1E vs Forked Thread: Is 4E doing it for you?

[Korgoth]

I might be wrong, but I tend t believe that Korgoth does not just talk of the "good old days" but of his actual play experiences with the "old" edition these days. Which for me might also point out that his play style developed to the point where they avoided those "needless" rolls. Maybe it's a mistake of him to assume that people playing differently are only doing so because of the system?

You are right: I play and run old school now. I did in the old days, I tried 2E and 3E, but I'm a "revert" to old school gaming.

In my own case, playing and running (and thinking about) 3E helped refine my own understanding of what I like in gaming and what I think works (at least, works for what I'm trying to do).

Some of the things that get brought up as criticisms about old school play baffle me somewhat. Such as the notion that someone would individually name every item in a room and/or roll a search check for each one (I don't really care for the Thief class, since it goes down the road of skill rollery; that's one reason why I like OD&D and EPT)... to me the issue is more one of time management. If you say you search the whole room, I tell you that it's going to take 20 minutes (2 turns) to do it thoroughly; a cursory search would take half that (it's just a spot call based on room size). If you do a thorough search, I ask about your light source. If you have an easily portable one like a magic source or a lantern, you notice the discolored stone beneath the bed. In dim or guttering light, you won't notice it. And of course those 2 turns are important because of wandering monster checks, rest frequency and light source consumption. And when you do notice it... do you pull it? Press it? Where are you standing in relation to it? etc.

In other words... I don't know why someone would make you name every specific object in a room. That doesn't seem reasonable at all.

I liked Remathalis' description of "Avatar play". Very old school. In my dungeons your character may get killed if you didn't pay attention in your (the player's) basic chemistry class, for example. Tricks, traps and assorted weirdness are all there to tease the brains and test the wit of the players. They're the ones actually sitting at the table, after all.

And yes, if the player is a nebbish and wants his character to be Don Juan... then he's actually playing a character who is a nebbish who thinks he's Don Juan. Which is more entertaining for everybody at the table anyway.

 

[Hussar]

In other words... I don't know why someone would make you name every specific object in a room. That doesn't seem reasonable at all.

I take it you don't read a lot of threads here? I'll guarantee you can find DM's who insist on this. There's been more than a few discussion talking about how you not only should describe each and every thing you search, but that you should be actively penalized for not doing so.

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, if I play D&D again, it will probably be Basic D&D or Labyrinth Lord. But not because 4e is less mechanically rich. In fact, if I ever say that, please call me on it because that's crazy talk. No, I'd specifically be more likely to play Basic D&D because:

1) I know it.
2). It's less mechanically rich.

 

[Treebore]

I looked into running some 1E and 2E games for my kids. The rules are pretty good. Reading them again I realized the biggest reason I don't like them as much as what I play is lack of a comprehensive skill system. The second biggest reason I don't like them best is the various dice needed to resolve everything, I like just a D20 being needed. I also do not want to go back to a THACO system or an AC that runs from 10 to -10. Nor do I want to return to the save systems any edition of D&D uses.

Other then that I like OD&D/1E/2E better than 3E or 4E.

 

[Treebore]

I take it you don't read a lot of threads here? I'll guarantee you can find DM's who insist on this. There's been more than a few discussion talking about how you not only should describe each and every thing you search, but that you should be actively penalized for not doing so.

I still wonder why any DM would insist on it. Its tedious, needlessly boring, bogs the game to a standstill. I much prefer how Korgoth says to handle it. Plus, having re read the 1E DMG about 2 weeks ago, EGG said to do it in a similar fashion to how Korgoth describes it.

I guess some people like playing out teeth extractions in slow motion. I'm certainly not one of them.

If I was sitting at the table of such a game I imagine I would soon be asked to leave, since my total lack of enthusiasm and irritation at my time being wasted with such play would make me a big distraction to the DM and players who enjoy such play.

 

[Hussar]

Oh hey, Treebore, Korgath, I totally agree. 100% agree. "I search the room" is more than good enough for me. "It takes X minutes and you find Y" Very, very much how I want to play.

 

[Korgoth]

Plus, having re read the 1E DMG about 2 weeks ago, EGG said to do it in a similar fashion to how Korgoth describes it.

That sentence makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Anyway, for me it boils down to this: give the player a choice to make that has cost or risk associated with it. Roll the dice only when necessary. Is the room worth searching? Do we have enough torches? Are we fit enough to handle a wandering monster? etc. That, to me, is what makes it a game: decision, risk management, a test of wit and cleverness.

As an aside: old school D&D is not really about killing things and taking their stuff. It's really only about taking their stuff... that's where the XP comes from. You're sometimes better off avoiding, tricking or negotiating with the monsters. Fighting is risky and sometimes offers little in the way of rewards.

 

[jdrakeh]

As an aside: old school D&D is not really about killing things and taking their stuff. It's really only about taking their stuff... that's where the XP comes from.

1 XP per GP (or more for magic items), but a not insignificant portion of XP also comes specifically from killing things (hence the XP rewards for, you know. . . killing things).

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's one approach, but not the only one. You don't necessarily need a house-rule, just a ruling.

And since the books don't cover things like say, cleave, disarm, parry, called shots, critical hits, one of the complaints that I was noting you could house rule, that "ruling", would indeed be a "house rule" no?

Heck, the old editions didn't have a skill system. Any ruling of use of a skill would be a house rule no?

 

[Allister]

As an aside: old school D&D is not really about killing things and taking their stuff. It's really only about taking their stuff... that's where the XP comes from. You're sometimes better off avoiding, tricking or negotiating with the monsters. Fighting is risky and sometimes offers little in the way of rewards.

But 2nd edition got rid of the 1gp = 1 xp rule. And I think most people consider 2E "old-school gaming"....