My Response to the Grognardia Essay "More Than a Feeling"

[outsider]

I had thought that was an abbreviation for a place, like a name for resale shop of some sort.

As to BECMI, I was not a player or DM of those rules. I started in 1974 with the little box and booklets, moved to the hardcovers with AD&D1E, then on to AD&D2E, then to 3.XE and so forth. Perhaps the tenor of that branch of D&D is a bit different in tone? We'll see.

It is possible. Rules Cyclopedia was written in the early 90s, in the 2nd edition era. While I'm assuming that it accurately presents what Mentzer wrote back in the early 80s, it's possible that it differs in this area. 2nd edition D&D was my first version of D&D. I grew to dislike it for many reasons. Many of the problems I had with it weren't present in Rules Cyclopedia, so I started getting into that. I never played 1st ed AD&D(aside from intergrating various 1e books into 2e), and probably never will due to many of the problems I had with 2nd ed being present in 1st ed as well. I'm one of the players that really benefitted from the somewhat odd decision TSR made to keep the D&D line running at the same time as the AD&D line. These days, I'd gladly play any version of D&D that doesn't have an A in front of it, heh.

 

[Remathilis]

It is possible. Rules Cyclopedia was written in the early 90s, in the 2nd edition era. While I'm assuming that it accurately presents what Mentzer wrote back in the early 80s, it's possible that it differs in this area. 2nd edition D&D was my first version of D&D. I grew to dislike it for many reasons. Many of the problems I had with it weren't present in Rules Cyclopedia, so I started getting into that. I never played 1st ed AD&D(aside from intergrating various 1e books into 2e), and probably never will due to many of the problems I had with 2nd ed being present in 1st ed as well. I'm one of the players that really benefitted from the somewhat odd decision TSR made to keep the D&D line running at the same time as the AD&D line. These days, I'd gladly play any version of D&D that doesn't have an A in front of it, heh.

Ironically, I'm in your boat. I couldn't actually play AD&D 1e or 2e beyond a (literally) nostalgic one-shot down memory lane, I couldn't make a campaign of it. I'd much rather play RC D&D (despite some of ITS shortfalls) but, if forced to play something more "retro" I'd rather play BFRPG (which RC D&D with common sense updates for the modern era) or Castles & Crusades.

Both BFRPG do what I want in a "retro" game; create a game that evokes the feel of yore with the updated mechanics of today. Both use upwards AC, address problems like level drain, etc. IMHO, they don't go far enough in some areas (I'd love C&C to have a REAL skill system, for example) but they are great examples of retros that feel like old-D&D but don't get hung up on percentile strength, level limits, or other antiquated rules like that.

 

[fanboy2000]

I found two “mother may rules” in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

Chapter 5: Other Character Abilities (Skills and the DM)
The DM decides when a character can try his skill roll, and the DM also decides what sort of effect the skill can have in a situation.

Chapter 13: Dungeon Master Procedures (Equipment Not Listed)
Beginning players should not be allowed to purchase equipment other than the items given on the lists in Chapter 4 unless you decide otherwise. If a player wants a piece of equipment not listed and you decided to allow it, you must decide on its cost, encumbrance, and other characteristics; if you allow the player to come up with the equipment entering the campaign and becoming a problem.

Note: the above is ambiguous, a strict reading seems to suggest that only beginning players need to ask for permission, but the warning seems to apply to all players.

Skills under the Rules Cyclopedia were completely optional, and from reading the text, it seems that there wasn't technically a set list of skills, but a general list and the DM was supposed to pick and chose from that list as will as make up any other setting appropriate skills. So, I can see how, if the DM used the skills under that system at all, it may seem like an exercise in permissions to try to do some things out of combat.

 

[Treebore]

(I'd love C&C to have a REAL skill system, for example)

*Sigh*, it does.


As for old school quotes, etc, read my sig.

 

[joethelawyer]

I'm not sure that that is Joe's point (but, of course, I'll let him say one way of the other, rather than outright assume either way). Thing is, he's decided not to use older games (like OD&D or AD&D), but rather 'do old school' with 3e. More or less in his words, there.

So he personally was probably not even going to be part of that 'intended market'.

But that aside, I really don't see a parallel of that kind (between the old school and the indie RPG movements). From what I can see, it's blooming quite healthily, as it has been for well over a couple of years (or three?) - anyhow, a while. And it doesn't seem to have any of that rather unfortunate arrogance etc. attached to it. Old school is simply a style of play, one facilitated (funnily enough) by old school systems. Hardly a grandiose claim or swaggerin' 'pon the high ground.

But then, people will sometimes see what they want to see. And yes, that could also apply to me here. Who knows.

