Celebrating 2020 - The Year of Blackmoor - 50th Anniversary!
Today is the next to the last day of my comments in regard to this post(XP Started as One of D&D’s Breakthrough Ideas. Now the Designers Don’t See the Point ) at the DM DAVID blog.
He next throws in an obligatory paragraph to comment on "the countless video games that adopted experience points," and the whole leveling up tropes. Personally I have no real interest in video games or computer games with one exception, I love Civilization, Civ I and Colonization, Civ II and Civ III. I loved all of them.
I keep a computer with Windows 7 on it to run Civ III, the earlier ones will not run on it and none of them will run under Windows 10. So my days of being able to play are numbered. Civ IV and the new Colonization based on Civ IV are unplayable for me because of the extremely fuzzy graphics which do not work for a color-blind person, I was very disappointed when Civ IV came out and they abandoned the graphics that worked for an old guy for a new graphics system that is just visually painful to look at. The later versions after Civ IV I will never look at because I know they will not be playable for me.
Back to looking at XP and 2E AD&D:
The second problem I have with this is the assumption that people make that OD&D gaming was not "mature", that it was a shallow game played by shallow people who "only" chased treasure. Of course those people have perhaps never seen an OD&D game played by an early ref and players
Then he starts talking about the "newer, story-driven play style." Before I get deeper into this I would like to point out that when Arneson and his players talked about story, they were not talking about adventure modules (they did not yet exist) and they were not talking about pre-scripted railroads from which players were not allowed to deviate.
Do not get excited here and misunderstand me. I realize that not everyone who talks about story driven games is talking about the railroaded nightmares where players have no freedom to make any meaningful decisions. But again you need to understand that some of the claims that are made for "story-driven" games are things that are not the sole province of "story-driven" games.
You also need to realize that some people do use story as a synonym for "railroad." For many of us the word story is tainted by its long term association with railroad games. Again I realize that it is a sometimes true and sometimes not true thing. But please be aware that story game has a lot of bad baggage associated with the term. Again, game any way you want to at your table and I have no problem with that at all, there is no bad wrong fun here in what I am talking about. If you like a game that has rails that run from beginning to end, more power to you, count me out, but go have fun. I just want you to understand where I am coming from discussing philosophical differences.
So he goes on to say:
Here is the mistake that people like Mike Mearls and the majority make IMO: They wrongly assume from (IMO) possible ignorance that you cannot have these things in an open-ended sandbox game, "where the players can go where they wish, tackle the specific challenges that appeal to them, and create their own goals as a campaign progresses."
Here is the difference in the modern "story driven" campaign the DM typically uses an adventure module with the characters' goals and motives dictated and baked in. However, in an OD&D open-ended sandbox game the players get to choose their goals and motives. For instance the Paladin that I played would have been for defeating the dragon (with or without killing it) primarily for removing the threat to the innocent folk of the realm and not for treasure.
He would not have cared about creating a key event in the campaign's story arc. Why? Because in an OD&D open-ended sandbox campaign, story arcs are not imposed as pre-written things from a purchased campaign world or from an adventure module series or even from a homebrewed world that the DM has written a future history for.
You see in an OD&D open-ended sandbox campaign story is not imposed on the game, story is created during the play of the game. Story is what you talk about and relive after the game is played. It is not written ahead of time and imposed by fiat on the players of the game. As an aside, considering how some rail against DM fiat, I fail to understand how they seem to like DM fiat when it comes to story.
In original game play, the referee creates a world with a lot of interesting things, players make decisions and do things, and the referee responds to the players actions with the decisions and actions of the NPCs and the monsters and this goes back and forth. An excellent referee allows the game to breath and grow in response to the players. An excellent referee has the fun of being as surprised as the players as to the twists and turns the game takes and the created story is an original creation that because there is no pre-written goal or conclusion, everyone referee and player alike get to enjoy together as all are surprised by the events that no one could predict. What fun is it for the referee if he knows ahead of time how things will end. Especially if he is putting his thumb on the scales to make sure there is no character death.
