The "Old School Revival" - The Light Bulb Goes On

[Mythmere1]

On this topic I will put in a plug for Frog God Games, which is to say Necromancer Games.

In November (as in this month) FGG is releasing a re-written version of 0e. By that, I mean the edition prior to First Edition. The main complaint voiced about this 1974-1977 edition is that (a) the box sets are collectors items and thus expensive, (b) it's too disorganized to learn easily, (c) it's no longer supported. The Necromancer Games / Frog God Games version, which is called "Swords & Wizardry," is organized in a more modern format and will be cheap ($21 for a softcover).

Several modules are already published for Swords & Wizardry; Necro/Frog God is coming out with more in November, and there is a steady release schedule for something like 2 modules per month.

Plus, even if you want to go to an out-of-print edition, there is a LOT of support for these on the net -- it's not just Swords & Wizardry (0e); there is support for First Edition and early Basic editions. There seems to be less for 2e, but it's out there as well.

Since it's not in my sig yet, the Frog God Games site is at Products

(end of shameless plug, but it's directly on point with the original post, so there it is).

 

[Mercurius]

What the OP describes is one of the main reasons I play 4E over 3E/Pathfinder: it is just easier to DM, pure and simple (OK, at least for me). That said, I totally get the OSR but I just prefer the streamlined 3-4E core mechanic and many of the rules options. However, I find the vast amount of options to be a bit tedious, both the hundred-odd 3.x books and the clunky Character Builder. There are just too many feats, and the difference in powers tend to be difficult to discern at face value and end up seeming all the same, but then in game play they can have vastly different effects. This is where rules mastery has (unfortunately) crept into 4E. But I digress.

I'm dabbling with a power-less, feat-less version of 4E. This, to me, is the "holy grail" of D&D: combining the best of the old school (simplicity and freeform gaming) with the best of the new school (modular options and streamlined mechanic). Both 3E and 4E are, at heart, simple games, but they end up being overly complicated because of all the exceptions and minor variations. Complex can be good, but complicated is just confusing.

I also find that "Old School" is more a matter of how one plays whatever version of D&D they play rather than what version of D&D they play. To me "Old School" has a lot to do with using the rules as guidelines rather than as writtten in stone. This is not to say that rules lawyering is a new phenomena--it is more a tempermental thing, I think, than anything else--but that emphasis with 3E especially changed from "DM as storyteller/judge/final authority" to "DM as moderator/opponent/one shmuck at the table among many." This might have mroe to do with the younger generation of players that started with 3E than it did with the game itself; not to sound like an old fogey, but the post-1980 generation has a stronger sense of instant gratification and entitlement than older, pre-computer-born-and-raised generations. But this is another topic...

 

[thedungeondelver]

Vintage D&D play is largely about the rules; newer rulesets encourage play styles that aren't really compatible with, say, original D&D. I don't have a book in front of me at the moment, but there is an admonishment in the 4e ruleset for players to make a list of magic items they want; it is incumbent on the DM to grant them this list. The storied "rule zero" has now been given over to the players (to wit, don't stop them if they have a "cool idea" - again not the exact wording but IIRC the crux of it).

I just don't see those things popping up in my games of the past, nor anyone else whom I gamed with.

I mean, I suppose you could say no, only lawful good humans can be paladins, or introduce save-or-die traps (for example), but would the average 4e crowd - not us, not people who play or at least have knowledge of older versions of the game - embrace such old-school elements? Differing XP charts per class? Level limits for demi-humans? Dungeons with lots and lots of corridor crawling? Magic items that might not be on the wish-list? Would a 4e group accept and embrace things like that? I'm asking, not leading. Again, that's outside of people who at least have tangential knowledge of older versions.

 

[Troll Slayer]

It's funny, because in many ways 3e was more pro- DM customisation than any other edition ever! Somehow that got lost in the public perception though...

I think originally that was their intent with 3e. However they created too much. Simply put, they tried to quantify WAY too much! Charts for every skill, elaborate feat trees, and rules systems for every possible action. It's just too fiddly to be readily flexible.

If I change rule X, I have to then consider the impact that change will have on monster stats, skills, DCs, feats, spells, class levels, savings throws, etc.

Too many times I saw a DM change a rule or fudge a ruling, only to have another player say, "Hey! I had to buy a feat to do that!" or "What the hell, why'd I bother getting ten ranks in tumble then?"

If you want to create a flexible and easily customizeable game system, you need to be comfortable with keeping things simple and trusting the players/GM to fill in the blanks.

 

[billd91]

I remember one of the things that made me scratch my head was hearing a lot of "Well this is how we played anyway" talk when 3e first came out. That people by and large had a unified XP chart. That people already used feats/superpowers/etc.

Having played some 2e, I never saw that in play at all. Ever. So, I was a little nonplussed.

I saw it in 1e and 2e every once in a while, particularly after the combat maneuver proficiencies appeared in the 2e Celts historical campaign book.

 

[Korgoth]

I think every step away from the 3 Little Brown Books (1974) has made the game worse.

