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

[NiTessine]

I voted "sign up for a long-term campaign". I did.

A year ago, a group I was playing Shackled City with reverted back to their long-running 1E campaign, and I was invited along. So, I played a couple of sessions with 1E, and then they concluded 3E was actually better and converted (with no input from me, I would note).

I don't think I ever got to play a session under 3E rules before I had to move, though.

 

[Cadfan]

I find kinda disturbing someone can hate other people's fun.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Hating your fun. Not you, not your game, but the fun itself.

Look, if I had phrased my criticism as someone who loved the old school revolution and wanted it to be even better, no one would have even been bothered by my actual point.

 

[Bumbles]

And that's why I tried to stick to humor!

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Monkey is running a BECMI/RC PbP and I'd definately sign on for either that or AD&D 2E if I still had the books. Yeah that mostly has to do with nostalia.

 

[The Shaman]

I could readily find a group of players who enjoy pre.three.ee D&D, but I have little desire to play in or run a regular fantasy campaign.

I played in an OD&D one-shot with some of the Dragonsfoot locals last summer, and it looks like we're going to do it again this year. That's the whole extent of my involvement with D&D at this point, and for now that's enough.

There are several other games and genres that I enjoy more.

 

[rounser]

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.

I agree to an extent. The thief in particular seems a problem area that encapsulates the problems you're referring to. Why give it 1d4 HP, still, when it's clearly so very underpowered? (BFRPG's answer: Tradition, maybe compatibility...IMO a poor answer at best. Even the designer house rules it up to 1d6 or 1d8). Are the thief abilities all DM fiat in their applicability, because the guidelines are still sketchy? Why not bust every chest open with an axe, and 11 foot pole every corner of the dungeon? Why even have the thief class at all?

I think the answer to your question is a bit of a Catch 22, in that the kind of person who ditches the bad and holds onto the good (all based on their opinion) gives you a 3E. The person who doesn't see much good to hold onto at all and tries to give the whole thing an overhaul gives you a 4E. The nearest thing we have to what you're referring to is C&C, and that retains a large amount of warts in itself. (I think it's made a bit of an arbitrary labyrinthine mess of the classes like the AD&Ds did, for instance.)

The temptation to codify everything and restrict the scope of the game (whilst thinking you're doing your players a favour) is seemingly too great. I even did it in this post, challenging the worth of DM fiat with regard to judging thief abilities. Say what you like about older editions, but the fast and loose "anything goes" magic items, spells and adventure design would probably not survive a proper tightening of the rules. 3E and 4E seem proof of that, even with page 42.

Sticking to cloning the bad stuff too also lends a legitimacy to these games ("it's just like white box OD&D!" or "it's AD&D in all but name!") that the designers appear to think they could not otherwise call upon by straying too far from traditional models. Understandably, even 4E proponents seem to crave the legitimacy of such comparisons (although I'm uncertain whether anyone will admit upfront to it).

Perhaps you could show us how it's done?

 

[Invisible Stalker]

I would play a long term 1E or BCEMI campaign.

I would definitely NOT play a 2E game.

I'd need to see the "old school" clones before I could make a decision.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

As I exist in a woefully gaming group-limited world, I voted for "sign up for a long-term campaign". I'd be least interested in a 2e game, but only because I've played in 2e campaigns before. 1e would be nifty for nostalgia's sake, while there's something about BECMI that just feels sweeping and right - but don't ask me to explain that, because I can't really

 

[Remathilis]

I think the answer to your question is a bit of a Catch 22, in that the kind of person who ditches the bad and holds onto the good (all based on their opinion) gives you a 3E. The person who doesn't see much good to hold onto at all and tries to give the whole thing an overhaul gives you a 4E. The nearest thing we have to what you're referring to is C&C, and that retains a large amount of warts in itself. (I think it's made a bit of an arbitrary labyrinthine mess of the classes like the AD&Ds did, for instance.

You're absolutely right (and I'd give you XP if I didn't have to spread the love) that the problem lies with "what gets fixed/ditched" and what doesn't. Everyone's got an opinion.

For example, I couldn't go back to a game with downward's AC and Thac0. My friend could, but he hates multiple XP tracks. So for me, a game like C&C fixes my complaint but not my friends. But C&C opens it own can of worms for me (I don't like the SIEGE system for saves) so we're back to square one.

I guess its the natural extension of trying to improve the game; it took nearly 26 years to flip AC, and now its one of the most common retro-game "House Rules" (only LL & OSRIC use downward AC?) No one will agree if these improvements help or hurt (and specifically which do which) so some people will continue to use their 1e rangers in 2e, or convert Against the Giants to 3.5, or crave an official 4e "assassin" base class.

Progress is funny like that.

 

[Korgoth]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing. Hating your fun. Not you, not your game, but the fun itself.

Look, if I had phrased my criticism as someone who loved the old school revolution and wanted it to be even better, no one would have even been bothered by my actual point.

Oh, so in addition to throwing around baseless smears about "nostalgia", you're also a troll who deliberately insults people to get them to read his posts. That's clever of you.

And this coming from a vocal 4E fan. How entirely surprising.

Of course, on EN World, you're allowed to say I enjoy my games out of nostalgia (even though that's both insulting and untrue).