Whatever happened to the 1st Edition Basic DND Mentality?

[Henry]

Just last session a ranger/rogue had to be convinced not to exact his brilliant plan to thwart the villain by killing the helpless sacrifice with a well-placed bowshot.

On Monte Cook's boards about two months ago, I saw a story hour where an Arcana Unearthed Champion of Freedom DID JUST THAT.

 

[Desdichado]

D&D, and indeed all RPG's, are no better than the DM that runs them. A bad DM can take the penultimate rules and waste everyones time. A good DM can take virtually any ruleset and run a game that will be enjoyable and interesting. Your experience here has nothing to do with the rules being used themselves, but with HOW they're being used. There's nothing in 3E/3.5 that prevents or even discourages running a free-form, open-ended campaign any more than any previous version. If anything it encourages it like no previous edition has by enabling all manner of refinements and changes to be worked into the system with the least amount of fuss and bother.

Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Two things have changed over the years that have brought you to your current position. First, although free-wheeling sorts of campaigns are no less enjoyable it has become fashionable to scorn such games and those who play them. Story, which in the early days of RPG's was often thin or non-existent, has now perhaps swung too far to where it's now OVER-emphasized. The game became what it is today more through ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying. While the improvement to the gaming experience through more sophisticated roleplaying cannot be overlooked there are those who seek to eliminate as much of the "game" portion of "roleplaying game" as is possible. For those of use who still enjoy the "game" as much as the "roleplaying" it's as easy a problem to fix as shouting "Screw this! I'm gonna roll dice at something!"

Ah, the "Thermidor Reaction" school of thought to gaming. I'd argue that this has over-corrected again through the "back to the dungeon" mentality that was a driving goal and force behind the 3e ruleset. For me, though, it was always that way. I don't care about the roots of the game, I was interested in D&D because I was interested in fantasy books. The more the product of an RPG session feels like Warhammer Quest as opposed to Lord of the Rings the more dissatisfied I am with it. That's a big part of the reason I left D&D before 2e even came out and barely even bothered looking again until 3e.

Then again, I also believe, ironically, that focusing too much on story ala White Wolf does not give you the result you want. I'm almost paranoid as a GM about railroading; I do nothing if I can help it to restrict the freedom of the PCs. But the situations described in the first post aren't really about freedom, IMO, they're about doing goofy things in game, or purposefully bucking the theme and tone of the campaign in a spirit of juvenile rebellion. I don't have any interest in that type of playstyle anymore. It's only coincidental that that's associated with AD&D or Basic D&D or other older editions of the game, because those were the editions that were out when I was young, foolish, and knew people that played that way. I firmly believe that the ruleset doesn't encourage or discourage playstyle on such a broad level.

Second, as game design has improved and the years have rolled by, established campaign worlds have become extraordinarly... complete... structured. The number of home-brewed campaign worlds have shrunk and the older the published game world the greater the depth of its description. And they are ALL designed from top down, instead of bottom up which is the method least conducive to making adjustments to the setting at will. And all that compiled information on a given game world tends to discourage DM's in their creativity in exchange for alleviating the burdens of time and effort otherwise needed to create and maintain the campaign world. As your observation suggests - and I would agree - this has NOT been a good thing.

The GAME is not actively stifling creativity but DM's and players are FAR less obligated to exercise their creativity as they once were because there's such a well-developed crutch and support system for them to lean on.

That may be true, but homebrews have never been scarce in my neck of the woods. I absolutely refuse to run anything else, for instance.

 

[francisca]

As opposed to sitting and staring at it for 3 and a half hours?

Heh!

No, that's not especially fun.

 

[Faraer]

The original D&D play-style is nothing like Knights of the Dinner Table. It isn't hack and slash, which quickly gets you killed, and it isn't stupid and juvenile. In its freewheeling emphasis on fun over strict rules it has a lot in common with modern RPGs other than the new D&D. The story, as ever, is what the player characters do -- the original style has plenty to do with story, just not one written in advance. Some false dichotomies here.

It's absurd to talk of games or art evolving or progressing -- there are just fashions of play and ways to discuss play.

Codification over time is to some extent inevitable through pure accretion, so you have to be conscious of potential delimitation and ossification and work against them. The new D&D isn't on the side of the resistance.

 

[Desdichado]

The original D&D play-style is nothing like Knights of the Dinner Table. It isn't hack and slash, which quickly gets you killed, and it isn't stupid and juvenile. In its freewheeling emphasis on fun over strict rules it has a lot in common with modern RPGs other than the new D&D. The story, as ever, is what the player characters do -- the original style has plenty to do with story, just not one written in advance. Some false dichotomies here.

According to who? It was juvenile where I played it. It was a fad amongst young teenagers and pre-teenagers. Of course it was stupid and juvenile. And what's the false dichotomy you're mentioning? What dichotomies, for that matter, are you referring to, false or otherwise? Or is that just an attempt to use a big word to advance your "argument?"

Sure, the game itself didn't have to be juvenile. Nothing about it was inherently designed that way. But that's not really the point. Nothing about the initial post in this thread has anything to do with mechanics or game design.

It's absurd to talk of games or art evolving or progressing -- there are just fashions of play and ways to discuss play.

It's absurd to talk of them not evolving or progressing. Sure, it's equally absurd to suggest that they are evolving into a "higher form"; but they evolve, you betcha. Nobody except diaglo is interested in a game like the original games because the games themselves have evolved to match the evolution of their market.

