I won't be following the developments of 5e any longer. Enamored by the idea of an edition that might unite D&D again I spent quite a bit of time on the Wizards forums, following articles and press releases, signing up for the playtest and listening to the reports of others who were actually playing the new rules. I set aside just about every doubt I had, or at least maintained an open mind. It didn't matter what Wizards had done in the past, it didn't matter that part of the game might include aspects I didn't like, didn't matter that I was having to put up with a lot of haterz online. I just hung in there and kept up the hope that maybe, just maybe Wizards might put together a game I might like to play.
Bear with me for a few while I outline the thought process I went through. My first opinion of 5e, according to all the press releases I had read, is that it might end up looking something like original D&D with 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, add-ons. Like you could play something like basic D&D, or add more classes and races, add skills, add feats and prestige classes, then add powers. Yeah, it was naive, but it was at least a rough idea to run with. After the playtest packet came out I was encouraged. It looked rules light and gave more than a nod to an old school feel. I then spent several frustrating hours on the forums trying to reassure more modern gamers that Wizards would meet their needs too in time. I still clung to the idea that they were starting with something like a rules light approach at first, and would get more complicated later. No, the playtest rules were not really anything like original D&D, but it was rules light.
Meanwhile, having read the packet, and giving lots of new thought to game design and D&D in all of it's iterations something was becoming clear to me. 5e was not at all what I thought it was going to be. And moreover with themes and backgrounds figuring so prominently in the core I was only interested in playing the most basic and streamlined version of 5e. I didn't want or need feats, or power like abilities or the at will spells they added in either. Here we were at the very start and I was already thinking about taking things out of the system.
Something else that had really started to become clear to me was that a good bulk of Wizard's fanbase hated what Wizard's was doing and was droning on and on about how rules light play, old school play or DM as Master was not only not their cup of tea, but totally the wrong way to play--according to them. And there was no reasoning with this crowd. You could politely try and say it was fine they hated to play that way, but that others (like myself) enjoyed that style of play, and had in fact played that way for numerous years. They could care less. It was an inferior style of play and that wanted no part of an edition that had anything to do with it. So I was resigned to simply reassuring them that I was sure WoTC would add in rules that allowed their style of play later in the development process. Truthfully, I wasn't in the least bit sure.
In fact the exact opposite was becoming apparent. I don't think 4e fans will be entirely pleased with the finished product that will become 5e. For you see Mearls is creating a completely new game. A cohesive blend of disparate elements that seeks to appeal to all types of players with a new approach to the game. And I had already decided that the only part that appealed to me was the more barest essentials of their current playtest rules. I wasn't interested in their "further modules". And given the foundation they were laying I truly didn't think their 3.5 or 4e players would be interested with the finished product.
But something else was becoming clear as well. First of all I began to see the the efforts of 3e, 3.5 and 4e were nothing but GURPS wish fulfillment. I mean they were trying to let everyone be whatever they wanted to be within a game that was never originally designed to do that. GURPS had been doing this much longer than Wizards ever had, and they do it much more efficiently. In fact the game had clumsily tried to add in GURPS like customization and was doing the same thing in a different way with 5e. The promise to return to roots was looking dimmer all the while. But still I held on and began to wonder what a very streamlined 5e might look like. So I tried to create it.
Well, it was just an experiment. A thought experiment really, but I scribbled down a few notes as well. I won't give you all the details; but it was basically a d20 system, four basic classes and races, using ability checks for everything else. What I quickly realized was that class construction for combat was a bugaboo that I was unprepared for. d20 was supposed to be easy and slick, wasn't it? No. not really. In fact the considerations behind the system, made me long for a table to make things much easier. Yes, a table based system--just like D&D used to be. And when you come right to it, d20 is no easier in actual practice either.
And this realization came on the heels of something else too. I was listening to the reports of various playtests. The complaints were to me mindless and short sighted. Play testers were complaining about having to choose DCs without rules for it, not being able to adjudicate if Clerics should be able to search for traps like thieves, that the rogue was "useless", that healing kits were extraneous and on and on and on. The thing was to me these were silly problems that had been solved ages ago, by the game's creator himself, Gary Gygax. That's right, 5e was trying to reinvent the wheel. They were trying to by a game they weren't: GURPS, and trying to solve problems that had already been solved long ago.
