Back in the day...

[Desdichado]

I can only suggest it must be the system, and the way it puts the game across to new players. They are taught that this is a strategic simulation of dice rolling and collecting stuff. They are taught that characters only survive if they have at least average wealth for their level and items that boost every conceivable stat and some others. [..] As a DM I cut my teeth on AD&D, and DM'd right through 2e, and this doesn't feel right to me.

Oddly enough, that's an old school way to play to me. I played Basic and 1e that way, but never played 3e that way. My experience is exactly opposite from yours. But I played Basic and 1e with folks in junior high and 3e with folks who were, at least, college grads. I think that's the difference, not the system.

 

[Whisper72]

Oddly enough, that's an old school way to play to me. I played Basic and 1e that way, but never played 3e that way. My experience is exactly opposite from yours. But I played Basic and 1e with folks in junior high and 3e with folks who were, at least, college grads. I think that's the difference, not the system.

I think it is quite interesting to see how one's experiences colours one's judgement of the different versions...

I myself never really got into DnD 2e. I did use the 2nd Ed PHB, as I liked the better skill system and the bard, and the fact that all the rules were compact in one book for the players. As DM I kept to the DMG1, UA1, the various survival guides etc.

Many people like 3.x because it gives players many more options then the old stuff (disregarding all the complete whatever books, which to my mind were not worth the paper they were printed on, we never used them), which I think is an indisputable fact. 3.x adds a lot of good stuff, such as feats.

On the other hand, all the games I played in in the past, everyone kept to the core classes. Not even illusionists or monks, rarely a druid, a few bards... Since the way we played alot more depended on the role-playing and being smart as a player, the players never felt the need to have rules for all manner of additional powers, tricks, feats, skills whatever. It was never an issue.

So, in my own experience, all these additional powers only make the players now think more about their character in meta-game terms then before. Before, you tried to do something, and we figured out whether it was reasonable or not. Now you have to look up on your sheet whether you have the right skill/feat. To _me_, this is a loss rather then a gain. I understand fully tough, that for others, this is a great leap forward, and therefore I can fully understand that others much prefer 3.x above the old editions.

For me, a little bit of soul, whatever you want to call it, disappeard with the mechanics of the newer rules...

 

[diaglo]

For me, a little bit of soul, whatever you want to call it, disappeard with the mechanics of the newer rules...

that's what Merric and I said from the first and second post of this thread.

ADnD drained the soul out of the game.

 

[Whisper72]

that's what Merric and I said from the first and second post of this thread.

ADnD drained the soul out of the game.

And I fully agree with you...

 

[Sir Elton]

that's what Merric and I said from the first and second post of this thread.

ADnD drained the soul out of the game.

Maybe. AD&D basically removed the spirit of invention from the game. Although I was just a little tyke when D&D got started (actually, I was born ten months from when D&D was first marketed) and never experienced that part of the game. So, really, Diaglo, your statement mystifies me. However, from your posts, I certainly completely understand from a logical level instead of an emotional one.

What AD&D did was simply standardize the game, to use a better term. If I understand Gary's Q&A correctly. oD&D has it's merits, even though I never played it. however, since it was the Red Box that "I cut my teeth on," I can't get away from that emotionally. Now with D&D 3E, I can recapture that on some level.

I can have lizard men that hunt human beings in my adventures. I can have werewolves and orcs in the same adventure. I can write adventures with a strong gothic feel to them (Vampires, ghouls, skeletons, werewolves, zombies, flesh golems, creatures from the black lagoon). I can write adventures that fit better in Middle Earth (orcs, goblins, orcs again). Or go classical greek or nordic (pegasi, medusae, trolls, dragons). OR even Conan the Barbarian type Sword and Sorcery (lizardmen, liches, evil sorcerers and wizards). Or in the true spirit of D&D, I can take most of what was listed above, put them in a pot, boil them and stew them into a coherent module.

Everyone, the game rules has changed, but not the true spirit of D&D in it's creative aspect. The rules may be standardized, but you are still dealing with a melting pot of creativity. DMs can, using what ever version of the rules, create a game that is light hearted, hard-boiled, or dark and forboding. As long as everyone is having fun.

It doesn't matter what version of D&D you play, as long as you have fun doing so. So, Diaglo, you are very correct. OD&D is the best version. For you at any rate.

 

[jasper]

House Rules galore! This was part of what was happening at the time of the release of AD&D. Where today you can go from one game to another and know most of the rules, back in 77 and 78, the entire game might have changed on you! ….
AND in 80,81,82,83,84,85,86 even with AD&D and still today with Dm who run AD&D.
I got sick and tired in the army when every new group I sat in had a different interpretation of the rules and then a list of house rules. Some on one sheet of paper. Others with binders thicker that the DMG.

… No, I think society has coarsened in general and even more so on message boards...
In the good ole days we didn’t have message boards so we only thought the few/many/one goober (insert problem player type) was just our problem. Now we know that goobers exist everywhere. Also we are getting old and forgetting how much of goober we were when we were younger.

My problems have all come from those who learned 3.x with another DM then came to my game. Why? Because they treat the game differently…. I had this problem all the time differ DMs differ flavors. From dm vs. players, goblins, goons and generals play style etc. Or just perhaps the players and DMs are new. My old games use to be killing the monster loot rinse repeat etc. When I was starting most of play style was that way. It wasn’t till after 3+ of gaming did my style and some of my players’ style changed. We started working on back stories etc.
So gothic demon I will have to disagree with you on it the game which dictates style. I think is the people who play, the time they have played, and their game style.

