Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 5134880" data-attributes="member: 5">This is an interesting analysis.&nbsp; It skips over people like myself who began playing D&amp;D when it first came out (and who were gamers of other games [wargames, miniature wargames, etc.] prior to the advent of D&amp;D in 1974).&nbsp; It is interesting to me, when I go to play at Gencon, GaryCon, and other small conventions and gamedays, or when I glance over the many OSR blogs, to see that there is a gap in the references and language between my own memories and nostalgia (not a bad word) and that of the OSR.&nbsp; I'm not an OSR guy myself, though I do check out the retro-clones when I get the chance, just like I check out systems from the 80s, 90s and newer for a session or two, just to enjoy them for what they are and to stay in touch with design trends, in general.I played a handful of (O)D&amp;D games just last weekend and have to say that most were run and had the same feel as games I recall playing even 35 years ago but the retro-clone games, as good as their intentions might be, seem to often miss the mark.&nbsp; There was an impressionist once who used to do a great impersonation of a particular actor.&nbsp; He did it so well that anyone else claiming to do an impression of that same actor was often really just doing an impersonation of the impressionist doing his impersonation of that actor.&nbsp; Thus far the retro-clones have left me with the same feeling.&nbsp; They are impressions of impressions (of impressions of etc.) and they are built to be that way, to emulate both the rules and the style of play the designers believe best capture what they felt when gaming (or approximate what they believe others are saying is what they felt when gaming).&nbsp; When this is done by people who didn't have a similar background to the original designers and who came into gaming even as later renditions of the rules were being developed, it shows in the gameplay at the table.&nbsp; It can still be a lot of fun but it isn't going to be quite the same.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark, post: 5134880, member: 5"] This is an interesting analysis. It skips over people like myself who began playing D&D when it first came out (and who were gamers of other games [wargames, miniature wargames, etc.] prior to the advent of D&D in 1974). It is interesting to me, when I go to play at Gencon, GaryCon, and other small conventions and gamedays, or when I glance over the many OSR blogs, to see that there is a gap in the references and language between my own memories and nostalgia (not a bad word) and that of the OSR. I'm not an OSR guy myself, though I do check out the retro-clones when I get the chance, just like I check out systems from the 80s, 90s and newer for a session or two, just to enjoy them for what they are and to stay in touch with design trends, in general. I played a handful of (O)D&D games just last weekend and have to say that most were run and had the same feel as games I recall playing even 35 years ago but the retro-clone games, as good as their intentions might be, seem to often miss the mark. There was an impressionist once who used to do a great impersonation of a particular actor. He did it so well that anyone else claiming to do an impression of that same actor was often really just doing an impersonation of the impressionist doing his impersonation of that actor. Thus far the retro-clones have left me with the same feeling. They are impressions of impressions (of impressions of etc.) and they are built to be that way, to emulate both the rules and the style of play the designers believe best capture what they felt when gaming (or approximate what they believe others are saying is what they felt when gaming). When this is done by people who didn't have a similar background to the original designers and who came into gaming even as later renditions of the rules were being developed, it shows in the gameplay at the table. It can still be a lot of fun but it isn't going to be quite the same. [/QUOTE]

Verification