This may have been clear to everyone else long ago, but just call me slow. It takes the right kind of eyes to see that the emperor had no clothes. But there I was, with rule books of all sorts around me, reading them, taking them in, and realizing I was looking for something I had all along. AD&D.
You see Gary was a lot smarter than the modern crowd gives him credit for. I mean sure, Dave and others had a hand in the original inspiration behind the game, but Gary did something with it no one else had done. The game was powerful in it's original form, but left lots of unanswered questions. And the original game had expanded in scope via the supplements but was chaotic and loosely defined at best. B/X went a long way towards consolidating that original power of the creative force that was D&D. In fact it really became the legacy of the little brown books, a style of play that was really without limits. But see, that wasn't the game I played.
Recently I bought the original Moldvay Cook and Marsh books again. I had them long ago, but had since disposed of them. I read my new copies and reminisced, but felt something missing. And that familiar feeling that this was just not quite "it". Not "it" in any sense, but my "it". Really, if I had to nail it down, it would be the unanswered questions I have that seem to naturally spring out of play. Answers that once again are given in the AD&D game.
I have dissed on Gary some because in AD&D he sought to cut Dave out of the loop. And that he set himself up as the authority. That here was the definitive game: AD&D. So yeah, it comes across as a little pompous. But you know what--it is the game. The answers are all there. Almost all you need that might come up in D&D play. Even rationalizations for why certain choices were made that might seem limiting to some. And you know what else? Even though AD&D explicitly discouraged house ruling, it was as friendly to house rule as 0e ever was. Things could be dropped or added or changed as you saw fit and the game didn't change too much. Matt Finch spoke to this very fact in an excellent blog article on his Mythmere blog.. AD&D more than anything else, was MY game. It was the game I grew up with, it was the game I learned to first play, and it is now in my gaming DNA. Like it or not, everything since is judged by its criteria in my own mind.
So I picked up my PHB and my DMG and started right back at the beginning. And that my friends is where I am headed now. I'm on a journey this summer. A journey to reconnect. I've been allured of quite a few games lately. Castles & Crusades, HackMaster, Dungeon Crawl Classics, GURPS and even 5e. I've spent quite a hefty chunk o' change lately too. But none of them quite cut it. They all focused on one or another aspect, but didn't quite fit the bill. And my recent feelings about 5e and the things I've come to realize and see will give me a new pair of eyes with which to read my old AD&D books this time. And that's what you can expect next on my blog.
NEW DIRECTION: I'll be re-reading the complete AD&D library and blogging on items of note and interest within their pages. Reflecting on the nature of the game that is truly MY game. And preparing to begin a new page in my gaming life by starting over at chapter one. I loved the book the first time around, and have a feeling I appreciate it even more this time.
You can also expect a bit of a blog face lift to go with my new found purpose and direction. I for one am excited and more comfortable gaming wise in my own heart than I have been in a long while. I look forward to seeing you along the journey.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Thursday, May 31, 2012
An Old School Gamer In A Modern Gaming World
Some time ago I made this as the subtitle of my blog. I have actually written several entries on just this concept, but I wanted to revisit this today because it has taken a new meaning for me. All things change. And the gaming world has changed as well. It took me a long time to admit that alot of my old school yearnings were bound up in nostalgia--not all of them mind you, but alot of them. It used to offend me when people would make this accusation about my old school rants and desires. And even then I knew that, yes I longed for the days of yore but don't dismiss my yearnings as mere nostalgia--that was insulting.
But they were right in great part. It took a lot of self reflection to see this, and to admit to myself that the past was the past. It also took several sessions of old school systems gaming with very new gamers to realize that system wasn't the only variable in the equation. I've condemned all sorts of games out of hand in the past because they didn't seem like what I was used to, or didn't produce the kind of game I enjoyed. But was the problem really the system?
Recently when I contemplated taking up 4e again--it was about a year ago--I wrote about how the game literally made me sick as I read it. It was a bit of an overstatement, but I did really dislike how it read. It just wasn't evocative for me, and read very differently from the D&D of my past. But what I didn't talk too much about was the fact that had spent about the entire school year playing 4e and having a great time overall. Towards the end, I had been reading alot of OSR material and was pulling towards old school games again. And the things that were different about 4e--grid and mini based combat, surges and powers--began to stand out in stark relief, where before they were simply mere annoyances. The real fact was that we were telling a great story that all of us were really getting into and enjoying.
