Quote from: Haffrung;447975But perhaps it's just a coincidence that as modern D&D becomes more complex and over-powered, the arbiters of old-school D&D promote an ever more abstentious and pared-down version of the game.

Have they? Having just flipped through Moldvay yesterday, they seem to me to be promoting something that a) their own idealized version of simpler versions of the game and b) games that lie somewhere on the continuum between said simpler versions and today's more complex versions. I noted, for example, that Crypts & Things makes a list of changes to it's source material.

Seanchai

Quote from: Haffrung;448105Sounds like the way I play. And you don't need a level 3 cap to do it. Ever play the Caverns of Thracia? Or the Dark Tower? Plenty of mortally dangerous situations for level 4-8 PCs, where you need your wits and not your power to save you.

Who said you "need" a level 3 cap? Dude, I'm running OD&D and AD&D right now. You don't "need" a level 3 cap to have a challenging game. I love D&D without level caps. I can't possibly enjoy trying something else? Who's the orthodox conservative, here? Have you actually had a look at the thread where I specifically dispute the game is "broken" past 7th level?

You keep ranting about some sort of slant on this thread, but this has strictly nothing to do with conservatism or orthodoxy or whatever the fuck you think that is about besides having some fun playing something different.

Chill out, mate.

Quote from: RandallS;448112However, they may not be any more conservative than the way the people making the suggestions played back then (and may still do today). In many cases these folks -- like me -- started playing in late high school or early college. Our experiences will often be much different from those who started playing at age 10-12.

This is a insightful observation because there is a gap between experiences and expectations of game play with the different age groups.

Quote from: Phillip;448109Basic D&D includes only levels 1, 2, and 3.

Higher levels are not in the book. They are not in the box under the book. That's about as "hard wired" as it gets. THAT IS Basic D&D.

Holmes Basic D&D was never intended to be a standalone game. Neither was Moldvay Basic. Holmes was a stop-gap between OD&D and AD&D, and referenced the upcoming AD&D Players Handbook for levels beyond 3rd. Moldvay Basic assumed players would move on to Expert.

Until this thread, I've never heard of anyone simply capping PC advancement at level 3 because that's all that Holmes or Moldvay Basic cover. And I'm betting nobody played that way back in the day. It's another one of those weird, ultra-conservative memes to emerge from the OSR.

Quote from: Haffrung;448121Until this thread, I've never heard of anyone simply capping PC advancement at level 3 because that's all that Holmes or Moldvay Basic cover. And I'm betting nobody played that way back in the day. It's another one of those weird, ultra-conservative memes to emerge from the OSR.

God forbid it'd be fun to play something different than Mr. Holmes, Moldvay and Cook envisioned! :rolleyes:

NOBODY in this thread is saying ANYTHING close to what you think they're saying.

I had half a dozen of the Original books, and gradually got the Advanced books, and eventually (1981) the Expert book came out. I also had the Holmes "blue book", with a lot of groovy stuff in a slender 48-page package that was easier to slip into a binder of paper, or another book, or a bag of clothes packed for a trip. It also had very clear and convenient rules for things that were anywhere from a little to a lot less so in OD&D and AD&D.

Presented for your consideration...

Point the First
What would added levels actually add?
For everyone:
(a) more hit points
(b) better chances to hit
(c) better chances on saving throws

For thieves (which we didn't use much):
(d) better chances at thief functions

For clerics:
(e) better chances of turning

For clerics and magic-users:
(f) ability to cast more spells
(g) higher-level spells

There were sundry other things, some of which were simply not of interest. For instance, giving up the low-level ability to make scrolls for the high-level ability to make magic arms, rings, and so on was not attractive.

Point the Second
How would we get the levels?
By slaying monsters and carrying off treasures.

Point the Third
If slaying monsters and carrying off treasures
(1) were commonly the very objectives of adventures, and
(2) provided just such powers as itemized above for levels,
then why not cut out the "middle man"?

Point the Fourth
This produced a different, and (to some of us) at least as interesting game. Instead of "grinding" through lesser monsters until one had enough hit points to take on the chin a Cloud Giant's club or a Huge Ancient Red Dragon's fiery breath, one had to seek other solutions.

