The "Old School Revival" - The Light Bulb Goes On

[Celebrim]

First point is dead on. I think 3E (and now 4E or PF) creates the expecation that high level play will finally work. In 3E I am glad I stopped at level 12.

That expectation was built into changes in the monster manual. In 1e, the monsters were balanced for a level range of 1st-10th. Above that and a DM had to invent challenges not explicitly provided for in the rules. In 3e, not only did the balance range extend higher, but the tools for inventing more powerful challenges were given to the DM upfront.

As for the second point...I used to agree, and I know that Skip Williams would give examples of the dangers of unclear rules and they would actually watch people play and have fights over them.

As with everything, I can only speak from experience, but I know that 1e infravision alone sparked more table arguments than all the rules arguments I've had in 3e combined. And on the whole, third editions rule guidance tended to be better than 1e's - which had many systems that just simply didn't work. This meant that you as the DM were on much stronger footing when it came to not being badged into using dumb rules simply because the player saw an advantage to them in the moment... and who would later quickly recant and argue from the standpoint of the rules disfunctional outcomes when he saw advantage in that. And to say nothing about the problem of having no rules tended to be interpretted by rules lawyers as having no constraints and thus providing for infinite and unlimited ability on their part.

 

[Treebore]

I never experienced arguments until 3.0E and its poor explanation of AoO's. Prior to 3E it was, "Hey, this rule has something wrong with it, how do we want it to work for us?" We would then come to a consensus, sometimes with the DM making the deciding vote, and we went on gaming.

Since 3E it became "We have to find out what the official answer is." Even if it interfered with gaming.

Which is the exact opposite of what I would think it would have been, I played with a lot of "technical" people, where they had to be precise, etc... at work. Then again maybe that is precisely why they weren't obsessive about the rules, they had such precise attitudes exhausting them at work, and the last thing I guess they wanted was to ruin their play time obsessing over rules.

It's the only thing I can figure since I don't even know where most of my old gaming buddies are now a days.

 

[KidSnide]

Just make a backstory. If your backstory suggests that you can do it, then you can do it. Whatever. Shame on the Ref if he lets you use a backstory that amounts to "I was the Herald of Omnipotus and have mastered all things."

It's totally sad when someone says "I scamper up the wall of the palace garden" and the DM counters with "You don't have the right class or skill; you cannot." That is anti-D&D.

Although I disagree with the opinion that the game as simply gotten worse, I do agree with the statement that a good GM should make sure that the in-game logic wins out over the out-of-game rules. If a player attempts and action that their character should logically be proficient in, then a good GM should make sure that whatever skill or ability-check system is used allows a good chance of success.

I like rules that provide characters interesting choices and allow for meaningful tactical differences between the PCs. But I think any rules system is a framework for having fun, not a GM-PC contract on the physics of the world.

-KS

 

[BryonD]

That includes Greyhawk (1975). You add in Thieves, and all the sudden regular Fighting Men may not be able to move silently or climb walls anymore.

While I agree that D&D clearly did what you said early on, this is one of the reasons I left D&D for better games AND the fact that 3E addressed it was one of the reasons I went to it. As a matter of fact, in 3E fighters (and barbarians) are, on balance, slightly superior to rogues at climbing because it is a class skill for them AND is STR based. An individual rogue can certainly be superior, but, on average, with armor removed, the fighters I've seen in the past decade have been better climbers than the rogues. And the rogues have been quite capable.

It is true that rogues have a leg up on fighters when it comes to sneaking. (And I like that) But fighters can certainly sneak if they choose to. And the 3E system, IMO, is vastly superior for allowing one fighter to be fairly ok at sneaking at 2nd level and not improve at all between there and 10th, while another is fairly ok or really good at 2nd and gets a lot better over the course of 8 more levels. Certainly these issues can be solved through simple agreement. But my tastes prefer a more objective resolution, both because I like to tinker in the weeds and also because it helps *reduce* the inevitable inconsistencies that human players will always bring to the table.

I'm not arguing your taste at all. I fully respect that.

But, I think your description gives an objective disservice to the system that happens to run to my taste.

It's totally sad when someone says "I scamper up the wall of the palace garden" and the DM counters with "You don't have the right class or skill; you cannot." That is anti-D&D.

