Gaming Generation Gap

[Hussar]

Tomb of Horrors is a very specific kind of adventure and not representative of anything else.

But I'm guessing you knew that.

But, Reynard, I've been told, over and over and over again that old school play is all about dying lots and lots of times. That early D&D was incredibly lethal and you died any number of times before finally getting lucky enough to hit higher levels.

Is that a complete fabrication in your mind? Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

 

[Storminator]

But, Reynard, I've been told, over and over and over again that old school play is all about dying lots and lots of times. That early D&D was incredibly lethal and you died any number of times before finally getting lucky enough to hit higher levels.

Is that a complete fabrication in your mind? Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

Certainly IMX 1e was an endless stream of disposable PCs. We'd see an adventure for 4 PCs, bring 12, and lose at least 6... every adventure. We used to say "your character didn't survive, he just hasn't died yet."

PS

 

[Reynard]

But, Reynard, I've been told, over and over and over again that old school play is all about dying lots and lots of times. That early D&D was incredibly lethal and you died any number of times before finally getting lucky enough to hit higher levels.

Is that a complete fabrication in your mind? Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

AD&D certainly can be lethal, but I think you are making a false assumption here: the lethality isn't based solely on luck. AD&D emphasized a certain style of play, one often referred to as "player skill", where mastering the fiddly bits of the mechanics are relying on polyhedrons wasn't the point. Especially at low levels, jumping into combat (or any other dangerous situation0 with just the fickle dice as your allies was a good prologue to character generation.

All those super lethal traps, gotcha monsters, riddles and puzzles and other often derided "old school" elements: those were there to enhance everyones fun by engaging the *players* in the game, to immerse them beyond their character sheets.

 

[Mallus]

Is early D&D actually not all that lethal the way it's been advertised by Grognard after Grognard?

My experience is that while early D&D certainly can be lethal, for quite a few group's it wasn't.

When you hear people rhapsodizing about the extremely deadly, acumen-heavy, usually combat-light old-school D&D, they're talking about a particular way some groups approached the game.

Other early D&D-groups embraced options like Unearthed Arcana, had their PC's decked out with enough magic items to keep the entire Rockefeller Center Christmas tree a-glitter, and unleashed a video game-sized amount of whoop-ass on their foes.

Different strokes and all.

 

[Hussar]

Certainly IMX 1e was an endless stream of disposable PCs. We'd see an adventure for 4 PCs, bring 12, and lose at least 6... every adventure. We used to say "your character didn't survive, he just hasn't died yet."

PS

AD&D certainly can be lethal, but I think you are making a false assumption here: the lethality isn't based solely on luck. AD&D emphasized a certain style of play, one often referred to as "player skill", where mastering the fiddly bits of the mechanics are relying on polyhedrons wasn't the point. Especially at low levels, jumping into combat (or any other dangerous situation0 with just the fickle dice as your allies was a good prologue to character generation.

All those super lethal traps, gotcha monsters, riddles and puzzles and other often derided "old school" elements: those were there to enhance everyones fun by engaging the *players* in the game, to immerse them beyond their character sheets.

My experience is that while early D&D certainly can be lethal, for quite a few group's it wasn't.

When you hear people rhapsodizing about the extremely deadly, acumen-heavy, usually combat-light old-school D&D, they're talking about a particular way some groups approached the game.

Other early D&D-groups embraced options like Unearthed Arcana, had their PC's decked out with enough magic items to keep the entire Rockefeller Center Christmas tree a-glitter, and unleashed a video game-sized amount of whoop-ass on their foes.

Different strokes and all.

These three quotes, put together pretty much say to me, "The experiences at the table were so wildly varied that making any broad brush assumptions is false."

To be honest, I probably fell into Mallus' latter group - an Unearthed Arcana Paladin playing through G-D-Q and other modules. I had more Schwag than I knew what to do with. I remember at one point adding up our magic loot list, and gaining a complete LEVEL from selling it.

My point is, Reynard is trying to say that earlier edition play was one way. It most certainly wasn't.

 

[Oni]

My experience is that while early D&D certainly can be lethal, for quite a few group's it wasn't.

When you hear people rhapsodizing about the extremely deadly, acumen-heavy, usually combat-light old-school D&D, they're talking about a particular way some groups approached the game.

