(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:54 pm
Post subject: Matt Finch's old-school primer Archived from groups: rec>games>frp>dnd (more info?)
Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as to
the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR OLD-SCHOOL
GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not ask this as a
challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's reactions to its
principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree with it? Do you use
its ideas in your own games? What objections do you have? For what
reasons are you games different?
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
On Sep 1, 11:54 am, David Trimboli wrote:
> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as to
> the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR OLD-SCHOOL
> GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not ask this as a
> challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's reactions to its
> principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree with it? Do you use
> its ideas in your own games? What objections do you have? For what
> reasons are you games different?
>
First thought - it's extremely poorly written, and the author seems
awfully full of himself, and assuming he's doing something ground-
breaking
"your most basic assumptions about gaming probably need to be
reversed"
"they sound completely and impossibly wrong to the modern gamer’s ear"
"accept the mirror-image logic of this approach"
"Playing an old-style game is very different from modern games"
No, not really.
Second, his examples are almost exclusively strawmen
"GM ... is restricted by rules and required to offer up well-gauged,
well-balanced challenges."
"the game doesn’t collapse if someone makes a little mistake"
"players need to lose the idea that their characters are in a level-
appropriate, tournament-like environment"
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
David Trimboli wrote:
> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as to
> the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR OLD-SCHOOL
> GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not ask this as a
> challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's reactions to its
> principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree with it? Do you use
> its ideas in your own games? What objections do you have? For what
> reasons are you games different?
>
I've read a number of 'old school' games based on the SRD/OGL. They did
indeed capture the feel of 1E D&D and games of that era. Which showed me
why I don't play those games any longer. I mean, I still own them *all*.
I literally have 60+ feet of shelf space dedicated to role-playing books
and boxed sets (remember those?). First editions of many of the classic
games. And I don't play any of them.
I want my rules system to handle everything that the world needs to
run. I want to direct, write, create the setting and its adventures. I
don't want to be adjudicating rules calls every ten minutes. Not to
mention consistency. If the rules are thoroughly written, I don't need
to worry about making the same judgment the same way twice. The rules
handle the heavy lifting for me. There are enough situations that aren't
covered even by the best set of rules that my adjudicating 'muscles'
will get a work out.
So for me, the 'old school' movement is something that holds no
interest. I do read Grognardia, an old school blog. It's nice to wander
down memory lane occasionally. There are still great ideas in those old
games. But I want a modern set of rules to run them. And my rules set of
choice is 3.5/Pathfinder.
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
In article ,
David Trimboli wrote:
> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as to
> the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR OLD-SCHOOL
> GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not ask this as a
> challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's reactions to its
> principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree with it? Do you use
> its ideas in your own games? What objections do you have? For what
> reasons are you games different?
Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or less
the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover the
(re)invention of Rule 0.
Baird
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Baird Stafford wrote:
> David Trimboli wrote:
>
>> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as to
>> the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR OLD-SCHOOL
>> GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not ask this as a
>> challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's reactions to its
>> principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree with it? Do you use
>> its ideas in your own games? What objections do you have? For what
>> reasons are you games different?
>
> Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or less
> the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover the
> (re)invention of Rule 0.
"Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to add,
change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
David Trimboli wrote:
> Baird Stafford wrote:
>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>
>>> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as to
>>> the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR OLD-SCHOOL
>>> GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not ask this as a
>>> challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's reactions to its
>>> principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree with it? Do you use
>>> its ideas in your own games? What objections do you have? For what
>>> reasons are you games different?
>>
>> Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or less
>> the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover the
>> (re)invention of Rule 0.
>
> "Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to add,
> change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
David Trimboli wrote:
> Baird Stafford wrote:
>
>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>
>>> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as to
>>> the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR OLD-SCHOOL
>>> GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not ask this as a
>>> challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's reactions to its
>>> principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree with it? Do you use
>>> its ideas in your own games? What objections do you have? For what
>>> reasons are you games different?
>>
>>
>> Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or less
>> the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover the
>> (re)invention of Rule 0.
>
>
> "Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to add,
> change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
>
Even if you hate 'Rule 0', even if you never, *ever* use it, if you are
still the GM, it is *always* in effect. Forever. You are GOD.
(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Tetsubo wrote:
> David Trimboli wrote:
>
>> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>
>>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as
>>>> to the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR
>>>> OLD-SCHOOL GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not
>>>> ask this as a challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's
>>>> reactions to its principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree
>>>> with it? Do you use its ideas in your own games? What objections do
>>>> you have? For what reasons are you games different?
>>>
>>> Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or
>>> less the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover
>>> the (re)invention of Rule 0.
