Retro-gaming

[Ariosto]

I am not sure, but I get the impression that people playing games originally published in the 1970s-80s tend on average to be more satisfied with them than those who have "upgraded" tend to be with their latest preferred systems.

It seems also to stand to reason that someone who finds improvement between Edition X and Edition Y might very probably still be looking for "something even better" -- whereas those who stuck with Edition X are less likely to feel that itch.

 

[Storminator]

I am not sure, but I get the impression that people playing games originally published in the 1970s-80s tend on average to be more satisfied with them than those who have "upgraded" tend to be with their latest preferred systems.

It seems also to stand to reason that someone who finds improvement between Edition X and Edition Y might very probably still be looking for "something even better" -- whereas those who stuck with Edition X are less likely to feel that itch.

That's pretty self-selecting isn't it? If you have been playing something for 30+ years, you're either happy with it or a masochist.

Those who are still playing 4e in 30 years (you know there will be some) will also be very satisfied, even tho their game is pretty different.

PS

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I don't run the retro-clones, preferring to run the games they're based on (e.g. OD&D or AD&D), but I'm a solid supporter of them. I don't need them for rules, but I appreciate them as a means of providing new support material for the games I play. I can go down to Nan's Games & Comics and buy OSRIC modules that I can use in my game. I also appreciate that the retro-clone and "inspired-by" systems are bringing more gamers and attention to my kind of RPG market. I love having magazines like Knockspell and Fight On! around.

While I personally don't run a retro-clone (although I'd really like to run Mutant Future at some point), I do see their value as games to run, too. A few years ago, I gave my eldest son a copy of the Mentzer Basic Set. He loved it, playing the solo adventure, making his own dungeons, and running friends and family (including me) through the stuff he created. He was also very hard on the aging books. When it came time for him to expand beyond levels 1-3, I didn't really want to give him my old copies. I thought about a Rules Cyclopedia, thinking a hardcover would hold up better, but they're pretty pricy unless you get lucky, and finding one in robust shape for a low price requires *real* luck. (Also, I simply can't stand the RC interior art -- blech.) However, a hardcover copy of Labyrinth Lord was just the ticket, and my son is running that, now.

the main appeal to me seems to be nostalgia and a harkening back to earlier, simpler, times - when dungeons were endless and monsters random.

To me, the appeal is my preference for the older editions: their look, their feel, and most importantly -- the way they prep and play. It's not nostalgia or rose-colored glasses. In my case, it's not even the appeal of the edition I started with, because I found that works the best for me is original D&D (1974) -- and I started after that, around '78 or '79. While I think the rules are simpler, I don't find retro-clone gaming to be "simpler" in the sense of being less sophisticated or less "grown up." For example, I'm a fan of "endless" mythic underworld dungeons. But I don't think dungeons should be limited to that model, and I don't think that such a dungeon need be completely senseless or random. Speaking of randomness, I'm also a great believer in the utility of random rolls. I like random encounters (e.g. wandering monsters) and their effect on the game. I also make use of random rolls for monsters and treasures when I'm creating dungeons and adventures, as well as picking and choosing. I see randomness as a tool and a springboard for creativity. I don't feel bound by my random rolls. Instead, they are nudges or suggestions, sometimes stretching my creativity in directions that I might not have gone, otherwise. Randomness keeps things from getting stale. I find that to be true with PCs, too -- I usually prefer random rolls over point buy because I like the experience (and challenge) of "seeing what hand fate deals" and making something fun out of it. It's often surprising how a sub-par or "hopeless" set of rolls ends up being a beloved character (perhaps a PC I wouldn't have even tried, otherwise).

 

[Aus_Snow]

I am not sure, but I get the impression that people playing games originally published in the 1970s-80s tend on average to be more satisfied with them than those who have "upgraded" tend to be with their latest preferred systems.

It seems also to stand to reason that someone who finds improvement between Edition X and Edition Y might very probably still be looking for "something even better" -- whereas those who stuck with Edition X are less likely to feel that itch.

That's, well, a strange impression to get. Wherever it's from. And no, it really doesn't stand to reason. IMO, anyway.

Saying that those who prefer a newer game are 'very probably' motivated by attraction to change, in essence, is no more reasonable than saying - as many also have - that those who prefer an older game are very probably motivated by resistance to change.

That line of reasoning is nothing new, on either 'side', that's for sure.

I mean, let's just say you spin this bit from the quoted text, like so:

'I get the impression that people who have "upgraded" to their latest preferred systems tend on average to be more satisfied with them than those playing games originally published in the 1970s-80s.'

Sound reasonable? From where does my 'impression' even come? How can I be sure? Why would I believe such a thing if, in fact, I can't be sure. . .? And so on.

 

[Mallus]

I'm becoming intrigued by this whole retro-gaming thing. I'd try a mechanically more old-school campaign, if I knew a good group playing one, and if I could manufacture a little more free time in my basement laboratory.

The current games I play in/run get by with newfangled mechanics but an old-school spirit. We're not constrained by the rules, they're just guidelines, some problems just have to work out, no dice rolling allowed nor required, things like that.

 

[kitsune9]

The latest Traveller looks pretty back-compatible with "Classic". The old line itself encompassed variant game systems for character creation, combat (several different games), and starships. I have no reason to switch, but it looks like a solid offering of what I would expect in a Traveller set.

