Reynard said:
The issue is whether the "different" mechanics fundamentally alter the way the game is played, whether killing every sacred cow they can get their hands on makes it something besides D&D.
Right; I think the system has a big impact on play and also on the way situations/obstacles are presented (e.g. d20 presentation is typically much, much more quantified).
Obviously, I disagree with Clark (and many others) on 3E/d20 being more fun. I played 3E with 1E style for years. I had fun, but overall it wasn't working out for me. So I moved to C&C. That was better, and the change was something of a catalyst; it triggered an evaluation of what I like in gaming, what worked for me and what didn't, et cetera. When I ran 3E, I really got into the "system mastery" part (the "behind the curtain" stuff), which is something I hadn't done when playing earlier editions. So I took that "system mastery approach" and applied it to the older editions, on their terms. What I found was that many of the things I had considered weird or broken or goofy weren't broken at all; they were just operating under a different set of assumptions. I also discovered that those assumptions worked well for me, once embraced. I eventually made my way to OD&D(1974), which is perfect for me: definitely old-school with old-school assumptions and style, familiar in many ways, and wide-open for tweaking and house-ruling. All the time that I was playing 3E, and even C&C, I was always looking for the older-edition experience; it was a relief to find it and embrace it. I'm amazed (and chagrined) that it took me so long to realize that what I sought was right there all along.
Incidentally, this isn't nostalgia. For one thing, I never played OD&D(1974), back in the day. For another, I'm a better DM than I was when I played older-editions, before. Lots better. I've brought that 3E notion of system mastery/knowledge to OD&D, and that's made a big difference in how I view and run the game; I understand the older-editions better than I did, before, so I play them better, too. In any case, nostalgia might prompt you to re-try something, but it won't keep you there. In fact, nostalgia-driven experiences are often a disappointment: you re-read that novel you loved in junior high and discover it just isn't as good as you remember. Or you catch a few episodes of that well-loved cartoon series on TV, and can't believe you found this entertaining. Et cetera. Rose-colored glasses shift your perception when you're
looking back, but when you actually
go back, the glasses don't work: at that point, it's the real deal -- enjoyable or not. For me, the real deal (i.e. older editions) are more fun. Really.
So I say, if you're looking for 1E feel in your gaming,
do give the 1E rules a shot, again, and approach them for what they are (i.e. embrace the assumptions -- don't try to make them something they're not, or they *will* be broken). Who knows, it might be what you're looking for.
If you've already done this and it didn't work for you, or you don't need to do it because you're comfortable in your preferences, that's fine. I know that many people simply prefer the d20 rules. I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm not posting all this to argue or fan the flames of an edition war. (Hopefully that's come across in my post, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state it.)
For my part, I wish Necromancer Games were putting out some products using the older rules (e.g. occasional ones like Goodman has been doing), or even something for C&C, for that matter. I wish you were a little less "progressive" in your system preferences, Clark.
Anyway, I went by my FLGS and picked up
City of Brass, earlier. I've been skimming through it. Most impressive, so far. You guys sure do pack these boxed sets full: Wilderlands, RARE, and City of Brass have all been filled to the brim.
