General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
With the right group iof people I would play an older edition of D&D. I'm the type of gamer though that we can inserty any game into that sentaance and it would be true. I enjoy games and that's what is important for me.
I voted "sign up for a longterm campaign". This is of course assuming I couldn't find anyone who wanted to play 4e with me or if I could find the time to play in both.
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
'Not Play'. Normally I'd say 'depends on the people' but after some thought, it would take a lot for me to play a pre-3E game. It would take a setting as compelling as novel, along with people I was friends with from the get-go. And even then, it would be a stretch. And would depend a great deal on what house rules were in place. If no house rules were in place, then nothing could pursuade me.
More than likely, I'd do everything I could - even if I had to GM - to move them up to 3E or to a non-D&D game.
I am currently running a long term campaign that is a mix of B/X, AD&D and some d20 light. But's more S&S - no demi-humans, no paladins, rangers or druids.
I'd happily play in a D&D/AD&D campaign using older rules. I'd more happily, though, play in a 3.0 D&D campaign if I could just find one. Sadly I'm the only remaining 3.0 DM I know of (though of course I'm aware that other people still run 3.0, just nobody that I know). I played in a brief 2e AD&D campaign around 1-2 years ago (and it wasn't a Skills & Powers game, either), but that fell apart as a few players couldn't stick around (one or two joined the military and the DM had scheduling changes).
DMing the PbPs: (FR 3.5) A Hard Time in HarrowdaleOOC , IC , IC 2 , RG
and (3.x/d20) The FirstOOC , IC DMing on OpenRPG: D&D 3.5 - T13K Fall of the 14th Kingdom, T13K For More Than Glory, SR3 - Welcome to Seattle, Chummers Playing: (PbP) Alaric the Alchemist, Cade the rogue, Grackle "Grubeater" Granitetop, Kerrix Malzan, Lars Crichton, Liiros Tivaniel, Vardok Stonekennel, Warren the halfling, (OpenRPG) Kaleverithis, Oobla Fat Cheeks
*EN World's Eyros Creative Exercise and Rules/Crunch of Eyros
*My Rhunaria D&D setting, prestige classes, feats, etc. *Favorite links
(Rhunaria and Links temporarily offline now)
*My Aurelia D&D thread on EN World, setting and rules; new and
revised 3e races, classes, variants, PrCs, feats, spells, etc.
I... kind of hate the alleged "old school revolution." I think its bad for gaming as a whole.
Let me try to explain...
Basically, there are some good things about older games. Unfortunately, there are also some bad things*. The old school afficianados have a nostalgic connection to the older games that causes them to assume that it was the older game itself that was fun, and not just the good parts being fun in spite of the bad parts. So they play older games or create older clones that faithfully recreate everything they remember, bad parts and all. Unfortunately this means that the good parts that are no longer that fashionable are only found in games that contain the bad parts.
I just feel like some important gaming technology is in the hands of people who don't fully understand it, and who, as a result, continue faithfully reproducing warts from the original games. I'd be interested in seeing someone really break down what it was about their view of "old school" gaming that was fun, and what rules facilitated it and what didn't. And then seeing them create a game that distinctively catered to that style of play. It might be totally incompatible with someone else's vision of old school gaming, but I'm ok with that.
Probably someone's got a lead on this already and I don't know about it, because I'm only peripherally in touch with the old school community, but this is my general take on the subject: old school would appeal to me a lot more if it stopped trying to recreate the gaming experiences of people's youths, and started trying to create new games based on the better, presently-neglected aspects of certain older games.
*I am also including in the phrase "bad things" rules that are good for certain styles of game but not for the particular one being used. In a different type of "old school" game the good and bad things might switch roles. Perhaps the optimal phrase would be "unsuitable things."
I am 23 and play old-school games because I find them better for me.
No nostalgia here.
I find kinda disturbing someone can hate other people's fun.
Last edited by Zulgyan; 14th June 2009 at 12:50 AM..
I voted "one-shot" but I really have a much more parsed opinion.
* I have no desire to play OD&D, AD&D 1e, or any clones of them.
* I would play BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia or 2nd edition, but only on a few-game (maybe a module or two) length basis, not an ongoing campaign.
* I would play Basic Fantasy or Castles & Crusades for a longer run, provided I played/ran another 3e/4e game along side it.
* I would play a 3e/4e game long term.
The closer a game gets to "new school" the longer I'd play in it. BECMI and 2nd are much more nostalgia kick (I never played and have no feelings for OD&D or 1e, so BECMI and 2e do a better job at reminiscing than them), and I'd play in a "old school flavor, new school mechanics" clone much more easily; it combines the best of both games for me: New school "unified" of "clarified" mechanics, old school flavor and setting. 3e/4e is a no brainer for me right now, but my group is leaning 3e moreso than 4e at this point.
I was wondering today if lack of groups to play with is holding back the growth pace somewhat...older as in pre-3.0
There's certainly no lack of groups in the Austin area. My Empire of the Petal Throne (1975) game has 7 players including me; I play in a regular Classic D&D game and could play more if I wanted. There's no shortage of Old Schoolery around here... my only problem is having a life in addition to gaming. And wanting to play miniatures wargames as well as D&D.
But I get to play old school D&D 1-2 times per week.
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
I voted "sign up for a long-term campaign". I did.
A year ago, a group I was playing Shackled City with reverted back to their long-running 1E campaign, and I was invited along. So, I played a couple of sessions with 1E, and then they concluded 3E was actually better and converted (with no input from me, I would note).
I don't think I ever got to play a session under 3E rules before I had to move, though.
__________________ Come visit #enworld, EN World's official chatroom, at irc.otherworlders.org!
I find kinda disturbing someone can hate other people's fun.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Hating your fun. Not you, not your game, but the fun itself.
