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

[DM Under The Bridge]

Came across a charming article about the old days:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/14/5898063/the-dice-can-kill-you-why-first-ed ition-ad-d-is-king

What do you think about this and the old ways; before the coming of the new gods and more recent times in gaming?

What do you think about going back to the old ways?

Cheers.

[Mikaze]

Personally, early D&D was The Bad Old Days, for numerous reasons.

In no hurry whatsoever to be dragged back. I've got my game, people that want old school have theirs.(several, in fact) And the hobby is big enough that we don't have to fight for space.

[thejeff]

There are a lot of things I liked about AD&D, at least in retrospect. A lot of things that drove me crazy too, that I've mostly forgotten in the years since.

Other than my early middle school games which kind of match his early experiences - Monty Haul or Killer GM in my case, I really don't recognize a lot here. We never did what's often called old school now - 3d6 in order, desperate struggle to stay alive when the dice can kill you at any moment. And I never really wanted to. Don't regret it now either.

Good games. Roleplaying. Character growth. Plots and storylines. All the things the "old school" decries about modern games. Maybe we were ahead of the curve. Good times.

[Quark Blast]

Well, I LOL'd when I read this

Quote:

It’s late. We had been playing for roughly 28 hours. There are two empty cases of Mountain Dew on the table. I’m so tired I’m beginning to hallucinate goblins. We’ve smoked a carton of cigarettes between four people. At one point a girlfriend enters the room, coughs with disgust, and swiftly exits. The die rolls continue.

but otherwise I'll take a pass on that style of gaming.

I don't know 1E directly but I have seen a number of the adventure products, leafed through a collection here at one of the FLGS's I haunt (with permission!), and my main impression is the sheer variety and audacity of what constituted and official adventure. I guess as pioneers most anything was game.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Mikaze wrote:

Personally, early D&D was The Bad Old Days, for numerous reasons.

In no hurry whatsoever to be dragged back. I've got my game, people that want old school have theirs.(several, in fact) And the hobby is big enough that we don't have to fight for space.

The bad old days? You didn't have a good time?

[hogarth]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Personally, early D&D was The Bad Old Days, for numerous reasons.

In no hurry whatsoever to be dragged back. I've got my game, people that want old school have theirs.(several, in fact) And the hobby is big enough that we don't have to fight for space.

The bad old days? You didn't have a good time?

I enjoyed watching TV back when my family only had two channels, but that doesn't mean that I want to go back to that situation.

Likewise, I have no desire to go back to 1E AD&D from 3E/Pathfinder.

[Hama]

1st edition was a horrible, unlikeable mess that relied on GM fiat insanely much.

Never touching it again, thank you very much.

[DM Under The Bridge]

1st ed was rules light, but you couldn't get it to work? How was it horrible for you Hama?

I say that because rules light games are making a comeback; after what I dub as the age of complexathon.

[Hama]

I hate not having rules for specific things. I also hate having to rely on GM fiat or having to provide the same.

It is fun for a one shot where nobody cares about their characters. Playing it like a roguelike.

I hate roguelikes. They don't have a point or meaning. And I hate games with no point or meaning.

Oh, we got it to work. I just hated every moment of it.

[Hama]

Let's just say that one of the more painful experiences for me was playing FATE core.

Strangely, I liked Amber diceless.

[Mikaze]

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 the opposite direction.

This is not meant to refute or undercut the good experiences others may have, but rather to show that it really wasn't a source of fond memories for everyone and certainly not something everyone is eager to go back to.

[Digitalelf]

I got tired and board with Pathfinder and 3rd edition/d20 in general. So I actually went back and started playing 2nd edition AD&D about two years ago, and have never really looked back... In fact, I just started a new campaign set in The World of Greyhawk this past weekend!

I run 2nd edition pretty much by the book, using most of the various optional rules provided, but I do not make much use of the optional "Player's Option" books, just tidbits of them here and there.

I don't think at this point, I'd ever run a game of Pathfinder or any other d20 based game (including 3rd edition) again; I might be willing to play in one however, if the opportunity arose.