I think that even under the very worst of systems, any DM that says that is a bad DM and the words reflect vastly more on the person than the game.

For me, under 3E, any DM that said that is completely horrible as a DM. (At that moment as at a minimum, but it is hard to see something that egregious as an exception)

 

[BryonD]

I read this thread and see example after example that come down to DMs and players, not systems.

Certainly everyone should play the game that works for them. But that doesn't make sour grapes any better of a story.

I am a working professional. I rarely work under 50 hours a week and I am married with two kids. But I love spending the time I do have using a game that I find rewarding.

I find the claim that "players who have high levels of 3.x rules mastery inevitably question GM hand-waving" to be wildly at odds with my experience. I've gamed and discussed and debated with many, many people with high levels of 3X rules mastery. And 90%+ of them love that one of the cool things about 3X is that you can ALWAYS just build a new subsystem. You have a solid baseline, and from there every rule has exceptions and every exception has exceptions and there is unlimited freedom to create more exceptions as needed.

If your brain explodes running 3E, by all means play another game. But realize that for those of us whose brains don't explode, you are not communicating a problem with 3E, you are just communicating that your brain exploded.

And there are a lot of examples of players subverting the game. In my experience there are jerks out there that should be simply avoided and there are also players that will quickly become helpful and supportive once they discover how awesome a game CAN be under a good DM. Kick the first and cultivate the second, regardless of your system of choice. But if a criteria of system selection is mitigating jerk players who are going to otherwise just be jerks, then you are in a deep hole from the start.

 

[Mercurius]

It's totally sad when someone says "I scamper up the wall of the palace garden" and the DM counters with "You don't have the right class or skill; you cannot." That is anti-D&D.

I couldn't agree with you more, and I imagine the writers of 3E and 4E would be right here with us. I agree with ByronD that this is more of a "Bad DM" thing than a specific system thing, although I will say that AD&D--both 1E and 2E--were more prone to this sort of thing than 3E and 4E.

Yes, the same (again). Including fiddling with my own retro ideas..

We'll have to share notes at some point. And what's with us always agreeing, TerraDave? We'll have to find something to squabble about .

The best way I can illustrate this is, in older editions the spellcasters were the most complex characters, you had to learn and keep track of their spell lists. Now with 3E, and in my opinion even more so in 4E, every class has a lot to keep track of, so nothing is simple to play in comparison to the other classes, they are all of similar complexity, especially in 4E.

So that is why I did not stick with 4E after spending several months playing it weekly. I liked having simple options versus complex options. Not only with building your characters, but with the game over all. Even the combats with all their pushing and sliding, etc... was too complex at all times for what I like.

So the reason I prefer running and playing older games is because I am able to have much more control over just how complex or simple my gaming experience is. Far more than I got with 3E or even 4E.

Now if I enjoyed complexity, and if I enjoyed tracking all of that data, I would love 3E and 4E, but I don't, so I don't like them enough to stick with them. I am not saying I hate them, or that they suck, all I am saying is they don't give me the game play I like, and fortunately for me I was able to find it elsewhere.

So yes, I could make 3E and 4E play much more like the older edition games do, but I found out, realized, whatever, that the best way for me to get the purest experience that i want out of RPG gaming is to move even closer to those old rules systems. So 4E can remind me of what it used to be like, but to truly get back to it, I had to decide upon a rules system upon which to build my perfect system, and that system is far closer to early D&D than even 4E is. So I don't get the "feel", I get the real deal.

Lots of good stuff here. I totally hear you about the complications of 4E (and 3E) in terms of the default mode of play. This is one of my biggest complaints about my current game of choice, 4E, that the default mode (of combat) is quite complex and very tactical. What ends up happening is a very enjoyable experience, but I also don't like that it always "has to" be at that level of detail, that one always has get tactical with which powers to use, with pushing, pulling, etc, positioning on a battlemap, etc. All of that stuff is fun--but I'd prefer to use it in 70-90% of combats, not 100% (Sure, one can always make a basic attack or use an at-will, but it ends up being a severe disadvantage).

