Are you part of the "Lost Generation" of RPG gamers?

Do you consider yourself part of the "Lost Generation" described below?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 29.2%
  • No

    Votes: 63 70.8%

  • Poll closed .
Calling us the "lost generation" makes it sound like we were gadding about the Continent drunk after the war. Playing D&D in Paris. Rolling d20 in the filthy alleys of the Quartier Pigalle, which was known for it's wandering harlot tables.

I like it. So much cooler than the truth, which for me was rolling d20s in suburban New Jersey, after soccer practice and before late-night trips to the movies, followed by the arcade.

I started with AD&D in 1985 or so. Moved onto 2e, or hybrid 1e/2e campaigns later on. The two systems kinda blend together for me. My friends and I didn't play either in the manner reminiscent of later-day descriptions of old-school play.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

There's a very insightful post on Blog of Holding about the AD&D 2e era and how it's kind of been lost in the shuffle between newer D&D (incl. Pathfinder) and the OSR movement. In the post, he feels the AD&D 2e era is due for a resurgence as well as a “voice” in the RPG blogosphere.

I started gaming in the summer of 1989: A brief period of BECMI followed by an almost immediate leap into 2nd Edition. So I'd pretty much the definitional poster child for this "Lost" Generation.

But I think the reason no movement or "voice" has coalesced around this generation is that it's never been been lost because it's never gone away.

For example, the OSR has been primarily driven by revisiting/rediscovering:

(1) Out of print systems

(2) Different ways of prepping and running adventure material

(3) Different ways of organizing your players and your campaign

And the exploration of these older ideas have resulted in the publication of new products using these lost methods. Many of which have also found new ways to explore these concepts.

With that in mind, let's consider what these elements are during the 2nd Edition era:

- Narrative-oriented / scene-based adventures.
- Encyclopedic presentation of campaign settings.
- Splat books.
- Campaigns defined by a consistent group of 4-8 players who all attend each session.

And what you quickly realize is that the distinctive elements of the 2nd Edition era are still the distinctive elements of the bulk of the RPG industry. I mean, I basically just described Paizo's entire focus and product line. There's nothing to rediscover here: People never stopped publishing this stuff. People never stopped playing like this.

(I mean, yes, the late-3E/4E Delve Style adventures can be seen as beginning to depart from the classic narrative forms set by Call of Cthulhu and the original Dragonlance modules. But Paizo's adventure paths are still being published every single month. And most other RPGs haven't followed the path of 4E.)

So when you're talking about something being "lost" from the 2nd Edition era, all you're really talking about are the actual rules for 2nd Edition. And maybe a specific campaign setting that's been allowed to malinger out of print.

And there simply isn't enough material there for a movement to really gain any traction. Particularly because 2nd Edition doesn't actually have a lot of mechanical distinction from 1st Edition. Once you've said "let me count the ways I liked 2E" a couple of times, you're basically asking a movement to coalesce around the glories of a proficiency system and three-hole punched monster manuals.

More likely would be strong communities forming around the out of print campaign worlds. But, of course, that's already happened.

And to be perfectly clear here: I'm not trying to diss 2nd Edition here. I actually think some of the best D&D products ever published were published during 2nd Edition.

What I'm saying, to sum up, is that the conceptual stuff from the era never went away: Which means there's nothing "new" to rediscover and add to your games. And there's no vacuum in the market waiting to be filled (because lots of people are still publishing products like that). So the only thing a "2ER" (2nd Edition Revolution) could be built around is a nostalgia for very specific products. And that's why it hasn't happened.
 



As I started playing not long before 3e came out, I played some 2e but never owned any books or DMed it. I suspect I just missed inclusion in this "lost generation".

However, I do sympathize. I don't know about the fans of 2e, but have always felt like the game lost something in the 2e-3e transition (even if 3e fulfilled many of my desires and was clearly much better in my eyes). Hard to put a finger on it; I'm not a big setting fan or anything, but I do get nostalgic for 2e.
 

Started playing in the "old school" days, at the peak of mass popularity, I'd wager. Didn't like the Old School paradigm (which at the time, was just the paradigm, so I left D&D for greener pastures. Missed 2e completely. Came back for 3e. Got disillusioned again by the various D&Disms, but by that time, I had heavily invested in the system. Plus, it's so freakin' easy to houserule, and contains so many options and variants, that rather than abandon it again, I just took out my hammer and chisel, and started working the system until it was something that I was happy using.
 


... indicating that people are dumping their 2e books in favor of something else.

Or dumping incriminating evidence before the Great Purges start and those who do not bow to 1E, Pathfinder or Next get sacrificed to idols of Gygax, Paizo or Mearls, respectively. :)
 

My first set was the 1999 Basic Set with the red dragon on it. It was the one where they took all the art and setting from Dragonlance. It was also the last set before 3rd Edition rolled around.

I consider myself in the "Lost Generation" ,although many might not think so, because I learned about role playing from that Basic Set not roll playing like I learned from 3rd Edition. (Not to say that role playing isn't in 3rd that's not really what I mean at all! There truly is!)

Much of my style of play comes from that set and therefore from 2nd edition so although I don't fit the exact terms time-wise as I was at the back end of 2nd, I sill consider myself in that category and have a large 2nd Edition collection because of my fondness for that edition in terms of style, and presentation of themes and concepts.
 


Remove ads

Top