Giving Old Skool one last shot before calling it quits.

[Jack7]

Well, I don't know if this will help you at all or not Rey, but here is my experience and opinion on the matter.

I used to play D&D and other similar role playing games all of the time when I was a kid (of course back then all there really was were things like Chainmail, and then later D&D and AD&D. After High School I took everything I had created for the game; milieus, supplements (back when everyone created there own stuff), etc and burned it all. I kept the gaming books as nostalgia.

After that I played maybe once in college. I considered the game silly and part of my youth, and a distraction from growing up and becoming responsible.

I gave it up entirely til after I turned thirty when I began to DM again but maybe once a month or so. After that came Third edition (I never played Second), and I was basically like you, it should have never been. That edition sucked to me. It wasn't anything like D&D as I had played it. Nor much in the way of enjoyable. But there were elements I saw as very, even extremely useful, so I incorporated those elements into our game. (I've never understood why so many people gripe though about the actual particular elements of a rule systems, because, and I guess this is because I played the game from it's inception, when most people made up their own stuff, including rules, but rules are just rules. You don't like particular rules, throw them out, and replace them with better. Nobody holds a gun to your head and says, "Hey fella, you play by these rules or I waste your brain stem." It's just a game. - Games aren't the most important thing in this world, or any other world. Not even close. - And I think too many people get all riled up and caught up in games like they are important in and of themselves, and they ain't. I can see griping though about the whole system and thrust of the game, if you're gonna game that is, because 3rd edition to me went from fantasy to just plain silly and it stopped up just about the entire intestinal tract with a huge gob of constipated and unnecessary minutiae. That is to say it's easy to modify bad rules, but if the whole system is whacked then you gotta redesign so much that it might not be worth your time to even try. To me that was 3rd edition. I didn't much bother.)

Now I like 4th Edition because the general thrust has changed, and to me it is more like AD&D in many ways, but mainly I like it because of the milieu I designed years and years ago, and in which my players have adventured ever since, and how 4th Edition is useful for that setting. It is actually split into two worlds, one being our world circa 800 AD and with most of the campaigns set in Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire. The second world is just like ours geographically but is inhabited by what we'd call Elves and other creatures, and in addition it has different animals and flora and cultures (but no humans, except a handful who accidentally got pulled into that world like some of the Knights of the Round Table who were looking for the Grail.) Now the humans in our world are basically AD&D characters who I upgraded and changed the classes around some (how I would have made human characters if I had designed and upgraded Third edition based on AD&D) to make them more powerful for the worlds in which they have to operate. But basically they are as you describe for AD&D.

The other world had used character classes I had designed but they had never really been different enough and alien enough to radically diverge from the human characters (as I imagine Elves being completely different from humans) to satisfy me. But with 4th Edition I now have Elven and Eladrin (I don't use Dragonborn or Tiefling) and Dwarven (we don't call them elves and dwarves, but that's what they are) character races and classes that are totally different from the Human race and character classes. The other world is completely different from our world (except geographically) and the classes and races are completely different and this makes for a very good game and a real divergence and contrast between the human race and characters, and the elven and dwarven races and classes. So we play elves and dwarves and halflings and eladrin pretty much as they are depicted in 4th edition and according to the way 4th edition has them operate and gives them powers. And the humans operate like updated and upgraded Paladins and Thieves and Clerics (humans have no Wizards, instead they have Magi who are Byzantine and Middle Eastern proto-scientists, alchemists, and experts, as the Romans and Greeks would say, sciens, and the other world, the one with elves, etc have no clerics, but they do have Wizards and Warlocks - though with different names) of basically the AD&D type.

So 4th Edition has worked out great for me (of course I know that's a personal situation, I can't honestly say how I'd view it if it hadn't been so uniquely designed to be useful for my particular setting, but then again because it has worked out so well for me, I don't care), it has allowed me to do something I've wanted to do for a long time and had never really successfully achieved, and that is create a real dichotomy between humans and non-humans and between the way the human world works and the non-human world works. I'm really enjoying it and so are my players.

But to your wider point I understand exactly how you feel. I would never play D&D, or any other game, like I used to when I was a kid. Games, and any other form of entertainment, video games, movies, etc. have to have a real point to me nowadays. I'm older and I have far more important things and far more important work to do than to sit around all of the time doing nothing more productive than gaming, or indulging in escapist entertainment.