Other early D&D-groups embraced options like Unearthed Arcana, had their PC's decked out with enough magic items to keep the entire Rockefeller Center Christmas tree a-glitter, and unleashed a video game-sized amount of whoop-ass on their foes.

Different strokes and all.

Yet the former is what I always hear about in regards to why the old school is so much more superior to everything that came after. There is a definite sense of "kids these days" ruining the game amongst the grognard community that frankly has poisoned the atmosphere so much that it has all but destroyed my, at one time burgeoning, interest in older games. It wasn't the games that put me off, it was the people who were their supposed proponents.

It seems weird to me, but I often feel like that a lot of old schoolers are trying to give the impression that they're harder, have a more manly approach to gaming and a bigger set of polyhedrons, and had to roll their dice up hill...both ways. Now that is a generation gap.

 

[Reynard]

My point is, Reynard is trying to say that earlier edition play was one way. It most certainly wasn't.

I most certainly am not. Rather I refuting the statement by *others* that AD&D was played in a kill the PCs, RBDM style as the default.

 

[Hussar]

Really Oni, and this gets back to the OP's original thoughts, my honest opinion is that people are so tied into a certain mind-set that they cannot be objective. I'm probably just as guilty as anyone of that.

But, it does make any sort of discussion of the history of the game extremely difficult. People's experiences so color their perceptions of how things were done that they cannot separate the experience from objective view. Add to this the tendency of people to get very defensive when their views are challenged, and it becomes even more difficult.

The "generation gap" gets blurred behind some very real politicking that goes on as well.

 

[Reynard]

Yet the former is what I always hear about in regards to why the old school is so much more superior to everything that came after. There is a definite sense of "kids these days" ruining the game amongst the grognard community that frankly has poisoned the atmosphere so much that it has all but destroyed my, at one time burgeoning, interest in older games. It wasn't the games that put me off, it was the people who were their supposed proponents.

It seems weird to me, but I often feel like that a lot of old schoolers are trying to give the impression that they're harder, have a more manly approach to gaming and a bigger set of polyhedrons, and had to roll their dice up hill...both ways. Now that is a generation gap.

Whereas i would say that the environment here has become increasingly less friendly to different playstyles -- "old school" in particular, but others as well -- over the past year or so.

 

[Hussar]

Whereas i would say that the environment here has become increasingly less friendly to different playstyles -- "old school" in particular, but others as well -- over the past year or so.

When I first read this, my first reaction was to let this slide, but, y'know what? I don't think so.

You reap what you sow. And I mean that in the general sense of everyone, not you specifically. Reynard, even in this thread, you specifically stated:

Blame John McCain or Hulk Hogan (yes, pro wrestling is genre entertainment) if you want, but the "action hero" is one who gets "bloodied" but never goes down, who always pulls out a badass move in the end and wins the day. Compare this to earlier, when even Conan was terrified of the undead or demons or magic.

Now, this is factually incorrect. It's been pretty much shown that your interpretation of Conan is not supported by the text. Conan is and was a superhero and every bit as bad assed as any modern hero. Yet, you use that interpretation to completely dismiss later era fantasy as

Modern genre entertainment tends toward the super-heroic, regardless of the actual genre, and it tends toward badassitude as a major selling point for its heroes. There's less fear, trepidation, uncertainty and just plain retreat and/or failure in modern stories, regardless of medium, than there is in stories from just one or two decades ago.

You then end off with:

It should be no surprise that I prefer AD&D 1E above all other versions of the game, but am comfortable with any edition before 4th (though 3E only up till about 12th level). It's not just the anime inspired kung fu attitude -- I love Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon for example -- but the disconnect from "realism" and "simulation" that creates my generation gap.

as if 4e is "anime inspired kung fu attitude". Gimme a break. You pretty much slam everything 4e and tell everyone that your way is better, more "realistic" and then wonder why you get a negative reaction? Really?

Hrm, 4e=anime, gee where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, I heard it for TEN FREAKING YEARS from grognards bitching about 3e.

If you would like to find a more reasoned discussion, then perhaps couching your criticisms in forms that haven't been repeated ad nauseum for almost a decade might aid in that endevour. Instead of telling me how much better things were in the past, how they were more "pure" and "true to the roots", tell me why those roots are something I should be interested in. Instead of telling me why the things that I like suck, why not tell me why the things you like are actually good.

I double dog dare you.