Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
With my group is almost the opposite... when we were playing HARP only the GM and I had the manuals. Now that I'm running AD&D none of the players seem bothered by the lack of availability of the rules.
Playing OOP Games
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
With my group is almost the opposite... when we were playing HARP only the GM and I had the manuals. Now that I'm running AD&D none of the players seem bothered by the lack of availability of the rules.
delericho
Legend
The game merely being IP or OOP isn't a factor - we'll play the games that we like regardless.
What may be a factor is the possibility of ongoing support for a game, usually in the form of adventure material. Sadly, I just don't have the time I once did for creating adventures, worlds, and the like. Therefore, it is a major boon to be able to pick up a published adventure and run with that.
Of my games of choice, D&D 3.5e is now out of print (although we may shift to Pathfinder), and Warhammer 2nd Edition is about to drop out of print (and we won't be moving to 3rd Edition). Star Wars Saga Edition remains in print, but I have decided that this will be the last edition of Star Wars I follow - after six (?) different editions in two systems I've finally got a game I'm happy with, and unless a new edition proves to be the greatest RPG of all time then I feel I've had enough.
In print/OoP doesn't affect my choices as a GM. And in some cases, the players may prefer the OoP game to the current flavor.
For example, one of my gaming buddies took forever to warm up to 3Ed. He bought his first 3.5 book shortly before 4Ed, so you can guess how he feels about THAT.
However, he's not alone- like myself and many other gamers, 4Ed simply isn't our flavor of D&D, so we still play 3.X.
When the Fuzion version of Champions was the only one in print, I avoided it like the plague...as did the entire group I was in at the time.
My only concern is ensuring that we have enough books to go around. Which is why, in my capacity as Mr. Library, I often buy duplicates of key books for my favorite games. I must have at least 4 copies of the core book of Space: 1889, for instance. And but for 4Ed, I have between 2-4 PHBs of each previous edition of D&D.
For example, one of my gaming buddies took forever to warm up to 3Ed. He bought his first 3.5 book shortly before 4Ed, so you can guess how he feels about THAT.
However, he's not alone- like myself and many other gamers, 4Ed simply isn't our flavor of D&D, so we still play 3.X.
When the Fuzion version of Champions was the only one in print, I avoided it like the plague...as did the entire group I was in at the time.
My only concern is ensuring that we have enough books to go around. Which is why, in my capacity as Mr. Library, I often buy duplicates of key books for my favorite games. I must have at least 4 copies of the core book of Space: 1889, for instance. And but for 4Ed, I have between 2-4 PHBs of each previous edition of D&D.
WalterKovacs
First Post
It's mostly been up to the DM for what game we ended up playing. Some DMs have a backlog of old books and lke to make use of it. I ran in a Vampire group for a while, and it was an older version of the game. Similarly, I had a DM run me through 2e, and currently Battletech. Part of the appeal for them, I believe, is that they are comfortable with that system, and wouldn't want to spend the time or money gaining system mastery over a new system (not to mention than in print equates to constantly changing, while an out of print game is finite and any changes would be coming from the DM, or player suggestions). Also, in many of those cases, we mostly used the DMs books for the characters, making the process a bit different than what I've experienced with in print games. In these cases, we as players put outselves entirely in the hands of the DM, allowing him to be the system expert.
Alternatively, with print games, I've tended to buy up lots of books, and while not necessarily becoming an expert on the system, I've taken the time to know how the system (should) work, which led to expectations that may run contrary to what the DM does, not to mention a feeling out process of what new content is allowed. And of course there is the pull to want to try out the new options as much as possible. For a DM, it's much harder to DM an in print game, in my opinion, especially if you want control, in either the game or the campaign setting. General player perception is that 'official' content sould be assumed allowed unless proven otherwise, while some DMs would rather not allow something without at least wrapping their head around it.
Alternatively, with print games, I've tended to buy up lots of books, and while not necessarily becoming an expert on the system, I've taken the time to know how the system (should) work, which led to expectations that may run contrary to what the DM does, not to mention a feeling out process of what new content is allowed. And of course there is the pull to want to try out the new options as much as possible. For a DM, it's much harder to DM an in print game, in my opinion, especially if you want control, in either the game or the campaign setting. General player perception is that 'official' content sould be assumed allowed unless proven otherwise, while some DMs would rather not allow something without at least wrapping their head around it.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Not in the slightest. Quality, suitability, and occasionally familiarity.
I think 'hell, no' should suffice here.
Quite honestly, the obsession that many cultures apparently have (have been relentlessly trained to have?) with whatever is new and shiny. . . is a bit depressing, I'll just say. Best left there, methinks.
wingsandsword
Legend
It's not an issue, in fact in some ways I prefer OOP games. You know all the books have been made for it and you're not going to go to your FLGS one day and find a new suppliment that changes or imbalances everything and my players are all clamoring for it. OOP games have a sense of completeness.
For D&D's 3.0 and 3.5, and d20 Modern even though they are out-of-print officially, their SRD's mean they are perpetually available for new gamers.
