Default Play Style

[Scott]

I've ran the players through a lot of the "classics" lately. We've had a lot of fun with them, but it reminds me of something Ernie once mentioned. Those were all written for conventions, and that's not how they assumed people were playing at home. it wasn't how their adventures were played at home. But those adventures were the first "modules" TSR released. They were the primary examples for adventures for most gamers at the time. They were written to cram as much action as you could fit into a short time span. It's no wonder so many people have trouble facing encounters above their current experience level; there wasn't a lot of that in those adventures, 'we'll come back later' wasn't an option. Hit and run wasn't an option. Empty rooms frustrate people. The single party for the duration of the campaign. Etc. There really weren't any widely available examples of what Gary, etc. assumed a home D&D campaign would be like. Campaign gaming ended up becoming the default style of play. It wasn't until decades later that most of the things considered 'old school' were even shared.
T1 is probably the best example of what was expected in a D&D campaign, but sadly that campaign was never fully realized. I really would like to run a campaign like the old Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns. Mostly sandbox with the occasional epic event that players can take sides in and help determine the shape of the campaign.

[GRWelsh]

Default play style was probably also affected by simple group dynamics -- when you get a group together, it is most efficient for the players to be in a party working together towards a common goal. When they are at odds, or go off to do their own things, it splits playing time and causes more work for the referee. Then you get into taking players to another room, passing notes, etc. Adult players have less opportunity to play over time because of work, family, life, etc. and so want to get the most out of it when they do and that is one reason the cooperative party is 'better' from an efficiency standpoint.

Dave Arneson's "Blackmoor Bunch" at least back in the old days had quite a bit of player versus player activity going on, with one player even being the King of the Orcs in the dungeon, but they came out of a wargamer tradition that was always player versus player so that was the initial expectation.

Rob has plenty of stories of players being at odds in the Greyhawk Campaign, such as the rivalry between Robilar and Tenser, and of a lot of solo play with EGG as DM for Robilar or Rob as DM for EGG's party that later had became the Citadel of Eight. It seems like there was more frequency and versatility of play back in the early days.

Online gaming may allow more options, though, for players that want to leave the party and do their own thing for a while, as long as they have a DM willing to do that. However, I can envision players complaining about unfair advantages if one player gets in more online gaming than others, though. Also, the modern gamer mindset is not directly derived from the wargaming tradition when player versus players was the baseline, so modern players may get upset or develop vendettas and derail the experience. A lot of expectations would need to be reset in order to change the default play style.

[geneweigel]

I'm always ready to go as a player or as a DM regardless of being prepared. Its like do I really have to know what kind of tree that is as a DM before the game starts? Its notation on decision and go. It helps to have knowledge of what characters want more of as a type of character but that doesn't mean heaping it up. It means rewarding expected sharpness with a sharp problem.

[Scott]

I think the current online gaming options (Roll20, FaceTime/Zoom, etc.) create an opportunity to recapture some of that old style.
You can see how the big, central campaign dungeon and so much random creation was used. It's a lot easier to start with that big central dungeon and a single town for players to interact with, then developing the whole world. The descriptions of the growth of the campaign worlds also make more sense under these conditions.
It would help to limit one party at a time to going through traditional module type adventures while the rest of the players are primarily active in your home, heavily developed area. And rotate the players who are participating in the traveling adventures.
You would have to set rules for keeping everybody pretty close timeline wise, not letting any player/group get too far ahead.

[geneweigel]

The town to dungeon just wiped out for me when DM after DM kept "doin' the cantina" routine. I started with people already on the move having flashbacks as to why at one point because I was sick of bar fights. It seems to me that the player who just wants to get the adventure over with doesn't understand the game or they have been conditioned to think it's Candyland. Picking up where they left off needs to happen constantly within a session. I have never met a DM who has successfully managed "distracted players being mandatory at the table or demise" type of play that seems to be the insinuated "old school" (Which I cannot get into). You're not going to have good players who are challenging. The successful DM is patient and a listener on and off game. Rewarding boring people because they want everything to be play or pay while someone is getting a call from their work or family is something that came up with bad DMs over the years. The tight campaign of no time for casualties used to be thing but players seem to get more uptight about characters. The intense player versus the arbitrary roller DM is a bad combo. The worst play style for me is nihilistic sarcasm. Hands down. So all in all if its a bad fit then start over with other people. My random gaming years with instant play are the ideal for all players.