I also like the core system of both 3E and 4E much better than any previous edition. I remember when 3E came out it made previous editions seem almost primitive. In 1999 AD&D 2E had lagged way behind game design; the game was a lumbering, awkward dinosaur, surpassed in game design over a decade before with much more refined, elegant, and streamlined systems like Ars Magica, Storyteller, and Talislanta (It is worth noting that one of the main designers of 3E was Jonathan Tweet, who was partially responsible for Ars Magica and one edition of Talislanta).

So 3E was a quantum leap forward for Dungeons & Dragons. Yet because of its simple, streamlined core mechanic, the designers said "Cool, this is much simpler...so let's dump a ton of options on it!" Which is how 3.x became, in many ways, the most complicated and "rules heavy" version of D&D yet (or since). A lot of this was written into the core rules, but a lot also came later, especially in the form of endless feats and prestige classes. To put it another way, too many options!

4E reset this a bit and streamlined the core rules even further. But then the options came, and just a couple years later we're back where we were with 3.5, although this time helped out a bit by DDI.

I was really hoping that Essentials was going to be a simplified version of 4E, that it would be like BECMI was to AD&D, yet fully compatible and modular. I still hope that if and when 5E comes out, we will have a much simplified core--something on the level of BECMI or Castles & Crusades--with a complex, advanced set of rules around it, that can easily be added on depending upon the specific campaign.

Again, this is not to say that I don't like the complexities; I do, otherwise I'd be playing Savage Worlds or FATE or True20. But I just wish there was more scale-ability and modularity in terms of modes of play. This relates somewhat to the common complaint that 4E advocates and supports a rather narrow range of play - not quite as gonzo as Exalted, but without the capacity to play "off the farm" PCs. In some sense 4E 1st level characters are similar to what 5th level characters in AD&D were like. Of course anyone who played 1E knows that magic-users weren't at all playable until about 3rd level and only got interesting with 5th level, when lightning bolt and fireball became available. But it isn't an either/or thing, imo, and this is one of a few areas where 4E really missed the boat.

 

[TerraDave]

I also like the core system of both 3E and 4E much better than any previous edition. I remember when 3E came out it made previous editions seem almost primitive. In 1999 AD&D 2E had lagged way behind game design; the game was a lumbering, awkward dinosaur, surpassed in game design over a decade before with much more refined, elegant, and streamlined systems like Ars Magica, Storyteller, and Talislanta (It is worth noting that one of the main designers of 3E was Jonathan Tweet, who was partially responsible for Ars Magica and one edition of Talislanta).

So 3E was a quantum leap forward for Dungeons & Dragons. Yet because of its simple, streamlined core mechanic, the designers said "Cool, this is much simpler...so let's dump a ton of options on it!" Which is how 3.x became, in many ways, the most complicated and "rules heavy" version of D&D yet (or since). A lot of this was written into the core rules, but a lot also came later, especially in the form of endless feats and prestige classes. To put it another way, too many options!

yes, again! (wait, there was this thread you started on who doesn't like 4E...totally disagreed in that, so there).

 

[innerdude]

After reading some of the thread, I think my real point is that I think I want to "have my cake and eat it too."

I want the flexibility and modularity of a 3e rules system, but I want to have players willing to let me toss it out the window at the drop of a hat if the story, campaign, battle, whatever, calls for it.

That's not asking too much, is it? LOL

 

[Mercurius]

No, actually, it is not (asking too much). It might just be the people you play with; maybe a nice therapeutic TPKO is in order?

 

[His Dudeness]

As a limited 3.x player I must say that I really don't like the system.

Feats limits what you can do, and the same goes for skills. Multiclassing feels silly, since you end up "dipping" which is a silly concept because a class is your profession and what you do. When does a fighter takes time to become a wizard? I can't really get my head arround that.

I fail to see the appeal of an unified xp chart. Sure, John the thief levels faster than anyone, but he has a d4 hit die and can't hit the broad side of a barn.

This comes from someone that is new to roleplaying games, since I've been playing for about 4 years give or take.

I understand that the alternative is GM fiat and the chances of having a crappy GM are many.

But if I'm playing with that person it means that I trust his judgement and I respect it's authority. I'm not at the table to argue or search rules, I'm there to have a fun time and excess rules get in the way of that.

[MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION]

I think the older editions are the most modular of them all, since you can add or remove a piacere and the game still works perfectly fine, because they were created organically when a ruling was needed. I don't think you can do that with newer editions and the approach of a unified mechanic.