Being Honest With Yourself

Yeah, it's been one of those weeks. But the important part is that it's been a real learning experience for me. Humbling, but educational. And to top it all off I have a hell-a-cold. But I've had some significant thoughts ( significant for me anyway--it remains to be seen if it helps anyone else :) and I thought I ought to share them.

What with my concern over offering offense, I contemplated the future direction of my blog quite a bit. I thought about why I felt the need to continually defend or justify my gaming choices and opinions. Perhaps I was trying to convince myself. I also considered that perhaps I was a lot more concerned with what others thought than I might have wanted to admit.

Some time ago I wrote this. It was a bit of a watershed moment for me really, and I was certain that I was headed in bold new directions right after that post. Unfortunately it has taken me a lot longer than I imagined to embrace the concept, and truly understand a little of what it meant. I had realized things about myself and about my gaming that was in some way fundamental, but I really wasn't able to fully admit this.

I realized that I've been doing a lot of gaming based on what others want from me. Not, however based on what I want. I suppose that's because, deep down I'm pretty conflicted about all that.

Back when I was twelve I started with a small gaming group of 3 other guys, and one reluctant Scoutmaster. About a year later, as I entered middle school (7th and 8th grade) my gaming shifted to another group of friends again 3--and I stuck with those guys for years. That second group was to become much more than gaming friends, and though it would grow and shrink from time to time, a core 3 of us stayed pretty constant.

I've often wondered now that we have all gone our separate adult ways, if we were together still what we would be playing now? And would it really matter. Back then there really was only one predominant choice. But now, things are much different. For the first time in gaming history the company with the DnD name is no longer leading the pack. What if those guys embraced Pathfinder? 4e? GURPS? Or something else entirely--would I be playing with them? I'm almost sure I would--the system wouldn't matter all that much.

But now I'm in a much different situation. I'm the not-so-reluctant adult recruiting kids into the school club, and introducing them to this marvelous hobby I love so much. It's a great place to be really. But it's markedly different from being a fellow gaming buddy. Drance mentioned a few days ago, that I really should look for a group of similar aged people with which to game. I agree--I would love that. I've tried three times now, but it has failed each time. I'll admit I kind of quit trying, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see it happen. Finding the right and willing people in our small community has proven difficult to say the least.

But what if they came along? Two or three like minded adult gamers, willing to carve out a couple of days a month for some serious long term gaming; but what if they wanted to play something other than what I want? I think I would be foolish to turn them down. Becuase I also wrote this. Which I think made a fairly good point that it doesn't really matter what we play, it's a lot more important who we game with.

So why the heck does that leave me still longing for the feel of my old gaming days? Just yesterday I wrote to my brother explaining some of how I felt. I think I recapture some of that feeling by saying,

"My foray into Classic D&D has made me wonder if 5e will manage to put something like that together for their core game. I am hopeful that it will. But admit to a sense of loss and nostalgia for what once was. I was looking at some of the old third party books from the late 70's early 80's and it really struck a chord in me. A chord of longing so intense, that even talking about it now it makes my chest ache. It overwhelms me with sadness to think that its gone. I have tried to resurrect it, but it's like trying to redream a sweet dream that you once had. No matter how hard you try when you release yourself to sleep it still escapes you."

Can it be reclaimed? Well, inasmuch as we can never go back in time--no of course not. I will never be 12 again, never play for the first time again never discover Dungeons & Dragons for the first time again. Part of the nostalgia we feel for the "good old days" is encompassed by the fact that it was in the past. But saying that the past is worthless in the present is plain silliness. Part of wisdom is learning from the lessons and virtues taught to us in the past. No, we can't ignore the advantages of the present or the promise of the future. I'm still a trekkie ; ).

But we can embrace a style of gaming that mirrored that in which we gamed long ago. A style that had many virtues to recommend it. A time when rules faded into the background and fantasy came to the fore. A time when we weren't so fixated on system this or core mechanic that, or game design period. We simply played a game that fulfilled all our childhood fantasies and more. So much more. We didn't play D&D because of it's elegant game mechanics--we played it, 'cuz it rawked!

Now, I don't begrudge those who looked at the game at wondered why an elf couldn't be a Druid, or why females were limited in their ability stats, or that the level system seemed a bit contrived, or that the combat system was wonky. Those are the guys who branched out into other games, and many of them set the groundwork for the next generation of games. I guess I wasn't that smart--I just played the hell out of it. To me it was not only the best game on Earth it was the only game on Earth.

