ups shouldn't play it.

Oh, I understand it....but I simply reject it.

Quote from: Old GeezerThe middle called, it feels bad because you're excluding it.

To hear that statement coming from you (of all people) is hilariously fucking ironic. I've read your posts many times, and the middle ground is definitely not yours.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;789917I'm curious as to how you define player agency.

For myself, OD&D provides some of the best player agency to be found in rpgs. I measure player agency by the amount of impact my decisions at the table during actual play have on the game. OD&D features few if any mathematical formulae for task resolution. This means that my input as player during the actual game matters quite a bit. I am engaged in the game and interested in exploring the presented world because I can have an effect on it as a player.

I really hope I don't have to keep defending the fact that I find OD&D to be a festering pile of shit.

"Player agency" means the player can have his character attempt to do what he wants when he wants, and have the game mechanics give him some basic framework of support when he attempts to perform an action....so that the DM does not arbitrarily fuck him over, and also....so that things seem plausible. I won't use the word "reality", in order to avoid the inevitable shit-flinging bullshit posts I'd inevitably read.

Now....do I think that all or most DM's are power-tripping assholes? No. But there are lots of DM's out there who are not great at what they do, and they do need guidance. Although I will say that many of the old-school dragonsfoot crowd (and its sisterhood sites) seem to have a higher tendency towards power-tripping, one-wayism assholishness that drives a shiv through my cold black heart.

For the record, I absolutely don't think that game mechanics have to cover every eventuality, but I do like it when a rules set is robust enough to cover a number of mundane tasks that my players might attempt to do.

In my opinion, OD&D fails at this....but even more unforgivably, it's just fucking boring.

It's not coincidence that the lion's share of both the rpg market and hobby has summarily rejected OD&D....and moved onto other games. How many people are playing it now? Not fucking many. If it weren't for the fact that it's the "first rpg", and written by "His Holy Gygaxness"....then OD&D would have been a very minor curiosity quickly forgotten by us unwashed gaming masses. But then, that's how these matters play out. It was first, so it's artificially elevated by the "Grognard Elite".

Quote from: ExploderwizardIn a 3.5 game which supposedly features greater player agency, I am less engaged with the game and more engaged with the mechanics. If, as a player, I know that everything comes down to the brass tacks of beating a target number with a roll, all my agency is bound up in character building, not actual play. Once all the factors have been synergized to maximize bonuses at what I want my character to excel in, my input as a player is largely done.

I can technically still engage with the setting but it has much less impact on actual events. That DC whatever is still staring you in the face and you must beat it in order for anything relevant to take place.

The player can easily be replaced with a die roller app.

Once my contributions at the table start to diminish in importance, my interest in what's going on follows soon after.

How again is player agency considered greater in such a game?

Different strokes for different folks.

D&D 3.5 is certainly not perfect, but it definitely is a robust rules set that gives the reader much more guidance than OD&D on how to adjudicate both mundane and complicated tasks.

Is 3.5 far more complicated and unnecessarily cluttered than I would like? Yes.

But does it come much closer to allowing me to run the campaigns I like, and allow my players greater agency (and guidance) when they attempt to perform tasks? Fuck, yes.

I can tell them (for example):

"This is what happens when our two characters attempt to craft a masterwork longsword together."

No headache, no bullshit, there it is.

It might not be a fantastic crafting system (nor is it all-encompassing), but it works.

What crafting system does OD&D have? I'll be fucked if I know.

A game that gives us game mechanical guidance on this matter (and many others) helps to provide player agency.

"Mother May I" is not player agency. It's just another way of saying:



That type of game doesn't interest me.

Quote from: Larsdangly;789881This old argument always drives me batshit crazy because it is so obviously a rationalization for a badly written couple pages of rules.

My favorite rpgnet thread: Let-s-Roll-3D6-in-Order-6-times-and-see-what-we-get

My first post is number 73; that's why I say they are really useful for characterization, and why I find them inspirational. There isn't any rationalization of rules on my part going on there.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;790000..so that the DM does not arbitrarily fuck him over,

Don't play with assholes.

Conversation over.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;790000In my opinion, OD&D fails at this....but even more unforgivably, it's just fucking boring.

There are no boring rules sets, only boring players.

And I am now convinced that you came into this thread knowing damn well I like OD&D and you just wanted to spread shit and troll.

Therefore, have one limited-time-offer gold-leaf-edged personalized hand-signed engraved invitation to tongue my pee hole.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;789933Should I start placing bets on whether it will be you or Pundit who issues the first "Convert to Old School, Leave the Hobby, or Die" fatwa?

Let go of your hate, it's making you stupid.

And my "Tongue My Pee Hole List" is now up to 36.  And every time I add another poster, my world becomes a slightly better place.

Hey, OG, have you finished your book yet?

It's a fallacy that a game with less rules is going to be less consistent then a game with more rules, unless it's tournament play, and even tournament wargames have judges for god's sake.  So interpretation and changes are always going to happen.  Rulings will occur.

