A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming

[Telarus]

Cool old-school thread. I've been researching some of the old-school dungeon designs for a Unreal Dev Kit project I'm working on.

I've uploaded this week's assignment (the proposal) to Scrib'd. It has a link to an excellent series called "Jaquaying the Dungeon", about techniques used by Paul Jaquays, who designed original dungeons for TSR and Judge's Guild back in the day (he most recently work on the Halo Wars video game, crafting skirmish maps, and then on to the EVE MMO).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jaquays

http://www.jaquays.com/paul/index.html

Here's the PDF:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49434154/MMO-style-level-project-proposal

and the link to the start of the Article series (from my PDF):

http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2010-07c.html#20100723



Now, to go back and finish the thread!

[Telarus]

First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules

Goddess damn-it, I really like this first "Zen Moment" and then he has to go fuck the examples up by dragging in the BIGGEST unexamined flaw in BOTH styles.

And it's simply this:

In all 4 situations, the GM never actually says "Ok, _if_ you fail that roll, X,Y or Z happens. Do you still want to roll?"

The reason that 'modern' games have rules for LOTS of situations is that it SUCKS BALLS trying to play a game (which is supposed to be fair), where nearly everything is decided by GM fiat. It stops being an RPG, and starts being "How can we game the GM's past rulings against him, because the only rulings we ever get are Post-Hoc, made-up-on-the-spot consquences that we only learn about when we fail at something"

Take the last "I leap off the cliff and DOWNstrike!" example.

It's fairly trivial to give the player a +1 stunt bonus that he could apply to to-hit OR damage, and then say "If you fail your to-hit, you will fall prone, if you botch you take falling damage. Do you still want to take the risk?"

The player then decides then and there to either accept the risk (and NOT quibble about the failure consequences) OR quickly choose another tactic. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Similar situation with the pit trap. If the GM says "Yes, you can poke around, but you have a 1-in-6 chance of triggering it while you do, and on a failed Reflex save, in you go" then the player doesn't have unlimited time to poke at the trap.

Fail and SOMETHING HAPPENS. Easy to do in either system, issue sidestepped! Making sure the whole table is aware of this is the Key. Then the dice roll becomes a climactic, tense moment (because we have that clear image of failure consequence to balance our intuited success image).

OK, so first critique: The first Problem he identifies does not match the Solution he provides, and just serves to obfuscate the Problem. This aside, I'm in favor of "Rulings, not Rules" (as long as you are upfront with the Stakes _before_ the Roll, as this avoid the GM-fiat frustration).

[Telarus]

[Let me preface this by saying I really like this series, because it's making me think. I may offer critique of the OP, but I'm not disregarding or dismissing it.]

What, even in combat?


Well, YEAH. But sometimes. When players call for stunts and what not. Still, if you're comfortable with the system, then every To-Hit roll can come along with a standard failure consequence (get everyone at the table to agree to one up front, so you, again, only have to bargain Stakes for Stunts).

I like, "Miss a combat attack roll, and the next person to swing at you that round get +1 to hit."

Suddenly, what happened BEFORE affects what's happening NOW.

------------------------------------
OK, on to Zen Moment #2:

I think the author dismisses the Player Skill required to understand and survive in the 'modern' rules systems. And he fails to point out the real difference. Player Skill in modern games is focused around understanding the rules system inside and out, and making your that the "Build" of your character comes out just right as you level up, and optimizing your gear and magic. This does take a lot of the active use of Player Skill actually _away_ from the game table and in to the books. Alternately, most of the effort at the table is involved in juggling the combat options that your build gives you. While this does tend to reduce free-form exploratory narration, it was kind of meant to.

Here's an interesting observation: ++Die rolls are much less frequent than in modern games.++

But I think he doesn't quite understand the reasons. With the 'old-school' rulset, where 'rulings' were pretty much necessary to complete a session, most GMs learned pretty quickly to only Roll if something was really at stake. If the player pops off with "I draw my sword and attack the [nameless] bar wench [insert non-important NPC here]", you don't start calling for imitative and attack and damage rolls.

