New Legends & Lore (Rules, rules, rules)

[Umbran]

A blanket "you were doing it wrong" was more than a little irritating. It's pretty easy to sit back 30 years later and be dismissive of someone's stated experiences. Doesn't mean you're not a P!nhead for doing so.

Yes, well, it isn't like you're behaving any better at this point.

We don't care how annoyed you were, we expect you to, as rule #1 of this place requires, keep it civil. We expect folks to treat each other with respect. If you find that you're in a state where you cannot do so, we expect you to refrain from posting.

Keep it cool, folks.

 

[Mark CMG]

Here are two passages I thought were jerky when I read the DMG the first time 30+ years ago and still think are jerky today:

I think some of what Gygax wrote was tongue-in-cheek. Those might be examples of that.

 

[GreyLord]

I think most people's memories of old school D&D are hazy. I was the same way until I started playing the games again over the past year or so.

I've done mostly B/X stuff, but it's interesting getting back into old school D&D and trying to figure out what was going on back in the late 70s / early 80s and how they played and viewed the game to how people that play 3E / 4E play and view the game.

One thing I've realized is that a lot of my hazy memories had been tainted with crap I'd read about how sucky old school D&D was. In truth, the game is a ton of fun and most of the "problems" were really minor things overblown or solved by actual playing by the rules and not houserules.

There are some stark contrasts to the old game and newer iterations, and I think some of the essence of the game has been lost over those years.

This is why I found it surprising to see 76% of onboard with looking back and preserving the game's history. Maybe there are more people interested in old school D&D than we think?

That makes me happy.

I never stopped...then again...I haven't really posted in this thread much.

Before you start getting upset at some portrayals however...you should understand that ENworld is NOT the place I'd really come to discuss older editions as much. There are some old time gamers, and it becomes apparant when they talk about the games, some that pretend that they were old time gamers, and others that never played them, however...I would not say Enworld is the most friendly towards editions prior to 3e.

There can be those who look on it fondly, but there are many who do not.

If you want to talk to the 3e and post editions I'd say THIS IS THE PLACE to do it and this is where you'll get the most feedback and the most informative discussions.

There are many more old schoolers than you think. Most of them I encounter other places then ENworld.

Don't lose heart about the older editions.

That said, I can't praise ENworld enough for it's support for 3e and later editions as well as Pathfinder. It's an excellent place for them, talking to people who are fans of them (even with the gripes between 3.X/Pathfinder players and 4e players...which I think is actually overblown to some extent...there are quite a few that play...gasp...BOTH!).

I find it an excellent resource to find the mindset and thought patterns of the 3e post generation. In discussing older editions it's great to see how the fans of 3e and later editions think of the older editions and their preferences and attitudes towards them. It's interesting to see how they veiw the evolution of the game, and how the mindset of the gamers of this mindset are wanting and what they desire.

 

[pemerton]

On the 15-minute adventuring day: in RM I have found this to be a big issue, and can easily imagine the same being true of 3E. It was an issue sometimes in AD&D, but perhaps not to quite the same extent (part of what makes it harder for me to judge that was that the PCs were non-MU or multi-classed, and the pure casters were henchmen who tended to do as they were asked/told).

On classic/Gygaxian D&D: on the whole my impressions and memories resemble Neonchameleon's - somewhat frustrating tendencies in play, reinforced by a tendency owards adversarial GMing. Partly as a consequence, partly independently, megadungeon exploration is not a game or an approach to play to which I'm particularly attracted.

On the relationship between the two: the standard suggested "cure" to the 15-minute day is to introudce the same strategic/resource management dimensions as tend to loom large in Gygaxian play. I'm no bigger a fan of this solution to the 15-minute day than I am of this as a general approach to RPGing.

My own experience with 4e is that, by reducing the importance of long-term resource management (eg dailies are good but not overwhelming, and often are somewhat situational in their utility), the 15-minute day is somewhat alleviated. I could easily imagine others having different experiences, though, just as they have had different experiences with megadungeons and with classic Gygaxian play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My own experience with 4e is that, by reducing the importance of long-term resource management (eg dailies are good but not overwhelming, and often are somewhat situational in their utility), the 15-minute day is somewhat alleviated. I could easily imagine others having different experiences, though, just as they have had different experiences with megadungeons and with classic Gygaxian play.

Personally, I never had much of a problem with the 15-minute adventuring day. I think in 3e this was mostly because each combat threatened the party enough that I didn't care if they rested afterwards (I tended toward higher EL monstrous encounters that risked a character death in every encounter). In 4e, I find surges and dailies to be the main setting -- you CAN'T nova in a single encounter (spending all your healing surges). This has been a frustration for me in recreating the "single epic combat per day" pattern that I had (and enjoyed!) with 3e.

It's elements like that -- changing the game so that I couldn't play in the way that I was accustomed to -- that really made (and continues to make) 4e a hard sell to me. I play it. I enjoy it OK. I have DMed it. I still find myself struggling against it more than flowing with it, though. It wants me to play in a way that I don't play, so it's sort of like playing with a six year old girl. She wants to play with "my little ponies", and doesn't understand why anyone wouldn't want to play her way with my little ponies. She doesn't realize people have their own likes, she just assumes whatever she likes is what everyone likes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

In 4e, I find surges and dailies to be the main setting -- you CAN'T nova in a single encounter (spending all your healing surges).

Well actually you can. Cloak of the walking wounding allows you to spend two healing surges when you second wind. Divine Vigor (Cleric 6) recharges second wind. That's four right there and I can list a half dozen more powers that drain healing surges, not to mention potions. I DMed one battle where a druid when through 8 healing surges in a single battle! However, that is a corner case that requires a specific power selection.

As for the My Little Pony comparison, ALL MUST JOIN THE HERD!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmJvHILyeOo]My Little Pony Friendship is Magic Opening - YouTube[/ame]

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well actually you can. Cloak of the walking wounding allows you to spend two healing surges when you second wind. Divine Vigor (Cleric 6) recharges second wind. That's four right there and I can list a half dozen more powers that drain healing surges, not to mention potions. I DMed one battle where a druid when through 8 healing surges in a single battle! However, that is a corner case that requires a specific power selection.

Hmm...yeah, good call! To get some of that feel back I might have to encourage the multi-surging. Hmmm.....

 

[Gryph]

Yeah, there is some horrible advice in the earlier books. But there is also some awesome advice. That's what I'd take it as though, guidelines not rules. There are suggested rule elements in those books, but they aren't the game.

Gygax said in print some stuff I wouldn't try and defend, but he has enough great stuff in print too that there is plenty to like. I use that stuff and leave the rest.

Absolutely, and on this and other rpg forums EGG admitted as much re. the horrible advice and emphasizing that the books were guidelines more than rules.

Back in the day, there were a lot of high school and college age kids teaching themselves and each other how to play the game based on the writing in the books and modules and Dragon articles. In those sources were plenty of admonishments to not go easy on the players, not be a Monty Haul DM and emphasis on challenging the player.

A DM setting up a lot of random traps, brutal wandering monster tables and placing gotcha monsters in treasure piles wasn't necessarily trying to be a jerk. In a lot of cases he was trying to follow the written advice of the game's creator.

I think this is the emergent gameplay experience Neonchameleon posted about earlier in the thread. Certainly it was the memory of gameplay that Neonchameleon's posts evoked in me.

 

[Agamon]

The Knights of the Dinner Table is only funny because there's nuggets of truth in the B.A. vs the Untouchable Trio battle. No one's game was quite that bad (I hope), but the fundamental GM vs players theme certainly has roots in gaming's past.