Old School, Roguelikes and You: What do you think about this?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I see we've already had a couple of "nobody could possibly enjoy prior editions for any reason but nostalgia" posts. I will refrain from further comment, because the last time I commented on that subject, my posts were erased and I got an email from a member of the Paizo staff basically telling me that my opinions were unwelcome.

So all I will say is that the way you prefer to play the game is not the only valid way to play the game. Take that as you will.

EDIT: No edition of D&D, prior or current, has ever had any rules regarding sexual orientation. I have no idea where that is coming from.

If you are referring to my post, there was no mention of orientation rules whatsoever. I was clearly talking about my "old school" experience(again, the Bad Old Days), along with a nod at how much more inclusive the current game is and the pushback against that coming from certain corners that leaves me even less enamoured of the idea of ever going back.


Mikaze wrote:
From rules related things like random instant death, narrow views on what races could be, being unable to play the character I actually wanted to play, and Gary Gygax's swordpoint conversion advice to local community elements like rampant baby killing, Always Chaotic Evil as sacrosanct law, utter rejection of any sort of genuibely heroic play, kill-everything-and-take-their-stuff murderhoboisms as the default assumption, fierce exclusion of anything that didn't fit their vision of medieval fantasy Europe(complete with all the expected justifications for racism, sexism, and homophobia in-character and out) to the climate hanging around some(not all) old school movements that scorn everything I actually want out of the game, hurling vitriol at the inclusiveness of newer games, and simple "get off my lawn" sentiments, 1st Edition doesn't hold a close place in my heart.

That might be the longest run on sentence I've read. :)

It sounds like you had some seriously bad GM's Mikaza. I do not wish to discount or undermine your opinions on the game system but half your reasons for hating it seem GM or bad game group related.

But of the complaints that are not GM related "being able to play the character I actually wanted to play" really jumps out as one of the things Pathfinder excels at. The variety of characters you can build is mind numbing.

That being said my experience with Pathfinder has been mixed. I have created several characters that looked like a lot of fun (and were) but when running AP's such as RotRL then got killed rather handedly because they were not optimized enough. Honestly I get frustrated building characters for Pathfinder because I'm trying to find the balance between function and "playing the character I want to play".

The simple solution is to not play AP's but GM'ing Pathfinder in my experience is a lot more difficult than GM 2nd edition.

Again, sorry you had such a bad 1st edition experience. I'm trying to make my PF experience better with each play.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
That might be the longest run on sentence I've read. :)

That's actually after I dialed it back a bit too...

Quote:
That being said my experience with Pathfinder has been mixed. I have created several characters that looked like a lot of fun but when running AP's such as RotRL then got killed rather handedly because they were not optimized enough. Honestly I get frustrated building characters for Pathfinder because I'm trying to find the balance between function and "playing the character I want to play".

Yeah, I wouldn't claim that modern games are perfect. I've certainly voiced my share of complaints about them, and the system mastery requirements are near the top of the list. It's just much closer to the game I want, and I've had an easier time finding GMs that can take it where I'd love to go than past games.

But yeah, it's still not perfect. Whenever I GM I try to do what I can to ensure players can lean more heavily towards "character they want" than "function over fun". It's been a bumpy learning process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:

But of the complaints that are not GM related "being able to play the character I actually wanted to play" really jumps out as one of the things Pathfinder excels at. The variety of characters you can build is mind numbing.

That being said my experience with Pathfinder has been mixed. I have created several characters that looked like a lot of fun but when running AP's such as RotRL then got killed rather handedly because they were not optimized enough. Honestly I get frustrated building characters for Pathfinder because I'm trying to find the balance between function and "playing the character I want to play".

The simple solution is to not play AP's but GM'ing Pathfinder in my experience is a lot more difficult than GM 2nd edition.

That kind of mirrors my experience, not just with PF, but with 3.x and other "We give you the options to build any character you want" systems. In my mind, it's kind of a trap. You can build any concept, but that premise fools you into thinking they'll all be viable.

Sometimes I'm happier with a system that doesn't give me the mechanical options to build so many characters, but lets me make simpler more generic ones and get the flavor I want without mechanical options.

Bear in mind that very many posters here consider the APs completely unchallenging, so seeing someone post that the way to handle unoptimized characters is to avoid APs amuses me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, 3.X/Pathfinder will let you build damn near anything you want, but won't protect you from self-sabotage - it won't stop you from building a character who doesn't actually work.

