Today, I'm wrapping up 2021 by starting my series of posts discussing the points Prince of Nothing brought up on his blog regarding the value/benefit of old school D&D play compared to both newer forms of play and the artpunk movement. And of course, we need to start with his initial statement of why all this even matters:
0. The resurgence and longevity of the oldschool playstyle is no mere happenstance but an indication that there is something fundamental to its merits which modern TTRPGs largely fail to capture.
On its surface, there seems nothing to argue or quibble over. It's an opinion. But, it's worded as a fact, so let's take a deeper look at it and what it means. Or at least my interpretation of it. Feel free to disagree!
Have people continued to play older versions of D&D all the past nearly 50 years? Yes. That's a fact. It can't be denied. And I'm talking about people who started with the old woodgrain box sets of OD&D and still prefer that edition. Sure, they have probably tried other editions of D&D. Probably other RPGs. But they keep returning to OD&D. The same with 1E AD&D and the various box sets of Classic D&D.
I'm one of the people who tried lots of stuff, still plays other games/versions, but prefers older D&D to newer. And IMO, yes, there's just something to the older editions that resonates with me more than the newer ones. The first question is, what is it?
Personally, I think it's something I've actually seen quite a few people mentioning lately. Old school D&D is focused on treasure. Gold = XP. It's not classes and levels. Not Vancian magi. Not the tropes. For sure not alignment. Gold = XP. That's it.
Gold = XP provides the impetus for GAME PLAY. I was just talking to my son last night about various RPGs. One member of our group wants to run another Black Hack family game this weekend. But in those games, we get leveled up after every X game sessions. Doesn't matter if we're sitting around town chatting with NPCs for 3 hours, or risking our lives in some gods-forsaken hellhole fighting monsters. We'll level up after X number of sessions. So why are we mucking around risking death? We should be sitting around playing cards with Dieter the Town Gambler all session, or hitting on the barmaids/stable boys, or wandering around town just seeing what's there. Do that for enough sessions to level up. THEN maybe go fight some monsters. And just why are we fighting the monsters anyway? Because like Mt. Everest, they're there? There isn't even XP for killing them like there is in 5E!
XP for treasure gives us a reason to go adventuring. It's a goal everyone shares. And it drives play. THAT is the "something fundamental to its merits" that Prince of Nothing is talking about. Game play always has a default motive for when nothing else is motivating play.
But there's a second question we need to ask. If that quality is so fundamental to old school play, and other games/editions fail to include it, why have the vast majority of gamers moved on to newer editions of D&D and/or other RPGs entirely?
Well, the answer to that is quite simple. Gold = XP is definitely a merit of old school play. Having a default motive to fall back on is nice. But it's not the only motive of play, and isn't a universal motivator. And for some people, the motive to play is to EXPERIENCE. They want to get into the head of their PC (especially if that PC is very different from themselves). They want to explore strange landscapes and social situations. They want to be taken out of the everyday. That is what the artpunk movement is targeting. I think it's also a big draw of a lot of the indie/storygames crowd. And also a big appeal of games like 5E and Pathfinder, where the number of fantasy races allowed keeps growing and growing and human PCs become the oddity rather than the norm.
And I'm not saying these are the only two motives of play. I'm sure there are many more. But since Prince posted his list of axioms as a response to the popularity (or at least high sales volume and critical acclaim) of artpunk products in the OSR, that's the only other one I think we need to discuss right now.
So on this statement of intent, I agree with the opinion being shared, but don't think it is quite as concrete as Prince's wording makes it seem. At least as I read it, there is an unstated "And this is why old school D&D is better."
I'm happier with my boiled down version:
0. Older D&D has merit as a game.
It's stating the opinion in a way that people can, and will, still disagree with, but it's not implying something lesser about other games or newer editions that don't share the same merits.
I hope you will permit my ongoing commentary.
ReplyDeleteThere is something interesting in your contrast between Gold for XP, which is important but only a fragment of what I was aiming at, and the desire to EXPERIENCE for these new games, because I think it is accurate. The desire for experience is transitory, it is the desire for novelty, it requires endless new vistas. But it is by its nature ephemereal.
There is nothing wrong with stating that one considers sandbox, challlenge, open-ended gameplay and ad hoc creativity to be a superior form of pasttime to railroads or character building-games that rely mostly on combat.
If things are to be exceptional, others must neccessarily be sub-standard. Don't paralyze yourself by falling into the 'everything has equal merit' position. Discover what you like and sing its praises.
Prince - I hope you keep commenting! My ideas won't evolve or improve without challenge. Hopefully this goes without saying, but all my criticisms against what you posted are in no way personal. I tend to agree with most of what you said, but find it useful to look for outside perspectives. Today, it was trying to think of what value the artpunk products have to people as game artifacts, not just as interesting works of creativity. And I found it fruitful.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, don't worry about that, I certainly dish it out so I should be able to take some mild criticism in stride.
DeleteArtpunk that is good or has meritorious elements would be Gardens of Ynn, DCO, maaaybe Veins of the Earth. You can also consider proto- or Artpunk-adjacent works like Carcosa or Yoon-Suin.
I've been playing D&D since at least Holmes basic set (I played one game before that, at my dad's friend's house, which I think was actually OD&D). I played AD&D 1e, 3.5, and 5th. Among dozens of other non-D&d games.