Reflection on these sorts of experiences have done something for me. They have helped me realize that what I thought were the important parts of D&D weren't really the important parts. Recall those questions to ask yourself about your gaming? Well here are a few answers I gave
1. What are the top 3 reasons you play RPGs? Rank your answers in order from 1 to 3, 1 being the top reason.
That's a difficult one to quantify. I prefer a game where danger is ever present as a part of the adventure. I present opportunities a plenty for the rash and unthinking player to kill themselves all by themselves--they don't need anymore of my help. I suppose you could call this a fairly high level of lethality. I sort of expect the same thing as a PC.
9. What percent of all encounters (melee, i.e. direct combat,and non-melee, i.e. traps, etc.) should be near lethal and what percent should be "powder puff"?
Again, I don't like these kinds of things quantified. I mean the world exists. It is--in a sense it is a neutral force which challenges you. The further out you go into it, the deeper down the more dangerous it gets. Here be monsters and all that stuff. I don't engineer the environment to be easy or hard on you--it just is. Screw with it and you are gonna be in a world of hurt. You better be a big enough boy to handle it if you're gonna try. Otherwise you die, or worse.
12. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most important, how critical is role-playing (talking/acting/playing "in character") to you as a DM? As a PC?
Well I have a slightly different idea of "roleplay". Always being in character is a bit tiresome, especially if someone has adopted a special voice or mannerism for their PC. When I think of roleplay I think of dialogue. I think of verbally working things out with the rest of your party, with NPCs, with your environment. I contrast it with "rollplay", in other words using the dice to decide everything instead of verbal description and explanation. So in my terms roleplay gets an 8 or 9--it's what the game is about--not necessarily playacting. Acting in character all the time is more like a 4 or 5.
But they were right in great part. It took a lot of self reflection to see this, and to admit to myself that the past was the past. It also took several sessions of old school systems gaming with very new gamers to realize that system wasn't the only variable in the equation. I've condemned all sorts of games out of hand in the past because they didn't seem like what I was used to, or didn't produce the kind of game I enjoyed. But was the problem really the system?
Recently when I contemplated taking up 4e again--it was about a year ago--I wrote about how the game literally made me sick as I read it. It was a bit of an overstatement, but I did really dislike how it read. It just wasn't evocative for me, and read very differently from the D&D of my past. But what I didn't talk too much about was the fact that had spent about the entire school year playing 4e and having a great time overall. Towards the end, I had been reading alot of OSR material and was pulling towards old school games again. And the things that were different about 4e--grid and mini based combat, surges and powers--began to stand out in stark relief, where before they were simply mere annoyances. The real fact was that we were telling a great story that all of us were really getting into and enjoying.
Reflection on these sorts of experiences have done something for me. They have helped me realize that what I thought were the important parts of D&D weren't really the important parts. Recall those questions to ask yourself about your gaming? Well here are a few answers I gave
1. What are the top 3 reasons you play RPGs? Rank your answers in order from 1 to 3, 1 being the top reason.
- Fantasy, Magical Escape
- Communal Fantastic Reality--Intelligent, Collective Problem Solving
- Adventure--Facing Fear--The Hero's Journey
8. What level of lethality do prefer in your campaigns as a DM? What about as a PC?
You see I didn't talk at all about mechanics. The way I approach the game was the same regardless of what I played. Yes, mechanics does have a bearing on play, but not nearly so much as we would think. In other words what I really wanted out of D&D was a coherent, immersive fantasy experience in which a fantastic story emerged from the synergy of the DM and the players. That's what I strove for, and though it was at times frustrating to achieve, could I really blame a system?
I've played pretty much whatever D&D system has been around since my entry into gaming long ago. And lately I've wondered or worried whether I should branch out of D&D altogether. But see, now I realize it doesn't really matter. I'm going to game pretty much for the same reasons and in the same style as I always have. When I started gaming it was AD&D, pretty much 1e but we added in lots of stuff that was 2e as well. Then I played 3.5, then back to 2e, 4e, back to 1e with OSRIC and finally Pathfinder (basically 3.5). The only other game I have any significant time with was Gamma World long ago, and Call of Cthulhu more recently. But those sessions were so limited that they almost don't count. And my point is that I have always strove for the same type of gaming, and gamed in pretty much the same style regardless of edition.