(My first 3.0 character, a bard/cleric, was terrible. Utterly, utterly, terrible. And it was totally my fault she was terrible.)

"Old school" stuff basically protects the player from self-sabotage by severely limiting the player's options.

It's hard to make bad choices if there's hardly any choices to make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Quote:
That being said my experience with Pathfinder has been mixed. I have created several characters that looked like a lot of fun but when running AP's such as RotRL then got killed rather handedly because they were not optimized enough. Honestly I get frustrated building characters for Pathfinder because I'm trying to find the balance between function and "playing the character I want to play".

Yeah, I wouldn't claim that modern games are perfect. I've certainly voiced my share of complaints about them, and the system mastery requirements are near the top of the list. It's just much closer to the game I want, and I've had an easier time finding GMs that can take it where I'd love to go than past games.

But yeah, it's still not perfect. Whenever I GM I try to do what I can to ensure players can lean more heavily towards "character they want" than "function over fun". It's been a bumpy learning process.

Seconded. I definitely fall more into preferring "more options, but some options may not be as good" over "fewer options equals fewer mistakes". Which is why I'm eager to bring in 3rd-party options and allow my players mechanical rebuilds, suggestions toward more efficient or useful methods, and other advice as needed or wanted.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

* Hugs his Fantasy Craft.

Honestly I don't know why you folks keep torturing yourselves.

;)

You need to make a concerted effort to make a non-viable character in my system of choice. Even less optimum builds still are viable and fun.

The referenced Bard/Cleric can be build several ways without refluffing and be fun and contribute a lot without any weird hoop jumping.

As for old school, I honestly have no interest in stuff being hard to just be hard and can't find any fun sitting around the table kissing up to the GM and hoping the I don't die a random death because I wasn't suitably paranoid and cowardly or didn't pixel b$*&+ the DM just right.

Paranoia is, of course, an exception.


thejeff wrote:
Bear in mind that very many posters here consider the APs completely unchallenging, so seeing someone post that the way to handle unoptimized characters is to avoid APs amuses me.

1st death:
The last AP I was in was RotRL and my Paladin first dies from a shadow under the Goblins statue head lair. It was early in the game, we had no magic weapons to hurt it and our spell caster did not have enough juice to get the job done. As a Sacred Shield Paladin I defended the group as they retreated. I'm not sure if we as a group were expected to have magical items prior to this encounter? Either way unless our spell caster had a full complement of spells we really had no chance in this encounter.

2nd death:
My second death in the Skinsaw murders. Our party reached the clocktower and I was one shoted on a confirmed natural 20 by a 25 str power attacking scythe wielding (x4 on crit)scarecrow. I used the ability In Harms Way to intercept a death dealing blow on behalf of another player and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Such is the way of the Sacred Shield.

My character deaths were a bit freaky but we had other players dropping like flies. But my game group has experienced far more "random" death in pathfinder than I ever did in 2nd edition.


Kthulhu wrote:

I see we've already had a couple of "nobody could possibly enjoy prior editions for any reason but nostalgia" posts. I will refrain from further comment, because the last time I commented on that subject, my posts were erased and I got an email from a member of the Paizo staff basically telling me that my opinions were unwelcome.

So all I will say is that the way you prefer to play the game is not the only valid way to play the game. Take that as you will.

EDIT: No edition of D&D, prior or current, has ever had any rules regarding sexual orientation. I have no idea where that is coming from.

Really sorry to hear that Kthulhu. What an unpleasant thing to receive.

On the orientation, yep! With the allegations of sexism, racism and the like in early dnd and claims that Gygax was all those bad things, they are forgetting, or are not aware of, how ground-breaking D&D was and the plurality of characters you could make. You could be any sex or gender, it entirely depended on you and the group as to what you played, and the background could be whatever you dreamed up, and the dungeons and the characters of the npcs whatever the dm designed. There were some restrictions on classes and the like, but with the roleplaying there was tremendous opportunity. We should not forget this potential in the hobby or the plurality of characters that were made - it was not just bland & samey fighting men of the same homogenous background each and every time.

