Diaglo: What's so great about OD&D?

[der_kluge]

While we're doing analogies, newer isn't always better. Nobody has yet to impove upon the wheel.

That's ridiculous. We now have run-flat tires, aqua treading, steel belted radials, and a host of other improvements.

Are you just as likely to put Michelins on your car as you are a wagon wheel?

 

[The Shaman]

Used to use a string, compass, ruler/yardstick/tape measure too before.

My little tape measure was as important to me as dice in Ye Goode Olde Daze.

*succumbs to feeling that can indeed only be described as nostalgia*

At the time I learned OD&D there wasn't a huge selection of fantasy minis available, but there were plenty of medieval minis, so we tended to have games with lots of battling men-at-arms 'cause it looked so cool to have all those colorful tabards and shields arrayed over the table.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That's ridiculous. We now have run-flat tires, aqua treading, steel belted radials, and a host of other improvements.

Are you just as likely to put Michelins on your car as you are a wagon wheel?

Did I mention tires? Try putting a tire on your car without a wheel.

 

[Melan]

Actually, JRRNeiklot, your analogy was flawed, because you compared a game to technology. Technology progresses and evolves.

We should be looking at the matter as "art": art doesn't usually become obosolote, but it may fall out of fashion for a while. People may watch more TV, but that doesn't mean theater is backwards and enjoyed because of nostalgia. People usually buy soft drinks, but that doesn't mean red wine is suddenly to be discarded. Soft drinks and TV are enjoyed for several reasons - convenience, embodiment of new consumption patterns and so forth - but they don't satisfy all needs. Some days, I am happy to drink my mineral water or tonic. On other days, I prefer a glass of wine.

In a wider perspective, we still enjoy roleplaying games, even if there are more and more sophisticated computer games coming out. But paper-based games satisfy different needs and speak to different audiences than CRPGs. So do older editions of D&D.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

So what does the "Very old school" gang Think of the Rules Cyclopedia?

 

[MPA]

So what does the "Very old school" gang Think of the Rules Cyclopedia?

Good book, but too rules-heavy for me.

 

[Spell]

Um, no. The game now is designed so that the DM doesnt have to be a master from the beginning and adept at creating on the fly rulings on just about anything, or creating NEW rules for a large amount of situations on the spot.

ok then. you might very well be right. on the other hand, i feel that players have become much more confrontational since my AD&D game. but it might be just me, or the players i know

 

[mearls]

*blinks*

As I fully intend to quote you on this insightful observation far and wide and well off of ENworld, I'm hereby giving you a chance to PM me with any "credit where credit is due" advisements.

That's quite a perceptive observation.Yanno....you should consider game design as a career. (tongue-firmly-in-cheek)

No worries about credit - I'm fairly sure I've seen the basic idea floating around before. I had never thought of applying it to OD&D until recently.

Someone asked about 3e and house rule design. I think it *feels* more difficult, because the system is more unified and consistent. When you build new rules for 3e, there's a definite pattern that you need to follow to keep things consistent.

Under 1e and OD&D, rules design was far more open and arbitrary. You just built rules the way you wanted them to work, rather than the way that the designers wanted them to work.

This goes back to my improv v. preparation example from another thread. If you like roll under systems, or percentile, or card draw, or whatever, you could build those into OD&D and the players wouldn't bat an eye. The subsystems were all so different that anything fit in. Under 3.x, such variance stands out like a sore thumb. It's hard to design for in that you have less flexibility to just do things the way you want to.

 

[Storm Raven]

You youngsters don't seem to realize that nostalgia *isn't* the reason we oldtimers play OD&D/AD&D. We never *stopped* playing the older games. We *still* play them because nothing better has come out. And Magic: the Gathering 3.0/3.5 just ain't the same experience.

I'm not a youngster and I moved on. Just because something was the best available option at one point doesn't mean it still is (at least for me). If you are having fun with OD&D/AD&D, knock yourself out. But it isn't inherently superior to anything that has been published since. I played OD&D/AD&D for a long time, and the books still sit on my shelf. But I don't use them much any more. I don't regret any of the time I spent using those rule sets, but I don't see any need to use them any more, since I like the newer ones more.

What’s wrong with a fixed set of rules and sticking with ‘em? Huh? I mean, it’s like worked for chess for like five hundred frickin’ years, hasn’t it? They don’t go overhauling the rules of baseball every season. Even board games have fixed rules. When’s the last time you had to run out and buy Monopoly 2.5? .

Chess went through several iterations before we got the game we know today.

And baseball has had its rules changed numerous times. You would not recognize 19th century baseball, and several changes have been made in the last few decades.

 

[the black knight]

Can't we all just go out, buy copies of Castle and Crusades, and be done with it?