Or, "How the old-school grognard thing really makes me uncomfortable sometimes".
Over on Grognardia, there's a new post about Traveller. Being recently drawn into the Traveller game phenomenon, I happily settled down to read it; I generally like reading the posts over there in any case. Except for little moments like what I'm writing about now.
Now, a little bit of babble first -- I grew up reading Asimov, Pohl, and the rest. I like me some classic science fiction, and I still often prefer it. This was something that drew me to Traveller (for my cyberpunk needs, I have Shadowrun. Yes, Shadowrun. Deal. ;3), and I'm making the statement because I feel the need to lay out my stance ahead of time. Many apologizes if it doesn't make a lot of sense ...
I disagree with the gist of James' post, essentially. Not what kind of setting Traveller is emulating -- on that we agree, pretty much -- but the drift he goes into about how the older-gents-with-mortgages is somehow more "legit" as a classic sci-fi rpg than more recent, "glamourous" iterations. Even though he does say outright that he knows it's just his own opinion, it still sat uneasily. Especially the "glamourous" part, though I can't really articulate why.
I blame that unease on my having followed an in-post link to an earlier Traveller post of his before I finished reading the new one. There's a statement in there that just set my teeth on edge:
"What [the quoted passage from Traveller] means is that characters don't improve in Traveller but players do. How old school is that?"
I'm not "old-school". Given I'm at my happiest playing 2e AD&D and BEMCI, I probably wouldn't be accepted into old-school grognard-dom if I tried. I ran 3e for a number of years, even; and it was the number-crunching that did me in, not play-style -- our play-style never changed from 2e, which was what I learned from my first DM who ran a 1e/2e hybrid.
But, you know? The offhanded implication in that quote above -- intentional or not! and I lean toward unintentional or at least not fully weighed -- that if "old-school" means improving as a player, maybe the "new-school" doesn't? Or doesn't know how?
Yeah. That makes me a little uncomfortable.
And it's that kind of thing that puts me off the real "old-school" ... even people like James, who otherwise try really hard to foster a positive outlook for inviting others into the old-school community. It's hard to feel comfortable or welcome with little throwaways like that; because if it's that easy to slip into, well --
Yeah.
2 comments:
If it's any consolation, the only thing I meant by the sentence you quoted was that Traveller was ultimately old school, because your character does not get "better" except to the extent that you, as a player, get better at playing him. Given that even OD&D involves the accumulation of XP and a power curve, I certainly wasn't indicting gamers who play games that do involve that as a foundational principle. My apologies if it seemed as if I were implying otherwise.
If it's any consolation, the only thing I meant by the sentence you quoted was that Traveller was ultimately old school, because your character does not get "better" except to the extent that you, as a player, get better at playing him. Given that even OD&D involves the accumulation of XP and a power curve, I certainly wasn't indicting gamers who play games that do involve that as a foundational principle. My apologies if it seemed as if I were implying otherwise.
Apologies most certainly accepted!
Like I said in my post on the subject, I was figuring on unintentional; but it did disconcert me, hence my post.
Also, thank you very much for taking the time to come and explain what was what for me -- for which I must apologize, if I'd offended by my misunderstanding.
Thanks again --!
Post a Comment