In AD&D the number of additional rules on races through the settings, and characters you could draw from those settings really blossomed, e.g. dark sun and its races is vastly different to greyhawk. Homosexual or trans characters were not so overt or common as now, but different times. Transgenderism has been in the hobby since the cursed belt of gender altering. Do we remember this? Such items were a roleplaying challenge to the status quo and gender norms - what if your body changed, and didn't fit with how you viewed yourself? What if you grew to accept the change or liked it? Through examples like this and in creating their own characters players, had the freedom to roleplay their character as they wished, and that major expression of freedom and openness to new things should not be derided with the false claim you couldn't choose your sexuality. The freedom and choice in even the earliest iterations of the hobby are one of its great strengths.

To D&D!


Zhangar wrote:

Yeah, 3.X/Pathfinder will let you build damn near anything you want, but won't protect you from self-sabotage - it won't stop you from building a character who doesn't actually work.

(My first 3.0 character, a bard/cleric, was terrible. Utterly, utterly, terrible. And it was totally my fault she was terrible.)

"Old school" stuff basically protects the player from self-sabotage by severely limiting the player's options.

It's hard to make bad choices if there's hardly any choices to make.

Yes, I recall a fighter that was so spread out in feats he was really "sub-optimal" as they say. In AD&D they would have been just fine if the rolls were on their side. There was a reliance on luck, but you could guarantee that they could fight and potentially succeed as there were less moving parts that could go wrong. :)

The good news is the player heroically sacrificed themselves to save the party. Everyone pays attention when you drop a giant bell on yourself and the enemy.


Zhangar wrote:

Yeah, 3.X/Pathfinder will let you build damn near anything you want, but won't protect you from self-sabotage - it won't stop you from building a character who doesn't actually work.

(My first 3.0 character, a bard/cleric, was terrible. Utterly, utterly, terrible. And it was totally my fault she was terrible.)

"Old school" stuff basically protects the player from self-sabotage by severely limiting the player's options.

It's hard to make bad choices if there's hardly any choices to make.

Less mechanical options (but still a whole lot of them in the AD&D years) initially, but a whole lot of potential and freedom in the rp aspect. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

In my mind, Gygax is kind of like Freud.

He pioneered something that people weren't really doing before, and thereby opened the door to wonderful things. Yet at the same time, the way he actually did it was unrefined, underdeveloped, and full of downright terrible ideas. His greatest gift was not the thing he originally came up with, but the starting point he created that other people could work from. He's more or less responsible for pioneering the field, and some of his ideas were pretty solid and worth keeping, but a lot of it was awful and served no greater purpose than to get the ball rolling and later be replaced by better models developed by the people he inspired to start thinking about the subject. Meanwhile, those who don't know the field very well still erroneously assume that the nature of the field is closely associated with his original ideas.

Gygax is basically the Freud of fantasy roleplaying.


@ DM Under the Bridge - Well, freedom of a sort -- if you're a natural speaker/thespian.

But if you're not... Well, I find being able to fall back on the dice to be damn handy. Such as when I just horribly misspoke something that my character who's actually competent as diplomacy/etc. would not =P

@ Jiggy - Huh. That's a really good comparison.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
@ Jiggy - Huh. That's a really good comparison.

As a guy who has a psychology degree and keeps seeing TV/film reference Freud and the field of psychology as though they were synonymous, I'm surprised it took me as long as it did to make the connection. :/


Jiggy wrote:

In my mind, Gygax is kind of like Freud.

He pioneered something that people weren't really doing before, and thereby opened the door to wonderful things. Yet at the same time, the way he actually did it was unrefined, underdeveloped, and full of downright terrible ideas. His greatest gift was not the thing he originally came up with, but the starting point he created that other people could work from. He's more or less responsible for pioneering the field, and some of his ideas were pretty solid and worth keeping, but a lot of it was awful and served no greater purpose than to get the ball rolling and later be replaced by better models developed by the people he inspired to start thinking about the subject. Meanwhile, those who don't know the field very well still erroneously assume that the nature of the field is closely associated with his original ideas.

Gygax is basically the Freud of fantasy roleplaying.

On Freud, I've heard the claim of his ideas being terrible, and I know psych likes to distance themselves from him once you get past intro courses (don't go there, it is a silly place), but there are two things I want to bring up.

