The Adventure Game School
Reading other blogs talking about “old school” games and how the latest edition of D&D is/isn’t like an old school game really emphasizes something I’ve come to realize: my approach to role-playing games is not the same as a lot of other people.
Before I had heard about Dungeons & Dragons, I was a big fan of Choose Your Own Adventure books. Our school library had them and they were very popular with all my friends. The Cave of Time, Third Planet from Altair, Who Killed Harlowe Thrombey? — stories that were also games, where you got a little bit of the story, and then made an interesting choice about what course of action you wanted the character to take next.
About the same time I’d also played my first text-based adventure game on a computer: Colossal Adventure (a variant of Colossal Cave). They were much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, except they usually had a shorter passages of text, more choices, and an inventory that tracked things you were collecting on your adventure.
One fateful day in the summer of 1983 my babysitter, a goth/metal chick who let us listen to Alice Cooper, told me that if I liked reading Choose Your Own Adventure books, then I’d probably like the game she’d been playing: Dungeons & Dragons. She described it as being like a CYOA, but with more choices, and dice to see if you were successful if you tried to do something hard. She made up a little example game with some of our regular boardgame dice and some scraps of paper. I loved it.
I got my parents to buy me the Dungeons & Dragons Basic game book (possibly for my birthday) and a set of weird D&D dice to go with it. I also bought the module B5: Horror on the Hill – most likely because I liked the colours and artwork. I set about trying to figure out how to run the game, and then got my friends together to give it a shot. They loved it too.
I don’t think I ever actually read the entire rule book though, and that’s a trend that has continued through every RPG I’ve tried. They’ve mostly been games based on that original “like a CYOA” example game, with varying amounts of the rules presented in the books added on as well. Gameplay was always about exploring, solving puzzles and mysteries, and enjoying the world of adventure the games provided.
As I continued to play RPGs, I stayed interested in Adventure Games both in print (Fighting Fantasy, Lone Wolf, Endless Quest) and on the computer (Maniac Mansion, Zak McKracken, Grim Fandango).
Reading other peoples approaches to RPGs on blogs and forums I’ve grown to understand that this was far from a universal approach to playing these sorts of games. Many other people approached games like D&D from a background in wargaming, a desire to tell stories, do a lot of in-character acting, or run some sort of fantasy/medieval simulation.
This has most recently been made very apparent by discussions around “what is old school” and to what extend 4th Edition D&D is “old school” or at least “plays like it always has”. I’ve found that 4e doesn’t play very much like how D&D was introduced to me. It seems much more like Warhammer (or Rogue Trader) which I started playing in Highschool after our group stopped playing D&D.
At the same time, I don’t find myself strongly identifying with a lot of “old school” gaming discussion. People suggest lots of things about that style of play that I hadn’t really heard of or considered until a few months ago. I’d never seen a printed sheet of hex graph-paper until last fall, so there was certainly no “clearing hexes” when I played D&D.
Something that is perhaps overlooked in a lot of discussion around RPGs on blogs and in forums is that back in the 80s there were probably as many different ways to pick up a game book and play an RPG as there were groups playing it. For some people (and I’m guessing this would include the game’s designers) the newest edition of D&D plays very much like how they’ve always approached RPGs. For others (and I’ll include myself here) it plays like something else.
While the genre of the game is generally the same for me, the gameplay itself is quite different. Videogames like Grim Fandango and Myst remind me of how I’ve always played D&D more than World of Warcraft and Diablo do. I’m not sure that some modern RPGs are well suited to playing like that, and that to have fun with them you really need to approach them in another manner.
So while the game may say “D&D” on the cover, I think to fully enjoy it some people will have to change their approach to the game, lest they try to hammer a square peg into a round hole. 
You might also like
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to play a different style than a lot of the gamers I’ve come in contact with as well. I don’t memorize the intricacies of the rules and I don’t adhere to most of them. I take what rules I like and use them and kind of disregard anything that doesn’t interest me. The groups I’ve played with tend to fall into the way I play. I have had groups that were very into the rules and I did learn the rules more strictly to run games for them, but they weren’t much fun to play with.
I’m not saying I don’t care about the rules, I just don’t take them too seriously. We don’t chuck them all out the window, we play the system, just not entirely the way it is written and I definitely have my preferences in systems. We tend to take the advice that is in the front of nearly all RPG rulebooks, if the rules interfere with the fun, ignore them. This is probably why I don’t have a problem with some of the stuff in 4e, (though I do like 3e a bit more) I just adapt it to how we play and it works fine for us. If we don’t want to use battle maps and minis, we simply don’t use them and guesstimate distances. .
