I am a regular reader of and occasional commenter at the left-wing political/academic blog Crooked Timber, though I don’t usually link my blog to them (the American political blogsophere is a bit scary). Recently, however, I discovered this post on the new Dante’s Inferno computer game, where anonymous commenter noen makes this great claim:
The repetition [in porn and in WoW][1], the dross, is important. It is through the repetition that one realizes the value of the object of one’s desire by failing to achieve it. There is a great deal of the obsessional repetition of “dross” in religious observance also. That’s the whole point.
The goal of religion, porn and gaming is the grinding. It is the core that is the real distraction.
This is surely meant to be an amusing aside, right? But it got me thinking about sandbox gaming, story-gaming, and the oft-repeated claims that D&D 4e has been designed to be like an MMO. Particularly, I notice in the role-playing blogosphere a really serious dislike of story-based gaming. Old-school gamers (who seem to dominate the blogosphere outside of 4e bloggers) are really anti-story. They seem to have a strong preference for individual modules, and for sandbox gaming without a plot. Stand alone modules are often (especially in the early days which the grognards valorize) just a vague story and plot-hook to get the PCs on a treasure hunt – i.e. a kind of pen-and-paper based version of World of Warcraft’s grinding. Story is often associated with the “faggy” elements of the newer games like the “storyteller” systems by White Wolf, not with the “pure” older systems (and yes, I have heard them contrasted in this way). So what’s going on here?
Fragmentary social relations and the Grind
I don’t think this type of play is that popular with role-players. I have played and DMd in earnest since 1986, and I can safely say that I have played in very few sandbox games. The vast majority of gaming I have run or played in has been story-based. Not necessarily of the “kill the bad guy and save the world” kind – indeed some was quite nihilistic – but always with a plot. People like story, and our models for role-playing are mainly novels, which are pretty heavy on the story. In later years I have often played with friends who aren’t hardcore players, and I’ve noticed that the further I drift from the hardcore gaming community the less they care about randomness, system, and sandboxing, and the more they want story, description, description and story.
But my experience was in Australia, where role-playing is not that popular or common and one often has to take what one can get, player-wise and system wise. My best players have (with a few shining exceptions) been almost invariably those who were completely ignorant of system, or the RPG scene. Now, something these people have in common is that they aren’t dysfunctional nerds, and they value coherent, wholesome social interactions.
Then I moved to England, and had within 1 year three really bad role-playing experiences – shitty DMing and shitty playing. Two of these experiences occurred in a story-free, sandbox type gaming environment being run by hardcore old-schoolers (one shitty player was just a classic example of a violent British idiot, so doesn’t really fit due to culturally-specific retardation). It occurs to me that this style of play is very compatible with the fragmentary, meaningless style of interaction which characterizes the social relations of early teen boys – the exact environment in which a lot of players of my age grew up, and which is very nicely described in this book. These are also the style of fragmentary social relations which one sees in WoW a lot – join a group for 2 hours, fuck around, disappear. I think there’s a relationship between these things, and the grognard school of role-playing thought, which is all about trying to hang on to your old school roots, is also all about hanging onto a social milieu which we remember from our early teens, when this sort of fragmentary interaction made sense to us. I think the grognards are valorizing a style of play which is at best out of whack with what most people I have ever played or DMd with want to do, and which is tied to a socially disruptive and transient stage of human development which, let’s face it, a lot of nerd boys have never grown out of[2]. Those fat bearded know-it-alls at the pub who have an opinion on everything (and God, did I meet a lot of these pricks in the role-playing clubs in London) love this kind of teenage boy interaction – they’re still doing it at 40. Those of us who have moved on from that have also, I suspect, moved on from the stand-alone module plot-hook-for-a-dungeon-crawl random-monster style of play, to something a bit more socially and intellectually fulfilling. Grognardia essentially admitted this today with his little rant against change.
Story-free gaming as religious observance
The other noticeable trait of these grognard blogs, of course, is their worship of gary gygax. According to a commenter in the “I Hate Change” thread of grognardia, “D&D divorced itself from Appendix N entirely” when in 4e “Ioun has become the goddess of magic”. You certainly hate change if this is a problem for you. You also have elevated a single edition of a single game to the status of a bible, complete with appendices. This is religion at its heart, and what do all religions have in common? Hatred of change, unwillingness to tolerate dissent, they’re a haven for people who seek shelter from the consequences of their own social problems, they are full of bullies and disciplinarians, and they tolerate no narrative that conflicts with their own. This is why they suit the “grind” noen refers to in the comments at CT; and why their adherents are so fond of story-free games and suspicious of any later innovations which dilute a game-style that was developed for a feckless audience of socially isolated and emotionally stunted early-teenage boys.
4th edition gamers and the story
A common complaint I’ve read about 4e is that it has reduced the rules to a style of computer game, like WoW, with tanks, DPS characters, etc, and this represents the lack of commitment to real gaming of modern youth, their attention spans are short, blah blah blah. The irony for me is that the blogs which are most resistant to story-free play are the ones by 4e players. In the socially isolating and confrontational context of the British pub gaming scene, the most fun I had in a game I played in was a 4e game. Why? Because the person who chose to DM it had been lured away from previous editions by the promise of simplicity and freedom for the GM, and the character traits which drew him to 4e make a good DM. It’s the focus on the story, the primacy of social interaction and the shared nature of the game which makes 4e alluring to these people. Ironically, this is what the grognards claim that OD&D encourages, even while they are eschewing the story and engaging in a complex grind, similar in fashion to the MMO they hate 4e for having “become”.
I don’t intend to turn my gaming into a repetitive litany to Gary Gygax. Nor do I intend to reduce my DMing to a kind of sophisticated dice-rolling facilitator, or a disciplinarian high-priest of the Old School[3]. I will continue to DM for what my players want – an interesting story, in cool places, with high risks and high rewards, played in a way that is mutually satisfying for everyone involved, and not self-consciously situating itself at the heart of a geekish metaculture no-one outside of a few beardy opinionated fat guys gives two hoots about.
—
fn1: I think this is why you also see, in the threads of those blogs, a lot of comments about how players need to be “taught to be careful”, “disciplined”, “warned”, etc. For christ sakes, this is a game, something we do for enjoyment. This 80s British public-school model of “play” in which the bigger, stronger kids keep the smaller ones in line is not applicable anywhere in my life, and it makes me feel dirty when I see it being still enacted in my hobby.
fn2: I am a strong proponent of the claim that porn has important validity as a measure of social interaction and political currents. Porn has changed a lot over the years, and its current gonzo incarnation in the west is as much a product of industrial decisions and consumer powerlessness as is the current plot-free dross that we’re seeing in the computer game world. I inserted (pardon the pun) porn into this comment thread for that reason…
fn3: not that I’m suggesting anyone wants me to or is trying to make me do so. This is rhetoric by way of conclusion, ok?
February 28, 2010 at 5:29 am
It’s not that we don’t believe in story or dislike it, it’s that we believe the only good type of story is retroactive. It emerges from that strange spark which springs into being when a DM and a handful of players open their minds and follow their noses. Sometimes it makes no sense and is a little dissatisfying, but more often than not it leads to something much more interesting and fun than any predetermined plot or story could be.
February 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I think you make my point for me here quite well, Noisms. There you go again with the claim that your style of gaming is “more interesting and fun”. For you maybe. But there’s a whole blogosphere of grognards out there turning their preferences into an overarching theory about what is wrong with the modern game. I’m not too comfortable with that.
February 28, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Sometimes it makes no sense and is a little dissatisfying, but more often than not it leads to something much more interesting and fun than any predetermined plot or story could be.
I imagine that this outlook is partly the result of a simple formal problem: aggressively narrative-driven gaming is a good deal more difficult for the core tabletop RPG demographic than module- or site-based dungeon crawls. Of course the ’emergent’ stories of dungeon crawls are going to seem more interesting and fun than, say, the moral loop-de-loops of My Life with Master or the austere character pieces in Mouse Guard; dungeon crawls are dead simple, and the stories are totally familiar.
They’re ‘boys playing in the woods’ stories, which appeal naturally to those prolonging their shared adolescence. They demand nothing.
Nearly every old-school campaign chronicle I read these days is like a heedlessly unironic Peter Pan story without the moral content, a geek-triumphalist Lord of the Flies narrated by Jack. (I can’t help thinking of these folks as Robin Williams in Hook, finding his inner child by throwing food and ‘never growing up.’) Even Maliszewski’s campaign recaps at Grognardia come off as children’s stories – there’s nothing to distinguish them from the slow-moving bits of Harry Potter, and if you assume that he knows it then it’s easy to see why he and his buddies obsessively return to the ‘but mass-produced juvenile midcentury sci-fantasy pulp is so daringly amoral…’ defense.