So here I am now, still feeling a very strong connection to past methods of gaming, and yet finding myself conflicted over what was lost and what is now. I don't have a bunch of friends all telling me to play game X, Y or Z. It's just me, frustrated with the conflicting desires of a bunch of young gamers who don't always desire what I do. So I try and play what they have wanted and only grow more frustrated. I've been through this with 3.5, with 4e and now with Pathfinder. Am I going to repeat the cycle with 5e? Why do I even let it bother me?

Just play the game you want and let it be. That's what I decided when the year ended. I was blasted if I was going to play something I didn't want to again. Let them play what they will--I was going to play MY game. Problem was I wasn't really sure what my game was. To be honest I was processing all of this just as 5e dawned on the horizon. Would 5e manage to create a system that would allow me to embrace my style of gaming while still pleasing everyone else as well? I realized that WoTC was doing the same thing I had been trying to do myself. Reconcile opposite poles of existence.

As much as their is much wisdom to be gained in seeing the common ground which opposites share, and in the assimilation of the diametric poles of our own existences; I seriously doubt if all things were meant to be so assimilated. Some things are simply meant to be a part. The past the the future shall never meet, nor shall I ever be able to game like I did when I was 12 and just encountering D&D. I am not the same person I was back then, and my experience of the game is now burdened with 31 years of intervening time. But this does not mean that the truths learned way back then have to be discarded. Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax uncovered some powerful magic back in the day. And that magic is worth preserving. We've been playing in it as a fanbase for over 40 years now.


I have heard others make an analogy of music to gaming. Whatever you grew up listening to you, is your "classic" music. For me it is Led Zeppelin, Rush, Black Sabbath, Eagles, Willie Nelson, CCR and the like. I think the analogy can even be extended slightly. Long ago Gary said RPGs are not at all like Art. But I would propose that in a way a similar phenomena has evolved in relation to RPGs and art. Namely that of Art Criticism and that there's no accounting for taste. Ultimately, with music, art, theater, movies, and games there are all sorts of theories describing why a certain work is good or bad. B-movies are notorious for being "bad" yet there are those who absolutely love B-Movies as their ultimate expression for quality entertainment. There's no accounting for taste. his doesn't mean that some people like trash, just that they may like what you don't. Black Velvet Elvis paintings hang in the houses of more people than does Picasso or Van Gogh. Does this mean it's better? I guess that really is in the eye of the beholder. One man's trash is another man's treasure. And you can get all noble and and try and look down your nose at someone's screenplay, thinking it's no On Golden Pond, but it might draw more money than OGP ever did.
 
Another analogy if you will. I have a good friend whi, while he is very spiritual is not very religious. He and I were talking one day about near death experiences and he quoted one lady who had "crossed over" and come back. She had been allowed to ask several questions, and one of her queries was if there was why there were so many churches? The response she received, is that there are so many churches because there are so many different types of people. Hmmm ...
 
I'm not here to make religious pronouncements, but as far as it goes I would say the same thing about today's world of an overabundance of RPGs. The one true RPG? The one for you. Be honest with yourself and you'll find it.
 
I'd be lying if I promised I won't be geeking out over why my chosen style of gaming is better than all the rest at times. I can't help myself. It's sort of like the one we love. As far as I'm concerned my wife is the best, most wonderful person in the entire world. But I'm sure there are lots of other people in love out there who might feel different. Love is funny like that. And we all love RPGs--just some more than others. Expect some different stuff from me in the future, but don't be put off if I geek all over your shoes, because I'm having a love or hate fest here on my little blog.

I'm Sorry

I would like to make a formal apology, to any and all who might pass through my Blog Doors now and again. I am guilty of gaming passion born of a deep love of the hobby and the foibles common to humans everywhere. And more than my share of wishiwashiness. It's just that it has dawned on me lately that by my old school rants, diatribes and essays I might have been making others feel bad about their chosen game, or style of gaming. I have a tendency of writing with universal tone--something honed in all my classes on rhetoric in college. And the fact is that many people are not interested in the philosophy of gaming, or gaming theory or analytical debate about gaming styles, editions or variants. In short, at times I can come across as an ass.
Some people just like gaming. And I shouldn't get in the way of that. And I shouldn't try and make them feel bad for gaming the way they do, or try and convince them my style is best.

Maybe some don't feel I'm doing this--but I have begun to feel so. Not sure why. But I think it has something to do with me writing like I know all about it, when I really don't know anymore than anyone else. I know what I like, even if I'm not sure why. I have begun to question alot of my own assumptions and I'm more confused than I ever have been. I also really want to thank those people that have made me take a good hard look at myself, and those assumptions I've been making. They have had the courage to challenge me. And one thing I've learned is that I'm not a Crusader. I don't have the stomach for it.