Now, if you're asking yourself then, how in the world are you old school? Well, though I haven't played the actual game beyond 1 session, Hackmaster captures my style better than just about any other game I have read in their foreword, introduction and the following quote,
"The rules contained in this book were purposely written in an engaging literary style rather than in dull and meticulously dry legalese typical of a software end user license agreement. For those players fond of twisting rules to their advantage by fallacious logic, duplicitous misinterpretation of synonyms or my favorite “It doesn’t specifically say I can’t…”, the following rules override all others.
RULE ONE: In HackMaster, any rule ambiguity related to character creation and PC powers is construed against the player character. If you, as a player, find yourself arguing that a rule is ambiguous, your GM must simply weigh both side's benefits to your player character and choose the most logical choice in his opinion. If one choice seems too heavily in favor of your PC and not directly stated in the rules, he has no choice but to rule against your character.
RULE TWO: A player may dispute a rule at any time as long as it takes less than 10 seconds to point out any perceived error. The GM may deny any challenge as he sees fit, however, if he denies a challenge the player has the right to make a formal challenge one time per game session by calling a 5 minute time out to look up the rule. If the rule is overturned, the player retains his challenge ability. If the ruling is not overturned, the player may not dispute a rule call again until the next game session. This rule is designed to keep the game flowing and fun for all involved. Yes, this rule is based on NFL rule challenges. I like football, deal with it." pg 9 AHMPHB Gary Jackson
Is that style bound to Hackmaster? Is it old school? What about Matt Finch's Primer? What about the FourthCore Manifesto? All these things speak to my heart, and are incorporated into my gaming to one degree or another no matter what I play.
So, if you've read my blog for any time at all you realize I've said similar things before. What's different this time? Well, what's different is that D&DNext is now being created. And say what you may it's being created in a more open and inclusive manner than any other game I have yet heard of. There are times as I hang around the forums listening to all the arguments about mechanics and I get a little sick. Or at the least frustrated. There are just so many little sniggling details that seem to matter so little to me. And so many people with ideas I would say run counter to my own. But in the end, what does it matter? I think the WoTC crew are trying as best to bring in a lighter game with lots of older school elements. Admittedly they are also trying really hard to keep the 3.5/4e crowd happy, but why should that bother me? As an old school guy that loves all those things I mentioned above and has gamed happily and successfully in just about every edition known to the D&D name I should be thrilled, that the past is getting more than a nod in the next iteration of D&D.
You want to know what my biggest fears are? I'll tell you. I too have a hard time with the overcommercialization of D&D, and the hard driven business model so many companies are stuck with. And I know WoTC is bound to Hasbro in ways that will affect its business model. I worry that this iteration of D&D will only last as long as 4e. I worry the brand will go under, I worry that everyone will hate so much on 5e that D&D will become a thing of the past.
But me, I think I'll just game. I'm so done arguing and fighting and waging edition wars. We are all gamers and we all just want to have a good time gaming. 5e is promising to allow each of us to be able to do that in the same game once again. I don't know how close they'll get. But I know I want to be a part of the effort. I'm glad that 5e will hearken back to a rules light time, and I'm perfectly okay with the fact that lots of modern ideas are also being incorporated into the game. The game will end up being a lot like me--an old school gamer in a modern gaming world.
RULE ONE: In HackMaster, any rule ambiguity related to character creation and PC powers is construed against the player character. If you, as a player, find yourself arguing that a rule is ambiguous, your GM must simply weigh both side's benefits to your player character and choose the most logical choice in his opinion. If one choice seems too heavily in favor of your PC and not directly stated in the rules, he has no choice but to rule against your character.
RULE TWO: A player may dispute a rule at any time as long as it takes less than 10 seconds to point out any perceived error. The GM may deny any challenge as he sees fit, however, if he denies a challenge the player has the right to make a formal challenge one time per game session by calling a 5 minute time out to look up the rule. If the rule is overturned, the player retains his challenge ability. If the ruling is not overturned, the player may not dispute a rule call again until the next game session. This rule is designed to keep the game flowing and fun for all involved. Yes, this rule is based on NFL rule challenges. I like football, deal with it." pg 9 AHMPHB Gary Jackson
Is that style bound to Hackmaster? Is it old school? What about Matt Finch's Primer? What about the FourthCore Manifesto? All these things speak to my heart, and are incorporated into my gaming to one degree or another no matter what I play.