(Not for nothing did Gary Gygax and George Lucas put together their escape-into-innocent-pulp-violence stories during the collapse of the Nixon administration and the culturally-deflationary post-Sixties era.)
I really do believe collective improvisation at the gaming table is the key to a great RPG experience – but the old-school fetish for juvenilia confuses ‘improvisation’ with ‘pointlessness.’ Hence the focus on dumb shit like PC inventory management, archaic rules, ‘correct’ pulp aesthetics: the ritual prerequisites and justifications for acting like teenagers again. (Like tickets to a Dylan concert at a casino, y’know?)
Whatever the extraordinary possibilities inherent in ‘sandbox’ play, it’s just one aspect of adventure gaming, and its fetishization is no more noble or grownup for namechecking Gary goddamn Gygax.
March 1, 2010 at 1:27 am
You always put these things so much better than me!…
March 4, 2010 at 1:29 am
[…] Found some excellent analysis of this issue from a different angle. Worth a read. Comments RSS […]
March 4, 2010 at 1:30 am
Faustus, I analyzed this issue from a different angle here:
http://synapserpg.com/blog/2010/03/02/the-old-school-revolution/
You might find it interesting as well. I did not get into the “psychology of teenage boys” angle, though I find your thoughts very interesting on this.
March 4, 2010 at 8:25 am
“But there’s a whole blogosphere of grognards out there turning their preferences into an overarching theory about what is wrong with the modern game. I’m not too comfortable with that.”
But you seem pretty damn comfortable turning YOUR preferences into an overarching theory about what’s wrong with “old school” games. You don’t get it, you don’t want to. If you gave your fellow gamers, a little credit for intelligence and imagination, you might stop judging all “old schoolers” by the worst examples, you can find. As I don’t care, what you’re playing, I’m somewhat amused that you and other like minded folk (on both sides of the fence), want to spend so much time, denigrating what other people love. It’s just a handful vocal people, in both camps, accusing each other of the same things. All the dynamics of a kindergarten class.
March 4, 2010 at 8:32 am
Thanks for your comment James. I haven’t spent much time at all denigrating what you love – I’ve spent some time discussing claims made about “story”-based role-playing, about rules systems, and about change. These claims were made elsewhere on the internet, and I’m responding to them. I have very little to say about OD&D or AD&D, having grown up on them. The comment you quote isn’t about the games themselves but about the blogosphere of grognards.
I’ve seen a lot of grognard posts about story-based games and how crap they are, with a kind of nascent scorn for any of those wierdos who play them; there’s also been this stream of stuff about how juvenile the later editions of the game are and how they’re mass produced, and implications (pretty clear especially in comments at grognardia) that anyone who plays them is low-brow. These statements seem pretty clearly to be judging other players by how they play and what they play. I’m quite happy to respond to that style of elitism.
March 4, 2010 at 9:55 am
Most of your post is a twisted little fantasy, which totally mis-characterizes, WHY most old-schoolers don’t like “story” based games and shows NO interest at all, in discovering what we’re trying to accomplish, much less in having any kind of useful discourse. That’s ok, just throw around terms like “Grognard” and “Fat-Beard,” because god knows, if you imagine we’re real live human beings, you might remember that you’re not just dealing with the intellectual abstractions in your mind.
March 4, 2010 at 10:04 am
I’m actually quite appreciative of the OSR and what it’s doing, James. I’m just not so fond of doing it in this exclusionary and dismissive style. I have yet to see any explanation that makes sense for objecting to “story” based games, and if you have one to contribute I’d love it to be written in the comments here. All I get from the OSR blogosphere is scorn.
I think it’s reasonable to throw around the term “grognard” when talking about a group of blogs who use that terms about themselves. Or is that section of the blogsophere so exclusive that only they can use their word for themselves?
As for “meaningful discourse”… where in the post “I hate change” or the various comments and responses, is “meaningful discourse” possible. Grognardia hates change. There goes your meaningful discourse right there.
March 4, 2010 at 10:43 am
I’m not Mr. Maliszewski. I wouldn’t presume to speak for him, or speculate on how he spent his adolescence. I don’t object to YOUR playing “story” based games. Nor will I provide ill-informed, ugly little supposed, psychological motivations for your doing so.
I can tell you that I prefer a player driven game, wherein a spontaneous synergy can develop, between the DM and players. The milieu and campaign, becomes a creation of “ALL” the participants. The “story” develops naturally, so long as your players have any motivation and imagination, whatsoever. I also prefer a system, wherein the rules are subservient to the imagination, as well as being conducive to tinkering. There’s a lot of Old School bloggers, out there. Over a hundred of us. Some of us play multiple versions. Some of us play 4e, 3e, WOD, whatever. If James M, pissed you off, write about him. Directly. Then, send him the link.
March 4, 2010 at 11:11 am
Thankyou for the explanation, James. I don’t think any system can trump imagination, though I do think that every system brings its own style and feeling. As I mentioned in the post, I’ve had imaginative and unimaginative GMs in every system.
I think James M is well aware of my posts, and I don’t need to send him the link.
March 4, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Hey fn
“I have yet to see any explanation that makes sense for objecting to story based games, and if you have one to contribute I’d love it to be written in the comments here.”
Zak on DnD with pornstars talks about this some in How Much Do You Want To Be A Wizard? and more obliquely in Some More Nice Things About Dungeons.
The second link is more of a flip on your question: the fascination of at least one kind of non-story-based game [sic] (ie the dungeoncrawl), which opens up the possibliity of understanding why some people might be satisfied with just that kind of play, and not have any real interest in other types of play (beyond just the fact that they’re socially-arrested 40-yr-old-nerds or fat or bearded or all three [for the avoidance of doubt, that’s me being wry]).
You may have read these already, I dunno. I found them very, very good.
March 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I would say that this is probably fine with me if you start off with “some old schoolers”… in which case I guess you are probably right… in some cases. But most old schoolers that I know don’t fit this description, and are not so much anti-story as anti-ForcedStory. Which are too different things, really. I play a rather traditionalist form of homebrew and the stories the players contrive through their actions are often quite interesting in their own right, and make rather nice little stories. Here’s a link to a latest chapter from a recent game test of my new (traditionalist style) homebrew rules, in case you’re interested…
http://elthosrpg.blogspot.com/2010/02/rescue-on-black-hill.html
March 4, 2010 at 1:40 pm
thanks for the comment vbwyrde, I am interested and will have a read.
March 4, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Faustusnotes, you might appreciate this breakdown by Eero Tuovinen of the pleasures in what he calls challenge-based games. It’s clearly very interested in creating a story, but equally focused on being player-driven and having the story be determined by what happens as a result of individual decisions and randomness. I think many OSR sandbox campaigns are coming at this “anti-story” stance from the same angle, and many are informed by awareness of and the ability to enjoy indie RPGs and 4E D&D. That’s certainly the case for the ones I run and play in at the New York Red Box; if you’re ever in town, look us up!
March 4, 2010 at 3:13 pm
To quote Mercutio, ‘A plague on both your houses!”
Given the right people and the right attitude, ANY gaming system from Chainmail up to and including 4e can provide the perfect structure for storytelling. Or the perfect structure for a tabletop, pen and paper version of a mmorpg. The various editions of the rules may make it *easier* to go one way or the other, but they’re just ink on paper, cats and kittens, and it is the referee and the players who bring them to life and animate them in whatever shambling direction they’re going to take.
To say that “Old school gamers are really anti-story” is to paint with a ridiculously broad brush. Conversely, to say that “It’s the focus on the story, the primacy of social interaction and the shared nature of the game which makes 4e alluring” is equally disingenuous.
I hate to say it, but all in all, I think the whole premise of this post is flawed in the extreme, and serves only to enflame emotions for no good reason whatever.
March 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Mercermachine, this post is premised on what I have been reading in the OSR blogosphere recently, leavened with my own experience of gaming over 20 years. The premise of the OSR return to old systems is that something is wrong with the new ones – there is a simultaneous disapproval of story-based gaming in the blogs I read, and I think they’re linked. In the follow-up post I made today I think you’ll find me agreeing with you about the importance of the referee and players in determining the mode of the story; but I don’t think the OSR blogs are saying this, or if they are they’re simultaneously blaming the system changes, the loss of Gary Gygax, and what I think they see as the “degeneration” of gaming culture. I think the OSR has falsely associated this much-maligned phenomenon of the “story-based” game with the modern editions, not with the diversification of the gaming culture.