To use the OP's example of AD&D 1e, that is probably one of the easiest OOP games to get, and a player only needs the PHB (often available for around $10.00).
Another poster mentioned d6 Star Wars (I have a soft spot for that game, it was my first RPG), and the actual core rules for it that a player would need to know, especially to get started, could probably be written down on both sides of a standard 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper (the game was decently "rules light"), and if I ran d6 Star Wars I would make out just such a basic rules handout for players.
As has been said, between .pdf's, Amazon sellers, eBay and such unless the game was obscure to begin with getting at least the basic player materials for members of a gaming group (and assuming the GM has all the books he wants to use) is not really an issue.
When I game, if I'm running, I run what I want (and given that of the 3 games I like to run, two of them are out of print: D&D 3.5 and d20 Modern, the third is Star Wars Saga), and it's never been an issue.
For D&D's 3.0 and 3.5, and d20 Modern even though they are out-of-print officially, their SRD's mean they are perpetually available for new gamers.
To use the OP's example of AD&D 1e, that is probably one of the easiest OOP games to get, and a player only needs the PHB (often available for around $10.00).
Another poster mentioned d6 Star Wars (I have a soft spot for that game, it was my first RPG), and the actual core rules for it that a player would need to know, especially to get started, could probably be written down on both sides of a standard 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper (the game was decently "rules light"), and if I ran d6 Star Wars I would make out just such a basic rules handout for players.
As has been said, between .pdf's, Amazon sellers, eBay and such unless the game was obscure to begin with getting at least the basic player materials for members of a gaming group (and assuming the GM has all the books he wants to use) is not really an issue.
When I game, if I'm running, I run what I want (and given that of the 3 games I like to run, two of them are out of print: D&D 3.5 and d20 Modern, the third is Star Wars Saga), and it's never been an issue.
evildmguy
Explorer
Sorry so long - my rambling thoughts and experiences on this
**Standard Disclaimer. This is my opinion.**
I have several thoughts on this.
I really like the Alternity system but it has been OOP for a while. Four years ago, my players indulged me and we played it as a Fantasy setting, using rules found on the Alternity site. The first campaign we tried worked mostly well. Then I started making my own rules. They worked okay but I had gained a rules lawyer player and he showed how they worked most of the time but there were big holes at the extremes.
So, over the next two years, we tinkered. We tried things. We looked for other rules. However, in the end, I was the one pushing it forward. So, I had to write rules, playtest them as best I could, present them to the players and run the games. I had to do everything. I knew this, so I am not mad at my players, but when I realized that, it was too much work. So, we stopped the Fantasy campaign using Alternity.
We did play a Modern game with it but after one campaign, I felt like we knew the system and had pushed it as far as it could go. As much as I do like the system and many of its ideas, I wanted a more heroic system than realistic.
Looking back, this showed that trying to use a system for something it wasn't designed didn't work very well. There was little support online as well and responses weren't fast. That combined to make it tough, for me and my group, to use it. We also found out that once we had played a lot of the options, it started to feel the same to us. We had fun while we did use it but it couldn't sustain itself for us in the long term.
There is another aspect to this. Alternity was a newer system, compared to DND another game we play, and so I enjoyed the new game theory that was in it. (I don't want to get into lots of details here but it had a different style than DND.) It was different and in a way that nearly matched what I wanted in a game.
Now, having said that, there are some OOP system that I haven't played and would try, such as oWoD, and it has enough material for years. However, there is more to it than just the new material.
At the same time all of this is happening, DND 3E had gotten old to me. I was ready to quit 2E and find an alternative, when 3E came out and energized me. But, within a few years, 3E was already showing me how it didn't work and had the same problems I didn't like with older editions. However, I did like the fluff of the books at the time. Further, the designers were trying something new and the theory of gaming was advancing and I appreciated those.
When 4E came out, I have completely embraced it. Before, when reading a new non DND system, I would think "wow, I wish DND did that as that's cool." Now, I think "wow, 4E handles this much better and this system could learn from 4E." It's a very big change for me that, after twenty years of hoping DND would do X or Y better that it finally does for me! I am enjoying that a lot. Further, I really like the game theory that 4E uses. The ideas on the DMG2 about vignettes, for example, are awesome and something I would take to other systems. (In fact, I am surprised White Wolf hasn't already published rules and ideas like that. I think those ideas have only appeared in one other published work, but I am not sure of that.)
So, what does this have to do with OOP? Well, I don't think I could play 1E/2E at this point without it being so modified that it's not that game anymore. Even though there is a lot of of stuff out there, 1E/2E doesn't work for me as a game. I'm a firm believer that role playing is influenced by the rules you are playing and I don't like 1E/2E and how it works for all levels but about 5-8. 3E works better but plays differently based on what level the characters are and again breaks down as 1E/2E does even if it is later levels.
tl;dr : So, could I play an OOP game? If it fits my style and the style of my group, yes. I don't know how long it would last but once the system was explored, I think it would be tough to keep playing it. That's why I like 4E so much because it has so much more variety (a dwarf fighter is not the same as a human fighter as they were before) and a lot more to explore. Playing the game is as much about exploring what the rules can do for the game as it is about the story we are telling.
