How we experienced the game, in totally different and incompatible ways

[Quasqueton]

One thing that has amazed me in the discussions about older Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D1, especially) is how two people can have such totally different experiences with the game even though they both played extensively and with numerous groups.

For instance, no group I ever played with (long enough to gain a level) ever used the training rules in AD&D1 campaigns. I never enforced the training rules, no DM I ever played under enforced the training rules, and no Player in any of my campaigns ever mentioned them.

Also, the concept of declaring actions before rolling initiative, as stated in the DMG, was completely unknown to me until this year -- after 27 years of gaming. I played AD&D1 for about 15 years, with a few dozen people, and never, ever, not once, did anyone ever so much as mention that rule. And I'm not just counting groups I played with long enough to gain a level. Even the groups that I played with only one time didn't mention or use this rule.

But I've met people here in this forum who always used the training rules and declare actions rule, in every group they played with. They never knew anyone who didn't use them.

There are some people here who never saw the xp for gp rule ever used, and there are some people here who always saw it used. This is a rule that can seriously alter the game experience in a major way, so someone who never saw the rule used will have a completely different memory of the game than someone who always saw the rule used.

And then there's the difference of experience with regard to magic item availability, power levels, etc. For instance, there are two posters here who regularly argue over what AD&D1 was like. (I won't name names because I don't want to pick a fight, or put anyone on the spot.) They both seem to have played AD&D1 extensively, with numerous groups, but their experiences are completely at odds. I don't think they have ever agreed with each other on anything regarding AD&D1. They're civil with each other, but their experiences are so completely black and white, up and down, that they can't seem to find any ground to share.

Yes, a lot (all?) of this stuff comes from how the individual groups and DMs ruled, house ruled, and styled their games. But how did one poster encounter *only* DMs of a particular style, and the other encounter *only* DMs of a completely opposite style? I know AD&D1 was often heavily house ruled, and there are some book rules that were almost universally house ruled by most groups. But how is it Poster A's experience is that *everyone* *always* used the training rules, but Poster B's experience is that "no one" "ever" used the training rules (to use just one rule as an example)?

These pervasive, diametrically different experiences just amaze me. How does it happen? Whenever someone talks about "old school gaming" multiple posters often give contridictory descriptions:
"It was about kicking in the door, attacking the monster with wild abandon, and thoroughly looting the premises."
"It was about approaching every door with caution, using intelligent tactics against monsters (running when the monster was too tough), and knowing what treasure to leave alone."
These can't both be true, can they?

AD&D1 had many, many styles -- just look at the varied official TSR adventure modules. Compare Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh to The Village of Hommlet, or the Dragonlance series to the Elemental Evil series -- each a very different style than the other. But how could a player go through 10+ years of AD&D1 only experiencing one style of the game, even after relocating, going to college, etc.?

Quasqueton

 

[Doug McCrae]

Whenever someone talks about "old school gaming" multiple posters often give contridictory descriptions

I take "old school gaming" to mean Gygaxian. The style of play suggested by Gygax's writings for TSR - OD&D, 1e, Unearthed Arcana, his modules and Dragon articles. Admittedly that in itself is a contradictory body of work.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

These pervasive, diametrically different experiences just amaze me.

Counterintuitive organization of the DMG and PHB, leading to important rules being hidden away in random places.

Plus, the training rules and some of the others just plain sucked, so a lot of people skipped them even if they did find them.

 

[Erstwhile]

Part of it was also that most of us learned from other people, and quite often there was a "core" of gamers who'd bring the majority of people in a given area into the game. (I grew up in a small town, so it might be different in the big city, but University game clubs, local gaming clubs in particular neighbourhoods, etc., operate on the same principle I think.) So, you'd get "subcultures" within the broader gaming hobby, and I think it's possible - likely, even - that "everyone" in Small Town A "always uses the declare-before-initiative" rule, since the vast majority would have been brought into the game through the same core group.

Plus, as Whizbang notes, the fact that rules were scattered hither and yon didn't exactly promote consistency.

 

[phindar]

I always liked the forge's "Cargo Cult" metaphor. All these groups started with pretty much the same material (PHB, DMG, a few modules) and then played a few years more or less in isolation. You could easily have two groups in one town running pretty much the same game, but having completely incompatible styles. And this is just talking about back when gaming was pretty much one or two systems.

 

[Roger]

Whenever someone talks about "old school gaming" multiple posters often give contridictory descriptions:

"It was about kicking in the door, attacking the monster with wild abandon, and thoroughly looting the premises."

"It was about approaching every door with caution, using intelligent tactics against monsters (running when the monster was too tough), and knowing what treasure to leave alone."

These can't both be true, can they?

Apparently they can.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[JDJblatherings]

Counterintuitive organization of the DMG and PHB, leading to important rules being hidden away in random places.

Plus, the training rules and some of the others just plain sucked, so a lot of people skipped them even if they did find them.

Nobody had done anything lke it before it couldn't have been counterintuitive as the one who was intuiting it was Mr. Gygax.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I always liked the forge's "Cargo Cult" metaphor. All these groups started with pretty much the same material (PHB, DMG, a few modules) and then played a few years more or less in isolation. You could easily have two groups in one town running pretty much the same game, but having completely incompatible styles. And this is just talking about back when gaming was pretty much one or two systems.

You're going to tell me that everyone else wasn't required to play 1E in the nude, aren't you?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Nobody had done anything lke it before it couldn't have been counterintuitive as the one who was intuiting it was Mr. Gygax.

I'm pretty sure that someone had written out rules manuals prior to Chainmail and OD&D. The PGA would beg to differ with you, for starters, as would Little League, Major League Baseball and Parker Brothers.

 

[Zendragon]

I remember only imposing the training rules if a character dual/multiclassed. XP for gold was a rule I saw used all the time.

I think that part of the reason that players saw the same DM'ing type was that as players learned from the first DM, they kept a lot of the same rules because that is what they were used to. In my case, I learned from 1 DM and started another group when he went to military school. When he came back many of my players were nervous about adding a new player, but once I explained that I learned most everything from him they were cool with it. That was just over 20 years ago and both of us still play. We played through all the editions and sometimes had different views on rules, but whoever was DM had the final say. I am still a player in one of his groups, and I have my own group that I DM.