Q&A with Rob Kuntz

[MajorKookie]

Yes, when anything that would be bonus or beyond monster kills/gp value was added, we explained the particulars in every case (making notations for the end of the session regarding such). We would also give bonus experience on the spot: GREAT IDEA! Give yourself 500 bonus exp, etc. So that added another dimension, as well, as can be noted.

[ScottyG]

I can attest to that, having recieved an ad hoc xp bonus from Rob for a well timed augury.

[rossik]

Yes, when anything that would be bonus or beyond monster kills/gp value was added, we explained the particulars in every case (making notations for the end of the session regarding such). We would also give bonus experience on the spot: GREAT IDEA! Give yourself 500 bonus exp, etc. So that added another dimension, as well, as can be noted.

so, rob, for 1ed, do you had some pre made XP chart for ideas?
i mean, something like "100xp for a good idea, 200 xp for a brilliant idea, " and such?

[MajorKookie]

No, not at all. It was purely arbitrary (and still is). It would depend upon a weight of factors: difficulty level, player level, and other factors, as in what we had rewarded in other such situations as a basis for determining same. Most folks do not understand that EGG and I factored things in our heads constantly, and I do mean constantly. This lead over time to a subsumed and intuitive way of (i)managing things expeditiously without need to consult tables and charts, though these were always handy for reference or for deriving information from, as well. This allowed for a more elastic approach, with less conformity to standards and thus more impetus placed upon creative play. For some reason some people tend to excel if they know that there is something beyond the norm being (possibly) offered. We were tough, but fairly put, if people showed exceptional play, they were rewarded in kind.

[genghisdon]

I have a hard time understanding how people don't end up DMing that way after a time. Still, it makes me happy to think I "got it" as was intended & practiced. Not that everyone act or rule the same, but that firm & fair is the way to go. Add creativity, not subtract, ect, ect.

[winemaker81]

I have a hard time understanding how people don't end up DMing that way after a time. Still, it makes me happy to think I "got it" as was intended & practiced. Not that everyone act or rule the same, but that firm & fair is the way to go. Add creativity, not subtract, ect, ect.

It's the difference between Monopoly and Calvinball. One is a fixed situation that has specific rules that are known by everyone, while the other is a constantly varying environment where rules are made up on the spot. Granted, D&D isn't typically DM'd by a 6yo, but the idea is the same.

I'll hazard the guess that the vast majority of the DMs start out adhering to the "rules", playing Monopoly, since we don't know what else to do. With practice (and with years of reading articles in Dragon Magazine) I got with the ideas that Rob is talking about and learned to wing it, dealing with novel situations (which happen more and more frequently as campaigns go on) as I see fit.

My 11yo has tried DM'ing a couple of times. During the first session I asked a question and he replied, "I don't know". I told him that wasn't allowed -- he's the DM, he *always* knows. The look on his face was precious! He asked how does he know, and I told him to make something up. Definite deer-in-the-headlights look.

For a lot of DMs, especially new ones, that lack of knowledge and experience is key. My son lacked the confidence and knowledge to just wing it, but he had me to guide him. I suspect that some never gain that level of self-confidence as DM to make things up on the spot and feel comfortable that they did ok. And to feeling comfortable making a different decision today than they did in a similar situation yesterday, but having a reason for the difference and being able to explain to the players. This isn't easy to learn.

OTOH, others may feel it's right to stick with the rules, or to have a written rule for common situations.

I've been fortunate to have had good players who didn't argue my every decision. That certainly makes a difference in DMing style. Not that any style is wrong -- as Gary taught us, each of us is the master of our own game.

[MajorKookie]

Lots of very good points, and a a great story about your son DMing, as well.

My fiance plays D&D and has said this which was not in relation to the game, per se, but a useful thought none-the-less:

"There is nothing at the end of twiddle twisting winding paths and the arduous roads... it is upon the Journey to Ithaca that all is revealed."

Experience starts now and has no end. Many of the LG players would not have been confident in their DMing approaches if EGG and myself had not been so with ours. We guided by example, but guide we did, just as the best teachers do, and as parents do for their children .