[Steve Geddes]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Came across a charming article about the old days:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/14/5898063/the-dice-can-kill-you-why-first-ed ition-ad-d-is-king

What do you think about this and the old ways; before the coming of the new gods and more recent times in gaming?

What do you think about going back to the old ways?

Cheers.

I generally prefer to play all RPGs like that. It requires a decent DM, I suppose, but I'm lucky enough to be in a stable group where the DM's job is seen to enhance the players' fun (rather than to "beat" them) so I've never seen the downside of a system with an emphasis on DM fiat and speedy resolution.

The modern style of a rule-for-everything doesn't hold my attention - there's just too much looking up modifiers and rule subsystems for my taste (together with the inevitable arguments about what those rules actually mean...).

[Skeld]

I grew up on Old School Gaming and I still prefer that style of gaming, in the sense of less reliance on "a rule for every situation" and more flexibility on the part of the GM to resolve actions quickly within the context of the game as it exists at that moment.

I still rather enjoy Pathfinder and I don't miss THAC0 one single bit.

-Skeld

[ngc7293]

I couldn't get your link to work, but I have played all editions of the game, (minus 4th and 5th). I think a lot has to do with HOW it is run.

I remember in a 1st ED AD&D game where we had power gamed characters (one guy was playing a silver dragon) The GM played an NPC called Nicron 99 and he had this hairy orange lightning bolt hovering over people's sholders. It would do a lot of damage to anyone who got out of line. When asked how much they were told "enough".

It was a fun game.

I remember 2.5. I don't remember the rules, so much as the fun times we had. Isn't that the point of it all?

[wraithstrike]

Here is a working link.

As much as I life for the dice to matter the way Gary wanted a game to be run was not something I would have enjoyed. I most likely would not have liked first edition. I started 2nd and 3rd edition under GM's who would not fudge to save your character so dying was not the problem. It was just Gygax's attitude with the way he thought the game should be run. Don't get my wrong. I appreciate what he did for the game, but I am also glad the game has evolved.

[Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider]

1st Edition wasn't rules light. it was extremely complicated and had formulae that were so inconsistent you couldn't really do much without consulting 5 dozen charts. it was heavy on charts.

[Cranky Bastard]

Murder hobos were a legitimate play style, but not the only one.

Co-operative kumbaya is a valid play style, but again not the only one.

The only thing that was distinctively bad about those days for me were the cost of materials and the close-minded people who thought it was devil worship. That said, the sliding scale of prick biting DMs to whiny entitled players has been all over the place over the years, and what I personally will tolerate on both ends has become a very interesting paradox to even my eyes, as a jerk GM can be tolerated if honestly and candor about the matter are revealed upfront, but a petulant player who feels picked on at the first sign of adversity is even less fun.

I guess it's like any other group activity - it depends on the group dynamics.

[Digitalelf]

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

1st Edition wasn't rules light. it was extremely complicated

A game can be complex, even extremely complex, and still remain rules-lite...

The majority of the tables you refer to were "to hit" charts, and situational modifier tables.

But I think that when a lot of people refer to OD&D, 1st edition AD&D, and 2nd edition AD&D, as being "rules-lite" they are usually referring to the fact, that there were either no rules for every little action that a character could or could not do, or very little of such rules, and that it was solely the DM's call on such things...

[Bluenose]

Steve Geddes wrote:

The modern style of a rule-for-everything doesn't hold my attention - there's just too much looking up modifiers and rule subsystems for my taste (together with the inevitable arguments about what those rules actually mean...).

How is "rule-for-everything" a modern style? Unless you only consider D&D, and even then 5e has moved a long way away from that. But there doesn't seem to be much change in the range that games cover in terms of how many rules there are from era to era. The "Old School" era had a heap of games which were "D&D with more realism", for which read more rules (and depending on the definition GURPS dates to that period), as well as systems much lighter than any version of D&D. And the "Modern" era has a similar sort of range, if anything with more down towards the rules-light end.

[thejeff]

Digitalelf wrote:

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

1st Edition wasn't rules light. it was extremely complicated

A game can be complex, even extremely complex, and still remain rules-lite...

The majority of the tables you refer to were "to hit" charts, and situational modifier tables.