First, he may have been right about a lot of human nature, especially thanatos, but his arguments are very confronting today:

Good article on this - http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/freud-the-last-great-enlightenme nt-thinker

Second, he was a brilliant essayist. Ignore what the critics say for the time being, get a hold of his essays on his period. He had an astute mind for sociological observation, and really knew what was going on in Europe. For example, see Civilization and its Discontents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Your post is framed as though it were a rebuttal to my post, but fails to contradict anything I said in any way that I can see.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Freud has been thoroughly debunked on most if not all of the stuff he claimed.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ahh, the wonderful days of charts and ability checks. Honestly I wish I could visit there a lot more often. I enjoy the limitations that were set up. It wasn't 100% bullet proof or anything just like any other game of course but still a lot of fun.

Really we could stand to go for more charts and things. Useful ones though. Wouldn't mind drawing back in ability score prerequisites too..


Do you want me to walk you through it? Or do you not want to see?

His ideas were not all terrible, nor where they all wrong as they are still applicable and used in other areas like philosophy. His theories were very confronting and remain as such, but psychology has distanced itself from him and he has taken a hit to renown. This is why you outright mock him and dismiss his theories - you were educated to do so.

The problem with that, is that he was a psychologist but also an accomplished sociologist with a deep understanding of developments and the challenges of civilisation. This marks his continued relevance and utility, but less to the direction psychology and behavioural science has chosen for itself. They could bring back Freud, and I've heard there has been small murmurings of revival, but that goes in the direction of the humanities, civilisation studies - which is more sociology and regional studies now.

As for comparing him to Gygax and saying the hobby has drastically moved on, I don't think that holds water. I'll explain why (quickly, as I must work).

"He pioneered something that people weren't really doing before, and thereby opened the door to wonderful things".

Not correct, Freud is a European philosopher, and some say heavily indebted to Nietzsche for his ideas. I see a fair bit of Spengler as well. Gygax wasn't the only pioneer (saultes Dave Arneson), but Freud comes from a longer tradition in Europe. He is more thought of as a pioneer because his students brought psychology to America, where it found fertile soil to grow. There were psychologists before Freud (Germans and other Europeans) making him not truly a pioneer in the way Gygax and Arneson were.

"Yet at the same time, the way he actually did it was unrefined, underdeveloped, and full of downright terrible ideas."

Please exlplain your opinion on why it is "full" of downright terrible ideas. Are you opposed to roleplaying, adventure, rolling to succeed or fail? Do you not realise the debt pathfinder owes to early D&D and its mechanics for resolution?

"His greatest gift was not the thing he originally came up with"

Opinion again and you will find many articles on his game being a great gift to countless players that have enjoyed it and its versions. These multiplied with Gygax's death, as the debt truly owed was understood.

"He's more or less responsible for pioneering the field, and some of his ideas were pretty solid and worth keeping"

This contradicts your previous statement that what he created was "unrefined, underdeveloped, and full of downright terrible ideas". If you are to share your opinion, please at least be consistent.

"but a lot of it was awful and served no greater purpose than to get the ball rolling"

It provided decades of enjoyment for incalculable hordes of players and dms. Saying it served no greater purpose shows a lack of comprehension on the effects of Gygax and Arneson's games. What about the greater purpose of bringing people together to play and socialise, creating and bolstering friendship, leading to epic tales and stories told for decades? Providing an enjoyable hobby continually for players, right up to now. 2nd ed is having a revival and new printings keep coming. Didn't you know?

"later be replaced by better models"

As has already been said, better models is a problematic position to hold given the bloat and clunk of recent editions. More recent editions take longer to learn and grasp. A form of entertainment isn't better because it is more complex and clunky.

"Meanwhile, those who don't know the field very well still erroneously assume that the nature of the field is closely associated with his original ideas."

It isn't associated with his original ideas? Your characters don't go into dungeons, castles, pits or other planes? You don't loot or break into things in game, you don't triumph over great adversity or brave perilous areas? His original ideas are still here, gaming with friends and using characters to embark on adventures. Mechanics aren't the same thing as ideas (or concepts), and changing the mechanics doesn't mean the original ideas and intentions aren't being realised.

"Gygax is basically the Freud of fantasy roleplaying"

No, Freud was an early psychologist but not the pioneer of psychology, he was also a philosopher and astute sociologist from a long tradition within European philosophy. Gygax and Arneson were pioneers in pen and paper roleplaying, and their ideas on roleplaying, rolling dice to succeed or fail, and groups of friends embarking on adventures via diverse and different characters persists to this day.


Morgen wrote:

Ahh, the wonderful days of charts and ability checks. Honestly I wish I could visit there a lot more often. I enjoy the limitations that were set up. It wasn't 100% bullet proof or anything just like any other game of course but still a lot of fun.