Rulings become rules.  OD&D isn't a game meant to be played without provided rules, it's a game meant to be played with each GM making his own rules where the authors didn't provide them, or the GM doesn't like them...like every other RPG in existence. Ever.

Personally OD&D doesn't do it for me.  But even when I played Basic or AD&D, or even 3.5 or god help me full-blown RMSS, I never played it RAW.  In those systems I replaced existing rules with mine instead of making up my own, but in all those cases, my rules were rules that stayed consistent and weren't depending on whether I was constipated that day or whether the character had a hot chick for a player.

If you're bothered by a GM making up rules where none exist, you're playing the wrong game.  If you're bothered by a GM doing something like assigning a penalty on the fly based on existing rules and his own judgement, you're in the wrong hobby.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;789933Should I start placing bets on whether it will be you or Pundit who issues the first "Convert to Old School, Leave the Hobby, or Die" fatwa?

You only get to join the cool kids club, once you have a fatwa issued against you.

Quote from: CRKrueger;790008If you're bothered by a GM making up rules where none exist, you're playing the wrong game.  If you're bothered by a GM doing something like assigning a penalty on the fly based on existing rules and his own judgement, you're in the wrong hobby.

One of my players actually tried to accuse me of cheating a few weeks ago. I was like, no, I'm in charge of the rules calls, not you. You play, I games master, we good.

And anyway, if there was any cheating going on, it was when I gave her a free gun and ammo (I actually gave every player a special thing, so it was all kinda fair).

Quote from: Larsdangly;789820Hating it is shallow. Deciding it is useless to you as a DM means you don't understand what it says outside of to hit modifiers and so hit points and so forth.

First sentence: golden.

Second sentence: fatuous.

I don't like OD&D and didn't take long back in the day to replace it with a homebrew, but "hating" it is stupid.  It's a game.  If you don't like it, no one forces you to play it any more than you're forced to play canasta, Duke Nukem or mumbly-peg.  Others liking it and playing it take nothing away from you.  OD&D didn't kick your cat, spit in your teacup or sleep with your spouse.

That being said, it took all of fifteen minutes for the first gamer to decide, "I can do this better" and proceed to do so.  There are only a zillion other RPGs out there, and the overwhelming majority of gamers play one or more of those, instead of OD&D, which rather suggests they find that those games are an improvement on OD&D.  It's a variation on my .sig; it's not that we're unable to comprehend OD&D, it's that there are games that better suit our preferences.

Quote from: Old Geezer;789825People who can't understand a game written for grown ups shouldn't play it.

Quote from: Old Geezer;789826The middle called, it feels bad because you're excluding it.

Holy crap, these are consecutive posts, yet?  Come on, man, get some consistency here.  

And given since no one "owns" threads here, WTF?  You didn't slap an [OD&D] tag on the thread title, and you have been known, strangely enough, to speak on other issues beyond "I Love OD&D."  That being said, dude, if you want a forum where no one can advance an argument you don't appreciate without your permission, start a blog.  Sheesh.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;790000"Player agency" means the player can have his character attempt to do what he wants when he wants, and have the game mechanics give him some basic framework of support when he attempts to perform an action....so that the DM does not arbitrarily fuck him over, and also....so that things seem plausible. I won't use the word "reality", in order to avoid the inevitable shit-flinging bullshit posts I'd inevitably read.

Now....do I think that all or most DM's are power-tripping assholes? No. But there are lots of DM's out there who are not great at what they do, and they do need guidance. Although I will say that many of the old-school dragonsfoot crowd (and its sisterhood sites) seem to have a higher tendency towards power-tripping, one-wayism assholishness that drives a shiv through my cold black heart.

For the record, I absolutely don't think that game mechanics have to cover every eventuality, but I do like it when a rules set is robust enough to cover a number of mundane tasks that my players might attempt to do.

Got it. The game you are playing cannot make the assumption that adults are playing it. There must be safeguards for the sake of the children.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;790103Got it. The game you are playing cannot make the assumption that adults are playing it. There must be safeguards for the sake of the children.

Some frank critiques  can't help but seem put-downs to some people because when we get down to it,  some behaviors simply are  dysfunctional. Bad sportsmanship, antisocial rejection of the norms and even essential purpose of the affair, bad faith in communication, paranoia toward others founded on being untrustworthy oneself: These are personal failings, not failures of game design.

Manufacturing jobs in a metal fabrication shop - or a textile shop, or whatever - are simply  not what early gamers had in mind as the subject of fantastic adventure. That's why they did  not even think of filling pages with rules for such things.

Now that somebody somewhere has come up with a rule for everything from breast size to stenography, does it follow that every basic handbook should bloat to Congressional Budget dimensions?

I think not. Let those who want it get it, without depriving the rest of us - which probably includes the majority of  ordinary  game players - of pastimes that don't require the kind of work from which we are in fact seeking a pleasant relief.