YES HAVE FUN that is an order.
If you want a pc to have capt america shield or zena's frisbee of subudal death go ahead.
You want be spies to overthrow the ming the merry. go ahead.

 

[WizarDru]

Oddly enough, that's an old school way to play to me. I played Basic and 1e that way, but never played 3e that way. My experience is exactly opposite from yours. But I played Basic and 1e with folks in junior high and 3e with folks who were, at least, college grads. I think that's the difference, not the system.

Seconded. I still have the first dungeon I ever created and it's a howler. I used some of the generic maps, and filled in the whole thing. It's both terrible and wonderful (if only for nostalgia). I made my own cover for it and everything, right down to tracing the TSR and D&D logos, and then stapling it together as if it were a 'real' module. Ah, the memories....

My A&D games were all fun, but radically different from DM to DM. 0D&D was, from all accounts I got at the time, even more variant in this degree. I like knowing that when I get guests at my game, or hold a game at a convention (or play at one, for that matter), that my rules knowledge is useful and will serve us all equally. When we had an out-of-town guest recently, he only needed two minutes to get up to speed on the game, and we were off. He'd never played with us before, but you'd never know it to sit at that table, that night.

The more I hear complaints about how D&D, the more I realize I've heard these same arguments. The biggest difference? Instead of the Forum letters section of Dragon, I see it online. Oh, and I see it refuted much more often. Except by Diaglo, of course.

 

[jmucchiello]

As for the rules not applying to the DM being a 'bad habit' in your book, in my book this is not a bad habit. IMC the rules DONT apply to the DM. If I want the PC's to meet a firebreathing anti-paladin type with magic resistance, I do not feel the need to have to justify such a foe in terms of classes, templates, prestige classes, feats and other such stuff. It just is the way it is. Deal with it, and move on with the story.

Well, actually it's very easy to justify with rules. Just make use the Old-School Template.

Making an Old-School Creature
Old-School is an acquired template that can be applied to all creatures, NPC, and even traps.
Size and Type: No changes are made to the base creature's size and type unless the DM says otherwise.
Hit Dice: No changes are made to the base creature's hit dice unless the DM says otherwise.
Initiative: No changes are made to the base creature's initiative unless the DM says otherwise.
Speed: No changes are made to the base creature's speed unless the DM says otherwise. Entirely new and unexpected modes of movement may be added at the DM's whim.
Armor Class: No changes are made to the base creature's AC unless the DM says otherwise.
Attack/Full Attack: No changes are made to the base creature's attack bonuses or damage dice unless the DM says otherwise.
Space/Reach: No changes are made to the base creature's space or reach unless the DM says otherwise.
Special Attacks: No changes are made to the base creature's special attacks unless the DM says otherwise. The DM may dictate that the old-school creature uses rules other than the standard combat rules to resolve standard combat actions at his or her own discretion. Special attacks may be added, changed or removed at the DM's whim. Spells, spell-like abilties and supernatural abilities of the old-school creature may be made uncounterable, undispellable, and/or disallow saving throws at the DM's discretion.
Special Qualities: No changes are made to the base creature's special qualities unless the DM says otherwise. Special qualities may be added, changed or removed at the DM's whim.
Saves: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.
Abilities: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.
Skills: As the base creature or as modified by the DM. The DM is free to add or remove ranks of skills without regard to determining where the bonus ranks come from.
Feats: As the base creature or as modified by the DM. The DM is free to include bonus feats without justification.
Environment: As the base creature or as modifier by the DM.
Organization: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.
Challenge Rating: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.
Treasure: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.
Alignment: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.
Advancement: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.
Level Adjustment: As the base creature or as modified by the DM.

I'll OGC this if someone asks nicely.

There you go. A rule that says you can change the rules as needed.

 

[MerricB]

In some cases that's true, Merric, but the G and D modules were released and published and then run as tourneys at GenCon IIRC. I'll have to fact-check that, but I'm pretty sure that's correct.

The first advertisements for the G series in The Dungeon occur at the same time as the tournament report "The Battle for Snurre's Hall" was printed (Dragon #20). I expect the modules were meant to be released, but were held back until after the tournament, but used as the actual adventures during the adventure.

I'll have to ask Gary.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Merric, dude, marvelous thread.

My pleasure.

I find the discussion of tournament issues as fascinating an aspect of this as anything. Am I mistaken in thinking that fewer people write modules with tournaments in mind nowadays? Are we all way too cool for that now?

Actually, no - it's quite the opposite. More people are writing tournament adventures today than ever before. However, few of them get released as published adventures.

If you go to the RPGA Living Greyhawk pages (and other Living campaigns), you'll find a great number of adventures written for tournament use. However, those aren't the modules that get published. The modules that are published are generally for campaign play. (Dungeon, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, Troll Lords and similar publishers being the prime source of modules).

There are rare exceptions - RJK's Maze series, for one - but that's really a conversion of a 1E tournament module. (And indeed, it trips up with the strong tournament connection... it's not that adaptable to ongoing campaigns! The module is designed for a group without a thief!... and that's a big assumption for a 'campaign' module).

Cheers!