So once again. If you have been offended or made to feel bad by my writings I apologize. They were certainly not intended to do that.

--peace

Classic Dungeons & Dragons and The Curse of the Over Designed Game

Recently on the WoTC forum there was a thread on Limits in D&D. The original poster was in favor of these limits in some cases. Then marched in the very vocal opponents of the old school ethos. I say opponents, because they couldn't rationally discuss the purpose of limits in what D&D Next is evidently trying to achieve, but they have to berate, denigrate, insult and vilify any other style of play but their own. The reason I mention it here is because I think there is a need for a paradigm shift in terms of what limits in a game system are all about. And I'd like to selfishly hold up Classic Dungeons & Dragons as the ideal example of what D&D can be.

The war-cry of many a modern gamer is that there should be no limits on the players ability to create the PC of which he dreams. If we were to encase the cry in a word it would be OPTIONS!! And maybe with a louder shout AND EVEN MORE OPTIONS!!!!! Don't tell me I can't be such and such a race, don't tell me I can't specialize, don't tell me I can't have that skill, don't tell me I can't be an 8 foot tall orc, don't tell me I can't have feats, powers, or burp lightning and poop gold. ... *Whew*

Their is a consensus even among the designers of 5e that the game has shifted away from the DM being the judge, adjudicator, referee and master of the game. He is no longer the creator of the world even--but the players have an equal and some would argue even more of a say in the development of the world than the DM ever had. Now, practically this is a bit of an overstatement. DMs are still in control, it's just that their creative power has been limited by the ever expanding list of options now available to players. In a sense to remove one set of limits (to the players) another set was imposed (on the GMs).

It is this very fact to which Gary Gygax alluded in his Gamespy interview in regards to 3.5:

GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?



Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Now, should I tell you what I really think?

Source -- emphasis mine


Well, I would argue that such modern approaches limit everyone--not just the DM. True, the DM had his creativity and power limited, but the players were constrained within whatever band of options the rules outlined for them. Allow me to explain. In D&D everything is technically possible. A quick look at the early games made it clear that the "future is wide open" as Tom Petty would say. There were few constraints and endless possibilities. In fact everything that players have now were a possibility, but they didn't have to be. Once written in as a rule it has strength as "having to be allowed." I can't tell you how many times I have had to listen to "but it's allowed in the rules!"

Now do modern DMs sometimes say no? Yes of course they do, even if what some player wants is written in the rules. My intuition is that they have to do it alot more now than they had to in the past. It might be for this reason there is now a section in the current DMG on saying yes to your players. *Ack!!* The question is what ethos is communicated by such a gaming structure? I submit that it is player options come first. And we end up right were Gary was talking about above.

So am I against character options? Absolutely not. I am just against a rule set that outlines every possible option. Okay, maybe not every possible option, but so many there's little wiggle left if I want to so something else. So what's the answer?

CLASSIC DUNGEONS & DRAGONS

When Gary Gygax wrote Advanced Dungeons and Dragons it didn't take long to realize that he was writing a rather strict interpretation of what the Original game had been. He even admits this in his preface. In fact quite a few gamers realized this and the backlash was as palpable as any edition war today. To others it was also obvious that Gary had to set his game apart from the cooperative product that was Original Dungeons & Dragons. The purposeful exclusion of Dave Arneson from the work says volumes about his real purpose. Thing is even Gary realized this. It was widely known there were many rules from AD&D that Gary did not use in regular play and in the same above interview with Gamespy they asked him,

"GameSpy: Then can you look back and say, 'This was a mistake, I shouldn't have done this?'

Gygax: Oh yeah. There's a number of things in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons that I never should have done. I shouldn't have put Psionics in there, but somebody talked me into it. Some of the combat, weapons vs. armor, and weapon speeds I just would have dropped."

And he mentioned other things in other places, such as removing the monk.

The point is here, even Gary realized he had created a game that diverged somewhat from his and Arneson's original intentions. An open creative game that urged players in the close of one of the Little Brown Books: Why have us do any more of the imagining for you? Take this basic framework and imagine the hell out of it!

Such a framework gives the barest structure by which players and DMs could adhere and the opportunity to take it where ever their imagination would allow. Such a game does not give the DM ultimate power over his players. A reading of Gygax's Mastering the Game quickly proves that such play is detrimental to the game. A killer DM mentality was never "written into" or even impled in the old school ethos. But a cooperative approach between players and DMs in the imaginative process has always been encouraged. How else could the game have ever survived if this wasn't the case? The argument that old school equals tyrant DMs is hogwash--(even if I am one : ) Have a player that wants to play a Dragon? Go for it, if it fits the world the GM has in mind. Or talk it out and maybe create a new world in which this is possible. Want to poop gold?! Welcome to a bawdy rendition of King Midas' Curse! The sky very literally is the limit--though I don't know if I would want to go with that last adventure idea ...