But I think that when a lot of people refer to OD&D, 1st edition AD&D, and 2nd edition AD&D, as being "rules-lite" they are usually referring to the fact, that there were either no rules for every little action that a character could or could not do, or very little of such rules, and that it was solely the DM's call on such things...

I describe it as rules-heavy but with lots of holes.

The big distinction in tone I think is that the nature of the system encourages GM to make house rules to fill the holes when they came up, rather than just ruling on the fly as needed for the situation. Or having simple rules that could be applied to cover the gaps as a good rules-light game would do.

[Digitalelf]

thejeff wrote:

I think is that the nature of the system encourages GM to make house rules to fill the holes when they came up

That may be how people played it, but Gygax definitely had an opinion about the over use of house rules (especially rules-changing house rules):

Gary Gygax wrote:

While [original] D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic book spells, 43rd level balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash from various and sundry sources, AD&D cannot be so composed. Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging...

...it is understood they must adhere to the form of AD&D. Otherwise what they referee is a variant adventure game.

The advantages of such a game are obvious. Because the integral features are known and immutable, there can be no debate as to what is correct. A meaningful dialog can be carried on between DMs, regardless of what region they play in. Players can move from one AD&D campaign to another and know at the very least the basic precepts of the game—that magic-users will not wield swords, that fighters don’t have instant death to give or take with critical hits or double damage, that strange classes of characters do not rule the campaign, that the various deities will not be constantly popping in and out of the game at the beck and call of player characters, etc. AD&D will suffer no such abuses, and DMs who allow them must realize this up front...

...Once everybody is actually playing a game which is basically the same from campaign to campaign, any flaws or shortcomings of the basic systems and/or rules will become apparent. With [original] D&D, arguments regarding some rule are lost due to the differences in play and the wide variety of solutions proposed—most of which reflect the propensities of local groups reacting to some variant system which their DM uses in his or her campaign in the first place. With AD&D, such aberrations will be excluded

That comes from issue #12 of "The Dragon" (June of 1979). The whole article is three pages in length.

And whether you agree or vehemently disagree with him, you can see that Gygax was certainly against the idea of adding house rules that effect any changes to the game...

[thejeff]

Digitalelf wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I think is that the nature of the system encourages GM to make house rules to fill the holes when they came up

That may be how people played it, but Gygax definitely had an opinion about the over use of house rules (especially rules-changing house rules):

Gary Gygax wrote:

While [original] D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic book spells, 43rd level balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash from various and sundry sources, AD&D cannot be so composed. Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging...

...it is understood they must adhere to the form of AD&D. Otherwise what they referee is a variant adventure game.

The advantages of such a game are obvious. Because the integral features are known and immutable, there can be no debate as to what is correct. A meaningful dialog can be carried on between DMs, regardless of what region they play in. Players can move from one AD&D campaign to another and know at the very least the basic precepts of the game—that magic-users will not wield swords, that fighters don’t have instant death to give or take with critical hits or double damage, that strange classes of characters do not rule the campaign, that the various deities will not be constantly popping in and out of the game at the beck and call of player characters, etc. AD&D will suffer no such abuses, and DMs who allow them must realize this up front...

...Once everybody is actually playing a game which is basically the same from campaign to campaign, any flaws or shortcomings of the basic systems and/or rules will become apparent. With [original] D&D, arguments regarding some rule are lost due to the differences in play and the wide variety of solutions proposed—most of which reflect the propensities of local groups reacting to some variant system which their DM uses in his or her campaign in the first place. With AD&D, such

...

I was in that context speaking more of what to do when you run into a situation not covered by the existing rules - Make a house rule and use it in those situations from then on - rather than changing existing rules.

[Sissyl]

You guys aren't really talking about house rules so much as GM rulings, as I see it. The difference is that a ruling is meant to be a one-off, for a rare situation you need to resolve. Indeed, 1st edition is pretty heavy on the rules, but doesn't attempt to cover every eventuality. Later editions have less simulationist roots and in effect limit the things the game can be about to avoid the situations without rules. Fourth edition was particularly egregious in this. Think about it this way: Which edition would be easiest to make a fully functional computer game of? Ironically, that would be fourth. Every single power and spell and so on has its language trimmed to be easily defined. Third edition has most of these numbers conforming, but certainly not all, especially legacy elements. YMMV, of course.

