Played Basic D&D for the first time in over 20 years last night...

[DayTripper]

I've never had a problem with combat taking too long in 4E.

Taking too long between turns with only 4 players just boggles my mind.

Not too sure how you've managed the first feat but kudos to you! Not too sure how you manage the second feat either you must play with very decisive people...

Back to the subject of the thread though, has anyone taken OD&D through a campaign? I'm wondering how it plays out in the longer term. I'm sure its a great laugh for a one-shot or single adventure but is it too simplistic for extended play?

 

[jcayer]

We've run a couple one shot AD&D things and I expect once we finish up our 4E campaign we will look at running something AD&D or OD&D for a while.

We have very much enjoyed the less regimented, combat focused powers, items and abilities. Combat speed was also much quicker. Heck, we could finish an encounter faster than it takes our Dragonborn Fighter to finish his turn(come and get it, dragon breath, AP, another dragon breath, some other burst power).

 

[Korgoth]

I'm trying to type carefully because I don't want to accidentally offend anyone or have anyone take anything personally. Actually I've just erased the entire comment box several times so I'll maybe just give up.

I have a hard time believing these stories because they are so far outside my personal experiences.

I've introduced many people to 4E, and several to their first role-playing and D&D experiences.

I've never had a problem with combat taking too long in 4E.

Taking too long between turns with only 4 players just boggles my mind.

I'll stop here.

I need to find and play in a group like this for personal edification.

Maybe it depends on what you're used to?

When I was running Empire of the Petal Throne (OD&D), a combat with 6 or more players and a dozen monsters took 20 minutes or less. A combat against a solitary monster or villain took less than that.

On a good day it seems like a 5 player combat in 4E that is an "easy" encounter takes 45 min - 1 hour.

4E is an interesting game but simple and fast it is not. A game where every weapon does 1d6 (or 1d6-1 or 1d6+1) and to attack you just roll a d20 (no powers to select)... that's simple and fast. Now, 4E is simple and fast compared to 3E, in my opinion.

 

[rogueattorney]

#4: Lack of finicky restrictions. This was particularly noticeable with the magic-user, whose spells were mind-blowingly free of limitations by 3.5E standards. Obviously, this had its down side--the M-U totally dominated the session, racking up a spectacular kill count against a horde of troglodytes, then winning the final fight thanks to his possessed body's innate fire immunity. But I was struck by the... well, for lack of a better word, the "gung-ho-ness" of the spell list. The designers were obviously looking to make the spells do Cool Stuff, to be exciting and fun to use. By comparison, 3.5E spells feel like they were written by accountants and tax lawyers.

That was one of the biggest in-play differences between O(A)D&D Magic-Users and 3.x Wizards. At least at lower levels. The Magic-User was a one-shot cannon. The Wizard was a six-shot pop gun. I'm not saying one was better than the other (although I certainly prefer the older version), but rather that the play experience between the two was quite different.

 

[Shazman]

I'm trying to type carefully because I don't want to accidentally offend anyone or have anyone take anything personally. Actually I've just erased the entire comment box several times so I'll maybe just give up.

I have a hard time believing these stories because they are so far outside my personal experiences.

I've introduced many people to 4E, and several to their first role-playing and D&D experiences.

I've never had a problem with combat taking too long in 4E.

Taking too long between turns with only 4 players just boggles my mind.

I'll stop here.

I need to find and play in a group like this for personal edification.

Well, to be honest, I have a hard time believing people don't have a problem with 4E combat taking too long or taking a long time between turns. The balance between PC damage and monster hit points and PC attack bonuses and monster defenses is just so out of whack, the math of 4E makes overly long combats practically inevitable. On top of that you have a lot of options even for low level PC's and modifiers and conditions that change on a round to round basis. As much a people complained about the complexity of high level 3.5 combat, low level 4E combat can be even more demanding. I don't know how you can not have these problems with 4E unless you are using house rules. Long combat is built into 4E's mechanics. I've seen a single paragon level encounter in 4E take about 4 hours. Not a session, one encounter. Enough said.

 

[Grimstaff]

Back to the subject of the thread though, has anyone taken OD&D through a campaign? I'm wondering how it plays out in the longer term. I'm sure its a great laugh for a one-shot or single adventure but is it too simplistic for extended play?

Yes, running a long term Swords & Wizardry campaign (the OD&D + supplements retro-clone) and having a blast. All the players are new to the edition or to RPGs in general. The simplicity you mentioned has contributed to the longevity, rather than taken away from it: the basic framework is easy to hang houserules off of to make it our "perfect" game, and the lack of focus on numerical advancement (powers, skills, etc) enhances focus on long-term "character" goals.

 

[Shades of Green]

The most noticeable thing in my transition from 3.0E to BFRPG (which is, essentially, a BECMI clone with some 3E mechanics such as ascending AC) was the extreme easy of prep and play. Gone were the massive stat-blocks (which were replaced by one line of text per monster), and gone was the frequent referencing of books during the game. It simply fits our play-style better; however, I know people for whom 3E or 4E would be optimal.

 

[mattcolville]

This seems likely, yes...


... but this doesn't follow.

I don't think it matters if it's likely or if it follows. What matters is; does it happen? And in my experience and the experience of a lot of people I've talked to, the answer is yes.

When you give people cool stuff to do, then they enter a state where they're waiting to use those things. When you describe what's happening in the setting, they now see those things through the filter of "Is this an opportunity to use my cool abilities?"

If you remove that filter, take those cool things away, then they begin to perceive the setting qua the setting. Which is, I submit, desirable.

 

[Mallus]

I don't think it matters if it's likely or if it follows. What matters is; does it happen? And in my experience and the experience of a lot of people I've talked to, the answer is yes.

Maybe I misread your post, but thought you were trying to make the general case "simpler mechanics" = "richer role-playing experience (of both setting and character)". Which I'm certain is true for some people, just as I'm equally certain is untrue for others (like my current group).

If you weren't making a thesis, then sorry. I got your post wrong.

When you give people cool stuff to do, then they enter a state where they're waiting to use those things. When you describe what's happening in the setting, they now see those things through the filter of "Is this an opportunity to use my cool abilities?"

I've observed a lot of disengaged and uncreative characters played under earlier, simpler editions of D&D. For them, the lack of complex character rules, longs lists of wahoo powers, etc. led to, well, not much. Which is why I prefer to think of depth of characterization and level of engagement with the game fiction as being largely a matter of personal preference and play goals. Sure, the rules might get in the way for some people, but there's no general causal relationship to be found here, other than "some people like less mechanical detail, some people like more".

If you remove that filter, take those cool things away, then they begin to perceive the setting qua the setting. Which is, I submit, desirable.

I think it's a desirable thing, too, I but don't think it's as easy as "decreasing rules complexity increases engagement". That hasn't been my experience at all.

 

[Filcher]

I think it's a desirable thing, too, I but don't think it's as easy as "decreasing rules complexity increases engagement". That hasn't been my experience at all.

Otherwise having no rules at all would be an amazing game! Think of all the copies we could sell, and with nearly no overhead.