So, if you've read my blog for any time at all you realize I've said similar things before. What's different this time? Well, what's different is that D&DNext is now being created. And say what you may it's being created in a more open and inclusive manner than any other game I have yet heard of. There are times as I hang around the forums listening to all the arguments about mechanics and I get a little sick. Or at the least frustrated. There are just so many little sniggling details that seem to matter so little to me. And so many people with ideas I would say run counter to my own. But in the end, what does it matter? I think the WoTC crew are trying as best to bring in a lighter game with lots of older school elements. Admittedly they are also trying really hard to keep the 3.5/4e crowd happy, but why should that bother me? As an old school guy that loves all those things I mentioned above and has gamed happily and successfully in just about every edition known to the D&D name I should be thrilled, that the past is getting more than a nod in the next iteration of D&D.
You want to know what my biggest fears are? I'll tell you. I too have a hard time with the overcommercialization of D&D, and the hard driven business model so many companies are stuck with. And I know WoTC is bound to Hasbro in ways that will affect its business model. I worry that this iteration of D&D will only last as long as 4e. I worry the brand will go under, I worry that everyone will hate so much on 5e that D&D will become a thing of the past.
But me, I think I'll just game. I'm so done arguing and fighting and waging edition wars. We are all gamers and we all just want to have a good time gaming. 5e is promising to allow each of us to be able to do that in the same game once again. I don't know how close they'll get. But I know I want to be a part of the effort. I'm glad that 5e will hearken back to a rules light time, and I'm perfectly okay with the fact that lots of modern ideas are also being incorporated into the game. The game will end up being a lot like me--an old school gamer in a modern gaming world.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The Hard Part
So in case you couldn't tell, I'm checking out Dungeons & Dragons Next. I'm also seriously considering GURPS, especially GURPS Fantasy. And I finally broke down and bought my Hackmaster Players Handbook--awesome btw.
Friends if you're anything like me, finding a gaming home can be a bit difficult to say the least. I'm sure there are those who just call me wishy--washy. And I suppose that adjective fits me to a degree. In this day's world of countless game systems, gamers have tons of options to choose from. There is just about a gaming flavor for every imaginable taste. So I suppose I could be cut a little slack for not being able to make up my mind. Except I make it lots more difficult than it needs to be by dint of my personality. Hyperanalysis is one of my more pedantic weaknesses.
But now with the summer here, school out and time to actually think, I might make some actual headway. It was yesterday that I realized as I pondered this fact that the analysis isn't even the hard part. I can choose a game, as I did last summer. It was a compromise with myself, but I felt pretty good about it. I had decided to go with Castles & Crusades, and bought several C&C PHBs for my gaming club's use.
But that wasn't the hard part. When the gaming club met for the first time, and I looked 24 eager new gamers in the face I simply couldn't impose my will on them. There I was ready to declare C&C the club's official game; but as I welcomed them to the club the first time I found myself telling them we would be voting on which game to play this year. And then when we had voted I even changed again as popular pressure swayed the newcomers into playing their game of choice--Pathfinder.
And friends there is nothing wrong with Pathfinder. I've played 3.5 and there was nothing really wrong with that game either. I personally find Pathfinder a streamlined 3.5. Which is nice, because I can't even keep up with all the rules in PF, let alone the proliferation in 3.5. But both games play quite well. They weren't games I would have chosen however, but I didn't feel it was my place to force my personal gaming preferences on 24 different gamers.
Back when I had been the one to introduce my friends to gaming there was only one game I knew about. The choice was simple and clear. There was only one game to play--AD&D, and the only other option I was aware of was B/X and it was clearly an "inferior" game in my estimation--only partially complete. AD&D was the real game. This wasn't even an issue back then. Now things are a bit different. A lot different.
For all the noise I make about my gaming style being adversarial, about being tough on players and the like--it's just a bit of an affectation. I want my players to have fun, I want them to live and be victorious and see their PCs become heroes; and most of all I want them to be okay with whatever we play. Yes, I put in more time than any one of them to get the game ready week to week, but add up all my players together and their time matters to a tune at least equal as mine. I don't want them to have to sit at a table not wanting to play the choice of game we've made.
And that my friends is the hard part.
If I had a gaming group of likeminded old schoolers, friends maybe my own age or at least adults, I could probably play an old school game. Even then though, I would likely go with what they would want to play--it would just be closer to my liking. But the bulk of my gaming is with my gaming club, filled with adolescents about the same age I was when I began gaming. It is an exciting time for them, one I envy them in some regard. The time in their lives when they are just discovering gaming. Many great adventures await them, and I want their first experiences to be as good as mine were if not even better. So far, for most of them I think they are. But they are kids, and they love the new stuff, shiny full color books and eye catching gaming. So I usually end up giving them what they want.