That's just my opinion.
edg
**Standard Disclaimer. This is my opinion.**
I have several thoughts on this.
I really like the Alternity system but it has been OOP for a while. Four years ago, my players indulged me and we played it as a Fantasy setting, using rules found on the Alternity site. The first campaign we tried worked mostly well. Then I started making my own rules. They worked okay but I had gained a rules lawyer player and he showed how they worked most of the time but there were big holes at the extremes.
So, over the next two years, we tinkered. We tried things. We looked for other rules. However, in the end, I was the one pushing it forward. So, I had to write rules, playtest them as best I could, present them to the players and run the games. I had to do everything. I knew this, so I am not mad at my players, but when I realized that, it was too much work. So, we stopped the Fantasy campaign using Alternity.
We did play a Modern game with it but after one campaign, I felt like we knew the system and had pushed it as far as it could go. As much as I do like the system and many of its ideas, I wanted a more heroic system than realistic.
Looking back, this showed that trying to use a system for something it wasn't designed didn't work very well. There was little support online as well and responses weren't fast. That combined to make it tough, for me and my group, to use it. We also found out that once we had played a lot of the options, it started to feel the same to us. We had fun while we did use it but it couldn't sustain itself for us in the long term.
There is another aspect to this. Alternity was a newer system, compared to DND another game we play, and so I enjoyed the new game theory that was in it. (I don't want to get into lots of details here but it had a different style than DND.) It was different and in a way that nearly matched what I wanted in a game.
Now, having said that, there are some OOP system that I haven't played and would try, such as oWoD, and it has enough material for years. However, there is more to it than just the new material.
At the same time all of this is happening, DND 3E had gotten old to me. I was ready to quit 2E and find an alternative, when 3E came out and energized me. But, within a few years, 3E was already showing me how it didn't work and had the same problems I didn't like with older editions. However, I did like the fluff of the books at the time. Further, the designers were trying something new and the theory of gaming was advancing and I appreciated those.
When 4E came out, I have completely embraced it. Before, when reading a new non DND system, I would think "wow, I wish DND did that as that's cool." Now, I think "wow, 4E handles this much better and this system could learn from 4E." It's a very big change for me that, after twenty years of hoping DND would do X or Y better that it finally does for me! I am enjoying that a lot. Further, I really like the game theory that 4E uses. The ideas on the DMG2 about vignettes, for example, are awesome and something I would take to other systems. (In fact, I am surprised White Wolf hasn't already published rules and ideas like that. I think those ideas have only appeared in one other published work, but I am not sure of that.)
So, what does this have to do with OOP? Well, I don't think I could play 1E/2E at this point without it being so modified that it's not that game anymore. Even though there is a lot of of stuff out there, 1E/2E doesn't work for me as a game. I'm a firm believer that role playing is influenced by the rules you are playing and I don't like 1E/2E and how it works for all levels but about 5-8. 3E works better but plays differently based on what level the characters are and again breaks down as 1E/2E does even if it is later levels.
tl;dr : So, could I play an OOP game? If it fits my style and the style of my group, yes. I don't know how long it would last but once the system was explored, I think it would be tough to keep playing it. That's why I like 4E so much because it has so much more variety (a dwarf fighter is not the same as a human fighter as they were before) and a lot more to explore. Playing the game is as much about exploring what the rules can do for the game as it is about the story we are telling.
That's just my opinion.
edg
malkav666
First Post
Heh, a lot of the games my group plays are OOP. If it were not for adding Pathfinder to our 3.x games I would venture to say that most of them are OOP.
It does not matter to me or my group in the slightest what out of print and whats in print. What matters is more along the lines of what is the best fit, the most fun, the best overall experience, etc.
There are some great games that went the to the wayside (or to fan support only) over the years, and we have no problems picking those games up and playing them. And then you have the games with multiple editions... My stance on that is that if the new edition doesn't do it better than an edition I have already invested heavily in, then there is no real benefit to buying more books just to stay current, with an edition that strays heavily away from what my group and I find to be entertaining.
In short, we only need to learn the rules once. Just because something is no longer officially supported does not mean it ceases to exist or I will somehow unlearn it. I can still teach it to others or make games with it to play with my friends. All it requires is use of the imagination, and the imagination does not need something to be in print to dream about it.
love,
malkav
It does not matter to me or my group in the slightest what out of print and whats in print. What matters is more along the lines of what is the best fit, the most fun, the best overall experience, etc.
There are some great games that went the to the wayside (or to fan support only) over the years, and we have no problems picking those games up and playing them. And then you have the games with multiple editions... My stance on that is that if the new edition doesn't do it better than an edition I have already invested heavily in, then there is no real benefit to buying more books just to stay current, with an edition that strays heavily away from what my group and I find to be entertaining.
In short, we only need to learn the rules once. Just because something is no longer officially supported does not mean it ceases to exist or I will somehow unlearn it. I can still teach it to others or make games with it to play with my friends. All it requires is use of the imagination, and the imagination does not need something to be in print to dream about it.
love,
malkav
Similar Threads