I don’t see much evidence that my comment about 4e is disingenuous, though certainly it could be claimed to be too general. I think the game is advertised as being easier to play and intended to free up players to concentrate on the story rather than the mechanics (though in my experience practically it didn’t make any difference, arguing about “shifts” and “free actions” in the middle of a supposedly tense battle); and a lot of the blogs about 4e seem to emphasize this as a good point. It doesn’t mean that they’re right, but I think this aspect of the 4e world is being talked up a lot.
Tavis, thanks for the link, I’ll follow it and have a look. Mercermachine, these kinds of comments really make me think that the post didn’t enflame emotions for “no good reason whatever”, I’m getting new links and new reading material from them.
March 4, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Hmmm. Well, basically for both positions you’re supplying anecdotes to support your generalities, which bothers me. It’s disingenuous. Specifically for 4e, I could supply an anectode that supports the position taken that it’s for WoW players (see save vs stupid’s post, ‘How the language of D&D has changed in the 4e era’). A perfect look into the psyche of a 4e MinMaxer with apparently not a shred of storytelling in his soul.
But the *point* is, MinMaxers have been around since Moldavy’s -2/+1 stat transfer rule, if not earlier. It’s all the same. People will play how they play, to get what they see as enjoyment from the game.
As for enflaming emotions, I’m glad, I suppose, that you personally are benefitting from the ruckus, but a little civility and a less strident tone (something you yourself bashed ‘old schoolers’ for) might have seen a more reasoned discussion instead of further dividing those who enjoy the hobby into two nonsensical armed camps.
March 4, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Could you point to an example of play that you view as story based and the target of the type of denigration you’re talking about? I’m not sure I agree completely with your interpretation of the comments made about dice usage on these blogs.
March 4, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Ryan, I think the kind of story-based play that is demonised in some of these blogs – the “railroad” stories – is not really a style of play that exists. I think it’s a combination strawman and fantasy. But I think you’d probably find that the style I do is the target of their complaints (might explain my post!). Look under the compromise and conceit tag to see what I mean. It’s a series of long play reports though, probably not of interest to anyone but my players.
March 4, 2010 at 5:21 pm
MercerMachine, this whole process is obvious anecdotal. It’s a system of critiquing each others’ blogs, it will only ever be anecdotal. It’s the internet!
As for enflamed – I wrote this after the grognardia post “I hate change”, and the various blog posts on dice, which are veritably dripping with scorn for “story” based campaigns – look at the first comment on this thread as an example (though it’s quite tame compared to within the OSR blogs). I like to think of my little rant as a response to an ongoing (to date, I think, 2 years) process of criticism of the modern game by the OSR blogs. If you look back through my posts (I don’t recommend it), you’ll see I’m not really that big on the polarisation process.
March 4, 2010 at 5:39 pm
I’ve actually been subject to several games with severe railroading, modules starting around when Dragonlance came out kind of began to lean that way. At certain times I’ve been guilty of mistakes that were both gamist and story based. My own play style lies somewhere between full on sand box and your own preferred method of play at this point.
I think this post on Grognardia sheds some light on why I’m confused at your reaction a little.
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/11/dwimmermount-and-plot.html
March 4, 2010 at 5:49 pm
and also shows the extreme disdain with which “story” is treated – James uses the word twice, and refers to the “spectre of story”. Maybe if James could be bothered distinguishing between “story” and railroading (which almost everyone agrees is bad DMing – though I’m sure there are some players who like even this) his point would be stronger, but the phrase is nebulous in his usage. Here we see a process of ring-fencing his own style – others say that he has used his much-maligned “story”, so then he redefines it slightly to ensure that his play remains the “superior” sort (“disdain” is something which can only be directed from a position of superiority, by definition).
And this is the essence of my point. I don’t want to be sneered at by someone I’ve never met for something I enjoy doing. But every blog I see contains the same element of “disdain”, “judgement”, and the language of being “better than” or “more interesting than”, “more creative”. It’s all very elitist and reactionary language, and almost every blog supporting it is doing so through a process of snark, misrepresentation, defensiveness, or plain rudeness. That post on story of James’s was written 4 months before I wrote mine. There has been a long process in the OSR blogs of building up elitist and exclusive opinions, though the reality is that their style of play is no better or worse than anyone else’s. And, um, my reaction to sneering and disdain is, as can be seen, not always polite.
March 4, 2010 at 6:02 pm
That’s understandable to a certain extent, and these blogs do have quite a bit of a mad-on against fudging rolls or redirecting actions to suit a story. I think it mostly comes down to an irreparable division in what people value in their games. Your post about terrible dming (which it was, from the sound of it), also contains some things that people with a certain approach find acceptable. I’m not sure a constructive dialog can really be created in the face of such animosity from both sides. In the end playing in a game like this is a social contract, if you’re not getting what you want out of your players or DM find different people to play with. I think it’d be a worthwhile experiment to actually play sometime with any of these bloggers or yourself and see if the divide really is this large. A lot of disagreement seems to be aimed at theoretical enemies or phantoms of games gone wrong.
March 4, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I think that’s all very true. I’m sure I’d enjoy playing with any of them – which sadly isn’t going to happen, given my geographical location.
March 4, 2010 at 7:15 pm
We’re (I am, of course, speaking for all old-school players everywhere!) not anti-story. We’re anti imposed-story. We’re actually all pretty big on story, I think.
Generally, Old School games produce great stories for the players. They usually don’t read that well in summary, but when the players get together and chat it becomes very clear that their experience of what happened to them (ie, their characters) was a very compelling story.
Part of that is the nature of it. Because the story isn’t handed down or even constructed by the players in a deliberate way (as in many storytelling systems) it has much more of an impact – it feels like it HAPPENED instead of being RELATED. That’s a huge difference in experience and emotional depth.
March 4, 2010 at 7:30 pm
this is actually the best explanation I have yet heard for the OSR view of story. No wonder you’re their spokesperson! Compare with the first comment on this thread, for emotional impact. I understand your point and I completely sympathise with it, but I doubt I’d be so sympathetic if you presented it the way it is presented in so much of the OSR blogosphere – as “better”, evidence of more creativity, etc.
Having said that… a great british comedian once said that the key to good comedy was faking sincerity, and I think the same goes with story. You can make a story seem like it happened without actually giving the players any choice, and they won’t even know that you have done so. All of these DMing styles – making story out of nothing, making a storyless game interesting, making a story seem like happenstance, getting players to enjoy being railroaded – when done well are marks of a good DM. But all of them can fail in the hands of a bad DM. Which is the essence of my point – that no one style of DMing is better or worse, and the OSR seems to be very focussed on only one style, to the point of consciously excluding others.
March 4, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I started to comment here, and it turned into a VERY long comment. So I cut and pasted it to my general RPG blog and modified it into a post.
Here:
http://backscreenpass.blogspot.com/2010/03/ok-i-had-to-get-in-on-this-action.html
March 4, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Generally, Old School games produce great stories for the players. They usually don’t read that well in summary, but when the players get together and chat it becomes very clear that their experience of what happened to them (ie, their characters) was a very compelling story.
This is indeed a lucid and compelling explanation – ditto faustusnotes – but aren’t you suggesting that the content of the story is more or less irrelevant in these shared experiences? If so, then why do so many OSR guys obsessively return to the simplistic pulp narratives of 1970’s D&D? Why aren’t these guys playing a freeform game like Over the Edge, with its surrealistic sci-fantasy take on 80’s politics, or the austere Mouse Guard? Again, even I grant that your statement of principle is 100% sensible, what does it have to do with Gary Gygax’s wargames-derived pulp mishmash?
And why must we impose a ceiling on the complexity and involution of RPG narratives? Is it really so hard for the OSR guys to get emotionally invested in something more complicated than Moldvay’s Isle of Dread? Look at the widespread resentment of I6 Ravenloft for heaven’s sake – it’s an old-fashioned dungeon crawl in every way save for the cutscene(s), whose effect is apparently to make the players feel like they’re not the center of the narrative world. That doesn’t sound like an admirable psychology – nor is it a broad-minded approach to ‘story’ at all.
All of which is something of a side question given this post’s full concerns, but there you go. 🙂
March 4, 2010 at 11:35 pm
“If so, then why do so many OSR guys obsessively return to the simplistic pulp narratives of 1970’s D&D? Why aren’t these guys playing a freeform game like Over the Edge, with its surrealistic sci-fantasy take on 80’s politics, or the austere Mouse Guard? Again, even I grant that your statement of principle is 100% sensible, what does it have to do with Gary Gygax’s wargames-derived pulp mishmash?”