[Steve Geddes]

Bluenose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

The modern style of a rule-for-everything doesn't hold my attention - there's just too much looking up modifiers and rule subsystems for my taste (together with the inevitable arguments about what those rules actually mean...).

How is "rule-for-everything" a modern style?

I mean it wasn't a (common) style in the 70s.

[golem101]

While I certainly like a more deadly, harsh and realistic style of gaming, the subjectivity and all around randomness of the early editions is not on my wishlist. In any wishlist.

I strongly support player characters as protagonists of the story being told and heroes of that story, but they're protagonists and heroes not thanks to some ingrained mechanic of the system, but because of their choices and their actions.
Recent editions have transformed hard-bitten heroes who struggled to earn their status into (horresco referens, a TV tropes nudge) Mary Sues who do what they do because they're built that way and have to succeed otherwise the story grinds to a halt. To hell with that.
I'd rather play other games (and I do, when house rules do not suffice).

But having a storybound DM that says "now your character dies as it makes sense to me and my story", an undetectable trap that springs with no means to know of its existance and it's lethal with no saves allowed, or a plain bad luck roll that disintegrates your character of three years in the silliest moment?
Nope, nope, nope, and nope again.

[thejeff]

Sissyl wrote:

You guys aren't really talking about house rules so much as GM rulings, as I see it. The difference is that a ruling is meant to be a one-off, for a rare situation you need to resolve. Indeed, 1st edition is pretty heavy on the rules, but doesn't attempt to cover every eventuality. Later editions have less simulationist roots and in effect limit the things the game can be about to avoid the situations without rules. Fourth edition was particularly egregious in this. Think about it this way: Which edition would be easiest to make a fully functional computer game of? Ironically, that would be fourth. Every single power and spell and so on has its language trimmed to be easily defined. Third edition has most of these numbers conforming, but certainly not all, especially legacy elements. YMMV, of course.

Well, 4th went in a different direction. 3rd really tried to have everything covered by the rules - witness the debates about whether the rules properly cover non-adventuring economics and the like.

But yes, I do think the distinction between GM rulings and house rules is an important one, but I think the very rules heavy nature of AD&D blurred that, encouraging house rules to cover areas where one-off GM rulings would have been better. This wasn't formal of course and certainly different GMs approached it differently, but it was common for GMs to see the complex rules for most of the game and duplicate that approach for unhandled situations.

[Bluenose]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

The modern style of a rule-for-everything doesn't hold my attention - there's just too much looking up modifiers and rule subsystems for my taste (together with the inevitable arguments about what those rules actually mean...).

How is "rule-for-everything" a modern style?

I mean it wasn't a (common) style in the 70s.

There were shedloads of games in the 70s that attempted to provide rules coverage for as wide a variety of activities as they could; stuff like Chivalry and Sorcery, Traveller, EPT, Runequest or any from a variety of "D&D but Better!" games that came out - most totally forgotten these days. And the D&D+ systems were ridiculous for the amount of modifiers they shoved onto nearly every roll.

[Gendo]

I agree with some of the article. I am in the minority, possibly very small minority, in that I had no problem with Save or Die (or Save or Suck as it was dubbed at one point). I also had no problem with roll 3d6, you get what you get. Yes, it forced me to look at something I may not have considered or initially wanted. I always reconciled that as, just like in real life, you are what you are, who you are, despite what you may want. You may WANT to pursue a science education, but no matter how hard you try to grasp the science, it just doesn't make sense for you because of not being smart enough. Yes, it is possible to overcome one's own inherent "deficiencies", but not easily, and not without an extraordinary amount of hard-work and effort. And let's face it, most people are creatures of convenience that seek the easiest path. Mind you, that's my own view and what works for me and does not apply to anyone else.

