If you can find a group that plays a pre-3.0 version of D&D or Retroclone would you:

[Shemeska]

Yes, that is probably the case. All of us folks who enjoy the older editions are just blinded by nostalgia and unable to see that some of the rules we like are actually badwrongrules.

I'm not a particular fan of some of the tropes and design elements in 1e, but people like elements from it above and beyond just the pull of nostalgia. I realize this and I'm perfectly fine with it. Just because something is older, doesn't mean it's bad and full of badwrongrules.

At the same time, just because something is more recent, some people shouldn't assume -even in this thread itself- that new = automatic progress or objectively better. You can find elements in every system that people will see as backsliding or poorly designed or implimented compared to prior editions.

 

[Ariosto]

D&D Volume 1's statement that "the referee to player ratio should be about 1:20 or thereabouts" is not ideal for everyone. A LOT more people in my neck of the woods want to play 3E than want to DM it -- and the same may be true of old-style games. Other than 4E RPGA events, none of the games in which I have played in the past few years has been widely advertised; rather, players have been discretely invited.

The FLGS is not about to undertake an initiative to promote a game in which it has no commercial interest, although it might rent table space to players. I have kicked around the idea of a semi-regular open, "first come, first seated" game.

If you're in similar circumstances, then the thing to do is probably to start your own group. If the usual suspects aren't interested, then try posting bills ("For a good old-fashioned D&D time, call 867-5309."). It doesn't even take a game store bulletin board; a laundromat, student union, or anywhere ads for rock shows get posted might do as well -- or better, as old-schoolers may not have had much reason to visit a games shop lately.

Casting a broad net is likely to catch a lot more than just what one wants, though, and at least some of us fit to some degree the geek stereotype of not being great extroverts; others, unfortunately, fit less value-neutral ones.

A local college might have a games club, and a local games store is likely to host games. I have found playing 4E and other games a good way to meet and assess players before making an "old-school" overture; some people are interested in both the old and the new.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Personally, I think the group dynamic trumps game system. While I may prefer 4e, I'll play just about anything so long as I'm playing a fun campaign with good people. So if I had some friends who wanted to play 2e Dragonlance, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

 

[Ourph]

If I had more time for gaming right now, I'd be looking for a 4e game. I wouldn't refuse to play a a pre-3e version of D&D (B/X is probably my 2nd favorite edition) but I'm sure I could find a 4e game before I could find a B/X game and I'd prefer to play 4e anyway.

 

[Bumbles]

The OP appears to be serious in the question.

If "re-education" is meant as a joke, then it's not really appropriate because it dilutes the OP's intent (nothing stopping your own poll, of course).

Ooh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't be jocular in this thread! Report me immediately!

If "re-education" is meant seriously, then it indicates a belief that one's opinion (about a game) is more valid than another's opinion, and that it is appropriate to force someone to change their mind. That opinion, when involving a fully voluntary activity that does not infringe on others' voluntary activities, is fundamentalist, the fundamental being that one system is inherently superior in all circumstances to another system. In the interest of maintaining the open atmosphere here at ENWorld, such an option, if serious, is inappropriate.

Then you'd better start reporting some more threads!

Therefore, the inclusion of "re-education camps" as an option in this poll is inappropriate. Feel free to open your own, though.

You're more than welcome to suggest another terminology to express the concept, I'm not committed to anything in specific. I merely think it's important to cover the concept as it were. Did you think I was somehow meaning the "re-education camps" as anything but an attempt at levity? If so, I can only say you missed the joke, and I'm sorry for that, but damn, try to be a little less harsh with me. It'd be much appreciated. I don't mind it if people miss the joke, even in the real world an attempt at humor can fail, but you seem to be going past that and into attack mode. If you wish to discuss why I think it'd be appropriate, I'd be willing to try, but given that your perception seems so hostile, I'd have to ask that you explicitly disavow that hostility before we proceeded, else I'm afraid the discussion would get excessively acrimonious.

Let me know if you can, if you can't, then I'll just take it as a sign to discontinue this discussion.

 

[scourger]

"Not play" after a lot of thought. I played all the pre-3.0 editions that I could. I even got rid of my substantial cache of 2.0 stuff because I really did as much of it as I wanted. The last AD&D game I played wasn't too much fun for me, so I wouldn't expect that to change.

A couple of possible exceptions do come to mind. Basic might be fun, especially if one of my buddies wanted to do some of the classic modules (like Keep on the Borderlands). In the past couple of years, I bought an old Basic set and even a Rules Compendium for just such a nostalgic (and simpler) game; but I'm just not the guy to run it. In that vein, Hackmaster Basic could be cool; but it is too early to tell.

Right now, I have no desire to play 4e, and I've only recently decided to rejoin our group for a 3.5 game that seems to have no end. I love d20, but the game just gets boring after a while. It's a kill-loot-repeat grind in a published mega-module with increasingly difficult numbers to crunch. But, it's what's on offer; so I decided to just enjoy it for what it is and try to inject some fun roleplay as much as possible.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Attack mode isn't meant.

I thought it was a joke at first, but when you reiterated it, I couldn't be sure anymore, so I asked if you were joking. You said you weren't joking in the inclusion of the choice, and I laid out why I disagreed.

That's all. Sorry if you took offense. I don't think you've done anything wrong. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm currently in a small group that plays a 1Ed/2Ed hybrid that has been running since the mid-1980s.

That group also forms the core of a group playing 3.0/3.5...and I'm getting ready to start running an M&M campaign with them (in a part to start up a W&W campaign later on).

So, IME at least, a love of older editions isn't a bar to enjoying newer versions of the game.

 

[Glyfair]

I would consider a game or two with the right GM of an older edition. I wouldn't consider a "retro-clone." I have learned so many systems in my gaming time (around 40 last time I counted), I have a low tolerance for learning a new system (even one trying to be an old system). It would have to be something different and special for me to want to learn a new system.

I am much more likely to be willing to play another RPG. I am looking forward to the new update to Heroquest (which seems like it will fix some issues I have with playing the system). I wouldn't mind some old school Runequest, Savage Worlds or Dying Earth right now. I am sure there are others I'd try for a one-off to see if I like it (Mouse Guard comes to mind, although I am prejudiced against Burning Wheel).

 

[Bumbles]

Attack mode isn't meant.

I thought it was a joke at first, but when you reiterated it, I couldn't be sure anymore, so I asked if you were joking. You said you weren't joking in the inclusion of the choice, and I laid out why I disagreed.

That's all. Sorry if you took offense. I don't think you've done anything wrong. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Well, my choice of words was jocular and flippant. The option itself is another thing. If you didn't realize that I would have phrased it differently in the poll, then I'm sorry, but yes, that is the case. I'd also suggest a similar option if there was a poll asking about the converse situation.