Giving Old Skool one last shot before calling it quits.

[Mark]

Whether or not "balance" was a major issue in 1E or not is open to debate (GG always made a point to talk about balance, but much of what came into the game was clearly not balanced), there's no doubting that old school D&D did not feel that moment to moment balance was necessary, and nor do I. The idea that everyone should be awesome in combat or that those parts of the game that were less than edge of your seat exciting should be ignored or at least understated wasn't an issue either. Among the biggest problems with 4E as it relates to "old school" gaming, though, is the intentional design decision to remove randomosity from the game -- crits were too swingy, random treasure caused issues, etc... 1E trusts the DM to adjudicate the dice to deal with that randomness while 4E tries to expunge it from play.

Forced balance has become the crutch of narrow-minded game design. While some balance is good in a game, too much of it or restricting all design within a system to forced precepts of balance makes a game predictable and a perpetual slog to simply play through the next level of parameters to gain the next pseudo-orgasm. That's not fun, it's just Skinner-esque repetition.


Stick that in your sig and smoke it.

 

[DaveMage]

And 4E ain't it. Neither is 3E. I think, in fact, it's 1E without all that ramp up to 2E junk (UA, the Survival Guides, ec..) It might actually be 2E pre-kits and player's option, though, as I played that longer. In any case, it's AD&D, probably some 1E/2E amalgam.

Ironically, Expeditious Retreat Press and Goodman games are still making 1E adventures, so you'll have the option of getting new stuff for it.

 

[Roland55]

Forced balance has become the crutch of narrow-minded game design. While some balance is good in a game, too much of it or restricting all design within a system to forced precepts of balance makes a game predictable and a perpetual slog to simply play through the next level of parameters to gain the next pseudo-orgasm. That's not fun, it's just Skinner-esque repetition.


Stick that in your sig and smoke it.

Hmm. I've been having "fun" issues with 4E since it came out. I've played about 10 times with two different, rather small groups. Never had this problem with any previous Edition, but I'm just not enjoying it.

And I went to quite a bit of trouble to be sure the others playing weren't negative (well, after the first unfortunate trial session). I also made sure the others didn't realize I wasn't 'getting it.'

Perhaps there's something to what you say here. "Forced balance." I'll have to think about that. My own theory is that the new Edition is so very different mechanically that I'm having difficulty letting go of previous behaviors. I'll have to give this some real thought.

I'd hate to resort to saying "4E is not for me," as I've seen others say. I've supported and enjoyed every single Edition up to now ... and I don't want that to change.

 

[DrSkull]

about 2 years ago I was seriously bitten by the old school bug. I worked up an campaign area, based on some old maps I had made in the late 70's when I played Holmes Basic and AD&D1e.

I was vacilating between using C&C and OD&D, but at the last minute decided to go with C&C, in the hopes of recruiting 2 C&C players in the next town.

1. Using C&C for Old School:
The campaign ran about 30 sessions, and there were some good and bad things about it.

The biggest "non-old-school" thing about it was the Spell list. It was really just a thinly modified 3e spell list and I found it very wanting.

I added a bunch of house rules, of course. Many of them made it more like AD&D1e (movement, weapon list, surprise, combat mods).

I think overall, by the time I got done with it, I might have just as well used AD&D1e. I don't think that the Seige System adds all that much to the party. In some places it's a total goof, like the Turn Undead section.

Still, C&C was totally serviceable. If you think having an in-print system will help recruit players, get it. If not, just run some old version of D&D.

2. Old School in the New Age

I learned a few things about running an old school campaign with non-old school players.

The first is that players resent having characters that are made of tissue paper and having wizards and clerics with only 1-2 spells. I'd suggest either starting the campaign at third or fourth level (and perhaps go with a slow advacncement if you want a longer campaign at lower levels); or adopt a technique from HACKMASTER, namely the 20 hit point kicker. Give every PC, NPC and Monster 20 extra hit points. For the players, it gives them the feeling that they can roll up a character with a backstory and goals, and he won't die the first time he falls in a 10' pit or is hit on the head with a frying pan. For the DM, zero-level NPC's are actually worth using. Area of effect spells won't wipe them out in an instant. (Charm and Sleep suddenly are more desireable than magic missile even at higher level). Wizards go from damage monkeys, to mind-controllers. Fighters will find that their multiple attacks against level 0 enemies is still very useful, not as spectacular, but more likely to be actually used.

The second suggestion: think up some cool combat powers or options for the fighters. In the new age they'll get restless just swinging every single round. Adapt 1-3 feat trees from 3e or steal a special ability or two from some other game. Maybe at 4th or 8th level, throw the fighters a cool toy ability to play with. It doesn't have to be a huge deal, but they'll feel cool. For example, let fighters chose Cleave, Power Attack or Ride-by Attack like powers at 4th level. You don't need or want a full feat-system, but a few powers here and there to given the fighters their own juice goes a long way with new-school players.

 

[Mark]

The biggest "non-old-school" thing about it was the Spell list. It was really just a thinly modified 3e spell list and I found it very wanting.

Could you elaborate, please?

 

[Reynard]

My own theory is that the new Edition is so very different mechanically that I'm having difficulty letting go of previous behaviors. I'll have to give this some real thought.