Another feature of original game play is that there are no DM untouchables. The players are not limited in their interactions with the game world where some things are off limits. If the players choose to turn the world upside down, they are free to do so. The concept of breaking the world does not exist, the players are not handcuffed and the referee does not have things that he does not want the player to do because it will ruin his "story". In OD&D open-ended sandbox games the players cannot ruin the "story" because whatever "story" their actions create are just as good as the "story" that would have been created had their actions been different.
He goes on to say:
Again, this makes no sense to me and it seems obvious to me that these people really do not understand the roots of the game and how it worked. You would think that these two could not possibly have that level of ignorance, but there words imply that, "Yes, they are that ignorant."
One I am not even sure what he means by narrative campaign if he is not talking about a railroad, because IMO narrative is everything everyone says in the normal play of the game with the alternative being a script. Because in OD&D open-ended sandbox games that can be both "mature" and "complex" XP-for-gold serves extremely well. IMO no one has yet improved on OD&D. Because for me the choice is between freedom for referee and players (OD&D) vs less freedom for referee and players(everything else). I come down on the side of freedom.
More tomorrow.
Today is the next to the last day of my comments in regard to this post(XP Started as One of D&D’s Breakthrough Ideas. Now the Designers Don’t See the Point ) at the DM DAVID blog.
He next throws in an obligatory paragraph to comment on "the countless video games that adopted experience points," and the whole leveling up tropes. Personally I have no real interest in video games or computer games with one exception, I love Civilization, Civ I and Colonization, Civ II and Civ III. I loved all of them.
I keep a computer with Windows 7 on it to run Civ III, the earlier ones will not run on it and none of them will run under Windows 10. So my days of being able to play are numbered. Civ IV and the new Colonization based on Civ IV are unplayable for me because of the extremely fuzzy graphics which do not work for a color-blind person, I was very disappointed when Civ IV came out and they abandoned the graphics that worked for an old guy for a new graphics system that is just visually painful to look at. The later versions after Civ IV I will never look at because I know they will not be playable for me.
Back to looking at XP and 2E AD&D:
When second edition stopped awarding XP for gold, D&D superficially became more of a game of killing than ever. Except D&D matured anyway. Adventures started spinning stories deeper than that one time we killed a minotaur for gold. Originally, every character chased treasure; now, characters pursue adventure for justice or for honor or for countless other reasons, including treasure. And that worked so long as when players joined a game, they joined an unspoken pact to find reason for their character to accompany the other characters in following the plot.IMO it was not superficial, I think at a lot of game tables it was not superficial at all. I completely disagree with his short statement that D&D matured "anyway". It assumes that D&D needed to mature which is not a fact in evidence. The whole :
Adventures started spinning stories deeper than that one time we killed a minotaur for gold. Originally, every character chased treasure; now, characters pursue adventure for justice or for honor or for countless other reasons, including treasure.has two problems. One problem is that contrary to the above assumptions, back in '75 in the first OD&D game I ever played in, when we were just using the original three little brown books in the woodgrain box that our referee had, our game by this description was already mature from day one. We did in that first game "pursue adventure for justice or for honor or for countless other reasons, including treasure." Among the twelve players, ten of us were there for "countless other reasons", two were primarily for treasure.
The second problem I have with this is the assumption that people make that OD&D gaming was not "mature", that it was a shallow game played by shallow people who "only" chased treasure. Of course those people have perhaps never seen an OD&D game played by an early ref and players
Then he starts talking about the "newer, story-driven play style." Before I get deeper into this I would like to point out that when Arneson and his players talked about story, they were not talking about adventure modules (they did not yet exist) and they were not talking about pre-scripted railroads from which players were not allowed to deviate.
Do not get excited here and misunderstand me. I realize that not everyone who talks about story driven games is talking about the railroaded nightmares where players have no freedom to make any meaningful decisions. But again you need to understand that some of the claims that are made for "story-driven" games are things that are not the sole province of "story-driven" games.
You also need to realize that some people do use story as a synonym for "railroad." For many of us the word story is tainted by its long term association with railroad games. Again I realize that it is a sometimes true and sometimes not true thing. But please be aware that story game has a lot of bad baggage associated with the term. Again, game any way you want to at your table and I have no problem with that at all, there is no bad wrong fun here in what I am talking about. If you like a game that has rails that run from beginning to end, more power to you, count me out, but go have fun. I just want you to understand where I am coming from discussing philosophical differences.