Your point about rules is a solid one. We have exhortations in the prefaces and introductory material to "wing it" "take charge" and so forth, but are then left with a mass of rules following on that slim path and moreso burgeoning outward, filling our sight and thus our perceived needs.

I really believe that an essay for beginners on this very subject would be appropriate. Though nuggets appear here or there, sprinkled in books, over forums, and who knows where else, a codification of these experiences in play would be welcomed by many, especially those who as you said, WM, have that "Definite deer-in-the-headlights look" in their eyes.

[Solomoriah]

I really believe that an essay for beginners on this very subject would be appropriate. Though nuggets appear here or there, sprinkled in books, over forums, and who knows where else, a codification of these experiences in play would be welcomed by many, especially those who as you said, WM, have that "Definite deer-in-the-headlights look" in their eyes.

I second that motion. I've been thinking that exact thing for several days now... we who create and support the "simulacrum" games are seeing more and more defectors from "modern" game systems, and while they appreciate the lighter, looser rules in our old-school systems, they are often clueless as to how to use them properly. An article about old-school gaming, both from the GM's and the player's perspective, would be a WONDERFUL thing.

Useful to us all, I'd wager, whether we consider ourselves fans of the old games or their more recent clones.

[Stormcrow]

a codification of these experiences in play would be welcomed by many

Codification of how to make stuff up?

[MajorKookie]

Actually, codification of experiences in play--lessons from the learned, so to speak, with side notes on how to play these out, or instances of how they were played out.

Not too difficult from my perspective for the side commentary. It would be a group effort with people contributing their takes from game sessions. If they'd like, I'd compile them for a pdf release, here or elsewhere. Could be a very neat project, and one needed for newcomers to undersrand the base at which the game can expand upon.

[genghisdon]

The beginner's manual sounds to be a worthy project, but I think at least some of the confidence & skills come through experiance, for which little substitute can be had. I heard about your son's DMing foray in another thread Winemaker, I am sure he will develop just fine! The "monopoly style" to start isn't a problem to my mind at all, it would only be a problem if maintained indefinitely. I can't recall if his friends were playing or not, but hopefully he can spur a new generation on, with your guidance of course.

[MajorKookie]

I'd love to compile this and make commentary or other useful asides, Could be lots of fun and definitely worthy. Yes hands-on experience can't be replaced, but it can be passed along for what it's worth, especially through topical examples.

[genghisdon]

Oh, for sure Rob, I just think the "intermediate" DM's will get maximum benefit. It does take a while just to get the basics/rules down. Maybe a chapter or 2 for the true newbie would be good. It's only my opinion anyway, I'd say you know better than I what new/intermediate DM's need to know. If I DO get a say, put a chapter or 2 for the old dogs too! We can learn new tricks on occassion!

[MajorKookie]

Yeah. I tend to get more inspired seeing people inspired. Maybe it's my age.

Funny, the more I read in depth these days the less I'm inspired; and the more I skim, my creative particles seem to rise in waves.
Thus shorter pieces are of particular appeal, as essays, well written blog entries, poems, fragments, etc.

Someone should organize a committee to oversee this if it is to be seriously considered, and let the examples/stories start flowing. I will compile, edit and add commentary. I have acrobat and can then PDF the final and let DF folks worry about layout and art, if that is of consequence.

I do have a title in mind for it already.

RJK

[genghisdon]

Sounds like a plan. As for old, I thought you were considerably younger than Mr Gygax & Mr Arneson. My condolances regarding Dave, it is sad that so few of you origonal gamers are left today.
Should we start a thread here at DF or at Pied Piper to collect the stories? Would you like to start it?

[MajorKookie]

Yes I am the youngest of the trio. Condolences? My information as of 5 hours ago was that David still lives, though there were erroneous rumors circulating earlier yesterday of his passing, which were quashed by his family. He's a tough Swede.

Rather than cast off to PPP's site, this forum here would do well, as this is where it started, anyway.

First things first, the need to address the matter in another topic, I guess. Then point towards this forum as it's a Sticky and will not move downwards as we rise/fall with the inputs. Naturally this is one of those things that will organize itself as it gains momentum.

[Solomoriah]

It's a natural for the Workshop, actually, since we plan to compile a work for publication. What shall we call it?