Really we could stand to go for more charts and things. Useful ones though. Wouldn't mind drawing back in ability score prerequisites too..

So smooth! Especially if you kept the charts for your character on hand. Ability checks were so good, with no ridiculous dcs to worry about (hello 3.5-pf str checks). Urgh at the modifiers & excessive addition of recent years, way to make rolling tiresome.


Mikaze wrote:
I was clearly talking about my "old school" experience(again, the Bad Old Days), along with a nod at how much more inclusive the current game is and the pushback against that coming from certain corners that leaves me even less enamoured of the idea of ever going back.

Do you see that as a function of the system or the culture?

I dont really see anything more inclusive about Pathfinder/4E/Star Wars/any other modern game than OD&D. I may be splitting hairs based on the game versus the setting material - the latter has clearly changed, however I think that's more a response/effect of the culture of the time rather than the rules of the games being played.

It seems to me that gamer culture of 2015 is more inclusive than gamer culture of the 70s/80s, but I dont see that as anything to do with "old school" or modern gaming systems.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Norgorber's nostrils...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When I tell my fiancé, who has been gaming for only about 7 years, about 1e/BECMI she comments "1e was a silly place."

I do miss some old-school things. It's fun being able to run a complete combat in a few minutes. It's nice to not have to plan out your character. It's nice to have saving throw DCs not depend on stats/player choices. It's nice that most rolls have at most 1 or 2 modifiers to the flat d20. I like magic items to be special and "nice but not necessary" to party success.

I don't miss secondary skills and nonweapon proficiencies. I don't miss 0 hp = dead. I don't miss 1st level magic-users with one spell a day. I don't miss "most of your XP comes from money." I don't miss backwards counting AC and to-hit charts(what we had before THAC0 - yes THAC0 was an improvement on a previous system, much as BAB improves on THAC0). I don't miss confusing overpowered random psionics.

I do miss Gygax's writing style. You felt smarter after reading a 1e rules book just from the sheer vocabulary used in writing it. I'm pretty sure that playing 1e bumped my SAT scores in vocabulary and reading.

The best part of gaming today, however, is that there are plenty of game options out there, and with the internet it's easier than ever to find a group that plays the game you enjoy. The recent resurgence of old-school clones have many that fix the problems with early editions by incorporating an old-school feel with more modernized mechanics and that's great.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I legit miss declining Armor Class. =(

Ninja Edit: This is why I like Spears of the Dawn. It kinda combines modern base attack bonus with declining Armor Class, and a fixed target number of 20 to hit someone. (So 1d20 + BAB + Str + opponent's AC vs. DC 20, in modernish parlance.)

Sovereign Court

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
So smooth! Especially if you kept the charts for your character on hand. Ability checks were so good, with no ridiculous dcs to worry about (hello 3.5-pf str checks). Urgh at the modifiers & excessive addition of recent years, way to make rolling tiresome.

Indeed. 2nd edition AD&D had a really good character sheet for that. Just list it all right there where you need it. DM gives you a bonus/penalty based on the situation and there you go.

All character sheets should come in green and white in my opinion too. :)

I didn't mind the declining AC myself either Snorb. Or just the era when AC's usually stayed in a kind of set range usually determined by just armor alone.


Mikaze wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
The bad old days? You didn't have a good time?

It was absolutely wretched, to the point that I nearly gave up on the hobby entirely and only hung on because of novels, certain sourcebooks, and the wishful what-ifs of the kind of game I was actually hoping for.

The distinct message I got from my experiences with "old school" was this: You and your kind of fantasy aren't welcome here.

From rules related things like random instant death, narrow views on what races could be, being unable to play the character I actually wanted to play, and Gary Gygax's swordpoint conversion advice to local community elements like rampant baby killing, Always Chaotic Evil as sacrosanct law, utter rejection of any sort of genuibely heroic play, kill-everything-and-take-their-stuff murderhoboisms as the default assumption, fierce exclusion of anything that didn't fit their vision of medieval fantasy Europe(complete with all the expected justifications for racism, sexism, and homophobia in-character and out) to the climate hanging around some(not all) old school movements that scorn everything I actually want out of the game, hurling vitriol at the inclusiveness of newer games, and simple "get off my lawn" sentiments, 1st Edition doesn't hold a close place in my heart.