Basically we look at character creation, & combat, both of which we tend to simplify if they are too heavy. I will admit that we may not play the most “realistic” game, as we tend to let things like encumbrance get ignored, to a degree, but we tell a good story and have fun. To me that is what it is all about and probably why I tend to favor d20 games.
I can connect with this particular school of adventuring. It diverges a bit as after Infocom the next ‘adventure games’ that I played were Wizardry, Might and Magic, and Ultima. Of these, the Ultima series I think most effectively embodied the spirit of roleplaying, although I didn’t ever experience Myst or the Sierra games. Ultima in particular was certainly the first (and to me, the only) game where it seemed to effectively matter how you interacted with the world. The other games more or less satidfed (or fed) my compulsion to map the known world oe 10′x10′ square at a time.
4E does more to gratify the area of my brain that liked to fill graph paper with 30×30 chunks of map then for that which tells a story. I hold hope that with enough play it can also meet this need for engaging storytelling. I guess the question remains if it is worth the investment in time to get there?
How far does the analogy with CYOA go? Do players actually choose from a finite set of explicit options, for example?
Wizardry, Might and Magic, The Bard’s Tale and Ultima are good examples of where adventure games split into the computer role-playing game (CRPG) style of game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_role-playing_game ). That category also includes the classic ‘Rogue’ and ‘Roguelikes’ as well as modern games like Baldur’s Gate and Knights of the Old Republic.
I think 4e does an excellent job of what it sets out to do, and agree with Ryan (one of our players) who said “It’s the best version of D&D” — with the addendum “for a particular style of play”.
@Tommi: I suppose if the players are exploring a dungeon and they come to a crossroad there’s an implied set of major choices there – but they could also take other more creative actions as well. I think the greatest strength of playing a tabletop RPG with a human GM is that they can respond to a greater scope of player choices than a computer could.
4e plays more like a MMORPG than it does a traditional RPG. The one time I played it took us a while to resolve combat. All-in-all I agree, RPGS are more fun when played like a CYOA novel.
Ultimately, old school is about rules that are loosely written and require the GM to rule on actions. An old school game doesn’t have a solid rule for every eventuality… the GM must have some common sense in adjudicating actions.
This means a bad GM leads to a bad game, and a good GM to a good game.
Starting with 3E, the rules became much more concrete, limiting the ability of the GM to make bad rulings and thus raising the lowest common denominator of the game to a higher level. BUT… the more concrete rules limit the good GM’s ability to create a free-flowing game, slowing combat and enhancing the role of the rules lawyer (always a bad thing).
3E+ games are more homogenous. Less likely to be really bad, but less likely to be really good also.
IMO, of course.
Actually, during the development of 3rd edition Wizards of the Coast did some surveys and found that only 1/3 of people said they followed the “official rules” and that more than 3/4 of players used some sort of “house rules” in their games.
Standardizing the rules was an active consideration of the game designers working on 3.x and 4e – likely due to the connections with the RPGA.
Back to the original topic though – I’d say that an Adventure Game approach to RPGs doesn’t require an “old school” approach to rules. It *can* have that, but that’s a secondary quality of the game. I’m sure you could have a “new school” adventure game as well.
Dude! I didn’t until I saw the cover, but now I so remember “The Cave of Time”, Awesomesauce.
“my babysitter, a goth/metal chick” … “Alice Cooper” … “She made up a little example game with some of our regular boardgame dice and some scraps of paper.”
Dude, Dude! Best baby sitter ever! What the hell? All I got was my older sister who made me go outside, in the sun! I was robbed, I want a do over.
And yeah, play style is as or more important than rule set. Although, I will agree certain rule sets encourage certain play styles and make others very difficult.
For me the “thing” rules-lite old-school (pre AD&D I’m talking) is that they didn’t encourage any specific play style, and also did not make any play styles very difficult (as long as you were willing to house rule). Their rules-lite nature meant there’s almost no game there, you play the game you want.
Many in and outside the old-school community have a revisionist view of history and a very narrow definition of old-school. They can be ignored. Cause that might have been old-school for them, it wasn’t old school for us.
Although it sounds odd, 4E reminds me more of AD&D than 3E did. Mainly it is the break between monster and PC, where monsters can have funky rules all to themselves. Also, the DMG’s emphasis on saying yes to player input along with the great guidelines on how to handle it (page 42) makes 4E feel very free form and improvisational.
Of course I understand that when people see the powers of the classes in 4E that they think W.O.W. I often read comments that people feel the powers make everyone act the same.
I can only say that in play, all of my players characters act and feel like old school D&D except now they all get to shine during combat and can contribute for the entire encounter.