I've been leaning toward "Essential Old-School" or perhaps "Old School Gaming Primer" myself.

[MajorKookie]

Quite honestly my philosophy here is going to raise its sometimes ugly head.

I for one do not attach myself to the phrase, "Old School." I've considered its meaning in light of the way we designed and play-tested the game and cannot reconcile with a term which in fact was created by NEW SCHOOL (in fact, they created both phrases originally) gamers in 2000-2001 to indicate a deragatory separation from past design and thinking. By accepting the parlance, one meets them on that ground and accepts a division in conceptual boundaries as imposed by them. However, as they were flawed--there is no boundary--then the philosophy, and its terms, must be rejected. In so doing I will avoid the terminology in association with me and my own products, at least.

As the original game concepts--using your imagination, creating on the fly, taking charge, winging it--have for the most part in all or some of those concepts just listed--been present throughout the game's history and editions, this strikes me as a start to understanding an all encompassing approach to the project and its titling. This wasn't about EDITIONS when we started, this was about form. The form transcends even in part to 4E. The idea of the work and its titling should then be consistent with the move back to the past and thus by extenuation as it started to begin with, into the future.

RJK

[rossik]

It's a natural for the Workshop, actually, since we plan to compile a work for publication. What shall we call it?

I've been leaning toward "Essential Old-School" or perhaps "Old School Gaming Primer" myself.

friend, you can read a very good text about old vs new school here:
http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[winemaker81]

Oh, for sure Rob, I just think the "intermediate" DM's will get maximum benefit. It does take a while just to get the basics/rules down. Maybe a chapter or 2 for the true newbie would be good. It's only my opinion anyway, I'd say you know better than I what new/intermediate DM's need to know. If I DO get a say, put a chapter or 2 for the old dogs too! We can learn new tricks on occassion!

This is a great idea and I'm willing to contribute.

I see this project as game independent -- doesn't matter what game the DM is playing. IMO it's not really about rules, it's about running a game -- any game. While the examples will probably be D&D the document should work fine for someone playing Gamma World. Here's my thoughts as to content:

Primary message -- it's not only ok to wing it, it's a good thing. For RPGs NO ruleset will ever be complete enough to cover every situation. Getting that message to new DMs is critical to help them develop the confidence to make things up on the spot. At the same time, it's also ok to follow the rules are far as they go -- it's DM's choice. Starting with the Afterword from the DMG may be a good thing.

Secondary message -- don't be afraid to make mistakes. Mistakes will happen. Example of mistakes by DMs will be good -- and offer a (hopefully) humorous note to this section. Also how to recover from mistakes, e.g., when I kill a character through my mistake rather than player mistake (or just accident) I do NOT "re-do it". But I do offer Raise Dead/Resurrection with 100% change of success and no reduction of Constitution. But it probably doesn't happen for free and the party will end up paying, probably through service, to the cleric or entity that does the raise/resurrection. I rectify my mistake AND use it as a hook for the next adventure or three.

Another section should be live examples of typical situations. It's great to tell a new DM to wing it, but the typical response is, "ok, but whutinthuheckdoido???" This will certainly benefit newbie and mid-level DMs, and from reading DF so many of us experienced DMs post things to get feedback.

Live examples make it more interesting to read, and make it more real. Multiple examples of the same thing will make it clear that there is no absolute rule, it's all situation dependent. Also the idea that a decision made today may be different from a similar decision made last month is ok. We learn from what we do, making better rulings because of experience.

We need to make it clear that we're NOT offering new rules ... just guidelines and ideas for DMs to make their own rulings.

</soapbox>

[Solomoriah]

I for one do not attach myself to the phrase, "Old School." I've considered its meaning in light of the way we designed and play-tested the game and cannot reconcile with a term which in fact was created by NEW SCHOOL (in fact, they created both phrases originally) gamers in 2000-2001 to indicate a deragatory separation from past design and thinking. By accepting the parlance, one meets them on that ground and accepts a division in conceptual boundaries as imposed by them.

Curious. I see, in the larger world outside of RPG games, the term "old school" referring to a more direct approach to things, with less wishy-washiness than "new school." Much less unmanaged angst and more aggression. As far as the term being "coined" circa 2000-2001, well, I was blissfully unaware of that. So far as I knew, WE had created the term; but if we co-opted it, so what?