That includes Greyhawk (1975). You add in Thieves, and all the sudden regular Fighting Men may not be able to move silently or climb walls anymore. You add in variable damage, now everyone starts carrying the statistically best weapon rather than just rolling 1d6 damage for everything and your weapon type is basically flavor text (I allow a -1 AC for use of a shield, a +1 to hit for using 2 weapons, and a +1 to damage for using a two-handed weapon... just pick where your plus is going to be).

Stats quickly became too important. I give +1 for stats of 15+, -1 for stats of 6-. Other than that, stats only matter for attribute checks.

Hit points being fixed per level also hurts. Every time you roll a "1" for your next level's hit points, you feel boned. I prefer the freedom of the TLBBs... I interpret the HP like in Empire of the Petal Throne (1975): you reroll every level and keep the highest total. So you will tend to be average or better.

If you add in skills, that does the same thing as Thief crap. Now you can't pilot a boat without the Boatman skill. So no one will ever know how to pilot boats, because they're too busy taking skills that they know they'll get to use every session, like the obligatory "Heal" skill for Medieval CPR.

Just make a backstory. If your backstory suggests that you can do it, then you can do it. Whatever. Shame on the Ref if he lets you use a backstory that amounts to "I was the Herald of Omnipotus and have mastered all things."

It's totally sad when someone says "I scamper up the wall of the palace garden" and the DM counters with "You don't have the right class or skill; you cannot." That is anti-D&D.

 

[JeffB]

I think every step away from the 3 Little Brown Books (1974) has made the game worse.

That includes Greyhawk (1975). You add in Thieves, and all the sudden regular Fighting Men may not be able to move silently or climb walls anymore. You add in variable damage, now everyone starts carrying the statistically best weapon rather than just rolling 1d6 damage for everything and your weapon type is basically flavor text (I allow a -1 AC for use of a shield, a +1 to hit for using 2 weapons, and a +1 to damage for using a two-handed weapon... just pick where your plus is going to be).

Stats quickly became too important. I give +1 for stats of 15+, -1 for stats of 6-. Other than that, stats only matter for attribute checks.

Hit points being fixed per level also hurts. Every time you roll a "1" for your next level's hit points, you feel boned. I prefer the freedom of the TLBBs... I interpret the HP like in Empire of the Petal Throne (1975): you reroll every level and keep the highest total. So you will tend to be average or better.

If you add in skills, that does the same thing as Thief crap. Now you can't pilot a boat without the Boatman skill. So no one will ever know how to pilot boats, because they're too busy taking skills that they know they'll get to use every session, like the obligatory "Heal" skill for Medieval CPR.

Just make a backstory. If your backstory suggests that you can do it, then you can do it. Whatever. Shame on the Ref if he lets you use a backstory that amounts to "I was the Herald of Omnipotus and have mastered all things."

It's totally sad when someone says "I scamper up the wall of the palace garden" and the DM counters with "You don't have the right class or skill; you cannot." That is anti-D&D.

Good post- and agree on many points- Thieves in particular. That is an often overlooked MAJOR change.

Personally I'm a fence rider when it comes to stat bonuses- I hate them becoming over important, however- whats the point of having them (and in such a wide range of numbers) if essentially it boils down to- not so good, average, and pretty good/ (just thinking out loud here)

One (very simple)house rule I swiped for my S&W: WB game from an article in Knockspell was damage by class- clerics 1d6 regardless of weapon, MUs 1d4, and Fighters 1d8. That way, you can have the priests of the serpent god armed with those wicked scimitars, or not be giving up anything (meta game-wise) when the inspiration for your fighter is this dude

 

[TerraDave]

It's funny, because in many ways 3e was more pro- DM customisation than any other edition ever! Somehow that got lost in the public perception though...

I would say that game is "D20", which is very toolkitty and can inspire a GM to go into a lot of different directions. 3.5 D&D, while offering a lot for players who want to put in the work, went from my favorite version of the game to DM to my least favorite from about levels 6-8.

I have always understood the impulse, but I should say as someone with 1e experience, that D&D has always 'blown up' both in terms of the difficulty of balancing the game and the difficulty of running the game somewhere above 13th level. High level play is just difficult..... Likewise, table arguments from rules lawyer-ish players are nothing new, and if anything, were much less of a problem in 3e than they were in earlier editions. If you think 'having a rule for everything' is a problem, wait until you get to 'having ambigious guidelines for everything' if you want to see what real rules lawyer hell is like. Streamlining the rules doesn't help as much as you think.

First point is dead on. I think 3E (and now 4E or PF) creates the expecation that high level play will finally work. In 3E I am glad I stopped at level 12.

As for the second point...I used to agree, and I know that Skip Williams would give examples of the dangers of unclear rules and they would actually watch people play and have fights over them.

Nonetheless, streamlining, like any good writting (or design) can add to clarity and usefullness. How did people play in the day: AD&D options with D&D rules. They self-streamlined. I liked 3Es comprehensive nature for a while, but it was just too much, and PF, seesh, blah, blah, blah around some pretty good ideas.

What the OP describes is one of the main reasons I play 4E over 3E/Pathfinder: it is just easier to DM, pure and simple (OK, at least for me).... to me, is the "holy grail" of D&D: combining the best of the old school (simplicity and freeform gaming) with the best of the new school (modular options and streamlined mechanic). Both 3E and 4E are, at heart, simple games, but they end up being overly complicated because of all the exceptions and minor variations. Complex can be good, but complicated is just confusing.

Yes, the same (again). Including fiddling with my own retro ideas..

Vintage D&D play is largely about the rules; newer rulesets encourage play styles that aren't really compatible with, say, original D&D. I don't have a book in front of me at the moment, but there is an admonishment in the 4e ruleset for players to make a list of magic items they want; it is incumbent on the DM to grant them this list.

They have basically dropped that (and limited the ability to make items...DM is back in charge). Overall, 4E did go out of its way to be more DM freindly then 3E. while still giving players lots of options. And they are continuing the trend. Though the wishlist is an example of something that was supposed to help DMs (by giving that work to the players), that was a non-starter for a lot of groups.

 

[Treebore]

OP I totally agree, it is why I became such a HUGE fan of Castles and Crusades, enough of the "new" game design sensibilities while also giving me a great universal type mechanic to be able to set my favorite rules ideas upon, no matter which edition it is I am taking it from.

So I have the simple rules design that make it much easier for me to run games, while giving me the exact amount of rules diversity I can happily handle and have my players happy with the diverse amount of actions their characters can take. All without a ton of precise rules that bog the game down, especially if you have rules lawyers. Fortunately I don't have any rules lawyers, all my players are interested in is consistency, and that is all they do, is help me be consistent.

So while I love and buy waaaay too much of the Pathfinder stuff, and can admire the good parts of 4E, the bottom line is they still don't give me the right level of rules complexity, so thanks to the OSR movement and alternatives to the 3E rules set, like C&C, for the first time in over 25 years of gaming I have a RPG perfectly tailor built to my precise tastes, and I have plenty of players willing to play in my games. So my last 5 years have been my gaming Nirvanna of my entire life, all directly as a result of 3E, the OGL, and then the decisions the GSL made others do, such as creating Pathfinder.

Plus now I have great new versions of the old games, which I am very happy with because as Mythmere says above, these new versions are very cleaned up, much better presented and organized, and in brand new condition for me to wear out all over again in the coming decades. Plus I even like most of the changes that were done in the newer OSR version, such as Swords and Wizardry and Dark Dungeons.

Also definitely give the Basic Fantasy RPG a look as well, it is very similar to Castles and Crusades in that it essentially brings the core 3E sensibilities to the old school games. Yet it is much more in line with them as well, so I found it to not be quit as "universal" as C&C is, nor does it run as simply because it does not have a central unifying mechanic behind it all either. Not as strongly as it is in C&C, at least.

So yes, liberate yourself, explore it all, try it all, and I think you will find it very invigorating. I certainly have.

 

[Treebore]

I also find that "Old School" is more a matter of how one plays whatever version of D&D they play rather than what version of D&D they play. To me "Old School" has a lot to do with using the rules as guidelines rather than as writtten in stone.

I totally agree with you, because at one point I thought those exact same thoughts. However, I have found that the true difference between 3E and even 4E when compared to the older editions, is when you get down to it they simply play/run much simpler. The core elements of the game play very simply and very smoothly, and then when exceptions to the general rules come up, you use the more complex rule that applies.

3E and 4E integrate a large amount of complexity essentially at all times. Whether it is modifiers from a variety of Feats, skills, or powers.

The best way I can illustrate this is, in older editions the spellcasters were the most complex characters, you had to learn and keep track of their spell lists. Now with 3E, and in my opinion even more so in 4E, every class has a lot to keep track of, so nothing is simple to play in comparison to the other classes, they are all of similar complexity, especially in 4E.

So that is why I did not stick with 4E after spending several months playing it weekly. I liked having simple options versus complex options. Not only with building your characters, but with the game over all. Even the combats with all their pushing and sliding, etc... was too complex at all times for what I like.

So the reason I prefer running and playing older games is because I am able to have much more control over just how complex or simple my gaming experience is. Far more than I got with 3E or even 4E.

Now if I enjoyed complexity, and if I enjoyed tracking all of that data, I would love 3E and 4E, but I don't, so I don't like them enough to stick with them. I am not saying I hate them, or that they suck, all I am saying is they don't give me the game play I like, and fortunately for me I was able to find it elsewhere.

So yes, I could make 3E and 4E play much more like the older edition games do, but I found out, realized, whatever, that the best way for me to get the purest experience that i want out of RPG gaming is to move even closer to those old rules systems. So 4E can remind me of what it used to be like, but to truly get back to it, I had to decide upon a rules system upon which to build my perfect system, and that system is far closer to early D&D than even 4E is. So I don't get the "feel", I get the real deal.