Introducing (or reintroducing) players who have primarily gamed 3.x / d20 skill based systems etc. is definitely an interesting question.
Back in the 90s, I went through a period of being a huge fan of skills-heavy systems. I still lean that way for modern and sci fi games (mainly since there aren't strong character archetypes in the same way there are for fantasy). But I've come to really appreciate the freedom a pre-skill system like OD&D, Holmes or B/X gives you as a player.
A detailed skill/feat system appears at first glance to give you more character options - spend these points/slots, gain these abilities. There's a list of skills/feats, many of which are pretty cool and some one might not have thought of.
But as you mention in your blog post, that initial rush of "I've got all these options" eventually gives way to "I can only do these things, and nothing more". In groups I've played 3.x with, players begin to self-limit their PCs' actions in accordance with the skill-feat system and creativity gives way to choosing PC actions from their menu of skill-feat options. No Diplomacy skill? Then forget negotiating with any chance of success. Want to swing across that bar room brawl from a chandelier? If you lack the appropriate skill-feat, you'll probably fail so better to go with a more sure thing.
Limiting player options in this way runs against the Rule Of Cool (if a player comes up with a really cool idea, so long as it's not completely insane try to run with it). This is probably the best way to sell it a new school player - you can still do the cool stuff you like doing as a player, but your options to do so are much wider. It'll take them a bit to get past the "but if the rules don't say I can do something I can't do it" mindset, but if they do I think they'll warm to it.
On a related note.. something else I've noticed playing both old systems and 3.x is there's a subtle change in the social contract between DM and players that underlies the game itself.
In older, rules-lighter systems there is a certain degree of trust players need to have in their DM. Since older systems lend themselves heavily to a "rulings, not rules" approach, the DM has a fair amount of power and the players must trust that the DM will not (A) abuse said power (the infamous Killer DM, among other offenders); (B) not coddle the players (the Monty Haul DM); (C) railroad the players (the overly Story oriented DMs who reduces the players to NPCs); and (D) shoot for making the game fun.
In newer, rules heavy systems like 3.x the DM is by contrast reduced mainly to a planner and logistician. Create some encounters of appropriate challenge level, then roll for the NPCs and monsters. The players don't need to trust the DM in the same way, since the Rules As Written cover almost any situation.
From what I've seen, this creates a problem when new school players first dip their toes in the old school pool. In order for the game to run, they have to make a leap of faith and trust the DM, not the rules. Folks often don't like changing the way they do things, and I suspect that this both makes some new school gamers shy away from older systems and, should they try older systems, makes for an uncomfortable adjustment period until they're used to not having encyclopedic rules as a crutch.
I played in a series of D&D 4e 'Encounters" sanctioned game events a few years ago. I had a halfling thief that has a flanking ability (I really don't remember the specifics), and if it were not for my 'old school' DM, he wouldn't have let me do a lot of actions that were based on description, and not granting my character any advantages that he already didn't have. In particular, when I flanked a humanoid monster, I normally had my thief dart between the legs, or do a quick acrobatic climb/jump over & stab it in the back (allowed actions due to the PCs given abilities via the written 4e rules). The other players, who were veterans of 3e & 4e just kind of stared at me, wondering how my character could do such a thing because it wasn't in the rules.
I just wanted to think outside the box and add some descriptive color to a game that was inherently controlled by a massive tome of character limits. More so, I wanted to illustrate to 'new schoolers' that this type of thinking doesn't necessarily break any rules.
This was a great bunch of players, and I'd love to be at their table any day. But what I'd really like to do is free them from the slippery sloped belief that if any option is worth having must be made into a rule, and if the rule does not exist or your character doesn't have it, you cannot do it.
Oh, btw, I totally agree on modern & science fiction/future RPGs like Star Frontiers, Traveller & Star Wars: skills are essential, but again, they shouldn't limit characters if they don't have it listed. (Not in every case, however...)
On the "social contract" between players & referee: you are spot on this imo! Nearly every player who switched from 2e to 3e I know believes this is how all old school games are ran. It does take a fair & practiced hand to be a good referee, and at times, I think every ref could be too harsh, too easy, get too involved in a plot and in the course of doing so, makes the game not fun for one or more players.
I am not trying to denigrate every 3e player or ref, here, but I specifically mean nearly every 3e player I've ever talked to about 'old school' D&D has this opinion of old school. Some players still play 1e or 2e, but these days, they mostly switched to Pathfinder since WotC dropped support of 3e.
It has long been a thought of mine that the immense codifying of rules was to ensure that DMs were less inclined to screw over their players, and the term "game balance" became a popular buzz-word, as players were given a lot of control over the game, just as much as the DM. The downside of this for players is that the available options are overwhelming to players like me who just want to get on with it, AND the massive tome of rules also means that every DM really needs to be on top of all of it to run a game with players who take the time to know all of those rules, and for me, as a referee, I just want to throw a scenario on the table and get on with it; I don't want to have to pass every one of my ideas through the rules to make sure I'm not attempting to screw the players...
