Can you go home again?

[Korgoth]

Frankly, I find the notion that the 1st edition rules are superior to the current generation to be ridiculous in the extreme.

"Ridiculous in the extreme", huh? I'm glad you were being "frank" rather than using hyperbole.

I prefer the following rulesets to 3E:
1) Classic D&D (Moldvay or Mentzer)
2) 1E
3) 2E

I consider these three all to be better games with better rules. There's nothing ridiculous about that position. They don't louse up my campaign with skills, feats, stat blocks, templates, unlimited demihuman advancement, CR, prestige classes, Pun Pun, cheap item creation or any of the other things that you may consider to be worthy features and I consider to be irritating train-wrecks of mechanics. I've played 3E, and I've played Classic, 1E and 2E. I quit 3E in disgust, and was considering giving up gaming altogether, until I realized that it wasn't D&D that had become unfun, it was that what Hasbro was calling "D&D" was unfun. But there was plenty of stuff called D&D that had enormous potential. And looking back over it, all the things that people touted 3E as 'fixing' were things that weren't broken in the first place, as long as you realized what kind of game you were playing. Older editions, as I said above, are different games with different assumptions. They deliver better the kind of game I want to play. So I can say that, from my standpoint, they're better games... that is, they are a better choice for me insofar as I want to play a game that I enjoy.

So, on what basis would you call the 3E mechanics better except that they deliver the kind of gameplay that you're looking for? Or are you going to tell me that they're more 'realistic'?

And then there's the dungeons. I have fallen into a trap of linear, short dungeons. I am not sure why. I think it is time to steal some maps from the WotC site and the Dungeon web extras and build myself a big, varied, complex dungeon with all the good stuff: green slime and yellow mold, gelatinous cubes and rust monsters, traps and puzzles, and no real "point" outside of whatever reason the PCs went in in the first plce (find the widget, make a shortcut through the mountain, etc...)

Well, you might want to look here:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18710

There are some great ideas in that thread about dungeon design. Keep in mind that, in an old school dungeon, survival is about the players using their wits. So things that are there should have an explanation, even though the explanation often will not (and should not, to bring home the otherworldly nature of the setting) be readily evident.

If you like how 3.5 runs and the experience it delivers then it may be the game for you. If you ever feel burned out by it, or find something unsatisfactory in it, give the old school rules a shot. Maybe you'll like them better. Or try them even if you're not burned out, just for variety and to say that you did. "Try, you mighta like!"

Even if you stick with 3.5 mechanics you can definitely inject some old school flavor into your game. A dungeon setting inspired by the above thread (there's a similar one at Knights and Knaves that I believe you need to be registered to view) would be a good way to do that. It's a question of presenting the dungeon as an underworld that in many ways is the polar opposite to the civilized enclave, with the wilderness being the transitional element.

What I'm talking about here are old school thematic elements. Those can be imported into 3.5 and I don't see any obstacle to that. I've heard some good things about the new 3.5 dungeon book, if you're in the market for another new Hasbro hardcover. Apart from the question of thematic elements, and this is what I was arguing with Celebrim about above, there is the mechanics issue, which has to do with how the game runs in practice, what kind of characters are made, how XP is awarded, whether rules for certain areas are codified or freeform, etc.

I would say that the true "old school experience" requires old school mechanics as well as old school thematic elements. But there's no reason I can see why you couldn't import old school themes into a 3.5 game. Me personally, I'd rather use the old school rules as well, but only you can figure out which rules are going to work best for you.

 

[RFisher]

Can you go home?

Yes!​

In the past few years I've again played the two games I started with: classic Traveller & classic D&D. I've been having a blast! If those games were fun then, I figured, they can be fun now too. & they are!

But...

No!​

I understand--I hope--those games & the hobby better now. Thanks to Gary Gygax, Rob Kuntz, Mike Mornard, & all the grognards here, at Dragonsfoot, & other online haunts. The CotI forum on the Traveller side. (If anyone finds anything on my site helpful, you have those people to thank.) So, it's not exactly the same...it's better!

& it isn't just about ancient, out-of-print games. (Although, both cT & cD&D are arguably in print!) I have a different approach to the game no matter what the system.

An important point, I think, is that I took a lot of time to read & think about it. If I had just jumped back into cT or cD&D, I probably would have unfairly judged them.

 

[Reynard]

I have decided to run RCD&D for a mini-con we do every year, to see how it "feels". If I fall back in love, I may be in the unenviable position of trying to convince my regular group to give up their BABs and prestige classes in favor of THAC0s and name level.

 

[Henry]

I think you recapture wonder by gong to something that is new, just as RPGs were new to you back then. A system you don't know, where the monsters, adventures, and probabilities aren't well-understood - that's how you get wonder. Try a new system, a new style, or a new genre, and you'll find wonder.

I find a lot of truth in that grain. I found my "wonder" rekindled, strangely, by both Warhammer 2nd edition, when I saw it last year, and HARP, which I saw a few years back. Reading those, looking at the art, the presentation, I was immediately taken back to a style reminiscent of 1st and second edition AD&D, which while I don't miss their rules a lot, I do miss their style.

 

[Umbran]

See for me the "wonderment" or nostalgia I feel for BD&D or AD&D has alot to do with asthetics, not necessarily just rules.

My wonderment is more strongly controlled by the GM's presentation during play than what's in the books. I am not terribly concerned about what the picture in the MM is - I care more about what the GM describes. The same goes for my current players. I am reasonably sure only two of them have ever looked inside the 3.x MM or DMG, and neither of those have run a game in some years. If the book aesthetics are controlling their experience, then I think I'm not doing my job very well

But, that's my experience. In games where the players interact with the books more, I guess it could be different.

And, to be clear, for me, "nostalgia" and "wonderment" are clearly separate experiences. They can be had simultaneously, or not. But aiming for nostalgia is not particularly to create wonder.

 

[Henry]

I have decided to run RCD&D for a mini-con we do every year, to see how it "feels". If I fall back in love, I may be in the unenviable position of trying to convince my regular group to give up their BABs and prestige classes in favor of THAC0s and name level.

Hopefully lightning will strike for you. I've been running lately the Against the Giants modules, actually abbreviated versions of them, with the classic 1978 version of the 1st edition AD&D rules. I've attracted a good bit of interest both in people who wanted to indulge the wayback machine, as well as people who had NEVER played anything older than 3E, and wanted to see what previous editions were like. Both Hill Giant Chief and Frost Giant Jarl were well-received as a lot of fun, and hopefully Fire Giant will, as well.