I have nothing against entertainment or gaming per se, that's obvious, or I wouldn't play or even be responding to this thread, but if all my games and entertainment choices did was kill time then not only would that be utterly useless to me, it would bore the living crap outta me. So I changed my gaming around over time, as I got older. My kids play now and I use D&D as part of their homeschooling, often teaching them myth and religion and history and culture and psychology and combat tactics and survival skills by weaving those elements into my scenario and adventure designs. My buddies play and we use the game to practice skills we possess, such as investigative skills or Intel analysis (also elements woven into campaign and adventure design), and to learn about and develop new skills and abilities.

A technique I call Real World Transferable Skills, that is we use and practice the real world skills of the players in-game and vice versa, that is I write game adventures and scenarios so that the players can practice their character skills in such a way as to have some applicability to the real world. Now I don't design games so that we reach a certain area and say, "okay, now this is the part of the game where we're gonna practice a skill simulation, so I want to see your analysis of the Beirut terrorist cell and communications structure, and how they are financing their operations and how you think their smuggling network is functioning..." (or, take your pick, in D&D terms how the Black Sea pirates are running their smuggling operations to arm the local Hun bandits with superior iron weaponry), but rather the skill simulations are just built into the game as part of the natural mission background.

But this way of approaching the game, by making it useful, actually makes the game more enjoyable to me and my players tell me it makes it more enjoyable to them. So the game becomes both useful and entraining without me or my players feeling that it is just escapist entertainment, and a frivolous waste of time, which truth be told, at my age, I have no interest in indulging in whatsoever. I'd rather be productive and achieving something or gaining some advantage out of something than just escaping. If something doesn't give me ideas of real world usefulness, if it doesn't help me in some way, or I don't feel it is a productive use of my time, then I don't only not want to waste my time on it, I don't enjoy it. I'm an adult now and have been for a long time, I'm not a kid. I've got better and more important things to do with my time than escapism and being entertained just for the sake of being entertained.

However that doesn't mean people don't need entertainment, or for that matter that entertainment has to be useless either. And to be honest when I was a teenager I wouldn't have batted an eye at the thought of gaming with my buddies for six or seven hours at a time with no point to it other than just having fun. (Now the thought would horrify me.) I was at that age and that was the function entertainment had for me, nothing much more. Relaxation and escape. But as I've aged having fun means more to me than just killing time and being distracted, or even just relaxing. I have responsibilities and what relaxes me nowadays is very different from when I was a kid. I'm not the same guy as I was back then. So as for me (and my buddies) I have solved the entertainment dilemma by transforming my entertainments into not "just entertainments," but also into useful exercises (and this is true of all my entertainments for the most past, not just D&D). And I've found that because my entertainments are now useful I enjoy them that much more, and I don't feel bothered with the thought of, "it this really a good sue of my time at my age." More often than not, unless I have something more important to do at that time, it is. So I can look at my gaming as part of "My Work," and by that I mean, not just as a job, but as integrated into "my Life's Work," as one part of my overall achievements over the entire course of my lifetime.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can make a thing into practically anything you want it or need it to be if you alter it to your own purposes and designs. So D&D (like anything else) can just be a silly kid's game, and a time wasting distraction, or it can be something useful and beneficial. Depends on how you approach it, and what you want it to be at any given time or point in your life.

So that may or may not help ya. But you may wanna give that kinda thing a try and see how it works out for ya.

Good luck and Godspeed to ya, no matter what, and good to see ya back around here. You always had a way of stimulating some interesting discussions.

Forgive any typos I made, I had to write fast and until I can get my new copy of Whitesmoke instaled on my new system I'm using Word as a text editor. And everybody pretty much knows how that goes.

Well, I gotta hit the sack.
See ya.

 

[billd91]

I've tried playing 1e recently. Found that 3e and the additional character building choices (particularly skills and feats) spoiled me. Whenever I leveled up, I couldn't shake the feeling "That's it? That's all there is?"

So I run 3e. But, with a pack of players who mostly gamed since 1e days, we manage to keep a pretty good old-school vibe going. Yes, some things are different, but we've been getting very good mileage out of the Classic Modules Campaign I'm running. And the experiences they've been having are very reminiscent of when I ran the very same modules back in 1e.

I do think it's possible to get that old-school feel with newer editions. But I will agree there's a personal element to it as well. For some people, it's the process of using the old tools to make the game play work. For others, it's the process of using new tools to make make the game play work. It's like the way some people prefer to break out classic tools when baking, working on their crafts, while others like to make the same stuff but using newer technology to do it. The right use of different tools can produce remarkably similar results, but part of the fun is in getting there.

 

[Orius]

Heh, Might need to change your sig

True dat.

Dammit, now that he changed the sig, I don't get the joke.

