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

[Eridanis]

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

How about everyone takes this as a sign to discontinue this part of the discussion, and get back on track? Thanks.

 

[Crothian]

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.

 

[Jack99]

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.

 

[WayneLigon]

'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.

 

[Zulgyan]

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.

 

[ancientvaults]

Running Swords & Wizardry and Labyrinth Lord.

Longterm. Gonzo. Off-the-wall.

 

[Arkhandus]

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).

 

[Zulgyan]

No interest in older editions.

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.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

 

[Korgoth]

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.