I would venture to guess (and I don’t speak for any old-schooler anywhere except maybe myself) that it has less to do with nostalgia or an underdeveloped social psyche and more to do with the way they approach the game. Now I won’t argue that there isn’t a strong undercurrent of elitism and conservatism in many old-school blogs. It’s certainly there – much like its present in your original post. It’s true that there’s always a few, but I find your implication that grognards are mostly socially-maladjusted manchildren and fat bearded jerks to be suspicious at best.
But that’s neither here nor there. The topic that more interests me is your statement that the vast majority of everybody likes their games to form a story. This is true. You need to form some sort of story for an RPG to make any sense. But for a lot of people, it isn’t necessarily the be-all and end-all of a game. Maybe your model of role-playing is to write a novel, but a lot of other people are more interested in the game the same way they play chess – for the challenge of using their wits to defeat obstacles.
To use me some hippie-Forge-talk, the agenda of the old school is generally gamist, with a little simulationist mixed in for flavor. A game is a collection of meaningful decisions that lead to an indefinite outcome. An old-schooler is generally most interested in using his wits to come out on top of the game. The fun here is largely about pitting your wits against obstacles, playing smart, surviving, and maybe, if you are skilled and lucky, saving the world or recovering the treasure. Under that paradigm, a story is needed to make sense of the game – but it is NOT the primary focus of play. So you can safely let it develop without the controls of a narrative game.
Now, unlike Mouseguard or Over the Edge, the mishmash of early D&D resulted in reams of paper covered in random tables. There are generally three actors in the outcome of an RPG: the players, the GM, and pure chance. Giving more control to that third player assures that everything that’s going to happen heightens the suspense and thrill of the game. By using D&D’s higher degree of randomness, you ensure that *nobody* knows everything about what is about to go down. As a gamist player, this is great. You’ve got another wall to climb, another obstacle to defeat. The random number gods are out to get you. You can be facing slews of problems that the GM would never have thought of on his own. Narrative and freeform games don’t have quite the same punch for this sort of player because more of the game is under their control. To people with this perspective, more control makes the game less interesting. Why play chess when all the pieces are white?
Similarly, the reason sword-and-sorcery dungeon crawls are so prevalent is that they support the game aspect of role-playing very well. Usually, there is a pretty clear objective. Even if there isn’t anything else happening, the players can default to “gain as much treasure and experience as possible while surviving.” In a good old-school game, this generally doesn’t last for very long. Most players will quickly find interesting objectives and challenges – “We need to ask a sage about this weird sceptre”, “Let’s check out the Tower without a Door”, or “Come on, guys, let’s go after that wizard who killed Stan!” – and hare off after them; but the implied goal offers a framework to build from and keep things moving. It might not be a story in itself, but if all you want is to play a game, it’s more than enough to keep events moving. One might argue that the Swords and Sorcery genre has less dramatic depth than one produced by, say, Ann Rice novels, or intrigue in the French court (Although comparing some D&D campaigns I’ve been in to some of the WoD games I’ve encountered, I sure wouldn’t). Thing is, it just isn’t that critical to what some folks enjoy.
The content – provided it’s above a certain minimum quality required for the game to make sense – really *doesn’t* matter that much.
March 4, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Wax, I play 1970s D&D because its themes and content speak to me. Part of this is because I grew up with them, but the process of discovery and re-examination that the OSR exemplifies means that I now have a much deeper understanding of the pulp narratives it pleases you to call simple. There’s a complex relationship between why I liked the AD&D DMG when I was 10 and why I like the Virconium stories or Hugh Cook’s Chronicles of an Age of Darkness now, but I think you do me a disservice by reducing that relationship entirely to nostalgia.
I don’t play the Silver Age Marvel-based With Great Power game that some of my fellow NY Red Boxers do because I’m not as steeped in that mythos (either by childhood exposure or by mature seeking it out) as they are, so I don’t get the same enjoyment out of it. But as a fan of genre and deeply iterated complexity, I understand why it’s compelling to them.
When I’ve played Over the Edge or Mouse Guard, I enjoy their respective aesthetics. Personally, though, I prefer the richness and depth of a D&D or Marvel universe game (precisely because they’re based on a mishmash of many sources and elaborated over many decades of interpretation by thousands of writers and millions of fans) to games that are based on one creator’s finely tuned selection of inspirations, interpreted over a handful of sourcebooks by a dozen or so people.
Not unrelatedly, these days I’m very interested in sample-based music where much of the interest comes from witty and surprising juxtapositions of an huge number of familiar references. If you like three-chord punk rock and freshness and expressive potential of just a few simple and primal elements, that’s cool; I like that too, it’s just not what I’m most into exploring right now.
Genres of music and RPGs both have their characteristic obsessions when it comes to content (whether in their lyrics or settings). Why do you have the idea that the content of my genre is irrelevant?
March 5, 2010 at 12:02 am
I thought this was a great post, and hugely insightful. I agree with everything you said.
March 5, 2010 at 12:08 am
Whoops. Just realized the post I was quoting was not actually by faustusnotes. My comment on the elitist douchebaggery in his original post wasn’t aimed at you, Wax Banks. Sorry about that.
March 5, 2010 at 2:02 am
There’s a complex relationship between why I liked the AD&D DMG when I was 10 and why I like the Virconium stories or Hugh Cook’s Chronicles of an Age of Darkness now, but I think you do me a disservice by reducing that relationship entirely to nostalgia.
Fair point. (I’m about to read The Course of the Heart and am heartened to see Harrison get love!) (I don’t think I’d be happy to literally witness that though.)
On the other hand, I’d love to hear more about why and how they speak to you. I should state that I’m strongly of the opinion that the tremendous complication of e.g. Marvel comics mythology masks a lack of complexity – moral or aesthetic or characterological – that something like Cerebus possesses in spades…
Why do you have the idea that the content of my genre is irrelevant?
I don’t – I’m suggesting that one common (implicit) OSR sentiment is ‘As long as we’re having fun and telling enjoyable stories it doesn’t matter how simplistic those stories are,’ often coupled with an ‘At least it’s not a transparent power fantasy like 4e or World of Darkness’ dodge. I do think genre content and standard tropes matter – and don’t usually redound to the credit of D&D players.
My sense is that Gygax’s beloved pulp fantasies aren’t as sophisticated as their fans insist, nor are the adventures derived from them, and there are games with more complex moral/aesthetic content and stronger (but less familiar) game mechanics (hell, what about Dying Earth or Monsters and Other Childish Things?) – so why fetishize Gygaxian D&D/AD&D in particular?
But at that point we’re talking psychology, and people keep telling me not to do that. 🙂
Regardless, I was glad to read your comment, @tavisallison – as of today you have one more blog-reader.
March 5, 2010 at 3:37 am
Wax: I would say, speaking this time only for myself, that the supposed OSR is really about saying “All that stuff we worried about wasn’t important.” where “that stuff” is basically the concerns that drove RPG design in the years since D&D came out.
So, instead of looking at D&D and thinking “this needs x, y and z mechanics to allow me to do what I want” I’m looking at modern games and thinking “these mechanics assume I want to do x, y, and z”.
Skill systems are one example of this. Standardised characteristic checks are another. There are many others.
When I was a kid these things sounded like cool new enabling ideas which would bring new worlds of adventure that poor old-fashioned D&D could not hope to provide. Now I see them as tiresome fluff which get in the way of donning the role.
Does Dustan Hoffman try to numerically quantify his character’s various abilities and problems before going on set?
(I’d pause to say this of Dying Earth in particular: I have lots of board games for when I want to play a board game. Mechanics can be too clever.)
Which, as you say, leaves the question of “why D&D”, indeed of “why any system at all”?
I believe that the centre of role-playing is the existence of an outside agency which no one at the table controls. That generally means either dice or cats, and cats have a poor retail shelf-life (there have been complaints).
The essence of role-playing as a game is, to me, the process of free actions leading to a story emerging in its purest form: as a later retelling of those actions and their consequences. This is how most of the world’s greatest legends probably got started – embellished recounting of things that happened to the people speaking and listening.
To get that to work, I believe that the dice and a system for reading the dice are vital. They take the place in game of what in the real world are various factors outside of our control (including luck, of course). Without this, the feeling of events HAPPENING to the PCs is very hard to achieve, I think.
A non-player, non-GM system makes a resonance between the vicissitudes that the characters must cope with and the vicissitudes the players must cope with in their real lives. That unlocks the emotional connection between the player and the character.
Call it pity, call it empathy, but it’s about NOT feeling that the players (including the GM) conspired. We don’t get to conspire much in real life. We don’t get to tell the GM he’s a bastard for making our car crash when we were speeding. *Not* being able to blame a person with a face for SOME things embeds us in the gameworld better because it is part of the human condition.
So, that’s why A system. Why D&D?