Look, if I had phrased my criticism as someone who loved the old school revolution and wanted it to be even better, no one would have even been bothered by my actual point.
Monkey is running a BECMI/RC PbP and I'd definately sign on for either that or AD&D 2E if I still had the books. Yeah that mostly has to do with nostalia.
I could readily find a group of players who enjoy pre.three.ee D&D, but I have little desire to play in or run a regular fantasy campaign.
I played in an OD&D one-shot with some of the Dragonsfoot locals last summer, and it looks like we're going to do it again this year. That's the whole extent of my involvement with D&D at this point, and for now that's enough.
There are several other games and genres that I enjoy more.
__________________ On weird fantasy: "The Otus/Elmore rule: When adding something new to the campaign, try and imagine how Erol Otus would depict it. If you can, that's far enough...it's a good idea. If you can picture a Larry Elmore version...it's far too mundane and boring, excise immediately." - Kellri, K&K Alehouse
Basically, there are some good things about older games. Unfortunately, there are also some bad things*. The old school afficianados have a nostalgic connection to the older games that causes them to assume that it was the older game itself that was fun, and not just the good parts being fun in spite of the bad parts. So they play older games or create older clones that faithfully recreate everything they remember, bad parts and all. Unfortunately this means that the good parts that are no longer that fashionable are only found in games that contain the bad parts.
I just feel like some important gaming technology is in the hands of people who don't fully understand it, and who, as a result, continue faithfully reproducing warts from the original games. I'd be interested in seeing someone really break down what it was about their view of "old school" gaming that was fun, and what rules facilitated it and what didn't. And then seeing them create a game that distinctively catered to that style of play. It might be totally incompatible with someone else's vision of old school gaming, but I'm ok with that.
I agree to an extent. The thief in particular seems a problem area that encapsulates the problems you're referring to. Why give it 1d4 HP, still, when it's clearly so very underpowered? (BFRPG's answer: Tradition, maybe compatibility...IMO a poor answer at best. Even the designer house rules it up to 1d6 or 1d8). Are the thief abilities all DM fiat in their applicability, because the guidelines are still sketchy? Why not bust every chest open with an axe, and 11 foot pole every corner of the dungeon? Why even have the thief class at all?
I think the answer to your question is a bit of a Catch 22, in that the kind of person who ditches the bad and holds onto the good (all based on their opinion) gives you a 3E. The person who doesn't see much good to hold onto at all and tries to give the whole thing an overhaul gives you a 4E. The nearest thing we have to what you're referring to is C&C, and that retains a large amount of warts in itself. (I think it's made a bit of an arbitrary labyrinthine mess of the classes like the AD&Ds did, for instance.)
The temptation to codify everything and restrict the scope of the game (whilst thinking you're doing your players a favour) is seemingly too great. I even did it in this post, challenging the worth of DM fiat with regard to judging thief abilities. Say what you like about older editions, but the fast and loose "anything goes" magic items, spells and adventure design would probably not survive a proper tightening of the rules. 3E and 4E seem proof of that, even with page 42.
Sticking to cloning the bad stuff too also lends a legitimacy to these games ("it's just like white box OD&D!" or "it's AD&D in all but name!") that the designers appear to think they could not otherwise call upon by straying too far from traditional models. Understandably, even 4E proponents seem to crave the legitimacy of such comparisons (although I'm uncertain whether anyone will admit upfront to it).
Perhaps you could show us how it's done?
__________________ "They've taken all the fun out of slaying things and stealing treasure!" - Bolt
Copy, paste and redesign your way to your own ideal custom game with the Swords & Wizardry.doc file. Renovate the elf, build a rogue or thief, and make all your favourite rules and splat core.
Last edited by rounser; 14th June 2009 at 04:24 AM..
As I exist in a woefully gaming group-limited world, I voted for "sign up for a long-term campaign". I'd be least interested in a 2e game, but only because I've played in 2e campaigns before. 1e would be nifty for nostalgia's sake, while there's something about BECMI that just feels sweeping and right - but don't ask me to explain that, because I can't really
I think the answer to your question is a bit of a Catch 22, in that the kind of person who ditches the bad and holds onto the good (all based on their opinion) gives you a 3E. The person who doesn't see much good to hold onto at all and tries to give the whole thing an overhaul gives you a 4E. The nearest thing we have to what you're referring to is C&C, and that retains a large amount of warts in itself. (I think it's made a bit of an arbitrary labyrinthine mess of the classes like the AD&Ds did, for instance.
You're absolutely right (and I'd give you XP if I didn't have to spread the love) that the problem lies with "what gets fixed/ditched" and what doesn't. Everyone's got an opinion.
For example, I couldn't go back to a game with downward's AC and Thac0. My friend could, but he hates multiple XP tracks. So for me, a game like C&C fixes my complaint but not my friends. But C&C opens it own can of worms for me (I don't like the SIEGE system for saves) so we're back to square one.
I guess its the natural extension of trying to improve the game; it took nearly 26 years to flip AC, and now its one of the most common retro-game "House Rules" (only LL & OSRIC use downward AC?) No one will agree if these improvements help or hurt (and specifically which do which) so some people will continue to use their 1e rangers in 2e, or convert Against the Giants to 3.5, or crave an official 4e "assassin" base class.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Hating your fun. Not you, not your game, but the fun itself.
Look, if I had phrased my criticism as someone who loved the old school revolution and wanted it to be even better, no one would have even been bothered by my actual point.
Oh, so in addition to throwing around baseless smears about "nostalgia", you're also a troll who deliberately insults people to get them to read his posts. That's clever of you.
And this coming from a vocal 4E fan. How entirely surprising.
Of course, on EN World, you're allowed to say I enjoy my games out of nostalgia (even though that's both insulting and untrue).
__________________ "I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