Introducing (or reintroducing) players who have primarily gamed 3.x / d20 skill based systems etc. is definitely an interesting question.
ReplyDeleteBack in the 90s, I went through a period of being a huge fan of skills-heavy systems. I still lean that way for modern and sci fi games (mainly since there aren't strong character archetypes in the same way there are for fantasy). But I've come to really appreciate the freedom a pre-skill system like OD&D, Holmes or B/X gives you as a player.
A detailed skill/feat system appears at first glance to give you more character options - spend these points/slots, gain these abilities. There's a list of skills/feats, many of which are pretty cool and some one might not have thought of.
But as you mention in your blog post, that initial rush of "I've got all these options" eventually gives way to "I can only do these things, and nothing more". In groups I've played 3.x with, players begin to self-limit their PCs' actions in accordance with the skill-feat system and creativity gives way to choosing PC actions from their menu of skill-feat options. No Diplomacy skill? Then forget negotiating with any chance of success. Want to swing across that bar room brawl from a chandelier? If you lack the appropriate skill-feat, you'll probably fail so better to go with a more sure thing.
Limiting player options in this way runs against the Rule Of Cool (if a player comes up with a really cool idea, so long as it's not completely insane try to run with it). This is probably the best way to sell it a new school player - you can still do the cool stuff you like doing as a player, but your options to do so are much wider. It'll take them a bit to get past the "but if the rules don't say I can do something I can't do it" mindset, but if they do I think they'll warm to it.
On a related note.. something else I've noticed playing both old systems and 3.x is there's a subtle change in the social contract between DM and players that underlies the game itself.
ReplyDeleteIn older, rules-lighter systems there is a certain degree of trust players need to have in their DM. Since older systems lend themselves heavily to a "rulings, not rules" approach, the DM has a fair amount of power and the players must trust that the DM will not (A) abuse said power (the infamous Killer DM, among other offenders); (B) not coddle the players (the Monty Haul DM); (C) railroad the players (the overly Story oriented DMs who reduces the players to NPCs); and (D) shoot for making the game fun.
In newer, rules heavy systems like 3.x the DM is by contrast reduced mainly to a planner and logistician. Create some encounters of appropriate challenge level, then roll for the NPCs and monsters. The players don't need to trust the DM in the same way, since the Rules As Written cover almost any situation.
From what I've seen, this creates a problem when new school players first dip their toes in the old school pool. In order for the game to run, they have to make a leap of faith and trust the DM, not the rules. Folks often don't like changing the way they do things, and I suspect that this both makes some new school gamers shy away from older systems and, should they try older systems, makes for an uncomfortable adjustment period until they're used to not having encyclopedic rules as a crutch.
I played in a series of D&D 4e 'Encounters" sanctioned game events a few years ago. I had a halfling thief that has a flanking ability (I really don't remember the specifics), and if it were not for my 'old school' DM, he wouldn't have let me do a lot of actions that were based on description, and not granting my character any advantages that he already didn't have. In particular, when I flanked a humanoid monster, I normally had my thief dart between the legs, or do a quick acrobatic climb/jump over & stab it in the back (allowed actions due to the PCs given abilities via the written 4e rules). The other players, who were veterans of 3e & 4e just kind of stared at me, wondering how my character could do such a thing because it wasn't in the rules.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to think outside the box and add some descriptive color to a game that was inherently controlled by a massive tome of character limits. More so, I wanted to illustrate to 'new schoolers' that this type of thinking doesn't necessarily break any rules.
This was a great bunch of players, and I'd love to be at their table any day. But what I'd really like to do is free them from the slippery sloped belief that if any option is worth having must be made into a rule, and if the rule does not exist or your character doesn't have it, you cannot do it.
Oh, btw, I totally agree on modern & science fiction/future RPGs like Star Frontiers, Traveller & Star Wars: skills are essential, but again, they shouldn't limit characters if they don't have it listed. (Not in every case, however...)
On the "social contract" between players & referee: you are spot on this imo! Nearly every player who switched from 2e to 3e I know believes this is how all old school games are ran. It does take a fair & practiced hand to be a good referee, and at times, I think every ref could be too harsh, too easy, get too involved in a plot and in the course of doing so, makes the game not fun for one or more players.
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to denigrate every 3e player or ref, here, but I specifically mean nearly every 3e player I've ever talked to about 'old school' D&D has this opinion of old school. Some players still play 1e or 2e, but these days, they mostly switched to Pathfinder since WotC dropped support of 3e.
It has long been a thought of mine that the immense codifying of rules was to ensure that DMs were less inclined to screw over their players, and the term "game balance" became a popular buzz-word, as players were given a lot of control over the game, just as much as the DM. The downside of this for players is that the available options are overwhelming to players like me who just want to get on with it, AND the massive tome of rules also means that every DM really needs to be on top of all of it to run a game with players who take the time to know all of those rules, and for me, as a referee, I just want to throw a scenario on the table and get on with it; I don't want to have to pass every one of my ideas through the rules to make sure I'm not attempting to screw the players...