To this day, when leveling up, I don't feel the same sense of accomplishment as I did in the early days of gaming. I never felt like it was guaranteed. Today, leveling is just another part of the game that gets tedious for me after awhile, because I KNOW it's going to happen, almost as though it is something player's are entitled too more than something to be earned. This is my own small perception, one for which I have yet to find anyone who shares it. So take it for a grain of salt.

I define old school as a rules light game, in which the rules don't bog down the game. Where it is the story is more important than the rules. Combats are fast, fierce, and cinematic, not pigeon-holed into 6 seconds. Where everything is done Theatre of the Mind, no maps, no grids, no minis or tokens. Again, that's me, and by no means indicative of anyone else.

To this day, as a GM, I still rely on my own judgement more than the innumerable rules. I have house/table rules when I run. I do so judiciously, and if my players are any indication, with an acceptable level of consistency and fairness.

To each their own. As long as everyone is having fun and enjoying the game, whether its old school lethality or more modern day paradigm of being less lethal (no more save or die), it just doesn't matter.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

You and me both.
I'm not sure if going back to BECMI/RC or 2e would evoke quite the same feeling as it used to . I'd probably be very annoyed at bad skill systems and whatnot, but there are definitely things I miss about it, like some of the deadliness. Getting past Basic to Expert was a major accomplishment, making you feel almost more heroic than getting to level 20 in 3.x

I'm sure there is a lot of nostalgia involved, but I do think PF is a bit too kind in many respects.

[Orthos]

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. <snip> 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.

Having never played old editions - minus watching someone play Icewind Dale and playing Planescape Torment, I started with 3.5 - but seeing several people's memories and reactions to them, I'm pretty much 100% with Mikaze here.

[thejeff]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

You and me both.

I'm not sure if going back to BECMI/RC or 2e would evoke quite the same feeling as it used to . I'd probably be very annoyed at bad skill systems and whatnot, but there are definitely things I miss about it, like some of the deadliness. Getting past Basic to Expert was a major accomplishment, making you feel almost more heroic than getting to level 20 in 3.x

I'm sure there is a lot of nostalgia involved, but I do think PF is a bit too kind in many respects.

Well, it's not the deadliness I miss, but I do suspect I'd quickly find things to be irritated by.

From my point of view, 3.0 fixed a lot of issues I had with 2E, but introduced a bunch more that didn't exist or weren't so prominent. Those became more obvious and annoying with time and the memory of problems with AD&D faded away. Going back to 2E would feel like fixing all the problems that 3.x introduced and it would take awhile before all the old problems got really irritating again.

So not quite nostalgia, but certainly neither is perfect.

[wraithstrike]

golem101 wrote:

While I certainly like a more deadly, harsh and realistic style of gaming, the subjectivity and all around randomness of the early editions is not on my wishlist. In any wishlist.

I agree.

Quote:

I strongly support player characters as protagonists of the story being told and heroes of that story, but they're protagonists and heroes not thanks to some ingrained mechanic of the system, but because of their choices and their actions.
Recent editions have transformed hard-bitten heroes who struggled to earn their status into (horresco referens, a TV tropes nudge) Mary Sues who do what they do because they're built that way and have to succeed otherwise the story grinds to a halt. To hell with that.
I'd rather play other games (and I do, when house rules do not suffice).

Could you give an example. I am thinking you are confusing edition issues with GM'ing issues, but I may be misunderstanding you.

[Steve Geddes]

Bluenose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

The modern style of a rule-for-everything doesn't hold my attention - there's just too much looking up modifiers and rule subsystems for my taste (together with the inevitable arguments about what those rules actually mean...).

How is "rule-for-everything" a modern style?

I mean it wasn't a (common) style in the 70s.

There were shedloads of games in the 70s that attempted to provide rules coverage for as wide a variety of activities as they could; stuff like Chivalry and Sorcery, Traveller, EPT, Runequest or any from a variety of "D&D but Better!" games that came out - most totally forgotten these days. And the D&D+ systems were ridiculous for the amount of modifiers they shoved onto nearly every roll.

At least you now know what I mean by the modern style of a rule-for-everything.

That's what matters, right?

[Jiggy]

Roguelikes can be fun. I'm particularly fond of Brogue, and have gotten the amulet out the door more than once. :D

But let's be clear: roguelikes are not roleplaying games, even if you use dice and pencils/paper to play them.

