To be fair, you've spent some significant word count throwing shade of you own. So there's that.
I don't mean that in an unfriendly way at all either.
D&D General Back to First Principles
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
I don't mean that in an unfriendly way at all either.
Fair enough. I guess I sometimes get frustrated when the exchanges look something like:To be fair, you've spent some significant word count throwing shade of you own. So there's that.
"I want to run B/X D&D again."
"You should run The Black Hack."
"But I want to run B/X."
"The Black Hack is better."
"But. I. Want. To. Run. B/X."
So, yes, I got short and shouldn't have, but it is difficult to understand why folks argue for some modern alternative when the poster obviously knows what they want.
I get your frustration. I also really like The Black Hack, but you'll notice it wasn't what I recommended. Personally, I would run B/X over BECMI, but they're similar enough that it doesn't really matter which way you go. IMO anyway, YMMV. I own the original B/X but Necrotic Gnome does such a good job I don't think I'd be able to not use it.
Aldarc
Legend
I prefer giving people options. Moreover, I didn't say that Black Hack or any of the games I listed are better.
Also, I'm not sure how either Old School Essentials would be a non sequitur to someone who wants to run B/X.
So I am incredibly puzzled why you are trying to pick a fight over friendly recommendations and going after games that people haven't recommended once in this thread.
It seems to be the way you phrased the title. You didn't say "I want to go old school". If you had, I would have just ignored the thread because I don't care. Instead, you indicate that this is about a slimmed down game that incorporates the first principles that you mentioned. I don't think it' intentional but it's kind of a bait and switch.
There's a difference between a game that focuses on the principles you laid out in the OP and just stating that you prefer a different edition. I think the former is pretty much achievable with 5e, the latter is just an irrational choice.
P.S. Of course I kid about the irrational choice, I'm sure some people would love to own and drive that 1975 Pinto I grew up with.
Jack Daniel
Legend
For it's time the Pinto was a decent vehicle that was actually safer on average than most compact cars. They were also dirt cheap. Besides, driving a small rear wheel drive car with almost no weight in the back during Minnesota winters was it's own special challenge that could add a lot of excitement to the commute.RPGs ain't technology, pal, and classic D&D is certainly no Pinto!
RPGs, like cars, have advanced and become more polished while also adding a bunch of things that some people may not like. Airbags, ABS, automatically locking doors, AC, etc. are all great things that add complexity, cost and weight. Actually having rules on how to do things, more complex monsters and so on in newer versions of the game refine it and add complexity and "weight".
There's nothing wrong with liking old cars or old RPGs. I just personally don't want either.
If I had to articulate my D&D First Principles, they would be 1) solving ridiculous problems with ridiculous solutions (preferably fire-based ones), 2) causing ridiculous problems in the first place, and 3) ummmm, dice?
That said, my group's moving in the other direction. We spent the pandemic playing a great Labyrinth Lord campaign set in fake medieval Iceland (the Früsen Sörja), trying to recreate the D&D of our youth. Still didn't get to the domain management part, seeing as the highest PC level is 8th. We're hurtling along towards the climatic battle with the forces of Norse Satanist necromancers and, in a surprising twist, Christianity. But after that it's going to be 5e set on puzzle box artifact of a world with 20+ playable PC races and likely no human PCs.
That said, my group's moving in the other direction. We spent the pandemic playing a great Labyrinth Lord campaign set in fake medieval Iceland (the Früsen Sörja), trying to recreate the D&D of our youth. Still didn't get to the domain management part, seeing as the highest PC level is 8th. We're hurtling along towards the climatic battle with the forces of Norse Satanist necromancers and, in a surprising twist, Christianity. But after that it's going to be 5e set on puzzle box artifact of a world with 20+ playable PC races and likely no human PCs.
Last edited:
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
I do think this metaphor misses the mark. The only thing old cars have over new cars is that they're theoretically easier to repair yourself. In every other regard- speed, performance, safety, comfort, (etc.) newer cars are really just better.For it's time the Pinto was a decent vehicle that was actually safer on average than most compact cars. They were also dirt cheap. Besides, driving a small rear wheel drive car with almost no weight in the back during Minnesota winters was it's own special challenge that could add a lot of excitement to the commute.
RPGs, like cars, have advanced and become more polished while also adding a bunch of things that some people may not like. Airbags, ABS, automatically locking doors, AC, etc. are all great things that add complexity, cost and weight. Actually having rules on how to do things, more complex monsters and so on in newer versions of the game refine it and add complexity and "weight".
There's nothing wrong with liking old cars or old RPGs. I just personally don't want either.
I think some old games are bad designs, but some are good designs that simply do different things than newer games. I get good but different play experiences from 5E or B/X, for example. Both are excellent games with different virtues.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
Here is where your preference veers away from mine.
I have been playing some form of RPGs since I was in 3rd grade way back in the early 80s. Over this long span what is "fun" to me has changed quite a bit.
In the 80s and 80s I was entertained by playing through the micro actions my character engaged in.
Party finished a combat in a monster barracks
We check for traps on each little thing.
We check all the bodies for loot.
We turn over the table to look for hidden drawers.
We look behind all the tapestries for hidden spaces.
We poke all the piles of debris with a pole.
Etc...
Over time this sort of thing got really stale and not fun. When you do the same things over and over you aren't cleverly approaching a new scenario, you are just going through routine that takes up way too much table time for little enjoyment.
Now my gaming style has shifted. I allow for a level of abstraction towards the PCs to remove the monotonous repeating actions and keep the focus on the newness in each encounter. The existence of a Perception score allows me to bundle the 20 minutes real time of searching Into a 5 second roll.
So, for example, rather than have the players verbally tell me they want to listen at, search for traps on, peek under, or smell each and every door in a dungeon, we instead have a SDP (Standard Door Procedure) that gets applied automatically the rests of which are narrated as part of the door description based on a couple skill checks.
"You come upon a fairy sturdy door. It's locked but not trapped and you hear the sounds of fire and smell smoke from within." is how my games are not just "There is a door, what do you want to do?"
Similarly each character starts with an SAP (Standard Adventurers Pack) which contains contents not itemized on a character sheet. If a player needs an item that most adventurers would know was necessary, it's probably in the pack. If it's iffy, then I let them roll to see if they had one.
Similar Threads