There is one utterly distinct thing about D&D: it was first. It is the root of the hobby.
Although it is not the case for many younger players, for us oldies all systems are considered in relation to D&D because we were there, man, we were there!
It is natural that for such people a re-evaluation of the hobby as a whole should at least initially consist of a re-evaluation of the place where we started. There are lots of directions game design could have taken from there and after 30 years we know the ones that were taken pretty well.
So: if we were to go back to 1974 (or 78 for the AD&D crowd), knowing what we know now about those choices that were made, what choices would we like to try instead?
For my own part, what I’m learning is that it’s really enjoyable to play archetypes again. And I know that this enjoyment is not going to be augmented by adding skills (tried it), or brownie points (tried it), or stated out life goals (tried it) or unified task resolution systems (oh, boy, have I tired those!). Those things are unimportant fluff.
What is important is living another life for 3hrs a week. A life were the single man or woman’s choices matter and can make a difference – not necessarily by simple brute force.
Therein is the attraction, I believe, of the pulp roots and it is an attraction that is SO much the stronger for adults with mortgages and children and divorces and elderly (or deceased) parents and all the other things that we didn’t have to care about as teens. As teens we saw Conan slashing heads off and bedding beautiful women. As adults we see Conan refusing to go gentle into that dark night.
So part of what I’ve learned about why I moved away from D&D is that I had too much time on my hands. The game works just fine. It doesn’t work as a simulation of fantasy novels, but it doesn’t need to; it is a genre in and of itself.
Now that my life has lots of concerns (some of them mortal) I’m happy with a simple game structure to hang scenarios and characters on, and some weekly escapism. AD&D is working really well for me in that respect. Better in many ways than it did 20 years ago.
And if a game is played by real people coping with being broke, or having friends with AIDs, or losing custody of their kids, or living in fear of crime in the real world, then I can assure you that no matter how simplistic-seeming the themes and forms of the game’s surface, there is going to be much more happening underneath and ultimately those things can and will be reflected in the stories that emerge from plain old D&D.
We don’t need mechanics for complex moral issues; we know first-hand how they work and how to play them out in our games if we want to do so.
March 5, 2010 at 4:15 am
[…] to get spicier (check the comments on all these links). Faustus really stirred up a nest of bees here. Triggering responses here and here and I am sure in other places I dont even […]
March 5, 2010 at 4:27 am
Nagora: well said!
Wax: I’m strongly of the opinion that the tremendous complication of e.g. Marvel comics mythology masks a lack of complexity – moral or aesthetic or characterological – that something like Cerebus possesses in spades…
Well, I think it’s not coincidental that Cerebus spends time riffing on swords and sorcery characters like Elric and comic book characters like Spiderman; for me, that’s evidence that great art is often fertilized by really big mulch beds of mashed-up. When you say “Gygax’s beloved pulp fantasies aren’t as sophisticated as their fans insist, nor are the adventures derived from them”, doesn’t that mean that Cerebus can’t be sophisticated since it grew out of a Conan pastiche?
there are games with more complex moral/aesthetic content and stronger (but less familiar) game mechanics (hell, what about Dying Earth or Monsters and Other Childish Things?) – so why fetishize Gygaxian D&D/AD&D in particular?
Why purchase pre-digested content and game mechanics when you can make your own? There are lots of good answers to that question, and it’s no more incumbent on you to defend yours than it is for me to defend mine. Nevertheless, here’s a stab at it:
The appeal of Gygaxian D&D is that it’s the useful mRNA form of Arneson’s primordial DNA. All subsequent RPGs are mutations thereof, which means that a) using proto-D&D is universally familiar and easy to latch onto and b) because it’s so primitive (in the sense Eero uses) it’s easy for my group to make it our own. Likewise, the pulp conventions of D&D are like a blues standard that everyone in my group, who vary from 15 to 41, can improvise around. The high-schoolers I play with are so unfamiliar with the ’80s music of On the Edge that we’d spend all our time reading Tweet’s sheet music and never get to jam.
Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws do great design, but it’s built on a really high scaffold; if what I want is to kit-bash and get my hands dirty in the mulch beds, I find it much easier to start at the beginning and re-evolve from there, unlearning the bad habits I’ve picked up from decades of design mis-steps as I go. Knowing about all the possibilities that were chosen by later designers is helpful, but I don’t think I need to be playing with the DERPG rules to take its lessons to heart.
March 5, 2010 at 5:05 am
That is a well written piece nagora, you should post it on DF.
March 5, 2010 at 5:45 am
Likewise, the pulp conventions of D&D are like a blues standard that everyone in my group, who vary from 15 to 41, can improvise around. The high-schoolers I play with are so unfamiliar with the ’80s music of On the Edge that we’d spend all our time reading Tweet’s sheet music and never get to jam.
This is such a great metaphor that I almost overlooked my threefold disagreement with it: (1) your colleagues won’t be in high school forever, (2) learning sheet music is as important for jazzmen as improvising, and (3) ‘the blues’ probably isn’t the right reference here. Gygaxian D&D is much, much closer to ‘Hot Cross Buns’ in terms of sophistication and worldliness…
Your response and Nagora’s are spectacular (though I’d note that “So: if we were to go back to 1974 (or 78 for the AD&D crowd), knowing what we know now about those choices that were made, what choices would we like to try instead?” is weaving toward a kind of intellectualized nostalgia…!!), but I’m trying to extricate myself from the various ongoing conversations around this post. So I won’t be responding here – maybe at my own place if I find time this week. Thanks gents.
March 5, 2010 at 6:42 am
I can only assume you’ve never played in a sandbox game if you think they involve ‘site based dungeons’ or that the emergent story involves ‘boys in the woods’.
The emergent stories usually involve religious and moral crisis, stories of growth and the corruption of power.
They are stories of nations and religions, of families and of business, of crime and of redemption.
A sandbox game is THE story driven game. The difference is a sandbox game has one Game Master and 2 or more Story Tellers (the player characters). This makes for richer stories and frustrates the lone author who seeks to subject players to his vision rather than seek to expand their own creativity.
March 5, 2010 at 8:52 am
Hi kids, sorry to those of you who haven’t commented here before and got held up overnight. I may be Satan incarnate but I still have to sleep, and your comments got queued. I’ll try and reply to some of you now.
Rob, you spoiled your first excellent comment with the moment of snarkiness in your second, but I think I can find it in my dark heart to forgive you. I’m interested to hear your definition of “elitism” and “conservatism” that fits with my original post – please enlighten me. As to your defense of OSR attitudes to story, it’s excellent, but I have to ask: how does the story-development you describe differ from the MMO-style of play I describe in my post? They seem similar to me, largely engaging in hack-n-slash with limited plot hooks, and hoping to build story from it.
Also, I again notice you contrast D&D and storyteller. This is a common theme in the OSR resistance to story, and I think it derives from something other than an objection to the gaming style.
Nagora, your comments are excellent. I think that your comment at 36 though conflicts a little with tavisallison’s – he denies nostalgia, but your comment seems to imply an implicit longing for a return to a simpler, more irresponsible time. Doesn’t this also accord with the part of my post where I talk about not wanting to grow up? Obviously your poignant plea is a little different in emotional nuance to “I kill orcs because I’m an emotionally stunted wannabe adult”, but the temporal nature of it is somewhat similar.
tavisallison@38, I have to say that I think D&D up until 4e was pre-digested game content, in its purest form. People say that the system is not domineering, but Vancian magic and the combat system are extremely domineering, and the magic style and character class choices put a strong preference on how you interact with worlds. The magic system, particularly, has an overwhelming and unique flavour.
Thanks everyone for commenting, I hope you come back here after the controversy dies down. I would like to again remind you that the issue in my original post was not “which system is best”, but was “why does the OSR blogosphere pour scorn on everyone else”, and I think that the sense of “our play style is better” can be seen in some of the comments here, e.g. zzarchov: “a sandbox game is THE story driven game”. No, zzarchov, it ain’t – it’s one of a range of ways of playing, the one YOU happen to enjoy more. I don’t recommend it, but if you scratch around the OSR blogosphere a little you’ll find legions of blogs constantly reiterating this holier-than-thou attitude. The discussion here has avoided that altogether, and that’s exactly what I was pleading for when I wrote this post.
March 5, 2010 at 11:41 am
My apologies if I implied the way you play your game is somehow ‘wrongbadfun’, but a sandbox game by definition has more story involved in its play than a GM driven game.
Its a false dichotomy that a game is either ‘Story based’ or ‘Sandbox’. Those are not competing axis.
Its like saying someone is either rich or tall. Those are not competing axis, someone is either rich/poor or tall/short (or somewhere inbetween), it is not a choice between rich and short.