There's certainly something to that. For example, getting in the mindset that the fighter is, in fact, not the best fighter in the game takes some getting used to.

But as it relates to "old school", the real issue is in the intentional design philosophy that all PCs should be able to contrtibute equitably to every situation. Old school play, to me, includes the idea that you play a character class because you want to engage in the things that character class is good at. If you want to be front line, you play a fighter if you want to manage resources and engage in the "guessing game" with the DM -- which if you win means that you get to be uber awesome -- you play a wizard. If you want to be the support guy who gets to shine by making other players shine, you play the cleric. if you want to be the guy who retriees the golden cup from the dragon's lair, you play the thief. 4E makes a conscious design effort to undo all that. Every character gets to contribute equally to all situations. No one ever has to step aside and let someone else shine. N one ever needs to sit back and actually enjoy watching their fellows be awesome for a moment.

And I understand why -- don't get me wrong. I just don't like it.

 

[Treebore]

Could you elaborate, please?

He is right. The C&C spell list is redone from the 3E spell lists. I've added some "old school" spells back in myself, from 1E and 2E. By and large I like how 3E did spells, so I keep most of them. Especially Haste. Others I just changed the durations to be in line with 1E and 2E, such as summon elemental.

I actually like how "Turn Undead" works in C&C, so I have kept that the same.

Plus I think C&C works so well for me is because I do pull in a fair amount of stuff from every edition of D&D. So its universality really shines for me.

If I was just going to primarily go 1E I would just put the SIEGE in the heart of it and tack all the 1E rules stuff, spells, magic items, etc... onto it. But I like the way saves, etc... work in the SIEGE system much better then how they worked in any other edition, so that is another winner for me. The game is still very gritty, even at 15th level. 1E and 2E were never this gritty at that level. You were too godly in prior editions.

 

[Reynard]

1E and 2E were never this gritty at that level. You were too godly in prior editions.

I'm not sure I agree, especially in regards to 2E which, in general, amped up the monsters without amping up the PC power too much. I think 3E 15th level characters are far more godlike and almost impossible to run.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The biggest "non-old-school" thing about it was the Spell list. It was really just a thinly modified 3e spell list and I found it very wanting.

This was one of the things that I had to modify, when running C&C. I remember being particularly bothered by the Cleric's sound burst spell. I'm big on the classes being archetypes and having their own niche, and see clerics as being a combination of a fighter and a spellcaster, but "second class" at both (i.e. not as good in melee, not as potent with spells). That kind of spell let the cleric out-do the magic user; it's a better offensive spell than sleep, for example.

I added a bunch of house rules, of course. Many of them made it more like AD&D1e (movement, weapon list, surprise, combat mods).

Yeah, me too. Surprise was a big one. Using the SIEGE engine for surprise had some weird side effects because perception was Wis-based, and Clerics were almost always high-Wis and Prime-Wis, so they were usually the best ambush detectors in the group.

I changed movement, too. I like the way turns and movement work in the old editions; it makes tracking time by movement (during exploration, for example) very simple and intuitive. I also changed movement in combat; C&C's rules were slightly different from what I wanted.

Saving throws were another area where I initially thought the SIEGE engine was cool, but gradually realized I liked the old approach better. SIEGE-based saving throws tie are "resistance-type" affairs based on your stat, your level, and the level of the effect you're saving against. As I mentioned, above, I'm a proponent of classes and archetypes, and I like rules that reinforce (rather than break down) the importance of your class, so the SIEGE-based approach to saving throws didn't end up doing what I liked. Also, I found that having the opposition effect's level always modifying saves caused them to work differently than I wanted. In short, it's not that C&C's save system is bad, but rather that it doesn't model saving throws like I want them to work.

I don't think that the Seige System adds all that much to the party.

My experience is the same. I ended up cutting the SIEGE engine out of surprise and saves, as I mentioned. I also found myself relying on it less and less for handling other actions, as time went on.

Still, C&C was totally serviceable.

I want to reinforce that sentiment, because despite my criticisms, I had a good time with C&C, and it did the job. Also, my criticisms are very much rooted in my preferences and ideas about how the game should model this or that.

I think C&C is a great via media that stakes out a position between "old school" and "new school" and allows individual DMs to easily pull from the various editions. One C&C game might be very AD&Dish, while another might feel d20-ish, depending on the people involved.

 

[Remathilis]

Full Disclosure: I'm a 4e adopter and loving it.

HOWEVER...

I sometimes still long for the simplicity of BECMI/Rule Cyclopedia D&D. I have long debated busting out the RC and removing a few "issues" I have with it (Thac0/lower AC, level limits) and running it for a while. I'm certain I could convince people for a one-shot game, but I highly doubt I could get a campaign out of it.

That said, I still highly recommend Second Edition to First, esp if your coming off of 3e. The rules are streamline and better organized, there is much more room for customization (specialist wizards, cleric spheres, thief % points, weapon spec, nwp's) and late-edition 2e was very well balanced material (after WotC got a hold of it). Plus, it has the best campaign setting ever (Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape). As long as you avoid kits (and keep Skills and Powers to a minimum) I think you'll find 2e isn't as bad as your collective imaginations think it was. I do think its a worthy and (dare say) superior revision to the rules. Just avoid kits...