It was part of my point, the second to the last paragraph, where I basically said that labeling it could lead to problems and fighting, and have a detrimental effect on the whole old school thing. How defining it might cause the whole thing to fall apart. But no, I didn't mean to compare it to the indie movement people are talking about. Until your post, I assumed people were talking about the indie music thing when they said indie movement.

And you're right I am playing 3.x/PF, trying to make it as old school as I can, but that doesn't mean I am not the target market, at least in part. For example, the Freeport campaign we begin next week will have Troll Lord's Castle Zagyg as the megadungeon, and Joe Bloch's Castle Greyhawk (updated just yesterday I believe with new levels) will be used to take over where CZ left off. Part of the dungeon of course will be Dungeonland, and at higher levels Isle of the Ape, as I still have the modules. So though my base system is 3.x/PF, I am definitely in te market for god stuff with old school flavor, subjectively defined as old school by me of course. When Rob Kuntz publishes his levels for Castle Greyhawk I will incorporate them as well. Anyone know when he is going to do that, btw? I can't wait for that, and his book Robilar Remembers.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

When Rob Kuntz publishes his levels for Castle Greyhawk I will incorporate them as well. Anyone know when he is going to do that, btw?

The Original Bottle City and The Original Living Room are both from his Castle Greyhawk stuff (Bottle City being a special sublevel and the Living Room being a big set-piece room).

 

[Korgoth]

I play Old School games because I prefer the play experience afforded by the game design philosophy and game mechanical approaches of that era. The characteristic lightness, fluidity and openness help me plan and run better games and facilitate my enjoyment at the table. The method of "rulings not rules" and the absence of mechanical determinators (like feats) which delimit possible actions (like the way that feats delimit the actions of those who don't have the feat) give me an excellent dynamic of interaction between rules and "world exploration".

Nostalgia is irrelevant and a useless emotion in itself. "Feelings" in general aren't very important except insofar as they contribute to the creative process of the GM. If they help him come up with a more inventive and enjoyable game then fine. Now, Joe and others can play games based on feelings if they want. But I consider any statement that Old School play in general is based upon nostalgia to not only be a lie but an outright insult.

As to James' original post, I don't know why people these days are so phobic about laying down principles and defining terms. If you're going to use a word seriously, you should know what it means.* Otherwise you're just spouting fancy talk and it's deceptive.

* - I heard a certain recent entrant into the political arena use the word "dialogue" when "monologue" was the clear intent. It was someone who should have known better.

 

[rounser]

I found two “mother may rules” in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

My favourite is hidden away in DM Procedures.

Basically, the DM can overrule if any thief skill roll works or fails, without rolling. This allows you to play RC kind of like the Lego Star Wars/Indiana Jones/Batman games, where the thief will have an autosuccess on disarming traps, opening chests and sneaking around just for being a thief if you want the game to play that way, and still get the normal roll in difficult circumstances. This washed away many of my issues with the thief class as written.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I dunno. There are some pretty vocal individuals and communities screaming about the superiority of older RPG systems over currently in-print systems, complete with name-calling and newly coined vernacular that makes grade school children look grown up by comparison.

I can't name such individuals or communities per forum rules, but I'm certain you can nail down a few with a Google search. Frankly, those individuals and communities turn me off of certain 'old school' products as much as their Indie counterparts turned me off of certain 'Indie' games.

Oops. Wow, did I not say what I meant to say there.

I actually meant to refer to the creators, publishers, and. . . marketers (?) of both D&D retro clones and new material (e.g., adventures) for classic D&D / retro clone systems.

When compared with some of* the creators, publishers et al, of indie games over the last. . . hm, several years, anyway.

Of course, you're right, in that there are some very vocal and unpleasant uh, voices on every conceivable 'side', on the webs. Same as it ever was. But yeah, the public face I guess? That's markedly different, in places.

* That's right, I don't mean all of.

(All AFAICS, etc.)

Also, thanks for the clarification, Joe. And hey, I certainly understand that concern, fwiw.

 

[jdrakeh]

Oops. Wow, did I not say what I meant to say there.

I actually meant to refer to the creators, publishers, and. . . marketers (?) of both D&D retro clones and new material (e.g., adventures) for classic D&D / retro clone systems.

When compared with some of* the creators, publishers et al, of indie games over the last. . . hm, several years, anyway.

Of course, you're right, in that there are some very vocal and unpleasant uh, voices on every conceivable 'side', on the webs. Same as it ever was. But yeah, the public face I guess? That's markedly different, in places.

* That's right, I don't mean all of.

Oh, no, I understood you — I just don't agree. I think that there are just as many (if not more) nasty folks designing and marketing 'retro' games today as there were designing and marketing indie games back in the day. Again, I'm not going to name names, but do you see those links in my signature? Those are the only clone efforts or retro games that I support (other than Mutant Future, which I figured was covered well enough with one link to the GG site).