So too is “Story VS Sandbox” impossible. The option is “GM driven VS Player driven” and GM driven != Story driven. Now it can be, don’t get me wrong, but a player driven game has more story tellers and less reactive players (4 active story tellers and 1 reactive referee) than a GM driven game (1 active story teller and 4 reactive players). Sandbox games tend to be more story driven than railroad games.
March 5, 2010 at 7:05 pm
“I think that your comment at 36 though conflicts a little with tavisallison’s – he denies nostalgia, but your comment seems to imply an implicit longing for a return to a simpler, more irresponsible time.”
I’m not sure exactly which part of the post you mean. On the one hand there is my reference to pulp-style themes which harken to “when a man could forge his destiny” and on the other there’s obviously that whole bit about playing an old game.
Nostalgia is generally a case of wanting to recreate or recapture something that is gone. In the case of OSR I don’t think it’s as simple as that. I don’t think many OSRers (certainly I don’t) actually want to go back to how it was. We want to go back and re-evaluate – not simply replay. That, to me, is not nostalgic; it is stock-taking from decades of experience. I’m certainly not playing AD&D today the way I did when I was 18.
However, it is natural that re-evaluating the root means, and probably expresses, a certain dismissal of the leaves that have sprouted in the meantime.
As to the pulp themes part, I think that under the surface all role playing games are about Conan. Most role-playing sessions are really about playing someone that can make decisions that the player can not make in the real world (or at least and have them stick).
1984 might be a great book, but it would be hard to sustain a role-playing campaign where the PCs simply get ground down until they lose every time.
So I don’t think that the wish-fulfilment aspect of role-playing can be dismissed (whether nostalgic in nature or not) in any one game or system/genre; it’s there in *all* of them as well as the vast majority of stories from Homer to James Bond to Bridget Jones.
Someone said that the thing about putting story in is that if the GM can fake it, it’s just as good as anything the Old School holds up as an exemplar. I agree but I don’t think any GM can pull that off indefinitely.
My actual return to AD&D was largely as a result of realising that my GM of the previous 10 years had been doing exactly that – pretending that there was no fixed storyline when in fact there was one being subtly pushed.
What eventually gave it away was some bad play by myself which should have got the character killed. He survived only because the story required it. The GM admitted that he did not believe in allowing PCs to die even as a result of their own mistaken actions. At a stroke, all my decisions as a player were rendered pointless.
This is why “Imposed Story” is despised in the OSR: when story is put IN instead of coming OUT of the play, the player has no real connection with the character beyond that which someone reading a book might have. In which case, read a book; there’s plenty of them. I came to RPGs to go beyond books.
So Bob decided to risk his life for the party and try to swing across the gorge? Big deal; the DM (or the other players, or even Bob himself, depending on the game system) decreed that it would work. So there *was* no risk, and without risk there was no chance of sacrifice and with no chance of sacrifice there is no heroism. And no real need for the player to be there.
“People say that the system is not domineering, but Vancian magic and the combat system are extremely domineering, and the magic style and character class choices put a strong preference on how you interact with worlds. The magic system, particularly, has an overwhelming and unique flavour.”
D&D is not the only Old School game and a lot of emotional baggage gets mixed into discussions of it for the simple reason that there were later games of the same name that were radically different in tone and style (culminating in 4e which I think would be a great superhero game if they re-branded it).
Vancian casting is not a requirement of Old School, and neither is the D&D combat system. D&D is not a generic system. AD&D certainly has a flavour that doesn’t translate well even to many fantasy settings from books and myth.
But I do think that too much of the discussion of the OSR (both in support and in reaction to it) revolves around this one game. The essence of Old School gaming is broader than one system.
I have no doubt that one can play 3e and 4e D&D in the Old School way. But it is a fact (because I say so!) that in doing so a lot of their rules would become superfluous. Nevertheless, Old School is more of a mental attitude to the gameworld one is playing in (or running, for the DM) than any one set of game rules.
(I wish there was a preview button!)
March 5, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Good comments, Nagora, again. I’m a little busy to reply to all of them now but I should say that
a) nostalgia is not a problem at all, but I think it’s reasonable to say that you can infer things about what aspects of the past people are nostalgic for from the things they reminisce about. I am certainly nostalgic for the AD&D system (I can still almost smell the special smell of those books) but only because of the special feeling of learning that new hobby – not because the play style or the environment I was in are particularly fondly remembered
b) you’re right that we play these games to be extraordinary for a while, but that doesn’t mean pulp. There are a lot of other options that aren’t loaded down with all the particular aesthetic, historical, political and cultural baggage of pulp (though of course they have their own baggage). WFRP springs to mind (not a game I enjoy, but definitely not Conan).
c) The OSR is very much focussed on D&D, almost to the exclusion of other games of the time, and while it doesn’t have to be only about that, it pretty much is, and the prototypical OSR game, as projected by OSR bloggers, is an OD&D game. Everyone understands that the OSR crew do other things, but the model they project is very closely tied to OD&D and Gygax and there’s no escaping its influence on their play.
That’s me being busy… sheesh, I need to get a life.
March 5, 2010 at 10:56 pm
As for enflamed – I wrote this after the grognardia post “I hate change”, and the various blog posts on dice, which are veritably dripping with scorn for “story” based campaigns – look at the first comment on this thread as an example (though it’s quite tame compared to within the OSR blogs).
What the fuck? I wrote the first of the “various blog posts on dice”, at least this time around, but I had no scorn whatsoever for story. The point I was trying to make was that storytelling is fine and dice rolling is fine, but the two are best kept separate – either roll the dice and accept the result, or just narrate.
March 5, 2010 at 11:01 pm
They’re ‘boys playing in the woods’ stories, which appeal naturally to those prolonging their shared adolescence. They demand nothing.
Perhaps it’s because I’m not as wonderfully mature as you, Wax Banks, but I’ve always found sandbox games to be the most demanding. They require initative, creativity, ambition and puzzle-solving abilities, not to mention an awareness that story can be generated by a group of five people all together rather than a single paternalistic GM.
Then again, I’m obviously just prolonging my adolescence, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
March 5, 2010 at 11:07 pm
I imagine that this outlook is partly the result of a simple formal problem: aggressively narrative-driven gaming is a good deal more difficult for the core tabletop RPG demographic than module- or site-based dungeon crawls. Of course the ‘emergent’ stories of dungeon crawls are going to seem more interesting and fun than, say, the moral loop-de-loops of My Life with Master or the austere character pieces in Mouse Guard; dungeon crawls are dead simple, and the stories are totally familiar.
I was going to let this paragraph go and be charitable, but no, fuck it: it’s arrogant bullshit. “People don’t like the type of games I like because it’s difficult.” You may as well just have said, “Only people as clever as me can enjoy the type of games I like.” Get a grip.
March 6, 2010 at 12:18 am
“The GM admitted that he did not believe in allowing PCs to die even as a result of their own mistaken actions. At a stroke, all my decisions as a player were rendered pointless.”
I’m always pointing this out to people when they have similar stories, but this is a GM problem, not a game based problem. The GM should have let the dice fall as they may and worked that result into the plot or storyline of the campaign…that he didn’t points to his deficiencies as a GM, not as criticism of the game.
March 6, 2010 at 12:42 am
“Of course the ‘emergent’ stories of dungeon crawls are going to seem more interesting and fun”
I had forgotten that until Noisms mentioned it. It is a pretty wonderful quote. We only THINK we’re having fun. Poor us!
March 6, 2010 at 12:48 am
Noisms, three comments, just to make my life difficult! In order:
1) your post on dice was not particularly scornful, actually, upon reflection, so I’m sorry for wrapping you up in this.
2)I think non-sandbox games can also require “initiative, creativity, ambition and puzzle-solving abilities”, so I don’t think that your point is particularly strong here
3) I too thought this paragraph was straying close to what I was complaining about, but I think there’s something in it regardless. Objections to narrative-driven gaming don’t consider that it might actually be difficult – they’re all based on the idea that it’s easier. I don’t see this as necessarily the case – crafting a story that feels natural but has an underlying narrative chosen by the GM has its own difficulties and pitfalls. My point is that both are a challenge and both are fun, both require creativity, etc. Your summary of Wax’s point is exactly what I’m complaining about on the OSR blogosphere. Also, Wax is claiming that the familiar and the simple is fun – I think this is true. We all like Conan and Sword and Sorcery stuff for a reason and I’m sorry, it’s not particularly complex stuff. Stuff doesn’t have to be complex – about 30 million British people like soccer, which is possibly the simplest and most elegant of all the ball sports. What’s not to love?
M Badolato: absolutely!