Mongoose RuneQuest is the 4th edition. From what I have seen, there are changes to combat, experience and magic that strike me on balance as ill considered. There are some additions that seem to me like awkward injections from some other other game. It's a more significant departure than the change from 1st/2nd to (the Avalon Hill) 3rd. YMMV, of course.

A new edition of Dragon Warriors has also been released via Mongoose, and seems to have been well received by fans of the original set. I think the few changes to the rules are generally seen as improvements.

With D&D, differences especially between the TSR and WotC versions are sweeping. They appeal as much to different tastes as do, for instance, RuneQuest and Tunnels & Trolls. Some people may enjoy them indiscriminately, others slightly prefer one or the other, and still others find one distinctly unsatisfying.

Those who find the new anything but improved naturally prefer to keep available what they have found to deliver what they want.

Okay, thanks! I started reading the Mongoose Runequest last night. I like a lot of the concepts in it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I also appreciate that the retro-clone and "inspired-by" systems are bringing more gamers and attention to my kind of RPG market. I love having magazines like Knockspell and Fight On! around.



To me, the appeal is my preference for the older editions: their look, their feel, and most importantly -- the way they prep and play.


<and all the rest>

This right here. I need to spread some XP around first.


I like the retro clones because they give the younger gamers a more accessable means to check out simpler systems. The old OOP copies are still obtainable but for a newbie who is merely curious the retro stuff is really handy.

Some people really enjoy all the complexity of modern systems and I can appreciate that. There are times when I want to play a simple fighter and yell " I charge the filthy band of orcs, axe at the ready" without having to stop and see if my action has any keywords that will impact the die roll or count out the squares only to find out that I'm just shy of a first down.

I also appreciate the simplicity of rolling up a character and just playing rather than a labor intensive building process. Character building can be great fun too but there are times when its relief to just roll hit points, adjust saves and move on.

As a DM, homebrewing stuff was never easier than with Basic D&D. CR's/ EL's, role balancing and all that juggling were never required. An idea, a couple lines of stats and thats it. The rest of prep time could be spent on the cool flavor stuff.

Anyone remember how great it was before the universe was cut into 5' squares? With enough attitude and luck, your fighter could make that charge if it would be more awesome, what's 5 feet between friends?

The way I see it, the cool adventures you remember from youth are pure nostalgia. The light rules that you used to create those adventures don't have to be.

 

[Ariosto]

My thought did not concern any attraction or resistance to "change" in and of itself. What stands to reason, I think, is (as Storminator aptly put it) the "self-selecting" nature of the demographics.

If you have been playing something for 30+ years, you're either happy with it or a masochist.

The case (whatever its frequency elsewhere) is certainly not applicable to something that has not even been available for so long! It also seems likely that there are among players of newer versions a greater proportion who are new enough to the hobby as to be in the process of learning that in the long run Game X -- or even the hobby itself -- is not their cup of tea. I highly doubt that out-of-print games have been getting a comparable influx of "new blood", or that the retro-clones have so far had the visibility needed to match even 4E alone in bringing in new players.

 

[Mythmere1]

I'm probably stating the obvious when I say that there's no one "profile" of a retro-clone gamer, or of players who play the underlying original games. For some people it's about what the rules cover (there's a changing emphasis on this across the editions), for some people it's about how complex the rules are, for some people it's about the "feel," per NG, for some people it's about the ease of house-ruling, and the list goes on. Nostalgia is pretty low on that list, actually - and nonexistent for those who never quit an older edition. What's to nostalgify if you never stopped?

From what I can tell on the Swords & Wizardry boards, there are a lot of gamers trying out the older editions (mainly through retro-clones in the case of OD&D and Basic) who never played them before. At least, this is what it appears from the active posters; the lurkers might have a different demographic.

OSRIC (1e) and Swords & Wizardry (0e) have been gaining traction steadily, but there seems to have been a surge in interest relating to the release of 4e. There was another (smaller but very noticeable) bump in downloads/page views when WotC pulled the pdfs of OD&D and AD&D.

Really, I think it has to do with the fact that a lot of people are realizing the older games aren't just rules-lite versions of the newer ones, that they represent an entirely different model of gaming. It's one of those situations where a quantitative change has effected a qualitative change. Some people prefer the newer model, some people prefer the older model, but they are different "gestalts," if you will.

The retro-clones like S&W and OSRIC are simply a more organized, more familiar-format way of introducing that different gestalt of the open-ended, free-form style of gaming.

 

[Thondor]

Some thoughts:

I'm 23, and if I was living in the same area as my old gaming group I'm sure I would have convinced them to be playing 1e/OSRIC by now. None of them ever played anything but 3e. I played 1e/2e briefly when I was in grade 8. But never read the rules.

I like the customability of the rules, the lack of unifying mechanics means I can pick and chose things. The speed of combat and the initiative system (which OSRIC clarified beautifully). I like the advice in 1e PHB about how to be a successful adventurer. I love the art, which I can actually use in my game by saying to my players 'this is a piece of art you find'.
The sortness of monster descriptions and stats and the simplicity of stating exp value of a monster instead of CR.

I've been writing an 3.5e adventure and wishing I had the simplicity of a 1e adventure. Especially in terms of stats for monsters and npc stats.