No, you simply narrate the girl going down in a spray of blood, and then the silence as the sudden violence turns the whole room's attention onto the guy who just murdered, in cold blood, a friend to half the people in the room.

_THEN_ you ask the player for an Initative roll. 

This play style has been termed "Say Yes OR Roll the Dice".

If nothing major to your narrative is at stake, and the players want to do something reasonable, SAY YES. If there's something interesting At Stake, then you roll.

There's a trick to this technique as well, and it's as simple as a single word. "Why?"

"You attack the barmaid? Why? Are you trying to kill her?" [The GM fishes for clarification on the aimed for result.]

So, you are NOT asking about the motivation of 'why the character would want to kill the barmaid' or anything else. You ask WHY to clarify the _player's_ intent behind the attack announcement. What is the player's GOAL (a dead bar-maid?).

Once the intended In-Game result of the attempted action is clear, we can cut right to the chase (is it really worth rolling dice over?).

Attacking an unarmed civilian has little risk of failure, and thus no immediate consequence for failing.

If it's really worth rolling dice over, then something has to be at risk if you fail.

-------------------

In paragraph 2 of Zen Moment 2, the author confuses 2 conflicts.

A) The bland/vanilla feel of having every combat encounter excruciatingly tailored to the party for "balance", vs the Sandbox method (it's fucking out there and will kill you if you're not savvy enough to run).

B) Some flim flam about being an 'impartial GM', not wanting to be bound by 'tournament rules', etc, etc.

While I agree that A) is a good point of discussion, B) runs into the GM-fiat problem, as well as the "expecting humans to act rationally all the time". Personally, I think it's a GOOD THING that the GM is bound by the rules at the table (including agreed-upon house rules), and that these rules are understood by the players at the table.

Without this basic agreement (the GM's monsters/NPCs are bound by the same basic rules structure that we are), players will put up with what basically amounts to 'abuse' with no way to bow out of the game without stirring up drama. At that point, it IS a SociLOLgical experiment worse than the Paranoia(tm) RPG.

[Telarus]

Nothing really to say about Zen Moment 3, as it's basically nostalgia for a certain genre.

Zen Moment 4 is where things get really interesting:

The old-style campaign is with fantasy world, with all its perils, contradictions, and
surprises: it's not a "game setting" which somehow always produces challenges of just
the right difficulty for the party's level of experience.

Half right. It is a "Game Setting" (we're not here to watch the GM act out a play single-handedly, and we have GOALS, we can win or loose). Aside from that quibble, right on. Next:

The party has no "right" only to encounter monsters they can defeat,  TRUE

no "right" only to encounter traps they can disarm,  TRUE

no "right" to invoke a particular rule from the books,  FALSE AS HELL

and no "right" to a die roll in every particular circumstance. TRUE

I fully expect my GM to play by the rules. Sure, you can make up creatures and NPCs that have whatever awesome powers they want, but if I legitimately come up with a way to take it out that's consistent with the rule-set we agreed on, there is no way in hell you're telling me I have no "right" to invoke the rules.

Wouldn't fly in Monopoly, Chess, or Poker, won't fucking fly here.

Which is weird, because he basically spells it out in the next section:

One last point about game balance, though. Just as the players have no right to depend upon a rule in the book, the referee has no right, ever, to tell the player what a character decides to do. That's the player's decision (unless there's a charm spell going). The referee in an old-style game has much more "power" than in a modern game, and may become tempted to dictate what characters are doing as well. If this happens, the whole game becomes nothing more than one guy telling a story while others roll dice.

This DAMNED THING got embedded into the RPG industry early directly because of the Power Imbalance that I pointed out above (and which he touches on with a sense of "Oh, just trust that your GM won't do this"). When the GM grabs that much power over the Narrative, the Players fiercely clutch at any Authority they have left. And it basically ends at their character's skin.