So, here I am enjoying reading my Hackmaster PHB. It is closer to any gaming book I've read to my style and my liking. Not quite 100%, but I still love it. Its old school ethos and hardcore attitude fit well with many of my own preferences. The HMPHB book reads more like the old 1e PHB than any other book I've yet read on the market. I could so find myself playing a long term HM game, even exclusively HM. If there were others willing to do so.
And GURPS Fantasy, a recent discovery for me, has me very intrigued. Partly it's because of the steadiness of Steve Jackson Games. Back in the day, for me there were two central gaming companies, TSR and SJG. TSR has long gone the way of the ghost, yet SJG remains, much the same as it was when I was growing up. There's a special feel about the company, and I'm actually coming to really appreciate some of the gaming decisions they made. And Fantasy is a good read so far. One of my childhood gaming friends plays GURPS exclusively with two different groups. I can see myself doing the same--if others would join me.
Then of course there's D&D Next. I know the common consensus on the old school web is that WoTC is going to screw it up. That it will only be around 5 years or so before 6e comes out. I even heard speculation that Hasbro will shut down the line, shelve it for a time. Gad that makes me shudder. Because you see, it is still a portion of my desire that D&D become the game of the gaming public once again. I have high hopes for 5e, and should be more trusting than I am of Wizard's attempt to rebuild a game more in D&D's image. And truthfully I can see 5e shaping up to be promising. Thus far the rule set is hewing close to it's promise of a rules light core, and handing the reigns of power back to the DM. As Gary said long ago the DM should be the master of the game, and 5e is reaching for that once again. If they don't screw it up WoTC might end up with a game I could see myself playing--if anyone else I play with agreed with me.
For you see friends that's the hard part. Getting the fellow gamers, no matter their age, sitting around the table with you to agree to play the game that you think is cool. I recall back when I was a passionate teen gamer and AD&D was our game. I would come across a new game I thought looked cool and wanted to try--Gamma World or Star Frontiers and noone really wanted to give it a go. Certainly not long term,. Same thing back then--they had their game of choice. Anything else was a diversion only be endured for a session or two.
I've found myself bowing to this pressure of common consent again and again. I'll get everyone to agree to play Labyrinth Lord, or Hackmaster or whatever, but quickly bow to their pressure to return to what they all like better. Ultimately I'm victim to the implicit democratic agenda of game choice. Near the end of my last gaming season, personally frustrated with the game we had been playing (altho' I'll now admit it was more of a frustration with my players) I determined to only play what I wanted to play. I was going to open it up so that groups could play whatever they wanted, but I would only GM games I wanted to play. But I know that in the end I'll probably end up caving to the common pressure of playing what most everyone wants. Otherwise I may not get a group to agree to play with me. And in the end playing a game you may not like too much is so much better than not playing at all.
Friends if you're anything like me, finding a gaming home can be a bit difficult to say the least. I'm sure there are those who just call me wishy--washy. And I suppose that adjective fits me to a degree. In this day's world of countless game systems, gamers have tons of options to choose from. There is just about a gaming flavor for every imaginable taste. So I suppose I could be cut a little slack for not being able to make up my mind. Except I make it lots more difficult than it needs to be by dint of my personality. Hyperanalysis is one of my more pedantic weaknesses.
But now with the summer here, school out and time to actually think, I might make some actual headway. It was yesterday that I realized as I pondered this fact that the analysis isn't even the hard part. I can choose a game, as I did last summer. It was a compromise with myself, but I felt pretty good about it. I had decided to go with Castles & Crusades, and bought several C&C PHBs for my gaming club's use.
But that wasn't the hard part. When the gaming club met for the first time, and I looked 24 eager new gamers in the face I simply couldn't impose my will on them. There I was ready to declare C&C the club's official game; but as I welcomed them to the club the first time I found myself telling them we would be voting on which game to play this year. And then when we had voted I even changed again as popular pressure swayed the newcomers into playing their game of choice--Pathfinder.