In that old school climate, as I experienced it, my favorite characters would have been impossible to play and my favorite campaigns simply weren't happening.

I'm quite happy with the here and now. Playing a compassionate tiefling paladin in Wrath of the Righteous focused on redeeming and saving lives more than killing. And who shares my orientation.

I couldn't have gotten any of that during the bad old days.

If I had the same experiences as thejeff, I might have some actual fond memories of early D&D. What nostalgia and fondness I do have for it comes exclusively from the novels and reading some of the sourcebooks, imagining what might have been and not focusing on how the real games kept running in...

Wow, they sound like real douchebags.

Sovereign Court

Tell the player to stop acting that way or show them the door. Not that difficult.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Last week I started a game of "Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures", which creates games that are supposed to bear closer resemblance to Young Adult fiction, but it had a very OSR style, simplified classes and easy rules. The attitude of "Rulings Over Rules".

Rolling on tables to randomly generate characters and build flesh on those backstory skeletons was a lot of fun.

The one problem I had was there was five saves: Saves Vs. Poison, Save Vs. Magic, Save Vs. Magic Item, Save Vs. Breath Weapon, Save Vs. A Fifth Thing?

Whatever, the appendix listed a simple conversion to Fortitude, Reflex and Will, and that was that.

The very first combat the players got into, was against a pair of Red Caps. The first thing one of my players wanted to do was use his lasso to lasso a redcap.

There are no rules for lassoing things.

So I asked him to make an attack roll vs the Redcap's AC. He succeeded, and I gave the Redcap a -2 to its AC until released.

Here's the thing though, now I had to write down that rule, because that's how lassoing works now in my game.

I could understand the appeal somewhat, but my first thought was: Why couldn't this be adapted to Pathfinder? I'm sure I could put together some tables that would allow a group to put together some randomized Pathfinder characters and immediately jump into a randomly generated adventure.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


The very first combat the players got into, was against a pair of Red Caps. The first thing one of my players wanted to do was use his lasso to lasso a redcap.

There are no rules for lassoing things.

So I asked him to make an attack roll vs the Redcap's AC. He succeeded, and I gave the Redcap a -2 to its AC until released.

Here's the thing though, now I had to write down that rule, because that's how lassoing works now in my game.

This is exactly what I was talking about early with "rules heavy game with rules gaps -> house rules". And a large part of why I don't think the OSR are rules-lite.

Repeated situations like this, combined with the attitude that detailed rules need to exist for every such situation lead to giant piles of house rules.

Actually rules-lite games don't work like that. The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.


Hama wrote:
Tell the player to stop acting that way or show them the door. Not that difficult.

I think the point is that Mikaze wasn't the GM. He was a player, and those were the only kind of groups he was able to find.

Sovereign Court

Well damn


ryric wrote:

When I tell my fiancé, who has been gaming for only about 7 years, about 1e/BECMI she comments "1e was a silly place."

I do miss some old-school things. It's fun being able to run a complete combat in a few minutes. It's nice to not have to plan out your character. It's nice to have saving throw DCs not depend on stats/player choices. It's nice that most rolls have at most 1 or 2 modifiers to the flat d20. I like magic items to be special and "nice but not necessary" to party success.

I don't miss secondary skills and nonweapon proficiencies. I don't miss 0 hp = dead. I don't miss 1st level magic-users with one spell a day. I don't miss "most of your XP comes from money." I don't miss backwards counting AC and to-hit charts(what we had before THAC0 - yes THAC0 was an improvement on a previous system, much as BAB improves on THAC0). I don't miss confusing overpowered random psionics.

I do miss Gygax's writing style. You felt smarter after reading a 1e rules book just from the sheer vocabulary used in writing it. I'm pretty sure that playing 1e bumped my SAT scores in vocabulary and reading.

The best part of gaming today, however, is that there are plenty of game options out there, and with the internet it's easier than ever to find a group that plays the game you enjoy. The recent resurgence of old-school clones have many that fix the problems with early editions by incorporating an old-school feel with more modernized mechanics and that's great.

Yeah, a friend and I both agree we learned English through Gygax & Arneson.


thejeff wrote:
Actually rules-lite games don't work like that. The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.