It's like "redneck." I'm a redneck. Oh, sure, there are many with necks redder than mine, but I count myself a redneck anyway. But to some people, redneck is a bad thing. What's up with that?

However, as they were flawed--there is no boundary--then the philosophy, and its terms, must be rejected.

There is no boundary between the air we breathe down here on Earth and the airless vacuum of space; the air simply gets thinner and thinner as we go up. But yet, scientists often talk about the different layers of the atmosphere. The fact that there is no solid black-and-white demarcation between the old and new schools does not mean they don't have distinct characteristics, indeed entirely different atmospheres.

As the original game concepts--using your imagination, creating on the fly, taking charge, winging it--have for the most part in all or some of those concepts just listed--been present throughout the game's history and editions, this strikes me as a start to understanding an all encompassing approach to the project and its titling. This wasn't about EDITIONS when we started, this was about form. The form transcends even in part to 4E. The idea of the work and its titling should then be consistent with the move back to the past and thus by extenuation as it started to begin with, into the future.

Something has been lost. Something significant. Let me point you at a post on my forums at basicfantasy.org:

http://basicfantasy.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=71" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know him personally, but it appears to me that Stan didn't live through the "old school" era personally. (And Stan, if you read this, I'm not picking on you... rather, you are an example of why I think we need this article we're discussing.) "Modern" games treat the GM as a sort of a computing device... the GM interprets the adventure (generally written by someone else, because writing adventures for the modern games is hard, though I'll admit I don't know if that remains true in 4E) rather literally, and the rules define more or less exactly what the players can do, how they do it, and what happens when they succeed or fail. Little leeway is left for the GM. The rules, by their detail and exactitude, lead the players to believe they can argue what rulings there are with the GM. Rules lawyering is encouraged when everyone believes the rules are "complete."

So when I saw Stan write this:

As this isn't defined (is it?), it sometimes becomes contentious.

His players, being experienced at "modern" games, were willing to become contentious with him over his rulings in such a simple matter as who rolls the dice in secret door and trap checks. This is one thing I feel we need to explain to these fellows.

I replied:

Players must understand that the GM's rulings are always right. It is critical, of course, that the GM try to always BE right, so as to inspire confidence in his or her rulings. But ultimately, if the players cannot accept the GM's rulings with little or no argument, they shouldn't be playing the game.

After I wrote it, I realized that I had never seen that balancing act described before. The players must allow that the GM is always right; but the GM must accept the challenge to actually BE right, and therefore must accept that he ISN'T always right. We all know it, but we need to make them know it also.

friend, you can read a very good text about old vs new school here:
http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dang, what a long winded post.

When I got done reading it, I wasn't sure what sort of point he had made. I like to make my points much more succinctly.


So to both (or all) of you: If we don't say "old school," what DO we say?

[Solomoriah]

Having posted that, and re-read it, I realized I didn't make something clear:

The difference between the old and new schools can be summed up in one thing. Old-school players know that the GM's rulings can and will supercede the rules. New-school players believe that they can tell the GM he's wrong if the rules disagree with him.

They even, often, tell the GM that he was wrong because he sent them up against monsters that were "too powerful" for them. Pshaw. I've had first level characters come face-to-face with adult red dragons. And live. Even win, once (unlucky saving throw for the dragon). Mostly, though, they cower and offer to pay off the dragon not to roast them. "New-school players" expect that they have a better than average chance to win any fight they go into, because they believe the GM is required to present only that sort of encounter.

Perhaps, even before the "schools" came about, there were always "new-school players." But not in my games.

[MajorKookie]

I do understand the principles you forward (how could I not?), but gently reject the imposed boundary.