[Muad'Dib]

Our group tried Pathfinder for a few years and then went back to our 2nd edition home brew game. I don't think I could go back to 1st...at least not how we played it back in the day.

When I played 1st we had no figs or movement system. We rolled 3d6 dice 6 times and then determining what class we played by what we qualified for. There was no stat-buy, 4d6 drop lowest, no re-rolls. It was brutal.

Everything in my 1st edition games out to kill me. The traps, the spells, and the GM...ugh.

I prefer 2nd edition since it had a bit more focus on characters and campaign building but still had some teeth to it.

Fun article. In particular I love this line.

Quote:

It was awesome, and it was awesome because stories happen when you follow the brutal ethos of the game and Things had a price and a value. Experience felt earned. The game was arbitrary and sometimes random, but this made for more dynamic scenarios

[Tybid]

There's a new-ish game by Burning Wheel called Torchbearer that's very much in the vein of the old school. A few of my friends have noted that it's a little too heavy on the inventory management but otherwise pretty deadly and gritty.

I intend to give it a try when one of my three Pathfinder games end.

[Zaboom!]

Our group has a wide range of experience. I started playing with AD&D 2nd ed, one of my friends started with 1st ed, and most of the others began with 3.5 or Pathfinder. Outside of D&D related systems, we've had a smattering of GURPS, White Wolf, Paranoia, Cyberpunk, WEG's D6, and a crap ton more.

I think a lot of times we talk about older systems and play styles with lots of nostalgia. That said, we aren't playing those systems now for many good reasons. :P

[DM Under The Bridge]

Gendo wrote:

I agree with some of the article. I am in the minority, possibly very small minority, in that I had no problem with Save or Die (or Save or Suck as it was dubbed at one point). I also had no problem with roll 3d6, you get what you get. Yes, it forced me to look at something I may not have considered or initially wanted. I always reconciled that as, just like in real life, you are what you are, who you are, despite what you may want. You may WANT to pursue a science education, but no matter how hard you try to grasp the science, it just doesn't make sense for you because of not being smart enough. Yes, it is possible to overcome one's own inherent "deficiencies", but not easily, and not without an extraordinary amount of hard-work and effort. And let's face it, most people are creatures of convenience that seek the easiest path. Mind you, that's my own view and what works for me and does not apply to anyone else.

To this day, when leveling up, I don't feel the same sense of accomplishment as I did in the early days of gaming. I never felt like it was guaranteed. Today, leveling is just another part of the game that gets tedious for me after awhile, because I KNOW it's going to happen, almost as though it is something player's are entitled too more than something to be earned. This is my own small perception, one for which I have yet to find anyone who shares it. So take it for a grain of salt.

I define old school as a rules light game, in which the rules don't bog down the game. Where it is the story is more important than the rules. Combats are fast, fierce, and cinematic, not pigeon-holed into 6 seconds. Where everything is done Theatre of the Mind, no maps, no grids, no minis or tokens. Again, that's me, and by no means indicative of anyone else.

To this day, as a GM, I still rely on my own judgement more than the innumerable rules. I have house/table rules when I run. I do so judiciously, and if my players are any indication, with an acceptable level of consistency and fairness.

To each their...

Yes! I also find levelling up in pf very tedious and not at all exciting.

It is either, okay, where is my level plan? There it is, okay let's get it done. This reminds me of doing taxes. I sure hope I have some fun soon.

Or urgh, I leveled again, hmmm, what shall I take? So many choices, sigh, better get the books out or pdfs up. Hmmmm.

Your semblance of old school is how I have experienced it as well, except we use maps for dungeons. My old groups rebelled against minis because we went for the more theatre of mind or cartographic top-down approach for really complicated dungeons. As a dm, running a game off a few pieces of paper still feels really good.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Zaboom! wrote:

Our group has a wide range of experience. I started playing with AD&D 2nd ed, one of my friends started with 1st ed, and most of the others began with 3.5 or Pathfinder. Outside of D&D related systems, we've had a smattering of GURPS, White Wolf, Paranoia, Cyberpunk, WEG's D6, and a crap ton more.