ReplyDeleteIn my anecdotal experience, the draw of "Classic D&D" (or OSR) is the COOPERATIVE game play required to 'win'. EVERYONE wins when gp = xp. It forces everyone to work together for a common goal.
Modern D&D (since at least 3.5) is more of an 'introverted' game style. Everyone is too busy looking at their character sheet and planning their 'build' for their next awesome level up. It is less a 'group effort' game, and more of a 'parallel play' game.
That's just my 2 coppers.
I like that take, Thror. I have played very cooperative 3E and 5E games, but yeah, the systems don't demand it, and like you say reward the solo time spent working on "the build."
DeleteI like your version.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your working definition of artpunk?
ReplyDeleteSince I'm riffing on Prince's list of what makes for good non-artpunk, here's as close to a definition as I could find on his blog after a 10 minute search:
Delete"Too many OSR adventures are coming out that focus on layout, artstyle, or off-the-wall ideas. Surface level pyrotechnics. No staying power or depth. Not enough adventures focus on content, craftsmanship, good maps, player agency and emergent gameplay."
So like Mork Borg, Electric Bastionland, Dolmenwood, Troika, Ultraviolet Grasslands sorta stuff?
DeleteYes
DeleteWhile I appreciate that you and others value the Gold=XP method, I don't see how that has anything to do with the appeal of traditional D&D and kin.
ReplyDeleteAs a mechanic, there is nothing stopping anyone from implementing Gold=XP in any version of the game. Likewise, even in the 1970's folks introduced means of gaining xp that minimized or eliminated gold and even other forms of treasure.
I think the broader appeal of OD&D, Classic D&D, and to some extent even AD&D, was the more freeform nature of the rules, the lack of the immersion-destroying action economy, the lack of a need to constantly consult a multi-page character sheet, the fast paced combat, and the sense of character agency lacking in later games with more structured rules, structured campaigns, and optimization homogenization. Etc.
You could well be right that it's more complex (or rather that the game is less complex!) than simply GP=XP. But while each of those things are true of old school D&D vs new school D&D, there are a lot of newer rules lite games that also fit that bill, but still also don't feel the same as D&D.
DeleteThanks for the reply. This is good fodder to think about as I ponder the rest of the list of axioms.
DHBoggs,
DeleteIf I removed tactical play from my campaign, my players would instantly feel their immersion destroyed. There'd be nothing concrete in their actions, and thus no concrete solution to the concrete troubles they're withstanding. Remove the "action economy" and you have fluff. Ploof.
Every successful game has a rigorous, complex action economy; I don't see that it causes chess or bridge to be less immersive, despite the presence of detailed "builds" and complex rituals involved in those games. And as far as "consulting" a multi-page character sheet, these things are built by players as crafted, artistic objects of love and beauty. They love the richness of every page built over the course of a campaign, like the hundreds of cherished objects in one of our homes.
For myself, I couldn't care less what the "broader" appeal is. I only care what appeals to my players and me.
While I appreciate that you and others value the Gold=XP method, I don't see how that has anything to do with the appeal of traditional D&D and kin.“
ReplyDeleteI think maybe in junior high school or something players were heavily motivated to get their XP from gold. But I stopped making it so important decades ago. as time marched on the years my players tended to be more role-playing oriented and seem to be just as interested in their characters having various life experiences besides just the wealth though that was always important too.
thinking about XP for gold really takes me back and makes me think of those early games. But like a lot of old-school stuff I think that’s just what it is - a certain nostalgia. it doesn’t all have to be intact in your games for you to still be doing an old-school game.
I actually agree with you that GP=XP isn't the only appeal of the older editions, but it is definitely something that was part of the original game that many people have dropped or moved away from over the years.
DeleteMy point here is not to devalue any other way of playing RPGs, just to restate that there's nothing wrong with, and in fact a lot of fun to be had, with the original treasure-hunting focus of the game.
I inject a lot of old school concepts into my 5th ed games these days, not that the 30 somethings care much. When i first moved to my current town and sat down as a player to learn 5th i would talk about early edition and got a lot of “that was then this is now, pops”. All i could say was “pops? I don’t even have gray hair yet” 😆
ReplyDeleteSo I started by playing 3rd ed and eventually found my way to OSR and related games, and one of the things that drew me (aside from generally much more stripped-down rulesets) was GP=XP, because the incentive structure made more sense in all the ways you point out.
ReplyDeleteI've settled on The Black Hack 2e as the main system I like to run and it's because it makes the incentive to adventure even more explicit. I think you've mischaracterized it in this post, especially where you say "we get leveled up after every X game sessions" and it doesn't matter what you're doing.
The actual rules of the Black Hack are this:
a) you gain experience when you do "enough things that will change [you] as a person". it gives several specific examples, such as defeating a powerful named enemy, exploring a deeper level of a dungeon, completing a quest, etc.
b) you level up by recounting a number of these experiences while carousing, spending gold for each experience recounted.
In my opinion, that makes it very clear that experience is awarded for actually going out and adventuring, and it also still requires gold to gain a level (so you actually have to have something to show for all your adventuring).
The structure is not too different, basically it just adds in a kind of milestone system and divides the numbers involved in GP=XP by 500 or so. I think it's quite elegant and just abstracts what's happening under the hood!
Thanks for the clarification, Rob. My buddy is apparently not running Black Hack systems as written then. I don't have the rulebook, just his house rule document for his setting.
DeleteI stand corrected.