Retro-gaming

[Betote]

The appeal is simple: Some people like the older versions of D&D better.

Equating it with nostalgia is like saying the reason some people still listen to the Beatles or play Monopoly is nostalgia.

As for when it started... The first, a proto-clone if you will, was Hackmaster in 2000.

QFT. I know I can only speak for myself, but I've fallen in love with Labyrinth Lord without having played BD&D before. When I began playing RPGs, in my country the only D&D widely available was AD&D2. I played a lot of it, but I loathed it, rooting for RQ (3rd ed, I think; the one from Avalon Hill) and even Rolemaster. I wasn't what one could call a D&D fan until 3.5 (in fact, until Paizo's Age of Worms AP). I discovered LL some time ago and I've been using it a lot for one-shots made up in the spot or in class since then.

I also enjoyed HackMaster without having played AD&D1, and I'm waiting for OSRIC2 to hit lulu.com to see what was it all like back then. But, to me, LL has a value in and for itself, not because it emulated the rules of some other game I've never played.

 

[frankthedm]

You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The previous editions of gaming where fine back then and thus they are fine now. Change for the sake of change hacks a lot of people off.

 

[Dyson Logos]

For me it is the appeal of being able to give my players copies of the rules we use. I run Moldvay Basic which is the foundation for Labyrinth Lord. Moldvay Basic has never been released in PDF and is obviously not in print anymore. Being able to sit down at the table with five players each with a copy of the Labyrinth Lord core rules makes it a lot easier than having to explain all the rules myself.

 

[Treebore]

We certainly play for nostalgia, then when we actually go back to playing we realize that its simpler, way simpler, still gets the job done, and the level of fun has been a heck of a lot higher.

I have never been a fan of complex games, its why I stayed away from Rolemaster, GURPS, and the like. I wish I could remember how I got talked into playing 3E, let alone for 5 years. Still glad of it though. 3E taught me a lot, and I think contributes to me being a better game master and helped me grok rules systems in general much better.

So yeah, we go back for notalgic reasons, then we realize its only nostlagia because we were dumb enough to quit, so this time around we stay.

 

[Ariosto]

Part of the appeal is fast action. Just a few minutes to roll up a character. Not just one encounter (fight/trap/puzzle/parley/etc.) per hour but two or more -- plus exploration. If the latter activity (key to old-school "mega" dungeons) is not so important, there may be four or more encounters per hour.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Thank you for mentioning Hackmaster! That really is a retro-inspired game.

One of the things I've noticed recently is the growth of the "retro-game," or rather the game that tries to evoke past editions of D&D. We already know that pathfinder is coming out (the "big" retro-game, although not really retro in my mind...),

One minor quibble with this point. Pathfinder is a game that tries to polish up 3.5 with some new gaming technology, without going as far as 4th Edition. By intent, it's not "retro".

 

[Storminator]

The appeal is simple: Some people like the older versions of D&D better.

Equating it with nostalgia is like saying the reason some people still listen to the Beatles or play Monopoly is nostalgia.

As for when it started... The first, a proto-clone if you will, was Hackmaster in 2000.

I'd much rather play one of the retro clones.

I grew up on 1e, and the inconsistent rules and fiddly bit put me off enough that I'd never want to play again. I'd play Labyrinth Lords, tho, even tho it's not cloning the edition I used to play. It maintains the speed and fluidity of the old games, yet has modern mechanics.

Doing the old things a new way has a certain magic to it.

PS

 

[kitsune9]

One of the things I've noticed recently is the growth of the "retro-game," or rather the game that tries to evoke past editions of D&D. We already know that pathfinder is coming out (the "big" retro-game, although not really retro in my mind...), but there are a number of other older retro-style games or outright clones out there. When did this all start, and what is the appeal?

Note: blogged about it at bookslikedust.blogspot.com

Damon, this is a serious question...

My definition of retro-gaming goes back a little farther. For example, someone who still plays OD&D or 1st ed as opposed to just sticking with 3.5 when the upgrade is now 4e. However, regardless, I think the appeal could be a few things:

1. Resistance to change (the edition where they play is their "comfort zone")
2. Economics (can't afford or cannot justify the expense of buying another edition)
3. Fondest Memories (the best adventures, campaigns, etc. was played in that edition thus a desire to repeat them).
4. Gap in gaming (player x stopped playing D&D in x edition for so many years. Instead of upgrading to the current edition, just picks up his old books, gets together with a new group, and game on).
5. Dislike for the current edition (1st edition players didn't like 2nd ed rules when it came out and went back to first edition, 2nd ed players ditto, 3.x players ditto again).

I'm sure there are lots of other different reasons that everyone else can either offer some personal experience so this list isn't exhaustive. I'm curious to see what other's thoughts are on it.

For me, I've always been an embracer of new editions except 4e which didn't do it for me, but in other games, I switched from GURPS 3rd to 4th, Herosystem I switched from 3rd to 4th to 5th and I will make the switch to 6th when it comes out. I own every edition of Traveller except the Mongoose version (haven't gotten around to picking it up yet). I went from 1st edition Runequest to Mongoose Runequest (I don't know if that's 2nd edition or not as I haven't played it yet). WFRP from 1st to 2nd (2nd is awesome). I'm really looking forward to Fading Suns 2nd ed when Red Brick finishes that up.

 

[Lars Porsenna]

I'm excited about a new edition of Fading Suns too. I was never a fan of their house VPS system, but the setting is flat out awesome. I have most of the previous edition books, including the D20 ones.

Damon.

 

[Ariosto]

I own every edition of Traveller except the Mongoose version (haven't gotten around to picking it up yet). I went from 1st edition Runequest to Mongoose Runequest (I don't know if that's 2nd edition or not as I haven't played it yet).

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.