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

[Raven Crowking]

Here is the "chicken or egg" problem...

If (by way of time machine) you were introduced to fourth edition first, THEN 20 years later found OD&D (or B/X, or 1e), would you still believe the older game creates a better play experience?

While it may be true that you can't know, it is also true that you can sure as heck make a reasonably rational conjecture, which is what your post seems to be attempting to deny.

If you cared to examine my own "fusion" game (RCFG), I think you would note that there are some things I very much like about WotC-D&D games, as well as some things that I believe they do exceedingly poorly.

IMHO, speed of play is essential to good play experience, and all complaints about 3e (including those trotted out by WotC when they wanted to sell you on 4e) boil down to the game being too slow to play.

If Game A has an average of 4 encounters per gaming session, and Game B has an average of 16, average players of Game A will be more leery about engaging encounters unless they can see the obvious benefit, whereas average players of Game B can and will choose to interact with encounters just to see where they will go.

Players in Game A look for the set pieces; they have too, they only have time to deal with a very limited set of encounters. Players in Game B are more willing to explore.

IMHO, 4e screws this aspect of the game as badly (or worse) than 3e, although there are otherwise many good ideas in the system.

Which is why, even on forums dedicated to Old School gaming, you never see posts asking how to speed up the game, but the same comes up repeatedly on forums discussing WotC-D&D.

That's not nostalgia; that's a real difference in play experience.

The corollary to "Old School gaming is nostalgia" isn't "4e is flavor of the month", its "The game evolved into something else, and I don't like it".

Keep telling yourself that.

The corollary to "The game evolved into something else, and I don't like it" isn't "Old School gaming is nostalgia" but rather "The game evolved from something else, and I don't like it".

If you change the base nature of the statement, it isn't a corollary.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think the number of encounters per game is relevant. What is relevant is that stuff happens. It needs to be exciting, not tedious or repetitive. This also hold trues if you run 16 encounters. If they all play the same, there is no benefit. You need something to make the stuff you do interesting. Whether it is because of the intracities of the mechanics or of the cool plot woven into the encounters doesn't really matter. But of course, the game rules can't give you the cool plot, so most game designers will make the "interesting" stuff into the rules.

 

[rounser]

That's not nostalgia; that's a real difference in play experience.

Indeed - you simply can't practically run certain kinds of campaign if every combat runs to 3/4 of an hour or more.

There are also numerous aesthetic and stylistic differences, from the emphasis on purple prose to the "pose for the camera" choices in art direction through to the content of the implied setting, plus big ones like the elevated level of abstraction, the arguably now unmagical magic etc.

Even something as simple as being more or less dependent on miniatures by default (4E and 3E) or easily playable without them entirely (AD&D and BECMI) can be a dealbreaker. I mean, that's a heck of a lot of cost sunk into buying miniatures right there if you choose a miniatures dependent D&D and don't use proxies. You can definitely quantify that difference - in dollars, and time spent moving miniatures and making battle maps.

I think 4E caused many D&D fans to reassess what they wanted from the game, and react accordingly. When presented with an edition disconnected from those "wants", it becomes easier to assess what earlier editions had to offer in a whole new light. That's a rational thing to do under the circumstances, and cannot be dismissed as mere nostalgia.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Which is why, even on forums dedicated to Old School gaming, you never see posts asking how to speed up the game, but the same comes up repeatedly on forums discussing WotC-D&D.

That's not nostalgia; that's a real difference in play experience.

this.post = qft + xp;

Uh, or it would if that annoying message hadn't come up (you must [blah blah. . .] ). . .

 

[Desdichado]

Like Josh and his 80's metal, part of his affection for it IS nostalgia. It feels good to him. He may like modern acts too, but that 80's metal has the right mix of tempo, base, chords, and hopelessly teased hair to make him want to listen to it.

Don't forget the tiger-print spandex pants!

 

[Desdichado]

Why not? The timing is an extraordinary coincidence if they're not actually connected. There's certainly enough potentially objectionable material in 4E to trigger such a backlash in existing fans of D&D.

The timing is a coincidence, and not a particular extraordinary one. The old school revival was precipitated by OSRIC. When P&P, or Non Serviam, or whatever username he uses 'round here put OSRIC out, went through whatever legal discussions he had with WotC about OSRIC, and it became clear that he had "gotten away with it" then that opened the door for the other retro-clones, which in turn paved the way for the movement to gather the steam that it has today.

If you completely ignore the release of 4e, you'd still expect to see more or less the same timing to get from OSRIC to where the movement is today. Hence, although I can't rule out that 4e's release may have had some impact on the old school revival, I think it was a mostly insignificant one.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If a modern band started producing an 80's metal sound (I'm sure there's one somewhere) and it got big radio play, Josh might like that too since it fits his preferred musical taste, but make no mistake nostalgia plays a role in it.

There's one that plays at the local pub around here, mainly playing chick metal from the 80s or so (like Warlock). I don't think they get any radio play, that I know of. But they're popular. . . interestingly, with the younger crowd more than say, Gen X on up. By far.

Seems that the sound, and the show, just appeal. Can't really be nostalgia, because these young whippersnappers weren't even around. Or wouldn't have been very aware, at best.

Um, just another random anecdote for the heck of it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I suspect that the timing of the boom in oldskool revival has everything to do with a backlash against 4E and an unwillingness to return to 3E.

I don't think so, all the major old school revival games were published before 4e was announced in August 2007.

HackMaster - 2001
Castles & Crusades - 2004
OSRIC - 2006
Basic Fantasy Roleplaying - Feb 2007
Labyrinth Lord - July 2007

Both old school and 4e may derive from the same motivation - people were tired of 3e and wanted to go in a new direction. 4e's direction is somewhat different than that of the old school but both recognise the desire for a less complex rule set.

Shortly before 4e was announced I saw a few people asking for a Fiendish Codex covering Yugoloths. That to my mind demonstrates 3e had nowhere left to go.

 

[rounser]

Hence, although I can't rule out that 4e's release may have had some impact on the old school revival, I think it was a mostly insignificant one.

If 4E split the fanbase as much as it appears to have, I'm not sure that an insignificant impact even seems possible, let alone likely. Those people turned off by 4E clearly aren't all still playing 3E, and they surely they haven't all given up on D&D for the foreseeable future just because 4E exists, either. But we're speculating on "what seems likely", here, and so will not agree.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think so, all the major old school revival games were published before 4e was announced in August 2007.

HackMaster - 2001
Castles & Crusades - 2004
OSRIC - 2006
Basic Fantasy Roleplaying - Feb 2007
Labyrinth Lord - July 2007

Facts? How needs facts?

I don't know what might have been the specific reasons, but hey, here are some things that I think might make sense.
3.x was not moving in the direction of "old school". In fact I think no games moved into that direction. There is obviously a market niche left open there.
People realized what was possible with the OGL and similar approaches. (Maybe the various "Variant Player Handbooks" like Arcana Unearthed or Iron Heroes tipped them off?)