In such a game, restrictions drop away to give space to the imagination. Did such an age encourage players and DMs to work together? Absolutely. We weren't restricted by a list of predescribed options. We made magical items, wrote new spells, created new races, abilities, powers, classes and on and on. we were creating the game as much as we were playing it.

But such a wild and free environment wasn't exactly good business practice. TSR under Gary felt a need to protect his interest--read profits. And we think WoTC was the only company that felt industry pressures?? Gary himself said in his introduction to AD&D that there needed to be some standard set of "this is the way it is". D&D play had become so individualized and creative that two games seemed little like each other. This didn't exactly allow tournament play, or people's innate desire for externally imposed structure. Hence I give you AD&D. Business control problems solved, Problem was, lots of creativity went out the window when AD&D entered in. The wild and woolly days of 0e were being declared irresponsible and chaotic. Come to the Advanced edition and play the real D&D. But that's not the way everyone felt ...

Fortunately TSR decided to appease the grumbling grognards (yes we had them even then) by the production of a slightly cleaned up presentation of the 0e ruleset: "Basic" Dungeons & Dragons. Ostensibly meant as an introduction to "Advanced"; Basic was really just a re-presentation of the 0e rules. I'm not sure all that went into the decision to do this (notice again that Arneson had no "official" part in the Holmes set). But I can see how Gygax is trying to paint 0e as an inferior, or basic version of the game and his as the ultimate or advanced edition. I know I for one fell for it. I wouldn't deign to actually "play" basic even though I had the set. I would settle for nothing but the best, and that meant Advanced D&D. But I don't think Gary added much beyond consolidating all the options in the earlier books and adding rules and options he didn't even use himself. Essentially Advanced became "his" expression of the game that even "he" didn't really use.

Which leads us back to the cleaned up and elegant expression of the rules that was Holmes D&D. Improved upon only slightly in terms of editing and layout in the Moldvay/Marsh/Cook volume. Now, to be completely honest, the rules had changed a bit. Weapon damage, hit die and the like were slightly modified. But overall it was the same game. It was simple and elegant, like a beautiful mathematical formula (forgive me I'm a mathematician). And it did something else too. It preserved the strong spirit of the game. The creative fire that had been unleashed in 1974.

Oddly enough what we see in subsequent iterations of the game is like Return of the Living Options again and again and again.

AD&D begins to allow power creep as more and more options creep into the game. And what do you see happen? 2e tries to reign back into a more core game of Warrior, Priest, Mage, and Rogue, but quickly expands to the most massive game yet known. And we see the same cycle repeated with 3.5, including a change to the core mechanic as well. 3 and 3.5 exponentially add to the option fever until 4e makes a desperate bid to regain control of the game. In the process of course they lose a good 25% (total WAG on my part) of their fan base. Which now 5e is attempting to regain. How you may ask? By trying to return to the basic core Classic Dungeons & Dragons feel.

You could call this The Curse of the Over-Designed Game, or you could label it The Cycle of RPG Dysfunction as Chase did in his excellent entry at Intwischa. I tend to lean towards the overdesigned game, because it is exactly what keeps me from committing to Hackmaster.


It is no surprise to frequent readers of this blog that I have a great love for the Knights of the Dinner Table and Hackmaster. I have come mere millimeters away from converting to HM time and again. But the problem is that though Hackmaster very nicely enshrines my style of play within its rules. There are simply too many rules and options to deal with. The game begins to feel a little, well ... constraining. I mean I like the style in Hackmaster, but not always, all the time. And with that many rules we begin to deal with the same kind of problems I mentioned above. I mean I don't like putting HM in the same league as say 3.5 or Pathfinder, I think it is a very different game. But I do fear it suffers from a bit of overdesigning. It just doesn't let me feel as if I can spread my wings like earlier editions.

Undoubtedly, some will call me on claiming that AD&D is too restrictive and that I'm getting back to my roots with something more like B/X. I mean AD&D was my game of choice. But, back when I played AD&D we really did not use all those rules. Just like Gary we played what was really a B/X game with a few more classes and race separate therefrom. Now older and if not a bit wiser at least a better reader, I understand that to really play AD&D there are lots of rules I do not like, or would not use. Which make me realize, when I describe the type of game I want to play it looks a lot like what Arneson and Gygax designed all those years ago in 1974; and presented in near perfect form in 1981.