March 6, 2010 at 12:48 am
M Badolato said: “I’m always pointing this out to people when they have similar stories, but this is a GM problem, not a game based problem.”
I’d say it was a style problem, which is certainly separate from the game. On the other hand, some games assume/support/encourage this style. And some don’t. Ultimately the GM decides what style to push, and the players decide whether to go with it or not. I decided not to. Our styles differ, but it’s not really a clear-cut case of “his deficiencies as a GM”.
March 6, 2010 at 12:53 am
No this is a clear-cut GM problem. Denying player agency is a GM failure. You can design story-based games to get around the issue of player death – fuck, deus ex machina is a solution. Better still, rolling up a new character also works, and there are very few scenarios where it can’t be done.
Although having said that… I once ran a very intense Rolemaster campaign, that I was thinking of describing here soon, actually, where a couple of the PCs couldn’t die, and I managed to keep everyone absolutely terrified of death the whole time[1], while constantly fudging to ensure that those 2 or 3 PCs didn’t die. I honestly believe no-one was any the wiser – or better still, they knew what I was doing but didn’t feel any differently about the constant fear and threat. I consider that to have been an achievement, and I think they enjoyed it, judging by their reactions.
—
[1] this is really easy to do in Rolemaster compared to D&D, so it’s not such a great achievement really
March 6, 2010 at 1:44 am
I find the newer editions bloated and rigid. I am also bored with their focus on Kewl Powerz and a design assumption that characters need lots of these *squeaks* and *honks* to be different, interesting or fun. Frankly, I can have an exciting game of Classic D&D without any of these sort of gimmicks. Nor do I need such mechanical gizmos to foster and develop atmosphere, cool locations or fun character interactions. In the latter editions PCs seem to start out as mini-super heroes; in the earlier editions the PCs start out as ordinary individuals who struggle to one day become heroes. Where’s a character’s progression or achievement if they start out invincible with a ‘social contract’ fixed between the rules and DM that it’s not fun for a PC to “fail”, i.e. die?
But ‘story’ is a very misinterpreted term within gaming circles, including among old schoolers. When some grogs hear ‘story’ they automatically assume this means “the DM railroads the characters along a predetermined adventure path”, which I can’t say is a style of play that interest me either. Even other grognards who loosely use the term ‘story’ can be pounced apon by such peeps. However, what such people don’t always seem to realise is that the term ‘story’ can simply mean a basic adventure plot, i.e. save the princess from the Tower of Doom, which they themselves employ.
However, as a whole, old schoolers lean towards the idea that PCs are completely free agents and that by their actions, whether following up on an adventure hook/path or just stumbling around a mega-dungeon, a ‘story’ emerges from their actions. They resist any idea that there’s a predetermined outcome and the characters are just playing roles in the DMs story. Why? Because it’s not a game if the outcome is fixed. A game of say, football, wouldn’t hold half the interest if the players were all just acting out the umpires predetermined ‘story’.
But, Faust, by imputing motives and heaping scorn upon “fat beards” and their campaigns, you’re behaving in the same manner as you’re accusing grogs of doing in their apparent dismissal of story orientated roleplaying. We can all call each other names, 4oron, but it’s not very helpful is it? And the idea that old school players are hankering for some “socially distuptive”, “feckless”, “socially isolated and emotionally stunted” transitory relationships of “early-teenage boys” ignores the fact that a lot of old school groups are made up of old friends who have been playing together for years. It also shows your lack of understanding that the earliest players were predominantly university-age students, and not early-teenage boys.
“Socially and intellectually fulfilling”? Sounds impressive … and more than a little pretentious. My goals are more modest; I just want to roll dice and have fun with my friends.
Jesse
March 6, 2010 at 3:14 am
1) No problem.
2) Non-sandbox play by definition requires less creativity, initiative and ambition on the part of the players, because all they have to do is follow the DM’s lead. In a sandbox they have to decide what to do and have the wherewithal to follow it through.
3) Objections to narrative-driven gaming don’t consider that it might actually be difficult – they’re all based on the idea that it’s easier.
Actually I think Zak argued the point very well that sandboxy D&D is easy and familiar for a reason, in his blog. I think story-driven games can be easy or hard (it depends what you mean – there’s a big difference between White Wolf games and My Life With Master, though both harp on about story ad nausaeum) but that isn’t my main objection to them. My main objection is that they systematise something that is better left unsystematised.
My secondary objection is that “story” and “narrative based play” is a stick for pretentious gits like Wax Banks to beat the type of games I like with.
March 6, 2010 at 12:42 pm
classicdnd, I think I made the point in your second paragraph a few times already. Let’s cut to this:
What I’m actually doing is imputing motives and heaping scorn upon “fat beards” for imputing motives and heaping scorn on other people. Typical OSR assumptions about story-based gamers include:
a) the DM’s on a power fantasy
b) they’re cry-baby emo-kids
c) they lack creativity
d) they aren’t bold individualists
e) they’re not very smart
so I’m imputing motives for why people want to make these judgements about people who play a different style to the OSR gamers. Why?
I’m also imputing a motive and psychology behind people who defend their style of game against the rest of the world, and claim it’s better. Why is non-story based gaming “better” in these peoples’ minds?
It’s no different to the eternal question, “why do chicks like rom-coms”? Except infinitely more interesting.
Also, your last paragraph: “socially and intellectually fulfilling”? Sounds to me like “I want to have fun with my friends”. Your goals are the same as mine; I’ve written a post about a bunch of bloggers who sneer at the way I do it.
March 6, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Noisms,
2) see it could stop here, couldn’t it – you think your style of play requires more of x, y and z. But a lot of people in the OSR blogosphere seem to have decided that people who don’t play that style of play also lack x, y and z personally. They also seem to have decided that they are the final arbiters of how much x, y and z any game requires and any person has. This is the point of the post.
3) Wax Banks isn’t using “narrative based play” as a stick to beat the type of games you like. He’s using the OSR commenters’ intense hatred of story-based games as a stick to beat them with.
Why, for example, do so many OSR gamers make snide, often homophobic or gendered jokes about story-based gamers being emo kids wearing make-up and lace? Why do they make jokes about WoD players being children, being faggy, not like real men? Do you seriously think on reading such things, I am not going to draw conclusions about the mind-set of the people writing it? Similarly when I read that my style of gaming means I’m on a power fantasy, from someone who doesn’t like that style of gaming, do you think I’m not going to draw a conclusion about them? Or when they interpret sandbox gaming as a sign of their rugged individualism? Or when they decide that anyone who runs a game where PC death is not regular and rewarding must somehow be “weak”, as if gaming is a test of strength I have failed?
The OSR blogosphere is rife with this shit. I’m not sure why I’m not allowed to question it.
March 6, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Faustusnotes, you’re a nice guy, but you have a real tendency to make bold statements without backing them up. Where are all these sneery gendered insults and comments about childishness? You might, might see that sort of thing at knights and knaves alehouse and dragonsfoot from a very few bad apples. To claim it’s “rife” is to indulge in gross hyperbole.
As for Wax Banks, I’m not sure how you can interpret the insinuation that only clever people like narrative-based games as anything other than an attack on the type of games I like, and also against me personally (apparently I’m stupid, like to take it easy, and am mired in eternal adolescence).
March 6, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Noisms, I note you picked up the easiest example, the WoD one – go to Flame Princess, and when you’ve had a shower, come back and tell me I’m not right. As for the others, the power fantasy ego-tripping dm is pretty common – when was the last time on my blog someone referred to story as being run by a “paternalistic GM”? (Hint: it was you).
As for Wax Banks’s comment – you really don’t seem to understand the difference between his acceptance of the joy of sandbox gaming and his critique of people who fetishize it. It’s an uncharitable reading.
March 6, 2010 at 5:50 pm
The “paternalistic GM” comment was in direct response to Wax Banks saying “[Sandbox games are] ‘boys playing in the woods’ stories, which appeal naturally to those prolonging their shared adolescence. They demand nothing.” Once somebody has started shooting their mouth off like that I think it’s fair for the gloves to come off, no?
James Raggi is one person. He doesn’t reflect the old-school blogosphere as a whole and he clearly revels in being seen as a loose cannon. He’s pretty much the exception that proves the rule. (For what it’s worth, I find his blog one of the least interesting; it always just seemed like an exercise in courting controversy to me. Some people are like that.)
I think I understood Wax Banks very well. His comment was a semi-sensible rant steeped in intellectual snobbery. Speaking of uncharitable readings, how about you in the other thread claiming that I said “people who like story-based games lack initiative” when what I really said was sandbox games “require more initiative” than story based ones? These things cut both ways, you know.