This line "the referee has no right, ever, to tell the player what a character decides to do" reeks of double-think to me. The GM damn right has the right to tell you that you're character is bleeding all over the ground after that Dragon's successful claw-swipe. He don't need your permission. Doesn't matter that the player didn't initiate the action, it's still what your character "is doing" at this moment.

Personally, I want players to feel that they have the ability to "offer" narrative descriptions of things that fall outside the realm of their character/character-sheet. I want them to tell me that the cobbles in this courtyard are uneven and ask if they can use that for a combat advantage. I want the to be able to introduce character, setting elements, and other details without thinking that "they don't have the right to, because their narration rights end at their character's skin".

Sure, I as GM have a final veto as to what goes into the actual story, but I'm not going to intimidate you into _NOT_ offering me those ideas.

Combined this with setting explicit Stakes (see above), and you can totally have situations where a player's Character is doing things that opposed to the player's goals. You can actually have interesting scenes where a player's Character is charmed or under a glamour, because presumably the Player was fully aware of the risks of the situation and agreed to the series of die rolls that got him into the situation in the first place. You can still burn your players out with Charm tactics, tho, so be very careful.

In this case, tho, it's called "De-Protagonism" and feels exactly like how it feel when the punk 13yr old next to you @ the Street Fighter arcade game pulls of a 57 hit combo, and all you can do is watch him juggle your character like a beanbag wile you twiddle with the joystick. "K O"

The problem in the 'old-school' setup as given in Zen Point #4 is that there is no middle ground. If I as a GM even suggest that your character may go insane, or take some action in the game-world that doesn't meet your 100% approval, we jump from "we're playing a game(ish thing)" to "You're fucking Deprotaginized, suck it".

Can you EVEN IMAGINE how frustrated running a game like Vampire the Masquerade when this idea is lodged into the RPG meta-narrative. And at the time, I didn't even know WHY it was so hard to have the Beast side of the Humanity trait manifest in play.

Ok, moving on.......

[Requia ☣]

Should I just get the new core rulebook? Or is there a PHB, DMG, Monster Manual combo to get?

The core rulebook has all the stuff that 99% of the people wanted the DMG for (rules on traps, magic items, etc), and there's a bestiary.

There is a Dungeonmastery guide, and I like it, but its not even close to necessary, contains no real rules.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Should I just get the new core rulebook? Or is there a PHB, DMG, Monster Manual combo to get?

The core rulebook has all the stuff that 99% of the people wanted the DMG for (rules on traps, magic items, etc), and there's a bestiary.

There is a Dungeonmastery guide, and I like it, but its not even close to necessary, contains no real rules.

Contains rules on haunts, and several other useful things.

Jesus, Requia, why the hell do you do this?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I just started a new game for a friend that hasn't played before, currently three players (rolled up last Friday, first story this coming Friday).

1. Elf Ranger
2. Gnome Rogue (the new player)
3. Thri Kreen Monk (the new players BF who hasn't played since college)

The ThriKreen is a +2 ECL, so I started everyone at level 4 (they'll be there for a bit).

So I'm starting them out pretty easy, they're 'adventurers' and for the 'lets playtest your characters' run we did last week they recovered a temple to the god of Peace which had been overrun by thugs. It took them about five rounds, the ThriKreen almost died and the party was at a disadvantage because the Rogue started slinging stones before they even got into the building (there went surprise!). However they survived and took out the 5 Humans (4 level 2 fighters, one level 3 sorcerer). The sorcerer was supposed to be tricky, but the Thrikreen sorta dusted him in one round with two crits in a row using flurry of blows.