I think a lot of times we talk about older systems and play styles with lots of nostalgia. That said, we aren't playing those systems now for many good reasons. :P

Naaa, I've gone back to old school play with an emphasis on clean mechanics and smooth play.

The old, mixed with some of the new, streamline it out and don't have complexity and slowed actions for its own sake. Opposed rolls with low to non-existent mods can make things very fast.

[Bluenose]

Gendo wrote:

I define old school as a rules light game, in which the rules don't bog down the game. Where it is the story is more important than the rules. Combats are fast, fierce, and cinematic, not pigeon-holed into 6 seconds. Where everything is done Theatre of the Mind, no maps, no grids, no minis or tokens. Again, that's me, and by no means indicative of anyone else.

Fate, The One Ring, HeroQuest 2e, the various PDQ games, the FFG Star Wars games; I could make a longer list. They're well within your definition of Old School.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

There were shedloads of games in the 70s that attempted to provide rules coverage for as wide a variety of activities as they could; stuff like Chivalry and Sorcery, Traveller, EPT, Runequest or any from a variety of "D&D but Better!" games that came out - most totally forgotten these days. And the D&D+ systems were ridiculous for the amount of modifiers they shoved onto nearly every roll.

At least you now know what I mean by the modern style of a rule-for-everything.

That's what matters, right?

My objection is to your description of it as a "modern" style, presumably as a contrast with "old school" games which don't try to do so much. I think that's not just wrong, it actively gives people a false impression of how both old and new games are. I'd almost reverse it, in fact.

[wraithstrike]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Yes! I also find levelling up in pf very tedious and not at all exciting.

It is either, okay, where is my level plan? There it is, okay let's get it done. This reminds me of doing taxes. I sure hope I have some fun soon.

Or urgh, I leveled again, hmmm, what shall I take? So many choices, sigh, better get the books out or pdfs up. Hmmmm.

I thought almost everyone like leveling.

A good game to play, IMO, if you don't care for leveling is Shadowrun. You get small improvements over time, so you power level may never really change, but you don't have to worry about leveling. It is more gritty than PF also in my experience with it.

[golem101]

wraithstrike wrote:

golem101 wrote:

While I certainly like a more deadly, harsh and realistic style of gaming, the subjectivity and all around randomness of the early editions is not on my wishlist. In any wishlist.

I agree.

Quote:

I strongly support player characters as protagonists of the story being told and heroes of that story, but they're protagonists and heroes not thanks to some ingrained mechanic of the system, but because of their choices and their actions.
Recent editions have transformed hard-bitten heroes who struggled to earn their status into (horresco referens, a TV tropes nudge) Mary Sues who do what they do because they're built that way and have to succeed otherwise the story grinds to a halt. To hell with that.
I'd rather play other games (and I do, when house rules do not suffice).

Could you give an example. I am thinking you are confusing edition issues with GM'ing issues, but I may be misunderstanding you.

I think that my examples would only lead to a rather long winded discussion on what's an edition issue, a GMing issue and which one of them stems from the other.

It's best to paraphrase one of my regular players: "It feels like I'm playing the game just to level up time and time again: I have to plan a character instead of letting the adventures shape him, or having him survive the adventures despite shortcomings in his abilities.
And even not considering the combat encounters and that mountain of modifiers, with all this planning, skill grades, feats, prerequisites, class stuff and equipment, I feel more like an accountant on behalf of my character rather than a player".

BTW, we stuck to 3.X/PFRPG for a bit more than a decade, we came there from AD&D2e, CoC and Kult 1st ed (shudder), and we're now playing Blade of the Iron Throne and Thousand Suns. Pretty much all systems with an hefty load of things to take in consideration - OK, CoC and TS less than the others.
But with the d20 evolution of D&D we had the distinct feeling that the system itself required more attention than it was due. For its own sake, not detail, simulation, or that brain-numbing concept that is "system mastery".