March 7, 2010 at 5:16 am
No Faust, you might think you’re being clever and merely criticising grogs for heaping scorn on story based games and gamers, but you let the cat out of the bag about what you really think of their preferences with passages such as, “and why their adherents are so fond of story-free games and suspicious of any later innovations which dilute a game-style that was developed for a feckless audience of socially isolated and emotionally stunted early-teenage boys.” I doubt that grogs would defend their game-style as having been developed for “a feckless audience of socially isolated and emotionally stunted early-teenage boys”. You also imply, for example, that old school styles of play are tied to the “disruptive and transient stage of human development” of teenage boys. Those are YOUR opinions of that style of play ergo you are engaged in the same negative value judgements about other styles of game play that you decry. Your article is laced with such opinion about old school games, including your belief that most gamers have “moved on” from “socially and intellectually” unfulfilling sandbox campaigns.
Nor are you merely trying to discern a motive for grognards who make judgements about other people who play different game styles or the psychology of gamers who defend their game style against all others. You directly imply that certain story-free gamers are socially isolated and emotionally stunted fat bearded know-it-alls, bullies and disciplinarians, haters of change, intolerant of dissent, seeking to shelter from the consequences of their own social problems, and intolerant of any narrative that conflicts with their own. Asserting, by implication or otherwise, that certain old school gamers are “know-it-alls” or “bullies” (even as an explanation for motivation) is no different than some grognards (supposedly) asserting that story-based gamers are “faggy” “cry-baby emo-kids”. Both are name calling, pure and simple.
You, sir, are a hypocrite.
March 8, 2010 at 9:38 am
Are you somehow shocked, classicdnd, that I would be indulging in name-calling of people who I think are name-calling?
On the internet?
All I’m doing is seeking a motivation for the superior and exclusive tone of much of the grognard’s world; to do this I have brought my own negative experiences of that generation of players, and my memory and understanding of how the game developed at the time, to the task of understanding how it is that the grognard blogosphere views things in the reactionary and condescending way that it does.
I also suggest you read the post again; a lot of it is saying something a little weaker and a little vaguer than you seem to think it is.
March 8, 2010 at 7:07 pm
No, I am not shocked.
You attempted to take the moral high ground and falsely claimed that you weren’t judging grogs’ choice of game play, only their attitude and behaviour toward others such as yourself. Clearly, however, you made your own (negative) views plain about the Old School style of game play and laced your post with a number pejorative comments, despite your denials to the contrary … a fact which you now apparently acknowledge.
I merely pointed out your hypocrisy.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I’d humbly suggest that some grognards’ hostility towards latter edition gamers and their styles of play was at least, in part, coloured by the behavior of those gamers towards the venerable editions and their Old School players. You, for example, complain that the grognard blogosphere is condescending but then dismiss Old School game play as not being “socially and intellectually” fulfilling and apparently only fit for “a feckless audience of socially isolated and emotionally stunted early-teenage boys”. Condescending much?
However, despite the long standing sneering at out-of-print D&D from some sections of the gaming community, here we are discussing a post by someone whinging about the big nasty grognards like some “cry-baby emo-kid”…
March 19, 2010 at 11:38 pm
I edit and publish Fight On!, and I like stories just fine, including in fantasy roleplaying.
April 13, 2010 at 5:11 am
[…] about the place of story particularly in an ‘Old School’ game – for example, on Compromise and Conceit, The Mule Abides and Grognardia. Since I have declared an interest in what could be called […]
December 17, 2011 at 10:18 am
Another comparison to religion: whenever Atheists and Theists discuss it, each gets defensive and starts to feel intense, misplaced anger towards the other. I don’t want it to go that way. I don’t think Raggi’s response was appropriate, given how many times he himself has said “it’s my blog, I can say what I want”. I do agree that WoW has many comparisons to OS play. However, it is very different in a number of ways. In OS play, you are not allowed to respawn. This generates a higher sense of risk, and also enjoyment, because you feel prouder triumphing against overwhelming odds than inevitable ones.
In the end, everybody hates railroading, but the DM needs some freedom too. It isn’t any more considerate for a player to just slash the head off of the priest because he knows that the priest is an important NPC. Players may find that they prefer a DM who lets them be amoral scoundrels, but the DM prefers people who try to make the right choice.
I think that DMing is a specialized job, because the DM automatically assumes a lot of responsibility for the game, and if he doesn’t want to be the one yielding then he may not be able to find players that will play the heroes he wants. On the other hand, the players’ job is much easier; the players ALWAYS shape the story unless the game is on rails. It may be hard to find good people to DM for you, but if you have a preference for one side or the other you should be a player. The DM’s job should be to be completely impartial as to whether to play Scarface or Angel, and to try to provide adventures that reconcile the sides.
Player goals may conflict with DM goals
DM should not railroad (force players to put his goals first)
Therefore: Have no Goals
Or Find new Players
These seem to be the sides that are being taken here. The OSers think that the SBers are being self-centered, and the SBers think that the OSers have given up on meaningful games and players that cooperate.
And story does not preclude freedom, so long as you can improvise areas that you haven’t prepared for. It’s no fun for the DM to know exactly how a story will turn out, and if you just present the players with a goal to head for and then let them go about playing it their own way the story will be much more memorable. It is the mark of a great role-player that they can play any character type or alignment and have fun with it.
December 17, 2011 at 10:16 pm
I think I agree with this broadly. I don’t like the story-gaming/sandboxing divide, I think most people muddle along somewhere in the middle, and I think the OSR has put certain aspects of play on a pedestal, in a way that is quite ahistorical. I remember playing in the 80s, and nobody did it the way the OSR seems to think we did; games didn’t develop to where they are today because the “suits” killed creativity by railroading kids into storygames or something. They developed to where they are because most people want to construct a narrative more purposively than just through randomly grinding dungeons. The OSR presents vocal opposition to this idea but I think that while they have a strong internet voice, they are a minority in real life.
Of course, I have no proof.
I’ll be posting up a review of a WFRP3 product in the next week which I think has some things to say about the healthy balance of story and sandbox. More to come … (I seem to have been saying that a lot recently) …
December 19, 2011 at 12:04 pm
You can drop story into any sandbox game quite easily as long as it follows your players’ tastes. This isn’t a cave with a dragon, this is a forgotten point of converging ley lines where the evil white elves out of the north tried with grotesque experiments to recreate the dragons of old- and unfortunately succeeded.
Or anything else that suits your tastes. Most classic sword and sorcery stories take the form of ‘picaresques’, stories composed of many smaller stories about the same individuals. Any one of those small stories can be easily drawn out by a skilled DM. If you’re not railroading, but letting the players do what they want, isn’t that the definition of sandboxing? The only difference here is player-driven vs. DM-driven- which isn’t even really a difference since if the other side weren’t fine with it they wouldn’t be playing. As for saving players from deaths that were their own fault, I don’t agree with your stance at all, though I might have when I was a fresher DM, but I’m certain that there are and were sandbox games with the same thing, and I feel that if you are shooting for a story, then a chance of it being a tragedy or a noble death should add to the dramatic tension just as much as it would if you weren’t.
I recommend a post by ‘The Tao of D&D’ entitled ‘Sandbox Magician’ for some advice that really helps create a world that lives without having to map everywhere.
PS: if the edition wars are going to be arguing about stupid aesthetic shit instead of important things like, say, testing the players instead of the characters, I’d rather play microlite20 (newfangled skill system, stat bonuses, highest possible levels and all) then have to listen to arguments and responses to arguments every time I want to read some gameblogs.
December 19, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Just read unusual tales’ reply post and links therefrom; his post and the mule abides’ post he linked to do a good job of highlighting what I mean. If the story is going to be about a man’s quest for vengeance against the vampire which killed his only son, then you don’t have to award the story-based awards that are so looked down upon (arbitrariness from someone playing the role of the universe isn’t nice), you could award 3e style xp for killing monsters, maybe even double or triple (so long as a consistent multiplier), so long as the monster defeating is related to that story. The best bit if you do this is that you can do it alongside other methods for getting xp; xp for gold does make a lot of sense if you listen to the arguments for it. I might not personally do this, as the best roleplaying would be actively sacrificing fame and fortune for this quest, or finding it necessary to go adventuring in foreign lands in order to train oneself for the fight. Another thing: if doing this, a balance must be achieved. If a failure to find the hobgoblin assassin that killed his true love sends the protagonist into depression, and he goes to a bar and gets drunk, and then gets into a brawl with a random hobgoblin patron, that’s roleplaying (particularly since the sober player should know full well that this will bring the police) and should be awarded whether or not it actually furthers the quest directly. If this happens more than once, of course, nothing wrong with withholding experience.