Many rules-lite games would handle the situation with the lasso by the player declaring they were trying to impose a penalty on the target or give a bonus to an ally, and then the degree of that penalty/bonus would be determined by how successful you were in the attempt. Whether the goal is killing a monster or escaping your pursuers, the method of resolving the situation will be the same. It's just in some cases you'll use your ability with a lasso to gain an advantage, in others you'll use your skill at weather magic to impose a disadvantage.


thejeff wrote:
The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.

A perfect description of 1e. Thank you for clarifying! :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.
A perfect description of 1e. Thank you for clarifying! :)

Except it's not. 1E doesn't have few simple generic rules. It has piles of complex rules with exceptions and special cases. It also has gaping holes where there aren't rules.

To fit with the rest of the game, those holes need to be filled with their own special rules.


thejeff wrote:
Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.

Which is probably one of the main reasons I would never enjoy a system like that. The instant I made a ruling, not only would I want all further rulings of the sort to be consistent with it, but so would my players. Inevitably someone would forget what had been decided previously and ask for a new ruling, another player would remember the old ruling and try to remind the rest of the group, someone would complain that they didn't like the old ruling or didn't think it applied in this situation, and inevitably things would just not end well.

So yeah, there's a reason we keep our houserules written down and easily accessible, and update the thread regularly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.
A perfect description of 1e. Thank you for clarifying! :)

Except it's not. 1E doesn't have few simple generic rules. It has piles of complex rules with exceptions and special cases. It also has gaping holes where there aren't rules.

To fit with the rest of the game, those holes need to be filled with their own special rules.

I respectfully disagree with you. My experience has been very different than yours.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.

Which is probably one of the main reasons I would never enjoy a system like that. The instant I made a ruling, not only would I want all further rulings of the sort to be consistent with it, but so would my players. Inevitably someone would forget what had been decided previously and ask for a new ruling, another player would remember the old ruling and try to remind the rest of the group, someone would complain that they didn't like the old ruling or didn't think it applied in this situation, and inevitably things would just not end well.

So yeah, there's a reason we keep our houserules written down and easily accessible, and update the thread regularly.

That's generally how it works. That's why AD&D spawned so many house rules. In addition to it being a glorious, incomprehensible mess so people often had no idea whether something was covered by rules or not or how they were supposed to work.

In a rules-lite system, it's a different mindset. Generally rules-lite systems actually cover everything, but at a higher more generic level.


thejeff wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.
A perfect description of 1e. Thank you for clarifying! :)

Except it's not. 1E doesn't have few simple generic rules. It has piles of complex rules with exceptions and special cases. It also has gaping holes where there aren't rules.

To fit with the rest of the game, those holes need to be filled with their own special rules.

For example rules light system could have a general mechanic of creating an advantage (or disadvantage for the opponent) with a won opposed check, test, or whatever.

BTW: I do not remember AD&D 2nd edition even having an actual rules of opposed actions. It's been long since I got rid of the AD&D rulebooks, though...

Liberty's Edge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.
A perfect description of 1e. Thank you for clarifying! :)

Except it's not. 1E doesn't have few simple generic rules. It has piles of complex rules with exceptions and special cases. It also has gaping holes where there aren't rules.

To fit with the rest of the game, those holes need to be filled with their own special rules.
I respectfully disagree with you. My experience has been very different than yours.

Are you sure you're playing 1e?

Weird ass psionics?

Different ranges based on whether you're inside or outside?

Different spells that do essentially the same thing at different levels having completely different rules?

More tables then Traveller?

Volumetric fireballs?

Differing XP charts?

Each spell had specific, individual components, some that were reusable, most that weren't and you had to have all of them rather than just sweating the expensive or rare ones?

Rounds, turns, and segments?

Every table running initiative differently because no one could agree what the heck Gygax meant in the rules?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The rules are simpler, more generic and every case doesn't need to be spelled out. Or the emphasis is on the GM making a ruling, to cover a specific case, rather than creating a new rule to be followed in every similar situation.
A perfect description of 1e. Thank you for clarifying! :)

Except it's not. 1E doesn't have few simple generic rules. It has piles of complex rules with exceptions and special cases. It also has gaping holes where there aren't rules.

To fit with the rest of the game, those holes need to be filled with their own special rules.
I respectfully disagree with you. My experience has been very different than yours.

Are you sure you're playing 1e?

Weird ass psionics?

I never used psionics. I don't consdier any psionic system to be a plus to a fantasy game. But optional rules you don't use aren't a detriment to a game.

