4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"

[rounser]

If anything, Monopoly pieces are exactly the opposite: so balanced that they are just cookie cutters of each other with no mechanical differentiation between them whatsoever.

Hmm, good point. It's balanced in the same way ball games like baseball and cricket are - it doesn't matter if batting is superior to pitching or bowling, because both teams have to do it.

The basic tactic to monopoly I've heard is to buy everything you land on, as soon as you're able. If everyone does this, the rest is just dice. More superficial than unbalanced, perhaps.

Okay. 1E is balanced seemingly by just eyeballing it, and often, it seems, not very closely. Poor old thief. Although....I suppose it could be fixed by campaign design. Want a more powerful thief? Involve it's abilities all over the show as fundamental adventure features. Still doesn't stop spells and magic items taking it's gigs though I guess.

As far as poor, drawn-out endgames with foregone conclusions go, perhaps Talisman can give Monopoly a run for it's money.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you want old school, then play old school. What would be the point of using a 4E rules system then changing the majority of it?

Choose the system that fits the playstyle and needs of the group.
If game balance enforced at the per-round level is needed to make a group happy use 4E. If the group likes ultimate freedom with a high degree of uncertainty then use OD&D. Pick any other edition to get something in the middle.

Mechanics matter a lot in relation to the feel of a game. Whenever the need is felt to ignore the majority of mechanics then its time to shop for a new game.

 

[Psion]

Didn't we just have this thread?

 

[mmadsen]

As I understand it--and correct me if I'm wrong--the difference between skill use in OD&D and 4E is that in OD&D the player says what he or she wants to do and the DM resolves it with a simple die roll or judgment call. In 4E, the player describes what he or she wants to do and then the DM issues a Skill Challenge: a series of skill checks that correspond with each action that the player wants to take.

Obviously there is a bit difference here. But what i'm wondering is, cannot a group play 4E "Old School style"?

The "difference" you've listed is one of the key similarities between OD&D and 4E. The skill-challenge mechanics are a very lightweight framework to help the DM decide what rolls to ask for.

Besides the obvious flavor changes, the real difference between older editions and 4E is the "boardgame" nature of combat, with very specific powers following narrowly defined rules.

 

[Phaezen]

The "difference" you've listed is one of the key similarities between OD&D and 4E. The skill-challenge mechanics are a very lightweight framework to help the DM decide what rolls to ask for.

On this topic:

Breaking news, live from Gnomestew:

1e spotted alive and well in a livingroom in southeastern PA - Gnome Stew, the Game Mastering Blog

Phaezen

 

[Obryn]

I think for some it may be a way to convince others or maybe even themselves, that it is still D&D. Or some way to try to end edition wars, that in turn starts them up even more.

Well, gosh. I'm running a 4e game. I'm going to be running a 1e game shortly - the start date is 11/16, and I've been reading the rules & adventure for a week or two. It's the first 1e game I've run in a very long time, but I've worked through the editions from B/X onwards over 25 years or so of play.

I can't say or do anything to convince you that 4e feels more oldschool to me (and evidently more than a few others) than 3e does - once you move past the surges and powers and the like. I can also see why other folks disagree. I'm very disheartened, though, to find that when I say "4e feels oldschool" your response is, "No, you're either fooling yourself or lying."

-O

 

[Korgoth]

They made Perception checks passive in 4E. That's a step in the right direction.

I hate "roll to see things". Why don't we also roll to see if I can walk in a straight line? If it's a question of an ambush, there was a perfectly good mechanic for that called "Surprise".

So 4E looks like it at least leans in the Old School direction on the matter of perception... just compare your perception level against a difficulty. Anything that in any way undermines the tyranny of skill-rollery is good in my book.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Rule-Set vs. Game-Style arguments are like Nature vs. Nurture arguments. You always have both, and they aren't mutually exclusive, but it's the end result you care about.

4E Rules + Old School Style = Different Game than (1E Rules + Old School Style).

You mix different ingredients, you get a different bread. That's just how these things work.

For me I don't think it's possible to get the game I want using 4E rules, even if I play it with Old School Style. And I tried. I tried running B2 using 4E rules and it just wasn't the same. It "worked", in a sense, but it wasn't what I was looking for. For other people it will be good enough, and for others even trying to run B2 with 4E rules is "one step forward, two steps back." As with so many things on the Internet, YMMV.

Is it possible to combine the innovations of the last 35 years with the free-form attitude of the original D&D? I personally think that D&D, as a rules system, has evolved; the core d20 mechanic, in my view, is better than THAC0, and much better than the combat charts; Defenses are better than Saving Throws, etc. But I also like to improvise and dislike when the rules get in the way of role-playing and creative thinking from the players. So, as I start my first campaign in years, I plan on taking a somewhat "old school style" to a 4E game: Or to put it another way, an improvisational and imaginative game style using a slick-running game engine.

Yes. Here is one attempt. There are others. Arguably Castles & Crusades is very much an attempt at this too, though I am on record disagreeing with certain choices they made.

The main problem with games since OD&D is that the designers weren't content with making the rules that existed easier and more streamlined. They kept adding new twists and complexities as well (e.g., Exceptional Strength, Attacks of Opportunity, Critical Hits, Tumble, etc.), so instead of 25 slightly-unintuitive-but-useable rules you have 300 really well engineered rules. If you just went back to OD&D and converted over what was there to current state of the art without adding any of the additional complexity that came later, I think you'd have what you're looking for.

 

[mmadsen]

I hate "roll to see things". Why don't we also roll to see if I can walk in a straight line? If it's a question of an ambush, there was a perfectly good mechanic for that called "Surprise".

Please watch this video and try to count the total number of times that the people wearing white pass the basketball. (Do not count the passes made by the people wearing black.)

When you're done, go and read this.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Please watch this video and try to count the total number of times that the people wearing white pass the basketball. (Do not count the passes made by the people wearing black.)

When you're done, go and read this.

Great video-good stuff. Have there been studies about this that test what perception is like during periods of danger such as a hallway being walked down by people who are "frosty" and in watch mode, expecting that perhaps a fight or flight moment could occur at any moment?

I would think that would have some bearing vs people in thier normal, not in danger lives.