Clark Peterson on 4E

[Filcher]

Bull. We've ran all thief campaigns, all mage, and no cleric games on a regular basis. In AD&D it worked just fine. And with dms who let the dice fall as they may. Of course back then we weren't tenderfoots - tenderfeet?

Sure, you can run an all thief campaign (and like yourself, I did too --- my favorite campaign of all time was an all thief City of Greyhawk game) ... but I remain unconvinced that a band of thieves could make a go at the D or Q series and make it out alive.

 

[Filcher]

Edited: Deleted post.

This is stupid. We're fighting AD&D vs. 4E again. I love both for different reasons. Abstaining from argument, and I hope to buy Clark's variant book whenever/if-ever it comes out.

 

[Korgoth]

The fact that OD&D, BECMID&D and AD&D all needed a lot of house ruling indicates that while they may have been fun games with sufficient tinkering, they weren't very complete designs. They weren't necessarily bad games, but they were badly designed, in the sense that their design did not result in a fully satisfactory play experience without significant user customization.

Except that is the entire point of them: you're supposed to customize them to your own taste. It's a plastic model kit of a T-34 that you're supposed to modify to make a T-34 obr 41, T-34 obr 42, T-34-obr 43, T-35/57, OT-34 or PT-34 depending on what you want it to be. It's not any specific tank, it's the hull and the components to make it whichever specific tank you're modelling.

I don't know why I'm even responding to you. Your rude and dismissive posts act as if nobody plays old school games now. I play them now, with some people who never played them in "the old days". That's not rose-tinted nothin.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Sure, you can run an all thief campaign (and like yourself, I did too --- my favorite campaign of all time was an all thief City of Greyhawk game) ... but I remain unconvinced that a band of thieves could make a go at the D or Q series and make it out alive.

Never tried it with an all thief group, but we did it sans cleric and thief. IIRC, we had a f/mu, an mu, a ranger, and a fighter. We ran this group through almost EVERY D&D module published at the time, until they died in the ToH.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Great, good for you. I'm not saying you shouldn't. What I am saying is that a lot of people see "old" and "good" as synonymous when they aren't, there was a lot of drek you had to plow through to find the good stuff, then as now. The fact that OD&D, BECMID&D and AD&D all needed a lot of house ruling indicates that while they may have been fun games with sufficient tinkering, they weren't very complete designs. They weren't necessarily bad games, but they were badly designed, in the sense that their design did not result in a fully satisfactory play experience without significant user customization.

I'm playing AD&D now, after a short hiatus for 3e to piss off our group. We have ONE house rule. A nat 20 does double damage, that's it. One hardly constitutes a lot.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Its sort of funny because the people over on the Necro boards are shaking their heads wondering how on ENWorld my comments are being construed as me being anti-4E.

This is crazy blown out of proportion over here.

I feel ya. I really do. I think the reason I was able to basically grok the post was because I've been in this situation before over here. I am still a little surprised that posters are so quick to take offense, but it's the Internet, so maybe I shouldn't be.

The problem is that he's touting his variant rules set as "real D&D," which continues a dichotomy where the official rules set is "fake D&D."

Subjectivity, mon ami. This isn't an argument that can be won.

 

[Mallus]

I think I agree with you too. I wasnt saying that 4E is no longer an RPG.

You know, this being agreed with thing is still not getting old...

Seriously though, good luck with the 4e products if you decide to do them (have they fixed the GSL yet?). It would be a shame if the only take on 4e came from WotC. I was a big fan of Monte's Arcana Evolved/Arcana Unearthed, and I'm really looking forward to alternate versions/uses/implementations of the new system.

As an aside, the first thing my group did with 4e, after skimming the books, was to put them down and create a brand new homebrew (we documented the process here, it's the second link in my .sig --sorry, we're proud of it, so pimp it I must!) That's how we're 'old-school', we like the DIY spirit that assumes the players/DM are responsible for making the game the want to be playing. Again, looking forward to seeing what you do cook up doing the same.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I didn't read further until this morning. My apologies. That was totally uncalled for. I shouldn't respond late at night when I'm half asleep.

I apologize for snapping back. I agree that it's not a good idea to respond late at night when half asleep.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I look at those retro gamers with the same jaundiced eye that I look at retro RP gamers who say that their favorite version of D&D is the One True Game, and anything else is desecrating their rose-tinted memories and Gary's corpse.

In other words, "You remember mostly the good stuff, get over yourself." If you don't come after me trying to convince me that my playstyle sucks, I don't give a rat's ass what you're doing in your basement.

Oh, please. I won't defend anyone who says your preferences suck because you're playing wrong (i.e. not the one true game), but this "rose-tinted" thing is just ridiculous (and exactly the kind of attitude that you're condemning with the other hand, in that last sentence). I've heard it often enough that I have a cut-and-paste response:

For some reason, when I tell other gamers I'm playing OD&D (or AD&D, or B/X, et cetera), I often hear comments about my "rose colored glasses." I find this both odd and annoying. The idea behind "rose colored glasses" is that your perception is being altered, and that you aren't seeing things as they truly are. If you're "looking back through rose colored glasses," it means that you're not seeing clearly, with the implication that time has tricked your memory, making the past seem better than it actually was. You only see the good stuff through the rose colored glasses. So this is a neat turn of phrase, a flippant dismissal of any fond feelings for older editions like OD&D. Nevertheless, while glib, the phrase doesn't apply to me and my enthusiasm for OD&D.

Rose colored glasses only "work" when you're looking back on an experience. Once you actually go back and experience it, again, the glasses stop working. At that point, the experience must stand or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof). I'm not looking back fondly on OD&D, I'm currently playing it. When I say I like it, it's not because rose colored glasses have skewed my perception of the past; it's because I like the experience I'm currently having. Rose colored glasses? Nope.

Edit -- reading more, I see others have already made this point...

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The fact that OD&D, BECMID&D and AD&D all needed a lot of house ruling indicates that while they may have been fun games with sufficient tinkering, they weren't very complete designs...In that respect, 3E and 4E are considerably better designs...

You're assuming that "complete design playable exactly as written" is always better. (I might also quibble about whether BECMI, especially, is playable as written, but that's a tangent.) From my point of view, the "toolkit" nature of OD&D is a huge feature that I like. 3E and 4E are definitely not better designs for me and my preferred approach to the game.

If you like it? Great. But don't arrogate yourself to tell me that I'm having fun the wrong way.

Don't worry, I won't.