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

[Korgoth]

What games you decide to play may or may not be driven by nostalgia, the the Old School Revival movement certainly is. Otherwise, there's no explanation for how retro-clones of OD&D, BD&D and 1e AD&D can all be lumped into the same movement, when they don't really have much in common other than their year of publication. They had different goals, and different methodology and a pretty different approach.

False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.

 

[Intense_Interest]

False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.

"having more in common with each other" =/= same methodology and similar approach. It just means they look alike from a certain angle.

 

[Desdichado]

False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.

No, my statement is factually correct, and is in fact backed up by the "behind the scenes" statements by Gary Gygax himself (for whatever that's worth.)

Sorry, but that blanket dismissal isn't going to be in the least convincing. AD&D 1e and 3e had more in common in methodology than either does to OD&D or BD&D.

 

[Aus_Snow]

False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.

As someone who started with BD&D, went to AD&D (1e), skipped 2e and played a bunch of other stuff (which I still do), also skipped 3.0 (because of extreme scepticism), then took up 3.5 days after that revision was released. . .

I agree, completely. FWIW, acronym soup, blah.

 

[Desdichado]

Although I should caveat that with the observation that the design philosophy that AD&D should cover anything that came up in game was executed by simply grafting in subsystems as Gary thought of them. This resulted, of course, in the situation that you are all describing whereas under the hood all three games are very similar, and AD&D rules can be added or ignored as desired as kinda modular add-ons.

Doesn't change the fact, however, that the design philosophy as spelled out by the designer was much more in common with the design philosophy of 3e than it was of OD&D and BD&D, and that it's very noticeable in a read through of the rules. Ironically, you could make a very good case that what Gary should have done from the get-go with AD&D was start more from the ground up, which may well have led to an AD&D that was more like 3e under the hood than what it actually was.

But that's all speculation.

 

[Remathilis]

False. They have more in common with each other, both in their mechanics and their methodology, then any of them do with 3E and beyond. Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.

Depends on what you mean by both "mechanics" and "methodology"

For example: Take alignment. Classic OD&D had three (Chaos, Law, Neutrality) which continued through all iterations of the Basic game. The Holmes "Blue Cover" book had five alignments (CG, LG, N, CE, LE) which closely mimic the spirit of the five alignments in 4e. It was AD&D (1e, 2e) and third edition that had the classic nine (LG, NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, CE).

By the "mechanics and methodology" of alignment, the games that "beget" others follow.

OD&D -> B/X -> BECMI -> Rules Cyclopedia
Holmes -> Fourth Edition
AD&D 1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 3.5

See how easy it is to lump games together when you define the criteria?

I could, also, use ability score mods, lumping the ones that give a simple bonus vs. those who have complex multiple bonuses (which would lump OD&D, Basic, 3e and 4e together while excluding AD&D). Or which editions allowed multi-classing (all but Basic & OD&D). Or editions where Fireball is a d6/level (all but fourth). Need I go on?

See, Old school players need to define a criteria that allows OD&D, B/X, Holmes and AD&D to be "old school" while ignoring or revoking BECMI, 2e, 3e, and 4e from the mix. So far, that criteria is "games made before 1985".

Unless you can point me to more...

 

[Nikosandros]

I've never excluded 2e and BECMI. IMO, they are fully part of the same family. It's 3e that's a different beast. And before I get slammed with an accusation of extreme grognardism, I've played 3e intensely for over 7 years and while I'm not playing it at the moment (busy with AD&D and 4e at the moment) I'd like to play it some more, especially after Pathfinder will come out.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Your statement is simply factually incorrect and there's no reason to wrangle over it.

Oh, come now. Saying D&D was first published in 1858 would be factually incorrect. Statements about whether one edition is more like another are a different kettle of kuo-toa, they're much more subjective.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is Monty Haul-ism old school? I'd say it is. We can't just look at the good stuff from the past and ignore the bad.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That essay is not without context; it is a response to "dismissals of the old school movement".

Dismissal is not recognition of validity. It is not, "Well, I prefer the latest products from White Wolf and Wizards, but you prefer an older style, and that's okay because different people like different things."

Dismissal is, "Well, there's really no substantial difference at all. The objective particulars may be radically different, but if you don't get just the same 'feeling' from this new game then that's just your subjective impression."

While it does not logically follow, the appeal to irrationality sets up: "So, you are not permitted to promote your game -- but publishers and fans can promote New Game X. Your views are irrelevant, and it is wrong of you to express them."

Preference itself is subjective, and there is nothing right or wrong about it. The dismissal of observations concerning different game-mechanical approaches and their effects on the process of play, though, is disingenuous and contrary to critical analysis.

There are objective differences to which people respond in subjective ways. To claim that one likes the latest novelty better because "it's just the same" is simply absurd.

This is pretty much exactly what I gathered James was saying in his blog. I also rather get the impression that quite a few people (perhaps willingly?) simply didn't "get it".


RC