GG always made a point to talk about balance, but much of what came into the game was clearly not balanced

I think perhaps "balance" is something that cannot always be measured objectively, and that in at least some cases it varies from person to person.

Or maybe different playing styles require different levels of balance.

Among the biggest problems with 4E as it relates to "old school" gaming, though, is the intentional design decision to remove randomosity from the game -- crits were too swingy, random treasure caused issues, etc... 1E trusts the DM to adjudicate the dice to deal with that randomness while 4E tries to expunge it from play.

Don't know if this is a good thing or bad. I don't always like randomness myself, sometimes it can really screw things. But there are times that the unpredictability of randomness can shake thing up and make them more interesting. Sometimes, the two are indistinguishable....

Haven't played 4e yet, but I can understand why randomness was removed. New DM haven't learned how to fudge well (that's one of those things that has to be learned through experience), so when they let the dice fall where they may, sometimes very bad things happen. Also, such randomness makes it harder to adapt the rules to an electronic format; human DMs can always fudge, but a computer running a D&D-based game can't. Video game adaptations of D&D have been largely hit and miss, and I'm sure one of the things Hasbro wanted from the new edition was a game that could be used for electronic gaming adaptations. Perhaps a default non-random ruleset with some basaic guidline for more experienced DMs would have been a better solution. For example, the random treasure table ideas that have been mentioned here come to mind.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...they let the dice fall where they may, sometimes very bad things happen.

I think "bad things happening" is part of the challenge, and thus part of the fun. The disagreement about "bad things killing the fun" is one of the fundamental disconnects between old school and new school, in my opinion.

 

[Reynard]

I think "bad things happening" is part of the challenge, and thus part of the fun. The disagreement about "bad things killing the fun" is one of the fundamental disconnects between old school and new school, in my opinion.

QFT.

Not to say that a character getting laid low by a random roll in 1e wasn't necessarily a cause for a little irritation, but you knew it was a possibility in old school play. Adventuring is dangerous business, after all.

But part of the difference between old school play and modern play, as I see it, is that modern play has stopped being about adventuring and started being about storytelling. it has impacted the entire game and how it's played. When people started thinking about how boring some D&D-isms would be in a novel -- spell selection, counting rations, spiking doors, using a 10' pole -- or how anti-climactic sudden protagonist (or even antagonist) death would be, the game veered away from its strengths. It isn't a novel or a movie. The parts that would be boring in a narrative don't need to be expunged because those parts can be half the fun in a game. I've had parties sit around for 4 hours of a 6 hour session planning an attack or expedition, and it was fun. It was even more fun when their plan went off without a hitch or got completely botched or whatever, but those weren't "wasted" 4 hours.

Character death has also become a problem in the new school -- due in part to the "story" aspect of play, but I also think the blame can be laid on the fact that back in the 1E days you could roll up a new character in 10 mins and get back to the action the first time the rest of the party took a trip back to town for supplies. Stats + race choice + class choice = easy char gen, from 1st to 20th level. You didn't even have to pick gear -- you had to negotiate with the DM for the basics, and then negotiate with the party for the rest.

Oh, old school, how I miss thee.

 

[Jack7]

But part of the difference between old school play and modern play, as I see it, is that modern play has stopped being about adventuring and started being about storytelling. it has impacted the entire game and how it's played. When people started thinking about how boring some D&D-isms would be in a novel -- spell selection, counting rations, spiking doors, using a 10' pole -- or how anti-climactic sudden protagonist (or even antagonist) death would be, the game veered away from its strengths. It isn't a novel or a movie. The parts that would be boring in a narrative don't need to be expunged because those parts can be half the fun in a game. I've had parties sit around for 4 hours of a 6 hour session planning an attack or expedition, and it was fun. It was even more fun when their plan went off without a hitch or got completely botched or whatever, but those weren't "wasted" 4 hours.

I agree to a large extent.

Character death has also become a problem in the new school -- due in part to the "story" aspect of play, but I also think the blame can be laid on the fact that back in the 1E days you could roll up a new character in 10 mins and get back to the action the first time the rest of the party took a trip back to town for supplies. Stats + race choice + class choice = easy char gen, from 1st to 20th level. You didn't even have to pick gear -- you had to negotiate with the DM for the basics, and then negotiate with the party for the rest.

Though I got nothing against storying, or role playing, (we do a lot of both) I agree here too. You make a thing too complicated and you often make it both inefficient and too specialized. It doesn't interest broadly because you need to become "an expert" just to bother messing with it. There are better and more important things to become well-versed in than to spend your time becoming a gaming-technocrat.