So he goes on to say:
In the newer, story-driven play style, some players stopped seeing the point of counting experience. Those players included current D&D head, Mike Mearls. “Tracking experience points and using them to award levels makes a lot of sense in open-ended games, where the players can go where they wish, tackle the specific challenges that appeal to them, and create their own goals as a campaign progresses. In this type of game, when the players decide to assault the lair of a blue dragon, their primary goal is most often the treasure and XP they’ll gain for defeating it,” Mike wrote.
“In a more story-driven campaign, however, that lair assault could have a more complex purpose. Defeating the dragon removes a threat to the realm and creates a key event in the campaign’s story arc. In this type of campaign, treasure and XP take second place in the characters’ goals, behind the dragon’s importance in the narrative. The reward lies in making the kingdom safe and completing the mission, not necessarily in collecting loot. Leveling up might feel like the best way to mark that campaign milestone, even if the XP earned by slaying the dragon doesn’t quite cover it.”
Here is the mistake that people like Mike Mearls and the majority make IMO: They wrongly assume from (IMO) possible ignorance that you cannot have these things in an open-ended sandbox game, "where the players can go where they wish, tackle the specific challenges that appeal to them, and create their own goals as a campaign progresses."
Here is the difference in the modern "story driven" campaign the DM typically uses an adventure module with the characters' goals and motives dictated and baked in. However, in an OD&D open-ended sandbox game the players get to choose their goals and motives. For instance the Paladin that I played would have been for defeating the dragon (with or without killing it) primarily for removing the threat to the innocent folk of the realm and not for treasure.
He would not have cared about creating a key event in the campaign's story arc. Why? Because in an OD&D open-ended sandbox campaign, story arcs are not imposed as pre-written things from a purchased campaign world or from an adventure module series or even from a homebrewed world that the DM has written a future history for.
You see in an OD&D open-ended sandbox campaign story is not imposed on the game, story is created during the play of the game. Story is what you talk about and relive after the game is played. It is not written ahead of time and imposed by fiat on the players of the game. As an aside, considering how some rail against DM fiat, I fail to understand how they seem to like DM fiat when it comes to story.
In original game play, the referee creates a world with a lot of interesting things, players make decisions and do things, and the referee responds to the players actions with the decisions and actions of the NPCs and the monsters and this goes back and forth. An excellent referee allows the game to breath and grow in response to the players. An excellent referee has the fun of being as surprised as the players as to the twists and turns the game takes and the created story is an original creation that because there is no pre-written goal or conclusion, everyone referee and player alike get to enjoy together as all are surprised by the events that no one could predict. What fun is it for the referee if he knows ahead of time how things will end. Especially if he is putting his thumb on the scales to make sure there is no character death.
Another feature of original game play is that there are no DM untouchables. The players are not limited in their interactions with the game world where some things are off limits. If the players choose to turn the world upside down, they are free to do so. The concept of breaking the world does not exist, the players are not handcuffed and the referee does not have things that he does not want the player to do because it will ruin his "story". In OD&D open-ended sandbox games the players cannot ruin the "story" because whatever "story" their actions create are just as good as the "story" that would have been created had their actions been different.
He goes on to say:
In addition to faulting XP for failing to serve narrative campaigns, D&D’s designers disliked the bookkeeping behind XP. Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo, the designers behind D&D’s 3rd and 4th editions wrote, “We think that XP systems are better left to computer games.
Again, this makes no sense to me and it seems obvious to me that these people really do not understand the roots of the game and how it worked. You would think that these two could not possibly have that level of ignorance, but there words imply that, "Yes, they are that ignorant."
One I am not even sure what he means by narrative campaign if he is not talking about a railroad, because IMO narrative is everything everyone says in the normal play of the game with the alternative being a script. Because in OD&D open-ended sandbox games that can be both "mature" and "complex" XP-for-gold serves extremely well. IMO no one has yet improved on OD&D. Because for me the choice is between freedom for referee and players (OD&D) vs less freedom for referee and players(everything else). I come down on the side of freedom.
More tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment