Iosue
Legend
I originally posted this over on RPG.net, but I'd love to hear EN Worlders' takes on this as well. I posted this in General Discussion rather than Legacy D&D because I'd like people who perhaps don't normally venture there to see it as well.
I'm in the excluded middle. I'm not an OD&D grognard. But I was playing B/X and BECMI before 2nd Edition hit the shelves. I enjoy the TSR-era games, but I'm also a big fan of 4e. I like me some sandboxy hack-and-slash, and I also like narrative goals. I read accounts such as this of gaming at Mike Mornard's table, and I think, "That's awesome!. I read Chris Perkin's descriptions of his campaign at The Dungeon Master Experience, and I think, "That's awesome!" In the immortal words of Bill Cavalier: "Does this game have Dungeons? Does this game have Dragons? Then I want to play this game."
I don't deny that there are differences between D&D back in the day and D&D of the last 10 years or so. The media gamers are exposed to is different, roleplaying games are different, hell, just the world is different. But what's frustrating for me, as a TSR-era gamer, is that whole era has been hijacked, in a way, by the image of play described in such pieces as the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. This is not a criticism of anyone or anything, but just an observation that when the Old School/New School arguments start, the points of reference get polarized. That image of "zero-to-hero, player skill über alles, rulings-not-rules, high lethal combat with Save or Die," and so on becomes the go-to reference, by self-described Old Schoolers and New Schoolers alike.
But Old School is a moving target. Virtually from the beginning, the game was changing. The Greyhawk supplement was virtually like 0.5e. Holmes Basic was similar, yet different. Moldvay Basic also similar, yet different. Mentzer Basic was almost exactly the same as Moldvay, and yet different. AD&D was yet a whole other thing, and while the original AD&D diehards may laugh and point at the 2nd Edition players, those folks certainly consider themselves Old School compared to WotC-D&D players. Old School D&D was homebrew. It was campaign settings. It was dungeon delves. It was adventure paths (Dragonlance!) It was Otus and Sutherland. It was Elmore and Easley. It was matrices. It was THAC0.
I read the Old/New School arguments, and find myself not agreeing with anybody. Our D&D wasn't about "pixel-bitching", though we had no rules for rolling for perception/spot check. Our D&D wasn't about starting out as farmboys and becoming heroes, it was starting out as competent professional adventurers that did battle with goblins and saved princesses and such. That didn't mean we wanted "superheroes". We plotted out labyrinthine dungeons, but filled them with hardly any traps. DM fiat was king with no concept of "player empowerment", but there was no adversarial relationship between DM and players.
What I'd like to do in this thread is celebrate the varieties of "Old School". Note that this is NOT to say that "New School" is by implication not varied and diverse. QUITE THE OPPOSITE, I assure you. However, I think the varieties of WotC D&D have been pretty deeply delved into with the 3e/4e wars. What I'd like to do is have folks come and talk about how they played Old School, regardless of what the general image of it may be. What I hope will happen is it will be seen how much so-called Old School and New School are really alike.
So, folks, tell us about your old TSR D&D games! What D&D did you use? Homebrew or campaign setting? Fantasy ing Vietnam or High Adventure (or somewhere in between?) What literature and media were your influences? High lethality? Low lethality? Over the top outrageous adversarial relationship with DM? More dramatic/narrative type stories? Sandbox? Modules? Just like the "Old School Primer" or something different? Whatever you want to share, please do. I only ask that the thread be kept positive, with no jibes or backhanded compliments towards WotC D&D or other playstyles. If you want to take issue with someone's statement, please start a new thread. I'd rather this thread be about contribution and inquiry rather than debate.
I'm in the excluded middle. I'm not an OD&D grognard. But I was playing B/X and BECMI before 2nd Edition hit the shelves. I enjoy the TSR-era games, but I'm also a big fan of 4e. I like me some sandboxy hack-and-slash, and I also like narrative goals. I read accounts such as this of gaming at Mike Mornard's table, and I think, "That's awesome!. I read Chris Perkin's descriptions of his campaign at The Dungeon Master Experience, and I think, "That's awesome!" In the immortal words of Bill Cavalier: "Does this game have Dungeons? Does this game have Dragons? Then I want to play this game."
I don't deny that there are differences between D&D back in the day and D&D of the last 10 years or so. The media gamers are exposed to is different, roleplaying games are different, hell, just the world is different. But what's frustrating for me, as a TSR-era gamer, is that whole era has been hijacked, in a way, by the image of play described in such pieces as the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming. This is not a criticism of anyone or anything, but just an observation that when the Old School/New School arguments start, the points of reference get polarized. That image of "zero-to-hero, player skill über alles, rulings-not-rules, high lethal combat with Save or Die," and so on becomes the go-to reference, by self-described Old Schoolers and New Schoolers alike.
But Old School is a moving target. Virtually from the beginning, the game was changing. The Greyhawk supplement was virtually like 0.5e. Holmes Basic was similar, yet different. Moldvay Basic also similar, yet different. Mentzer Basic was almost exactly the same as Moldvay, and yet different. AD&D was yet a whole other thing, and while the original AD&D diehards may laugh and point at the 2nd Edition players, those folks certainly consider themselves Old School compared to WotC-D&D players. Old School D&D was homebrew. It was campaign settings. It was dungeon delves. It was adventure paths (Dragonlance!) It was Otus and Sutherland. It was Elmore and Easley. It was matrices. It was THAC0.
I read the Old/New School arguments, and find myself not agreeing with anybody. Our D&D wasn't about "pixel-bitching", though we had no rules for rolling for perception/spot check. Our D&D wasn't about starting out as farmboys and becoming heroes, it was starting out as competent professional adventurers that did battle with goblins and saved princesses and such. That didn't mean we wanted "superheroes". We plotted out labyrinthine dungeons, but filled them with hardly any traps. DM fiat was king with no concept of "player empowerment", but there was no adversarial relationship between DM and players.
What I'd like to do in this thread is celebrate the varieties of "Old School". Note that this is NOT to say that "New School" is by implication not varied and diverse. QUITE THE OPPOSITE, I assure you. However, I think the varieties of WotC D&D have been pretty deeply delved into with the 3e/4e wars. What I'd like to do is have folks come and talk about how they played Old School, regardless of what the general image of it may be. What I hope will happen is it will be seen how much so-called Old School and New School are really alike.
So, folks, tell us about your old TSR D&D games! What D&D did you use? Homebrew or campaign setting? Fantasy ing Vietnam or High Adventure (or somewhere in between?) What literature and media were your influences? High lethality? Low lethality? Over the top outrageous adversarial relationship with DM? More dramatic/narrative type stories? Sandbox? Modules? Just like the "Old School Primer" or something different? Whatever you want to share, please do. I only ask that the thread be kept positive, with no jibes or backhanded compliments towards WotC D&D or other playstyles. If you want to take issue with someone's statement, please start a new thread. I'd rather this thread be about contribution and inquiry rather than debate.