Was Gygaxian role-playing more masculine than our contemporary role-playing approaches?
>As pertaining to Gary Gygax, late co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons. Noted for extremely lethal traps and puzzles which rewarded the player for proceeding with paranoid caution. Frequently resulting in total party kills or instant death or dismemberment of a character.
Those were tournament modules meant to be like that, not how it he usually played. He made them because his players (mostly Rob and Ernie, I think, IIRC) complained his dungeons were too easy, so he created a killer dungeon to kill them off. They both got through Tomb of Horrors solo, first time, with no problem. Basically aced the killer dungeon. The full story was on here some time ago. So, yeah, RP was more masculine back then, especially the badass players, so you needed the killer dungeons to keep them in check.
It's important to remember a couple things when considering Gygax's legacy
>Gygax's play style didn't just pop up whole cloth. It was designed around players who would purposefully exploit the game.
>Most of the incredibly deadly modules written by Gygax were designed for tournament play not normal campaign play
In relation to the OD&D in general
>While most rules were pertaining to traps and combat the players were mostly meant to occupy themselves with roleplaying problems and puzzles. The rules where mostly intended to move parts that were to variable for common sense along.
>The reaction chart meant that many encounters could be solved with talking
>While Gygax is the most well known contributor to D&D, Arneson formed most of the core concepts for RPGs as a whole. He was much less focused on tables and mechanics than Gygax, tending more towards story telling and Player and DM rulings.
This isn't to say Gygaxian role-playing is or is not more masculine compared to our contemporaries but I think these things should be kept in mind from the get go.
Daily reminder that Robilar walked on the ceiling upside down while invisible and using a scrying orb to see the future.
It's important to note that D&D originated as a wargame, where you were expected to take some losses. Making it out with everyone intact is basically doing an S run in Advanced Wars.
>Was Gygaxian role-playing more masculine than our contemporary role-playing approaches?
What the hell do mean by "more masculine"?
Are you able to communicate in original thoughts or do you steal everything you spew from other websites?
Seeing as it was generally far more competitive, which cultural marxists love to put solely on the shoulders of men, yes.
Sounds like it was more about the roll than role playing, to use that expression.
Like instead of creating a character with a backstory and personality you're creating a one shot where the numbers are more important.
This.
Nope. Gary ran his games with such importance on remaining In Character that he considered everything you said once "GAME ON" was called to be in character. If you were sitting there running your mouth in real life, your character was doing the same in the dungeon surrounded by monsters.
You could make a backstory for your character, personality came through play. Nothing about the old way kept people from having those things, and they did have them. But those old games were also goofy. One of the PCs was named Gronan of Simmerya.
And they fought shit like this.
So basically the one thing that'll forever soften my heart to knights of the dinner table is how it shows a fun and awesome dynamic that seems missing from pnprpgs these days:
>GM vs Player
This isn't a "rocks fall" kind of deal, but both sides being restricted by the rules and the GM laying out twisty as fuck problems for the players to solve.
Thank you for setting what definition you were using. It would have been a nightmare if you had used the term wrong without explaining yourself.
All I miss is fellow dms using the rules when they run, instead of just making things up on the spot and wondering why we are breezing through everything until they steam roll us with the random uber monster.
Rules provide a toolkit and using them lets you gauge what you can throw at players besides just swatting them when you had enough.
I know it sounds like a soap box but we have three of these in our rotating group and their games never make it out of infancy and I would like to no make a character every other time I am not running.
You felt like a bad ass for surviving all the hard and or impossible challenges. Not complicated mate.
That's what masculine means? I could have sworn masculine meant something completely else than just being a survivor of a hard challenge.
But I really don't see how that still isn't common. It really depends on the campaign and DM. You can still have hard challenges in modern editions or even other systems entirely.
I still contend that hard challenges that make you feel badass aren't masculine, but something common to all of humanity though.
Certainly, but it also lacked the edgy shit that LotFP has in droves. Generally, roleplaying was more male-focused then. You didn't have weird stuff like sexuality discussion or whatever in those days.
Basically, it could safely be assumed that the party was all male. Particularly horny males of varying levels of maturity. Shit was also difficult, because characters were weak and disposable - You could die from the hand of a capricious god. (Just try playing a Mage in Baldur's Gate solo.)
At first level of 2nd-Edition D&D, you got TWO SPELLS. TWO.
nothing related to the thread at all. but the way older editions balanced the caster vs martial stuff was : classes had different experience point charts, your casters had at least 1-4 hp and you got two spells that weren't that good, and you had that until level 6 when you got fire ball.
but yes, you were expect to be allot more clever when playing older editions, you couldn't bash your head into a problem to make it go away.
Ahem.
Arduin Grimores, 1976, were chock full of Seducers, Prostitutes, Harem Dancrs, and other totally sexualized D&D classes. They were also full of magical realm, cannibalism, monty haul, magic items that dis weird shit, blue mages, and all sorts of other classes, items, scenarios, and situations people try and recreate to this day.
So you're not only wrong, you've been wrong forever.
>Was thing I like more right and good than thing I don't like?
Thanks for another pointless shitposting thread.
Also, timing. It took time to cast spells, and weapons speeds>spells=dead mage before they finished casting.
When a fighter could hurl 4 daggers a round before you finished your fireball, you were fucked.
>Was Gygaxian role-playing more masculine than our contemporary role-playing approaches?
Congratulations, you have typed the dumbest thing I have read this week.
That's exactly what I said. No-one's angsting over what gender you are today. You are all male, the world is filled with busty wenches, and any sex going on is going to be hetero or maybe some girl-on-girl for spice before the real fucking starts.
You don't have genderfluid triggered otherkin womyn or whatever. Or Corellon being androgynous or genderless. Or a push for more black people in the setting.
>Or Corellon being androgynous or genderless.
Actually that's been true of Corellon from the start. But that doesn't really fit your whiny worldview so feel free to ignore it.
But he was clearly a male god at the very beginning.
...
First time I've seen that, honestly. I mainly recall his portrayal in the various novels, where he's a God with an eye for women. A little foppish, but clearly heterosexual and male.
>implying elves can be male
Out of curiosity how often have you seen those outside of your Veeky Forums echo chamber
No. Traps are for women and subhumans. Real men face their enemies in martial combat and then beat the shit out of them.
>The reaction chart meant that many encounters could be solved with talking
I feel like taking away the reaction adjustment and morale rules were one of the biggest mistakes in 3e+. Players who just spam "I roll diplomacy!" or "Roll to seduce!" might learn from it.
I think 'masculine' wasn't the best word OP could have used. I don't think it's about how 3./PF and friends are careful not to set off the social justice crowd.
Its more about the divide between the old school (high lethality, solve problems by talking, a challenge to the players) and new school (balanced combats, 'I roll perception', world revolves largely around players).
And Lamentations is a great system with some really imaginitive modules, I wish people would stop discarding it as edgy. You're missing out.