1st: We have a game in 1972 which does not have limits.
2nd: The game is remade (3rd edition) in 1999? imposing limits/breaking from that design philosophy.
3rd: The "Original" philosophy is thus defended for it's worth.
4th: In order to justify the movement of rules lawyers and rules mongers to support this version and thus the "new"
design philosophies, nomenclature is forwarded to "identify" OLD SCHOOLERS (a given name which if I had been on the scene then would have rejected even as I do now). The connotations of that term were disparaging (set in ways as opposed to "open in form" as the 3rd-editioners (ironically) promoted their own "closed" platform).
5th: Rather than realizing what this actually was, instead, the name is adopted (as was all of it's connotative embellishments)
6th: Rather than exposing the truth of the matter, that there was no Old or no New (only a selfish departure by 3rd edition from the Original), folks instead buy into the imposed division and there generates camps.
7th: The camps reject each other rather than working from the base concept of sameness promoted in the Original rules set
8th: The reason that many are "drifting back" to the original concept is not because one camp was named OS and one NS, it's because the Original idea and concept as stated and published in 1974 is immutable, as it was, and will always remain the Essence of the D&D game, and others similar.

So we have one title for sure: "The Essence of Role Playing Games".

[Nagora]

The difference between the old and new schools can be summed up in one thing. Old-school players know that the GM's rulings can and will supercede the rules. New-school players believe that they can tell the GM he's wrong if the rules disagree with him.

I disagree; what's changed is that the rules support the latter attitude, which was present in many players from day-one.

[bobjester]

The difference between the old and new schools can be summed up in one thing. Old-school players know that the GM's rulings can and will supercede the rules. New-school players believe that they can tell the GM he's wrong if the rules disagree with him.

I disagree; what's changed is that the rules support the latter attitude, which was present in many players from day-one.

I agree. The term "Rules Lawyer" was firmly in place at tables before the ink was dry on 1st ed. AD&D.

The New School pretty much ties the hands of anyone having any creativity of their own. If you want to do something original with the new set of rules, you better look for it's stat-block in the core set of rule books, or one of the splat books. This was never a problem in the old days. We made up what we wanted to, either as DM or player. The only thing a DM did to hamper creative player characters was to allow/disallow funky racial types. "No, I cannot let you be a Naga M-U."

The old rules didn't see the need to quantify every little thing that existed or might happen into a rule or a stat-block. Things not in the rules were governed with common sense, an "either/or", or an "if/then" statement to something or an event.

[rossik]

8th: The reason that many are "drifting back" to the original concept is not because one camp was named OS and one NS, it's because the Original idea and concept as stated and published in 1974 is immutable, as it was, and will always remain the Essence of the D&D game, and others similar.

So we have one title for sure: "The Essence of Role Playing Games".

wow, great point there, never had thought this way

[genghisdon]

I agree that game mastering skills are not specific to a game or edition. As to the "old" vs "new", it is indeed common for a group targeted with a derogatory term to seize control of the word/term & make it their own.

I think rose coloured glasses are all too easily employed to the past. Many "problems" of today's gamers are yesturdays problems, it is our perspectives that have changed & matured for the most part. There are trends & styles "encouraged" by games/editions, nothing more. The formula or "math" based aproaches by the WOTC D&D games can be a helpful guideline or a creativity quashing straightjacket, it really depends on how they are viewed & used.

Keeping an open mind about titles & such, this kind of treatise will surely be of greater benefit to younger & less experianced gamers, ie: many of the 3-4e players. Excluding or alienating them at the outset is a mistake & I am glad Rob implied this first. Talking down at someone rarely results in them taking your message to heart.

As someone who has DMed many games & all editions(save the origonal) It is amusing (& strange) to me that many of the criticisms & scorn are THE EXACT SAME as what the "other" side use. My personal strengths as a DM have always been towards improvision & creativity, along with strong math skills & memory. I function just fine in AD&D1e or 3.5. There are valid criticisms to ANY game rules/systems, but I don't believe this is the point of the suggested exercise. My weaknesses tend towards organisation, mapping & to a lesser extent, focus. I haven't really come across too many DM's I admire, but one with strengths opposite mine can & did bring sharp focus as to the benefits therein. The sharing of successful DM's tips, tricks, thoughts & processes seems to be a great idea to me. Identifing & building off one's strengths & shoring up weaknesses is something any game master could & would benefit from. Even(perhaps especially) a "human computer".

[Solomoriah]

The difference between the old and new schools can be summed up in one thing. Old-school players know that the GM's rulings can and will supercede the rules. New-school players believe that they can tell the GM he's wrong if the rules disagree with him.