JesterOC
I honestly don’t understand what this thing is your calling “Adventure Gaming.” I read the wikipedia entry and I don’t see how it is different from the way a lot of people play RPGs.
“Reading other peoples approaches to RPGs on blogs and forums I’ve grown to understand that this was far from a universal approach to playing these sorts of games. ”
Can you give me some specific examples?
I’m not being snarky, I am sincerely curious.
@MountZionRyan I didn’t coin the phrase – it’s been in use for a long time. I think you’re right though, there probably are a lot of people who approach RPGs like this.
Here are some things people talk about on other blogs and forums as being important elements or techniques in their tabletop games:
* Story – story is something that you see in hindsight. The object of the game is not for the DM or the players to try and craft a story.
* Combat – the object of play is not tactical miniatures battles. Or even non-minis abstracted combat. Combat is one possible means to get past obstacles, but not the only one. The game’s focus isn’t about combat at all.
* Simulation – Detailed systems for simulating more “realistic” elements in the game world just slow things down. Adding more elements of “realism” and “ecology” can work against the style of adventure game you want to run.
* Roleplaying – First-person acting (talking in character), creating a detailed character, or even picking a name are really secondary elements. You could have a very enjoyable adventure game with nobody talking in the first-person or doing any “roleplaying” at all.
* Power – Getting more powers, feats, leveling up, magic items – these aren’t all that interesting other than as a means to get past the obstacles and puzzles in the game.
* Sandbox – Making sure the players can go where-ever and do whatever they like doesn’t make for a very good adventure game. There’s no focus.
* Railroad / Adventure-Path – Moving the players along between pre-planned encounters is also not something that makes a good adventure game.
* “Illusionism” / Dice-Fudging – If you’re going to have door A and door B both lead to C, there’s no point asking players to pick between A and B. If you’re going to fudge the dice there’s no point in rolling them.
etc etc etc
If you’re looking at the Wikipedia entry for Adventure Game, be sure to compare and contrast with the entry for Computer Roleplaying Game.
Thanks a bunch! Sorry if I implied you created the term ex nihilo. I gathered you were using an already defined term.
That’s an interesting list. Some of it describes my gaming, other parts are foreign to me, especially the roleplaying. I was naively shocked when I first realized other gamer groups played in 3rd person and rarely spoke in character.
Thanks a lot for this explanation.
And the lively twitter discussion this morning. All in good fun and a spirit of friendly debate.
No problem.
It took me a while to realize that people could be playing really different types of games while all using the same rulebook.
My default assumption is that people are all probably playing a little bit differently from each other now.
I read some wikipedia. The characterisation I unearthed thusly was that adventure games have strong (railroaded) story, lots of puzzles, pixelbitching (do this exact thing to continue, else nothing progresses), little if any mechanical character advancement, exotic locations and fantastic locations and situations.
To what extent does this accurately characterise your gaming?
@Tommi: You must have been reading a different Wikipedia, or be making things up. It certainly doesn’t say those things.
An interesting concept among some gamers is they want to fit in with a community, yet they want to play the games they like. So, when they become involved in a game community, first thing they do is take the games the community plays and try to change them to play like some other game. In the end, one has to ask them: “Why not play the game you already have? Why try to change every game you claim to play?” They are having fun designing games…
So we get “old school” gamers playing them “new school” (i.e. turning retroclones into 3.5 and 4.0 clones, which is a joke because many retro-clones are in fact 3.5 simplified) while we have “new school” gamers foing the opposite (“I play 4.0. I just ignore a lot and have certain house rules…”)
Game designers make specific choices in game design. Gygax had all sorts of options people were throwing at him. People wanted him to change X, Y and Z from the beginning. But he wanted to play his version of D&D. So D&D stayed much the same as long as he had a say.
When he lost control, the people involved changed it. They did not “improve” it — they made it a different game. The trend to house rule D&D continues to the point where I laugh at people claiming credit for being a “game designer” when they do not have any original ideas of their own. They take other people’s ideas, house rule them, and claim they “designed a game”.
If they had their own ideas, they wouldn’t have to work from someone else’s ideas.
And that isn’t a jab at “new school” — it’s a jab at everyone. I see people playing “old school” D&D who really need to sit down and just make their own game. Stop saying “I’m playing old school D&D.” when they aren’t playing D&D at all, just a heavily house-ruled game that uses a few things D&D does.
I’m in that camp myself. I’d rather either play one of the real versions of D&D (old to new) or my own game. And not some Frankenstein mixed-breed I’m calling D&D just because I want to try to fit in.
Leave your response!
Dungeons & Dragons
Recent Posts
Blogs I'm Reading
Members
Most Commented