Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 4870158" data-attributes="member: 9053">Having looked at Swords and Wizardry after a friend suggested it for a summer campaign, I have to agree with Tweet. I'm an old fart, so I played OD&amp;D back in the day, and this really is a pretty good update for those rules, keeping a lot of the quirky parts of the old game in place.My take on these old school games isn't so much that it's nostalgia that is influencing them, but rather the desire to return to a game that runs largely by GM houserules and fiat. Before anyone gets excited, that's not a bad thing in my mind.I used to play a lot of the Amber Diceless RPG, and that taught me a lot about running games like OD&amp;D and these retro clones, basically because Amber is pretty much all fiat. In the hands of a good GM there's nothing better, but in the hands of an average or poor GM, look out!So that's what I think is largely the interest behind Swords and Wizardry: a history of good GMing. A game like 3x or 4E with so many rules can survive a mediocre or poor GM much better than these games, because the group has a common framework to understand how things work. Want to know how your character might climb a cliff? In 3x onward, you know it's going to be a skill check (climb or athletics). In earlier editions, it might be anything from &quot;make a strength check on a D20&quot; to &quot;if you aren't a thief, you can't).Obviously deciding how those rules work largely determines whether or not you're going to have a good experience with the game. That's why I say that retro games have their audience largely based on the quality of the GM. If you have a GM that says &quot;no, you can't&quot; all the time, are you going to enjoy an old-school game? Likely not.--Steve</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SteveC, post: 4870158, member: 9053"] Having looked at Swords and Wizardry after a friend suggested it for a summer campaign, I have to agree with Tweet. I'm an old fart, so I played OD&D back in the day, and this really is a pretty good update for those rules, keeping a lot of the quirky parts of the old game in place. My take on these old school games isn't so much that it's nostalgia that is influencing them, but rather the desire to return to a game that runs largely by GM houserules and fiat. Before anyone gets excited, that's [B]not [/B]a bad thing in my mind. I used to play a lot of the Amber Diceless RPG, and that taught me a lot about running games like OD&D and these retro clones, basically because Amber is pretty much all fiat. In the hands of a good GM there's nothing better, but in the hands of an average or poor GM, [B]look out[/B]! So that's what I think is largely the interest behind Swords and Wizardry: a history of good GMing. A game like 3x or 4E with so many rules can survive a mediocre or poor GM much better than these games, because the group has a common framework to understand how things work. Want to know how your character might climb a cliff? In 3x onward, you know it's going to be a skill check (climb or athletics). In earlier editions, it might be anything from "make a strength check on a D20" to "if you aren't a thief, you can't). Obviously deciding how those rules work largely determines whether or not you're going to have a good experience with the game. That's why I say that retro games have their audience largely based on the quality of the GM. If you have a GM that says "no, you can't" all the time, are you going to enjoy an old-school game? Likely not. --Steve [/QUOTE]

Verification