I disagree; what's changed is that the rules support the latter attitude, which was present in many players from day-one.

Curiously, this is what I was trying to get across.

Though I will state that gamers only familiar with post-2000 RPG systems will tend to think that way, even when presented with more free-form rule systems; it's what they learned, after all, and it's what we want to help them unlearn.



Rob, I wasn't asking what to call the article. I was asking what to use as a replacement for "old school" when discussing "our" style of gaming. I submit that, like it or not, there is no term more clear-cut than "old school," and like my earlier example of "redneck," I'm proud to wear the label.

It's all in how you look at it. The "modern" players may look at "old school" as meaning "inflexible" or "set in our ways;" you can't help how they see you, and changing the terminology rarely serves any useful purpose. In fact, I consider trying to distance myself from the "old school" moniker as a sort of Political Correctness, and as such reject it.

You change how people see you by engaging them, and letting them learn from your example. If you can change how they see you at all, that is... in many cases, it may well be impossible.

[Solomoriah]

I agree that game mastering skills are not specific to a game or edition. As to the "old" vs "new", it is indeed common for a group targeted with a derogatory term to seize control of the word/term & make it their own.

Exactly my point.

I think rose coloured glasses are all too easily employed to the past. Many "problems" of today's gamers are yesturdays problems, it is our perspectives that have changed & matured for the most part.

True. The first games I ran were terrible; still, we remember them fondly with our rose-colored glasses on. But what I've learned after progressing from BX to 1E to 2E, then finally to my Project 74 and Basic Fantasy RPG, is that, done right, the old way is just more fun. 2E was, really, still the "same game" in that it still encouraged the DM to make his or her own changes; 3E and later just don't permit that, as they tend to break down if tinkered with too much. 2E was the last edition to encourage the DM to take charge of his or her world, indeed to change the rules as desired.

Keeping an open mind about titles & such, this kind of treatise will surely be of greater benefit to younger & less experianced gamers, ie: many of the 3-4e players. Excluding or alienating them at the outset is a mistake & I am glad Rob implied this first. Talking down at someone rarely results in them taking your message to heart.

If anyone thought I was suggesting talking down to anyone, well, I wasn't. Quite the opposite. Describing how a well-designed, well-run old-school (and I'll continue to use that term as long as nobody proposes a truly better one) game actually plays will do more to entice 3e/4e players and DMs to our games than anything else. I've read or heard many accounts (such as the one I mentioned elsewhere involving a player in my own game) where players of those games are astonished at how much actual playing we get done in an evening, and I've seen first-hand the light in the eyes of such a player when he finally "got" how it's supposed to work. It's not for everyone... and really, we should be glad it isn't. No game was engineered better for the rules lawyer than d20... and as far as I'm concerned, d20 can have them.

[MajorKookie]

Rob, I wasn't asking what to call the article. I was asking what to use as a replacement for "old school" when discussing "our" style of gaming. I submit that, like it or not, there is no term more clear-cut than "old school," and like my earlier example of "redneck," I'm proud to wear the label.

It's all in how you look at it. The "modern" players may look at "old school" as meaning "inflexible" or "set in our ways;" you can't help how they see you, and changing the terminology rarely serves any useful purpose. In fact, I consider trying to distance myself from the "old school" moniker as a sort of Political Correctness, and as such reject it.

You change how people see you by engaging them, and letting them learn from your example. If you can change how they see you at all, that is... in many cases, it may well be impossible.

We will have to disagree here. Because I never attached said moniker and viewed myself as a gamer, I do not have to move in difference to the beginnings of the game and its philosophy, thus defending it from a side line, one or the other. That was the point as derived from my "upbringing" in the multi-versatile wargames environment to begin with. There were differences of opinion, but labeling, no. I moved within Dungeon Magazine at a time when other folks were still having flame wars all about the net. I will attach myself to the Original Ideal, but not to something that was forwarded as lowering the same thing.

Also, there is no need to cause further separation between those who do not understand and those who do. Labeling is only as good as the philosophy it embraces. Still, without the label the philosophy still exists as it has since its beginning in 1974. The work's title and its contents should embrace the Original Concepts and aspire to no other label or movement other than the exchange of information and good will. YMMV.