And friends there is nothing wrong with Pathfinder. I've played 3.5 and there was nothing really wrong with that game either. I personally find Pathfinder a streamlined 3.5. Which is nice, because I can't even keep up with all the rules in PF, let alone the proliferation in 3.5. But both games play quite well. They weren't games I would have chosen however, but I didn't feel it was my place to force my personal gaming preferences on 24 different gamers.
Back when I had been the one to introduce my friends to gaming there was only one game I knew about. The choice was simple and clear. There was only one game to play--AD&D, and the only other option I was aware of was B/X and it was clearly an "inferior" game in my estimation--only partially complete. AD&D was the real game. This wasn't even an issue back then. Now things are a bit different. A lot different.
For all the noise I make about my gaming style being adversarial, about being tough on players and the like--it's just a bit of an affectation. I want my players to have fun, I want them to live and be victorious and see their PCs become heroes; and most of all I want them to be okay with whatever we play. Yes, I put in more time than any one of them to get the game ready week to week, but add up all my players together and their time matters to a tune at least equal as mine. I don't want them to have to sit at a table not wanting to play the choice of game we've made.
And that my friends is the hard part.
If I had a gaming group of likeminded old schoolers, friends maybe my own age or at least adults, I could probably play an old school game. Even then though, I would likely go with what they would want to play--it would just be closer to my liking. But the bulk of my gaming is with my gaming club, filled with adolescents about the same age I was when I began gaming. It is an exciting time for them, one I envy them in some regard. The time in their lives when they are just discovering gaming. Many great adventures await them, and I want their first experiences to be as good as mine were if not even better. So far, for most of them I think they are. But they are kids, and they love the new stuff, shiny full color books and eye catching gaming. So I usually end up giving them what they want.
So, here I am enjoying reading my Hackmaster PHB. It is closer to any gaming book I've read to my style and my liking. Not quite 100%, but I still love it. Its old school ethos and hardcore attitude fit well with many of my own preferences. The HMPHB book reads more like the old 1e PHB than any other book I've yet read on the market. I could so find myself playing a long term HM game, even exclusively HM. If there were others willing to do so.
And GURPS Fantasy, a recent discovery for me, has me very intrigued. Partly it's because of the steadiness of Steve Jackson Games. Back in the day, for me there were two central gaming companies, TSR and SJG. TSR has long gone the way of the ghost, yet SJG remains, much the same as it was when I was growing up. There's a special feel about the company, and I'm actually coming to really appreciate some of the gaming decisions they made. And Fantasy is a good read so far. One of my childhood gaming friends plays GURPS exclusively with two different groups. I can see myself doing the same--if others would join me.
Then of course there's D&D Next. I know the common consensus on the old school web is that WoTC is going to screw it up. That it will only be around 5 years or so before 6e comes out. I even heard speculation that Hasbro will shut down the line, shelve it for a time. Gad that makes me shudder. Because you see, it is still a portion of my desire that D&D become the game of the gaming public once again. I have high hopes for 5e, and should be more trusting than I am of Wizard's attempt to rebuild a game more in D&D's image. And truthfully I can see 5e shaping up to be promising. Thus far the rule set is hewing close to it's promise of a rules light core, and handing the reigns of power back to the DM. As Gary said long ago the DM should be the master of the game, and 5e is reaching for that once again. If they don't screw it up WoTC might end up with a game I could see myself playing--if anyone else I play with agreed with me.
For you see friends that's the hard part. Getting the fellow gamers, no matter their age, sitting around the table with you to agree to play the game that you think is cool. I recall back when I was a passionate teen gamer and AD&D was our game. I would come across a new game I thought looked cool and wanted to try--Gamma World or Star Frontiers and noone really wanted to give it a go. Certainly not long term,. Same thing back then--they had their game of choice. Anything else was a diversion only be endured for a session or two.
I've found myself bowing to this pressure of common consent again and again. I'll get everyone to agree to play Labyrinth Lord, or Hackmaster or whatever, but quickly bow to their pressure to return to what they all like better. Ultimately I'm victim to the implicit democratic agenda of game choice. Near the end of my last gaming season, personally frustrated with the game we had been playing (altho' I'll now admit it was more of a frustration with my players) I determined to only play what I wanted to play. I was going to open it up so that groups could play whatever they wanted, but I would only GM games I wanted to play. But I know that in the end I'll probably end up caving to the common pressure of playing what most everyone wants. Otherwise I may not get a group to agree to play with me. And in the end playing a game you may not like too much is so much better than not playing at all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)