>>
>> "Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to add,
>> change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
>
> Even if you hate 'Rule 0', even if you never, *ever* use it, if you
> are still the GM, it is *always* in effect. Forever. You are GOD.
So, since I cannot remove Rule 0, it is untrue? God is not all-powerful?
(My point about Rule 0 was stated rhetorically, not actually seeking an
answer.)
(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
David Trimboli wrote:
> Tetsubo wrote:
>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>
>>> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as
>>>>> to the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR
>>>>> OLD-SCHOOL GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not
>>>>> ask this as a challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's
>>>>> reactions to its principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree
>>>>> with it? Do you use its ideas in your own games? What objections do
>>>>> you have? For what reasons are you games different?
>>>>
>>>> Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or
>>>> less the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover
>>>> the (re)invention of Rule 0.
>>>
>>> "Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to add,
>>> change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
>>
>> Even if you hate 'Rule 0', even if you never, *ever* use it, if
>> you are still the GM, it is *always* in effect. Forever. You are GOD.
>
> So, since I cannot remove Rule 0, it is untrue? God is not all-powerful? >
> (My point about Rule 0 was stated rhetorically, not actually seeking an
> answer.)
>
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> David Trimboli wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as
>>>>>> to the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR
>>>>>> OLD-SCHOOL GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not
>>>>>> ask this as a challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's
>>>>>> reactions to its principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree
>>>>>> with it? Do you use its ideas in your own games? What objections
>>>>>> do you have? For what reasons are you games different?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or
>>>>> less the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover
>>>>> the (re)invention of Rule 0.
>>>>
>>>> "Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to
>>>> add, change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
>>>
>>> Even if you hate 'Rule 0', even if you never, *ever* use it, if
>>> you are still the GM, it is *always* in effect. Forever. You are GOD.
>>
>> So, since I cannot remove Rule 0, it is untrue? God is not
>> all-powerful? >>
>> (My point about Rule 0 was stated rhetorically, not actually seeking
>
> Can God float a loan that even He can't repay?
There's bound to be some sort of accounting trick...
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> David Trimboli wrote:
>
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Trimboli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the strong third-edition bent of this group, I am curious as
>>>>>> to the general opinion on Matthew Finch's A QUICK GUIDE FOR
>>>>>> OLD-SCHOOL GAMING <http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374>. I do not
>>>>>> ask this as a challenge; I am genuinely interested in rgfd's
>>>>>> reactions to its principles. Do you find it relevant? Do you agree
>>>>>> with it? Do you use its ideas in your own games? What objections
>>>>>> do you have? For what reasons are you games different?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that is basically the way I learned to DM, I follow more or
>>>>> less the same pattern. It's one reason I was so happy to discover
>>>>> the (re)invention of Rule 0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to
>>>> add, change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
>>>
>>>
>>> Even if you hate 'Rule 0', even if you never, *ever* use it, if
>>> you are still the GM, it is *always* in effect. Forever. You are GOD.
>>
>>
>> So, since I cannot remove Rule 0, it is untrue? God is not
>> all-powerful? >>
>> (My point about Rule 0 was stated rhetorically, not actually seeking
>> an answer.)
>>
>
> Can God float a loan that even He can't repay?
>
I think you have to pray to Saint Reagan for an answer to that
question. I hear his Church of Supply Side Economics is doing poorly at
the moment however.
(Msg. 12) Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Matt Finch's old-school primer [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
On Sep 1, 12:06 pm, David Trimboli wrote:
>
> "Rule 0" always bugged me. If this rule grants me the ability to add,
> change, or delete any rule, what happens when I delete Rule 0?
>
[2E] Liches and spells - In 2nd Edition, is a lich's spellcasting ability inate? I mean, if a lich is struck by a weapon while it is preparing to cast a spell, does the spell fizzle? Kurt.
Level online - If you want to level up but don't want to grind it out. http://zmonsterx.mybrute.com/
3.5 revision: "schticks" for other fighting classes - Another in my series about house rules improving fighter-like classes. Before making changes I'm trying to focus on a core "schtick" or "theme" for each class. For pure fighters it was fighting ability, combat options, and getting...
scry/buff/teleport query - I've not played at high enough levels for this, but I've heard that some people think it's an "exploit" to be able to scry an enemy's lair, buff with all the right spells, then teleport in and dominate. I'd be willing to see people's opinio...
Solid Shadow - Many incorporeal beings can fly (Ghosts, Shadows, etc.). Though I don't believe it specifically says so, I get the feeling that the ability of many of these creatures to fly depends upon their weightless, incorporeal state. If an incorporeal being..
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Log in