And death is part of life. Trying to escape it all of the time, or having a way to escape it all of the time doesn't make men heroic, it makes them artificial and inhuman.

 

[JeffB]

I don't want to get into an Edition Wars thing so please understand this is just my thoughts on old school and "modern" gaming-I hold no malice for anything as silly as preference when it comes to a game about make believe.

I guess for me D&D "died" when 3E was released. To * me * true D&D is low AC= better, the 5 saving throws, thief percentages, percentile strength, D8 HD for monsters, small statblocks, unbalanced classes level to level- the clunkiness of the the brown books through to 2E. I played the game(s) and loved the games just for those reasons. Thieve's sucking in combat unless they got a nice backstab, low level Wizards running scared, etc. I totally understand where people are coming from and there are times when thats exactly what I want (I still have all my old B/X stuff as well as my 1E books and C&C, but I only kept 3 modules left out of anearly two hundred D20 items I bought back during the glut era ). AFAIC, I'd just as soon go back to the 0HP=dead of O/B/X

3E for me took away all the clunkiness and brought in the "game within the game"- character builds, monster builds, blah blah- the core mechanic was streamlined and the rules made more sense than previous editions (as much sense can be made of agame of make believe) however they were too rule intensive for me. too much prep time, too much emphasis making sure everything is balanced, too much time spent on long combats with multiple attacks and people getting bored (including myself). Of course it had it's good points- but when it came down to actual play ,or rather RUNNING the game, it was def for the hardcore- and that is NOT me.

But I understand why the game evolved fundamentally through 3E and now into 4E. And I realized that while there is some flavor changes, and fundamental changes I don't personally love, I think this is to make the game better for your average person who wants to play. Like Monopoly, if you are playing poorly, its not because the next player has the Shoe, and the Shoe is much better than the Iron. I never thought negatively much of a "Thief sucks in combat" until I started seeing some young people bored out of their skulls at the table cos the turns were taking awhile, and then the disappointment of when it WAS their turn, not having an "effective" character. Its maddening and I think makes for more player attrition than anything in the game. So while I am the kind of DM who in the old school days made sure the Wizards and Thieves had times to shine outside of combat and take the spotlight, I never saw it much from the player perspective during what is arguably (and for better or worse) the most exciting part of the game- combat. So the "even footing" thing of 3E and more-so 4E, doesnt really bother me like it used to. I think thats a good fundamental change in the grand scheme of things though it may not be my personal preference. I do feel that 4E needs a bit more depth providing out of combat "tools" to make the classes more distinct, but that's also a thing I can (like in the old days) make sure is accomplished by providing non combat play that emphasizes subterfuge for the Rogue or Ranger, or a Magic Users rituals or knowledge of Arcana, or a Cleric's connections with his church (or knowledge of "enemy" churches/cults), etc etc. Ultimately thats up to me as a DM to provide for the players, and always has been. Another "old school" thing is that I don't and never have mamsy pamsy-ed the characters/players. I'm not a proponent of "everything must be balanced" or everything must go by the RAW, so I hit 'em with some monsters that are going to be way too tough for them, hit em with wandering patrols if they get a little too comfy with resting all the time, etc. I won't kill them just for the sake of it, but I do like to make sure they are never over confident about a situation and are always looking for non-mechanical ways to succeed and to emphasize the RP part of "RPG".

Well thats my pointless ramble, I know what people are saying and agree in many cases, but I also believe how the game is run is just as big of a factor (if not THE most important) as the rules system for "old school style".

 

[Reynard]

And death is part of life. Trying to escape it all of the time, or having a way to escape it all of the time doesn't make men heroic, it makes them artificial and inhuman.

Adventurers and heroes should cheat death, laugh in its face. Sometimes it gets the last laugh.

 

[Henry]

Reynard, good luck with your quest to avoid retirement. It sounds like the biggest goal is not to get your players to like 1st ed D&D, it's to find out what gets them coming back to the game and give it to them. If they're storytellers make sure there's a small theme worth exploring, if they're "power gamers" find ways to give them bennies/items/powers that don't blow up the game for you, etc. Find ways to put those old quirky rules from AD&D to use -- you could probably build a whole adventure around a really disastrous or really good result from the Potion Miscibility table...

In any event, good luck with it.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Remathilis,
aye I agree, 2nd Ed was better, much awesomness
Dark Sun + Spelljammer + planescape = WOOT!

gave/sold off my 1st ed stuff, except core books and monster manuals, sigh...no room, no kids to leave 'em to.
Perfect condition Wilderness Survival guide...Against the Giants...you name it....*cry*