Kickin' it old school -- are you game?

[Psion]

Rolling a bowling ball instead of a d20, for example, would be (gasp) the "wrong" way to make a saving throw.

Yeah, because so many people do that...

Um, what relation does this post have to mine?* None that I can see.

* - No, I'm not asking for an explanation. It's rhetorical.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Basically, if I've got the free time and you're willing to run a game, I'll play it. I'm not particular about the game. Any game is just fine...

What matters to me is the group. If I don't like the group I'm playing with, it doesn't matter if the game being run is my most favoritest game in the whole wide world: I don't wanna play.

 

[Odhanan]

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

Not playing it at the moment, but I'd love to play it again. I love 3/3.5 D&D, but I also love OD&D (wow, you mean, like... you can actually love BOTH at the same time? Well... yeah).

I mean, imagine trying to teach a new player how to play 1E: "So, let me get this straight: You roll a d20, and you want high for attacking, and for saving throws, but low for ability checks, right? And Armor Class, you say the lower the number is, the better!? And Strength, I roll percentile dice to bend bars, but a d6 to bash doors open!?! And, oh yeah, before every combat I have to roll to see if I am suprised. That's a d6 roll that I want high on, but if it's too low, then high is BAD!!?? HUH?!?!"

Compare this to teaching 3e: "So, I roll a d20, add a number, and the higher the better. OK, got it!"

I introduced people to RPGs with both OD&D and 3/3.5. In my experience, the former is MUCH easier to play/explain.

 

[harmyn]

...I introduced people to RPGs with both OD&D and 3/3.5. In my experience, the former is MUCH easier to play/explain.

I've got to agree with Odhanan on this point. I have run everything from the moldvay/cook basic D&D book up through 3.5 and OD&D/ClassicD&D/AD&D 1st ed/2nd ed were all a heck of a lot easier to teach than 3.0/3.5. Your explanation of mechanic was a little simplified and your posting of old rules exagerated. For starters the new rules would go more like this, roll a d20 add your stat bonus, your skill bonus, don't forget to check for your synergy bonus, (and those feats, did you include those bonuses?) and you do want to roll high. The target number is listed on pg such and such --- no its not as as simple as saying a 20 or 25 is good enough, the target number is dependent on the individual skill involved --- they have their own little charts for that. Now I have exagerated it as well, but not as much as you did.

I do like the new game, but given my druthers I would happily go back to classic as it is much more free-form and rules lite allowing for much more player and DM creativity should anyone wish to flex that muscle. The tight modern rules can restrict far more easily than they inspire. And the 1,001+ threads on every class is broken but the commoner and this book is biased and that company makes munchkins bloat on happy-crunch cereal support the argument about trying to build new original things and balance them into a game.

But I have said enough.

 

[Frostmarrow]

The battle skill would be things like bab, weapon focus, weapon specialization, selection and choice of weapons. Or did I mis read the question?

Nah. I just meant since there is a skill, Gather Information, that allows you to by-pass an entire evening of role-playing legwork so why aren't there a skill that allows you to by-pass an entire combat encounter? -But it was said tongue in cheek and just for laughs. In fact I enjoy combat as much as role-playing but to me it's strange just to be wanting one of the two. Discussions here at ENs tend to become formulaic but I enjoy this too nevertheless.

 

[Warbringer]

Back to the original question... rather than a flame war over which is better.

I'd be open to playing a little retro D+D

 

[Nebulous]

I'd love it if someone invited to play in a 1st edition DnD game, but i would prefer the new edition for the long-haul i think. Although a good DM can make any ruleset work, as someone else has pointed out.

 

[Akrasia]

... What matters to me is the group. If I don't like the group I'm playing with, it doesn't matter if the game being run is my most favoritest game in the whole wide world: I don't wanna play.

Too true.

 

[jdrakeh]

For the record, I was comparing First Edition ADVANCED D&D with Third Edition D&D. I made no statement comparing ORIGINAL D&D with Third Edition.

Actually, you compared 'earilier editions' of D&D to Third Edition in direct response to the orginal poster (who specifically mentioned OD&D, as well as AD&D1e). This is why blanket condemnation rants often result in flamewars. If you didn't mean to compare OD&D to Third Edition, you probably shouldn't have said the following:

With regards to bloat: 1E had it's share of it, too. And 2E was far, far worse. Although there is more material for 3/3.5 printed nowadays then there ever was for previous editions, here is what you must always keep in mind about it:

Emphasis mine. I won't begrudge you, and take you at your word when you say that you didn't intentionally make the comparison, but you did make it

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

Actually, you compared 'earilier editions' of D&D to Third Edition in direct response to the orginal poster (who specifically mentioned OD&D, as well as AD&D1e). This is why blanket condemnation rants often result in flamewars. If you didn't mean to compare OD&D to Third Edition, you probably shouldn't have said the following:

With regards to bloat: 1E had it's share of it, too. And 2E was far, far worse. Although there is more material for 3/3.5 printed nowadays then there ever was for previous editions, here is what you must always keep in mind about it:

Emphasis mine. I won't begrudge you, and take you at your word when you say that you didn't intentionally make the comparison, but you did make it

OK, I wasn't specific enough. I did, indeed, mean previous editions of Advanced D&D. Sorry about that.

I introduced people to RPGs with both OD&D and 3/3.5. In my experience, the former is MUCH easier to play/explain.

I have had the opposite experience. I have tried to teach people to play AD&D 1E and 3E. Although I exaggerated it for dramatic effect, the basic reaction was the same as I described in my previous post. I guess this is a case of YMMV.

Also, I personally find 3.5 makes much more sense than previous editions. This is a personal opinion only, and I will not begrudge you your fun with earlier editions.

I don't want to perpetuate an edition war. So, I'll stop now, and end with this:

What matters to me is the group. If I don't like the group I'm playing with, it doesn't matter if the game being run is my most favoritest game in the whole wide world: I don't wanna play.

Which, in my personal opinion, is the wisest thing that has been said in this entire thread.