"I have an original game world ... but the adventures are retread."

[Von Ether]

As heads up for GMs out there.

If you're going to decide to run nostalgia campaigns with classic modules like the Slaver series, communicate that to your players first. It could be me, but telling your players that you have whipped up an original game world and then just rerun adventures that everyone at the table has played at least twice feels like a bait and switch. ... especially if it seems that you've barely put in time to convert the encounters over to 3.x.

I mean I can see where some DM's may think they've put a new twist on things by laying down some blanket setting rules, such as all undead cause a fear effect, and then seeing how much tougher these old hat modules could be. Or if your running the game for a younger crowd that's never been in those adventures.

I can be in the mood for nostolgia and I can be in the mood for the dungeon crawl of the week, but you have to tell me that's the focus of the game. Otherwise, your original campaign world is nothing more than using a different color of ink to connect the dots in your game session.
[/rant off]

 

[francisca]

Yup. Yup. Yup.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that most of the "problems" people have with gaming isn't 3E or 1E or lack of flavor, or whatever the bickerthread of the week is, but rather expectations. All of the players and DM need to be on the same page. What kind of game are you r running? Dungeoneering hackfest? High art political intrigue, etc... They are all valid and great ways to play the game, but if people have different expectations, you'll get a lot of "that ain't D&D", or "this version sucks", when it isn't the version's fault. You have to set the context of the campaign before the first character is rolled up.

I'm wrapping up my 3.5 homebrew next week, and we decided to run 1E set in Greyhawk, before the Wars in the new year. Everyone understands this, everyone is looking forward to it. I think it will be a good time. We'll see.