And all of this rant leads to the (maybe) unexpected result: the characters are mechanically built to be heroes. They're not just fledgling adventurers with some tricks upon their sleeves (the feeling you got with earlier editions).
Once you sum up all of the modifiers, skills, feats, class features, traits, equipment, stuff, a 1st level character's leagues away from any other mortal. And it gets worse with every level.
With a game like Exalted, it would be OK. A high magic fantasy game... it still is too much. A sword and sorcery game needs to be rethinked so much it's best to play something else altogether.

And with published adventures we're still there, superheroes with no superproblems. Published adventures which I take are the baseline from the game publishers on how the system works (adventures may be good, bad, or else in any system).
There's no longer a random lethal moment (this is good), but the lethal moment is now only seen when characters are not built/equipped/developed in a path.
No longer they die because they chose the wrong option despite all the evidence. No longer they die because they take on an enemy they do know is more powerful than they are. Hey! It's not fun I die because I did something stupid.
Now they die because the accounting for the encounter bests the accounting the players did for their characters.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Well I'm with you there, and I have heard it derisively put as "Pathfinder: the accounting chronicles".

[Steve Geddes]

Bluenose wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

At least you now know what I mean by the modern style of a rule-for-everything.

That's what matters, right?

My objection is to your description of it as a "modern" style, presumably as a contrast with "old school" games which don't try to do so much. I think that's not just wrong, it actively gives people a false impression of how both old and new games are. I'd almost reverse it, in fact.

I'm comfortable with you thinking I'm wrong.

[Jerry Wright 307]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

The old, mixed with some of the new, streamline it out and don't have complexity and slowed actions for its own sake.

I also like a blending of old and new. I dropped PF and 3.5 to go back to AD&D because I wanted to return to a game that I could run with nothing but my old 1e shield and my campaign notes. It was sheer joy not to have to crack open any of the rulebooks during play.

But the old game has its drawbacks. After fifteen years of 3e-style skills (esp. the PF +3 bonus for class skills) and character-customizing feats, 1e characters seemed bland, so I added these elements to my 1e game.

After adding a few more things, I found it was easier to modify Mongoose's Conan RPG to make it more old school than it was to make 1e work in the modern age.

Loathe as I am to admit it, times have changed. To use a hackneyed phrase: you can't go home again.

[Rabbiteconomist]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Well I'm with you there, and I have heard it derisively put as "Pathfinder: the accounting chronicles".

I love Pathfinder, but it does have a lot of accounting to do, not just as a player but as DM. 5e D&D has that over Pathfinder. I leveled a party of four in less than time than one PF character.

I played old and new, 2e 3.x WoR, Dark Heresy, Deadlands, Pathfinder and 5e. Old school yea/nay? I say nay because we don't want that. If character generation was easier maybe. OD&Ds and AD&Ds racial and Class limitations were awful. No dwarves with magic because Gimli. I like playing gritty, but old school for me had other baggage.

I find Mikaze's quote interesting. I agree with her 100% about the terrible attitudes that could be found in the old days (i.e. dwarves can't be bisexual or magic users, Kobolds can't be civilized), but I wonder how much is a general cultural shift. I know that gender identity was an never a subject in games until I met my wife. I remember when people looked at me funny for playing a character of opposite gender - yeah, forget about coming out to your gaming group (I do miss the all nighters). Playing with people for whom bigotry is only a PC trait it's a good change of pace. There is always variation between tables, but I'm glad that the culture has changed for increased inclusivity in general over the past decades.

[Jerry Wright 307]

Rabbiteconomist wrote:

OD&Ds and AD&Ds racial and Class limitations were awful.

I agree with you there. Usually the first things we'd change back in the day. The modifiers to abilities were generally left alone because that was just how the races were different. But most DMs in our gaming group dropped the level limits for races, and none of us used the ability maximums that were based on race and gender.

Rabbiteconomist wrote:

I like playing gritty, but old school for me had other baggage.

I started gaming with a group of late-seventies college students. We had a mix of genders in our player demographic from the beginning. Racism and sexism wasn't welcome at a table where the DM was an Hispanic woman with a mean left hook.

IMO, problems such as you describe came more from the players involved than from the "old school" game.

[TriOmegaZero]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

What do you think about going back to the old ways?

Never been there, doubt I ever will.

[Kthulhu]

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.