Codification over time is to some extent inevitable through pure accretion, so you have to be conscious of potential delimitation and ossification and work against them. The new D&D isn't on the side of the resistance.

No, it's not. And it never was suggested that it wanted to be.

 

[dreaded_beast]

D&D, and indeed all RPG's, are no better than the DM that runs them. A bad DM can take the penultimate rules and waste everyones time. A good DM can take virtually any ruleset and run a game that will be enjoyable and interesting. Your experience here has nothing to do with the rules being used themselves, but with HOW they're being used. There's nothing in 3E/3.5 that prevents or even discourages running a free-form, open-ended campaign any more than any previous version. If anything it encourages it like no previous edition has by enabling all manner of refinements and changes to be worked into the system with the least amount of fuss and bother.

I agree with you entirely. I could have done a better job at writing my first post, since my main point was not that 3.0 or 3.5 was the cause of a change in mentality, only that the last time I had truly experienced "free-form" games was during the BASIC DnD period.

Two things have changed over the years that have brought you to your current position. First, although free-wheeling sorts of campaigns are no less enjoyable it has become fashionable to scorn such games and those who play them. Story, which in the early days of RPG's was often thin or non-existent, has now perhaps swung too far to where it's now OVER-emphasized. The game became what it is today more through ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying. While the improvement to the gaming experience through more sophisticated roleplaying cannot be overlooked there are those who seek to eliminate as much of the "game" portion of "roleplaying game" as is possible. For those of use who still enjoy the "game" as much as the "roleplaying" it's as easy a problem to fix as shouting "Screw this! I'm gonna roll dice at something!"

Second, as game design has improved and the years have rolled by, established campaign worlds have become extraordinarly... complete... structured. The number of home-brewed campaign worlds have shrunk and the older the published game world the greater the depth of its description. And they are ALL designed from top down, instead of bottom up which is the method least conducive to making adjustments to the setting at will. And all that compiled information on a given game world tends to discourage DM's in their creativity in exchange for alleviating the burdens of time and effort otherwise needed to create and maintain the campaign world. As your observation suggests - and I would agree - this has NOT been a good thing.

The GAME is not actively stifling creativity but DM's and players are FAR less obligated to exercise their creativity as they once were because there's such a well-developed crutch and support system for them to lean on.

Couldn't have said it better myself. You have pretty much articulated my exact feelings in a much better manner than I could.

 

[Faraer]

Joshua: the style of play in the original Lake Geneva campaigns is not juvenile according to me. The false dichotomy is the idea that recent campaigns with a stated focus on story are really much different, and tell better stories, than old-style campaigns that don't talk in those terms. Not an attempt to use a big word to advance my 'argument', when did I earn that suggestion?

There are minor ways in which something like evolution or progress happens in RPGs, but current games aren't generally better than 1980s games any more than 18th-century poetry or early-20th-century films are worse than modern ones. There are worthwhile ideas in greater currency now than then, and other worthwhile ideas that have faded.

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua: the style of play in the original Lake Geneva campaigns is not juvenile according to me. The false dichotomy is the idea that recent campaigns with a stated focus on story are really much different, and tell better stories, than old-style campaigns that don't talk in those terms. Not an attempt to use a big word to advance my 'argument', when did I earn that suggestion?

Eh, I was being grumpy. I couldn't tell what dichotomy you were even referencing, much less calling false, so I assumed you were just arguing via bigworditis. Sorry. As to your point, I'd agree that that's true; just because some game like Vampire talks about storytelling a lot doesn't mean that it's any better of a game, even from a storytelling perspective.

As to the original Lake Geneva campaigns, since very few of us have actually played in them, I don't know that I'd call them the exemplars of the 1st Edition Basic DND mentality. My experience, matching that of many others, I'd guess, is that the games were indeed juvenile in those days, because we were juvenile when we played them. Many of the examples in the first post -- attacking the city guard just to see how good a fighter he was, ignoring the quest to elope with the princess, etc. seemed like pretty juvenile things to do as well. In my experience, that is the old DND mentality, but I don't miss it.

There are minor ways in which something like evolution or progress happens in RPGs, but current games aren't generally better than 1980s games any more than 18th-century poetry or early-20th-century films are worse than modern ones. There are worthwhile ideas in greater currency now than then, and other worthwhile ideas that have faded.

Of course, that's also exactly what I said. Games aren't necessarily better, but they certainly are different. They've more tailored to today's audience than before, at the very least.

 

[Aeris Winterood]

Not exactly..

The classic D&D mentality consists of "I don't care what it is, I kill it and take it's loot". Like all new things, tastes change and become more refined as the novelty of it wears off. It's not just enough to be there, there has to be a purpose for it to keep the intrest.

With players I have been with now.... it is "Kind of care what it it, think about it.... then kill it and take its loot"

 

[Cedric]

I miss the old me.

I have become almost completely incapable of just making a character and playing it to see where it goes.

Now I feel like when I create a character I have to know roughly where it is or may go over the course of the character's progression from 1st to 20th level.

Because I very much have a feel for who my character is...who my character was and who my character should be. But I can't make my character "who he should be" without grinding out the possibilities of different feats and prestige classes until I am satisfied.

Mainly because the feats you take at 1st level and the levels beyond clearly decide the future of your character. It's so bad, I almost obsess about it now.

I still enjoy 3rd edition...but this part of it troubles me. Now, yes, I am sure many people will tell me to just stop worrying about it and select the feats and skills you want and just let the character develop through gameplay. And while I appreciate those thoughts, you can't just tell an bsessive person to not be obsessive.

Cedric