At the end of the scene the gnome and elf decided to loot the temple and the Monk decided to go outside and try not to think about it. I told them that they could either 'take a 20' on the search, or roll together with one assisting the other. A 20 or less would have let them find some healing potions. Over 20 meant they would also find the little hidden chest, but I didn't tell them anything. They chose to roll, the Elf assisted the Rogue. The rogue rolled an 18 (plus 5 search), the Elf rolled a 16 (plus 3 search). They found three magic gems that (if they find a good blacksmith) can get their weapons a +1 bump.

I especially enjoyed the debate between the gnome and elf about if they should share their loot with the monk. 

[Don Coyote]

Should I just get the new core rulebook? Or is there a PHB, DMG, Monster Manual combo to get?

The core rulebook has all the stuff that 99% of the people wanted the DMG for (rules on traps, magic items, etc), and there's a bestiary.

There is a Dungeonmastery guide, and I like it, but its not even close to necessary, contains no real rules.

Contains rules on haunts, and several other useful things.

Jesus, Requia, why the hell do you do this?

After having sat down and paged through the PF GMG, I find myself wanting it. Also, Req's opinion seems to match the less positive reviews of the GMG on Amazon.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Should I just get the new core rulebook? Or is there a PHB, DMG, Monster Manual combo to get?

The core rulebook has all the stuff that 99% of the people wanted the DMG for (rules on traps, magic items, etc), and there's a bestiary.

There is a Dungeonmastery guide, and I like it, but its not even close to necessary, contains no real rules.

Contains rules on haunts, and several other useful things.

Jesus, Requia, why the hell do you do this?

After having sat down and paged through the PF GMG, I find myself wanting it. Also, Req's opinion seems to match the less positive reviews of the GMG on Amazon.

The Advanced Players guide is a better book, usefulness-wise...But the GMG has some really cool shit in it.  I will add this caveat:  Much of the book is text on how to be a GM.  But the rules ARE still there.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Working on a new campaign.

Very Thieves' World-esque.  Players are humans only, most bad guys are human, and when you set up your character, you get peasants garb, one or two class-specific items and 5d6 gold.  That's it.

Items are:

Barbarian, fighter, ranger, paladin:  One standard weapon worth less than 50GP.
Paladin:  One standard weapon worth less than 50GP and a holy symbol
Rogue:  Thieves tools.
bard:  musical instrument OR one standard weapon worth less than 35 GP
Cleric:  Diety's favored weapon and a holy symbol.
Druid:  One standard weapon worth less than 35 GP
Wizard:  arcane bonded item and spellbook. 
Sorcerer:  One standard weapon worth less than 35 GP
Magus:  One stardard weapon worth less than 35 GP, spellbook
Monk:  You get NOTHING.  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!  5d6 GP and move the hell out.

Of course, the bad guys in town are in a similar state.  It's in a desert city, so armor is a drawback anyway.  The prince's elite guard has full plate & gear, and rings of endure elements.  Don't fuck with them.

[Telarus]

The prince's elite guard has full plate & gear, and rings of endure elements.  Don't fuck with them.

Muahahahaha.

I loved the Theives' World books. I always include an inn named "The Vulgar Unicorn" in my games.

[Triple Zero]

Great thread!

the "various events can happen during combat" (and other situations) reminds me a bit of how I used to run one-evening campaigns of Kobolds Ate My Baby!. Except instead of making stuff up on the spot, I had created a load of short tables of events and situations and random items or NPC/monsters. Just like the tables in the rulebook (which is very short and very crappy and unstructured, despite its shortness), they basically have six possible outcomes (the d6 is the only dice in the game), usually "1" being something beneficial, "6" being something bad, and the rest in between (sometimes 3 or 4 mean "nothing happens").

make enough of those random events and stuff in various locations and you quickly get a crapload of cool material for one evening's play.

and you don't even have to make stuff up on the spot. this one river they had to cross to get to the village (each character always starts out in the kobold cave and needs to go and find babies to eat in the village), I had made up slightly too much bad things to happen (one would kill them, but 3 options made you lose your turn in some way or another), it quickly became known as the "river of doom" but it was no matter because a new character is quickly made during the other players' turns.