Kickin' it old school -- are you game?

[MonsterMash]

I'd happily play OD&D (1974) or Basic/Expert again, but for the moment am more likely to go the Castles & Crusades route. I do play 3.5 and enjoy it, but luckily social encounters aren't handled as just make a die roll.

Probably it'll turn into me playing three games:
C&C for my Wilderlands campaign
3.5 for the Lost City of Barakus campaign I'm a player in
Conan RPG as both player and GM

 

[JoeGKushner]

I have played many versions of D&D including the basic, expert, etc... series, AD&D 1st ed, AD&D 2nd Ed, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5. Many of these have been modified by things like Role aids, the Companions, Thieves Guild, Judge Guild, Arduin, and other 3rd party products.

I dislike the older editions for several reasons.

1. Racial level limits.

2. Wonky rules for multi-classing and dual classing.

3. No core skill sets (optional if you have the Oriental Adventuers, Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide).

4. You mention "role playing", but how does that help pepople who don't necessarily like to role play and are there for the game? Well, it doesn't. At least with a skill section, they can make a skill roll and move on to the better things.

5. Dragons and demon lords were extremely weak in the 1st edition of the games. As were gods. Not saying that it'd be impossible to kill any of those things in 3rd ed, but they are much more powerful now.

6. No unified mechanic. Clerics have a nice turning table, combat is resolved on a funky combat matrix.

7. Too many varieities of saving throws.

8. Different experience point tables for the different classes.

9. Many of the classes have no unique factors among themselves outside of stats and equipment. A fighter's special abilities for example, include % strength, higher constitution bonus, and if you have Unearthed Arcana, Weapon Specialization.

I could go on, but for me, those are all things that make me glad to have 3.5. Then again, I like GURPS, Harp, Rolemaster, Rolemaster Standard System, and Fantasy Hero so the 'crunch' factor for me isn't an issue, it's a blessing.

 

[Akrasia]

I'd be happy to play/run a Rules Cyclopedia D&D campaign anytime, anywhere.

For now, though, I'm happy using my old D&D and 1e AD&D suff with the Castles and Crusades game, which is pretty 'old school' in feel (but which does not suffer from most of the problems mentioned by JoeGKushner).

(Hmmm ... I wonder how long it will take for this thread to degenerate into yet another 'editions war'?)

 

[Akrasia]

...
C&C for my Wilderlands campaign
3.5 for the Lost City of Barakus campaign I'm a player in
Conan RPG as both player and GM

Nice arrangement. I'm envious.

 

[Henry]

Really makes me think of Knights of the Dinner Table.

There's a reason for that...

I don't play it regularly, but early this year I busted out with two sessions of a Demo Game of 1st edition AD&D (screw that Unearthed Arcana stuff - I did it original PHB only!) and we played Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. A good time was had by many of the players (though not all - sorry Curtis) and it was fun to revisit.

There's nothing that says AD&D has become "unfun" to play, but for my regular thrills the d20 system base has more of the built-in choice and streamlining of rules that my players and I want. I could make AD&D what I want, but d20 is closer and involves less work to this end.

(I've heard from many players the exact same thing, but with games reversed. )

 

[Psion]

One funny thing: in 3/3.5 whenever our group interacts with NPCs we simply shrug and say, "I'll make a Diplomacy check." In AD&D 1e the DM is making us (gasp) role-play.

In my 3.5 game, if the player would mutter "I'll make a diplomacy check", I would make him (gasp) role-play, and interpret the attempt at role-playing as bonuses or penalties to the role. This is an age-old argument, but there is nothing about having a skill system that prevents role play.

My question: do any of you play AD&D 1e and/or OD&D (ie Diaglo-edition )?

No.

If not, would you be open to it? Just curious.

2e, with the right tweaks perhaps, if the group was that set on it. But I would be very reluctant, and still suspect that all the things that I was happy to get past would make the experience un-fun enough that I might bow out.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

It's fun to play once in a great while for nostalgia! About every ten years my college friends and I dust off our original PHs and play a game. That holds us for a long time.

 

[Desdichado]

My question: do any of you play AD&D 1e and/or OD&D (ie Diaglo-edition )? If not, would you be open to it? Just curious.

Nope and nope.

 

[Li Shenron]

D&D can be cool at any edition, period.

I am not playing anything else than 3ed edition now, but given the chance I wouldn't say no to an older edition.

One funny thing: in 3/3.5 whenever our group interacts with NPCs we simply shrug and say, "I'll make a Diplomacy check." In AD&D 1e the DM is making us (gasp) role-play. It's been cool, very cool.

Mmm... if you don't roleplay it in 3ed, then IMO your group isn't very good in this regard. Skill checks and roleplay should both take place, not exclude each other. At least a Charisma check should be used, otherwise the outcome will always end up as "100% DM's discretion".

 

[wedgeski]

I'll second Psion's comments, in passing, but yeah, I'd be up for a bit of 1st or 2nd Edition any time. I've recently bought a few bits and pieces off eBay to buff up my old edition bookshelf and it's brought back many a happy memory.