Krensky wrote:
Different ranges based on whether you're inside or outside?

The purpose of the different scale is so you don't have to have a bigger table when you're in the outdoors. Except in extreme-range situations, most DMs I knew didn't bother with it. (That includes Gygax.)

Krensky wrote:
Different spells that do essentially the same thing at different levels having completely different rules?

Isn't it wonderful when not everything is a cookie-cutting of something else?

Krensky wrote:
More tables then Traveller?

Not sure how that is an issue, to be honest.

Krensky wrote:
Volumetric fireballs?

Makes a fireball something you have to actually save against, instead of ducking behind something movie-style.

Krensky wrote:
Differing XP charts?

An acknowledgement in the rules that some classes are weaker than others. Refreshing, isn't it?

Krensky wrote:
Each spell had specific, individual components, some that were reusable, most that weren't and you had to have all of them rather than just sweating the expensive or rare ones?

I don't see how adding flavor to the magic system is a problem.

Krensky wrote:
Rounds, turns, and segments?

Hours, minutes, rounds? Converting things from a 60/60/10 system to a 6/10/10 system seems an improvement, not a problem.

Krensky wrote:
Every table running initiative differently because no one could agree what the heck Gygax meant in the rules?

At last a problem I acknowledge. Even Gygax never used that system, and I feel for anyone who tries to make it work. I always used 2d6+Dex mod, counting segments down. Not a whole lot different than the modern method, really, although 1e has a wonderful thing called segmented casting time. (Means there are actual rules for interrupting magical spells that don't involve holding or readying an action.)

All in all, I celebrate most of what you object to.

As I said above. I respectfully disagree with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Once you get past being able to calculate thaco after a few beers 1st and 2nd edition are pretty easy to run. A lot less page flipping.

HOWEVER...(and it's a bit however).

Neither 1st or 2nd edition had a movement system when they launched. Adding figurines and movement added a level complexity that 1st and 2nd never had to address.

But having just gone back to 2nd edition I find it a lot easier to run. A LOT less rule hunting and page flipping. Rounds move a lot faster. And I don't care what ya all say, initiative and weapon speed are the cat's meow.

I do love the strategic movement of Pathfinder/3.5 though. It's a bit of a chess match and even the worst game I can take joy in the strategy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note that neither I, nor I suspect Krensky, were saying those things were necessarily bad. Just examples of "1E doesn't have few simple generic rules. It has piles of complex rules with exceptions and special cases."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Neither 1st or 2nd edition had a movement system when they launched. Adding figurines and movement added a level complexity that 1st and 2nd never had to address.

Are you referring to Movement or to a grid system?

Either way, 1e has facing and movement expected to be played on hexes or squares.

And the 1e rules are written to be played with miniature figures. Many people didn't, but the rules are still there.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
And the 1e rules are written to be played with miniature figures. Many people didn't, but the rules are still there.

I had no idea..and I played a lot of 1st edition. But I was very young and had no money for figs. X's and O's on a piece of paper had to suffice.

The more you know...


A lot of what we find in 3e actually existed in 1e. The modern books are better organized and aren't written in the confusing Gygaxian style (a flavor I love but have to read through two or three times to really understand.)


thejeff wrote:
Note that neither I, nor I suspect Krensky, were saying those things were necessarily bad. Just examples of "1E doesn't have few simple generic rules. It has piles of complex rules with exceptions and special cases."

I apologize if I came across as adversarial. Maybe it's because I've had this sort of discussion many times in the past, and have to explain my views a lot.

I appreciate your desire for a simple game system. Having to flip through rulebooks to get through a combat is frustrating. Especially when the organization doesn't make sense, or what you're looking for is split between multiple chapters or even different books.


For initiative we rolled a d10 subtracting dex modifier and then adding weapon speed. If you had two attacks you just add the off hand weapon speed again and that is when your second attack would go. Very simple

The GM used a numerical tally counter/clicker (whatever you want to call em) and the GM just counted up and when it was your turn you jumped in.

The nice thing is you did not know the order and it changed each round. Rolling initiative and combat order had some drama to it.

Wow...I really want to game now!


Muad'Dib wrote:
Wow...I really want to game now!

I know what you mean. I haunt this forum and the Dragonsfoot 1e forum for a couple of hours and then I work on my campaign...

We game on Sundays. Waiting...

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Old School, Roguelikes and You: What do you think about this? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion