1E Resurgence?

[Grimstaff]

It's easier to assume someone has an ulterior motive than admit someone just doesn't agree with you, eh?

As for me, since I don't see "old school gaming" as an inherent positive (having been there for the good and bad), I can say that a game having an "old school vibe" in no way indicates that it "wins".

I just find that 4e is so eager to scuttle legacy D&D elements that it's far more credible to presume people would go looking for old school games because those elements are missing in 4e, not because those elements are present. I mean, if 4e gave you the old school feel you liked, then why would you go looking for it somewhere else?

I don't think there is anything "ulterior" about it.

Here is a thread that asks "why the increased interest in 1E lately?" and conjectures "maybe it has something to do with all the folks reporting 4E has a bit of old-school feel to it", and we get a couple of somewhat snarky posts (not yours, btw) about how 4E can't possibly feel old-school.

Its one thing to suggest other reasons why (as you do above) there may be an increased interest in 1E, its another (and off-topic) to state that the folks who experienced old-school feel in 4E are somehow wrong. I was by no means making a manifesto about my level of old-school feel in 4E, simply drawing from the many reports I've seen so far.

Its as if 4E is the poor fat kid in gym class, and some folks just can't help taking a shot when he enters the room...

 

[Grimstaff]

4th edition brought to light the flaws of 3E in a very brutal fashion. By doing this, it succeeded in killing many folks desire to play or run 3E, though 3E did not need a lot of help discouraging DMs. But, not everyone who was soured on 3E liked the direction 4E went.

So now that 4E & 3E are no longer options, the only options with the D&D name are retro.

This seems a likely scenario for some folks as well, good observation!

I wonder if there is way to define exactly how 3E and 4E failed these gamers in a concise list - sort of a pros and cons, rather than a "bash" of this or that edition.

 

[Psion]

Here is a thread that asks "why the increased interest in 1E lately?"
(...)
Its one thing to suggest other reasons why (as you do above) there may be an increased interest in 1E, its another (and off-topic) to state that the folks who experienced old-school feel in 4E are somehow wrong.

Ah, but what you seem to be missing here (in my case at least) is the ways in which 4e diverge from legacy D&D elements is a reason people would play an older edition of D&D. So it's in every way related to why I think it would happen.

I do, indeed, find how you can find old-schoolness in 4e curious, but that is not what I'm really here to discuss (at least past my tongue-in-cheek initial post.)

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Not sure if anyone is interested, but I made a blog post a while back about how I see the origins of the "old-school revival," and where it's going.

Uhluht'c Awakens: The Old-school "Revival": Origins, Current State, and Future; An open discussion

 

[Nikosandros]

I really, really hate to ask this - but since we have like 10 other threads about this on the forum, and it's clear nobody's budging with the same arguments, I will. Could we just accept that, for quite a few folks, 4e feels a lot like RC/1e, even if you have no idea why they'd feel that?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This is not about accepting what other people feel. It's about people stating their opinions. Some see this semblance to previous editions, others do not. Each side has the right to state their opinion.

 

[Obryn]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. This is not about accepting what other people feel. It's about people stating their opinions. Some see this semblance to previous editions, others do not. Each side has the right to state their opinion.

Right.

But it seems like every single thread on ENWorld which mentions both 1e and 4e has devolved into exactly the same argument. I was asking that this argument be shunted off to a more appropriate thread, like the dozen or so that are talking specifically about this. And that we simply take the fact that there's a difference of opinion as a given here, and move on.

-O

 

[Grimstaff]

Not sure if anyone is interested, but I made a blog post a while back about how I see the origins of the "old-school revival," and where it's going.

Uhluht'c Awakens: The Old-school "Revival": Origins, Current State, and Future; An open discussion

Nice post, thanks for linking that. I suspect many of your observations are spot on.

Is it possible we're seeing a movement to "take back the hobby" as it were? There seems to be quite a disparity between what the fans are producing via these retroclones and what the major game companies are producing. Do you think the two shall ever meet?

 

[Remathilis]

Nice post, thanks for linking that. I suspect many of your observations are spot on.

Is it possible we're seeing a movement to "take back the hobby" as it were? There seems to be quite a disparity between what the fans are producing via these retroclones and what the major game companies are producing. Do you think the two shall ever meet?

I don't think so.

I still think the retro-clones (OSRIC, LL, S&W, BFRPG, and C&C) are still a limited niche. They are calling out to players from the 70's and 80's who have grown disenchanted with the current game. It leaves out those who came into the hobby in the late 80's or 90's (as of yet, there is no 2e clone, but numerous 1e/OD&D ones) as well as those happy with 3e or its "non-retro" clone, Pathfinder. And that isn't even getting into those who like 4e or are now just discovering the game.

I think overall the retros (and resurgence play) won't be a big enough niche to really worry about; if they were scared, they'd stop selling the PDFs for $6. Those players were probably gone anyway; might as well work on new ones.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

There seems to be quite a disparity between what the fans are producing via these retroclones and what the major game companies are producing. Do you think the two shall ever meet?

Depends on how the market reacts. If there's a big renewal of interest in the kinds of offerings that the retro-clones and "old school hobbyist" sources are producing, then more mainstream companies will pick up on it. (Goodman Games has dipped its toe into the waters, with its 1e modules and with products that appeal to multiple markets, like the sandboxy Points of Light and The Random Esoteric Creature Generator.)

Either way works for me. If it goes more mainstream, that's great. If it stays as a more hobbyist-oriented thing, that's cool, too. Either way, I'm enjoying the fruits of the "resurgence."

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't think so.

I still think the retro-clones (OSRIC, LL, S&W, BFRPG, and C&C) are still a limited niche. They are calling out to players from the 70's and 80's who have grown disenchanted with the current game. It leaves out those who came into the hobby in the late 80's or 90's (as of yet, there is no 2e clone, but numerous 1e/OD&D ones) as well as those happy with 3e or its "non-retro" clone, Pathfinder. And that isn't even getting into those who like 4e or are now just discovering the game.

I think overall the retros (and resurgence play) won't be a big enough niche to really worry about; if they were scared, they'd stop selling the PDFs for $6. Those players were probably gone anyway; might as well work on new ones.

I agree that the interest in previous edition is limited to a small percentage of gamers, but not necessarily all of them are "veterans". I've recruited several players for my AD&D games that had never played it before and I've read of several similar experiences.