Point the Fifth
Specific consequences of specific adventures -- e.g., Sigurd bathing in Fafnir's blood, Perseus going from the Graeae to the Hesperides to the very Olympians to obtain aids in his quest for Medusa's head, Orastes' s measures to acquire the Heart of Ahriman and raise Xaltotun from the dead to learn what that worthy knew of the artifact -- were typical of the mythology and fantasy with which I was acquainted.

Placing the emphasis there, rather than on manipulation of humdrum mechanical bits ("Whoo hoo! Killing those orcs gives my cleric enough x.p., so now I can cast raise dead!"), produced a refreshingly different challenge.

At the same time, the material in the book remained useful. We did not need a new set of rules. The monsters simply got a different context in the milieu, and less of the magic was "standard-issue #5".

The opportunity to enjoy that game DID NOT PREVENT ALSO ENJOYING GAMES SUCH AS ARDUIN THAT WENT TO 100TH LEVEL AND BEYOND.

It was not an either/or thing to me and my friends in the 1970s. It does not appear to be exclusionary to Spinachcat. Only those attacking the practice are making an ideological-absolutist issue of it.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd I'm betting nobody played that way back in the day.

Silly bully, you could have known better if you had bothered to read the earlier posts.

One more time: I and my friends were doing this as far "back in the day" (1977-78) as there was a "Basic" D&D game in the first place.

Quote from: Phillip;448042I just consider that to be NOT YOUR JOB to dictate to other people. Your stuck up attitude is not really persuasive of anything except itself.

If you were playing Monopoly so that one could never go past baltic avenue, no one would think twice at saying that you are not running the game the way it is meant to be run.  Its not me who's "dictating" to other people how the game is played, it is the game itself.

RPGPundit

Sure, it's not playing the game how it was meant to be run (i.e. in the case of Holmes, upgrading to AD&D, in the case of Moldvay-Cook, upgrading to Expert, idem with Mentzer). But who gives a fuck, if everyone around the game table is having fun?

Here's another reason I enjoy RBO campaigns.  

It says something about the world where there are monsters whose power is far beyond men and where elves are twice as powerful as any other mortal.  Its these "somethings" that intrigue me.

As for actual play, the players find it interesting to be in D&D and quite soon forget about levels, instead focussing on other aspects of gaining power.  Since 3rd is the cap, that means you can build your castlea and your army whenever you wish. You are an equal to any king in combat, but now the question beckons...how do you amass power?

I haven't had luck with high level campaigns with players who wanted to build armies and castles.  They were always after the next brass ring of level or magic goodie and having a thousand 0-levelers at your beck and call didn't impress them.

I have noticed that RBO/E3 games make gathering followers and minions quite interesting for players.  That aspect has been great fun each time I've run this style campaign.  

I've even started one campaign at 3rd level so leveling was out of the picture from Day One and that was interesting for everyone.

Quote from: RPGPundit;448301If you were playing Monopoly so that one could never go past baltic avenue, no one would think twice at saying that you are not running the game the way it is meant to be run.  Its not me who's "dictating" to other people how the game is played, it is the game itself.

RPGPundit

i) The Monopoly rules don't specifically say that you're meant to make up answers to gaps in the rules, and change rules that don't work for you.

ii) Most people do play Monopoly with house rules that change the game significantly: when someone lands on an unowned property and doesn't buy it, most people don't auction it off. And a lot of people put money on 'Free Parking'.

Quote from: SpinachcatSince 3rd is the cap, that means you can build your castlea and your army whenever you wish.

I wondered about the basis for this.

But then you clarify:

QuoteI haven't had luck with high level campaigns with players who wanted to build armies and castles. They were always after the next brass ring of level or magic goodie and having a thousand 0-levelers at your beck and call didn't impress them.

Quote from: Age of FableThe Monopoly rules don't specifically say that you're meant to make up answers to gaps in the rules, and change rules that don't work for you.

Yeah. It blows my mind that annoying punks like Pundit are still -- after more than 30 years, plenty of time for them to have grown up and gotten a clue -- so caught up in trying to tell us old hands that their snot-nosed fixation is The One True Way that they still can't understand the real Thing One about D&D.

The whole freaking 36-levels-plus-immortals game of BECMI is nothing but another, equally arbitrary, variant. To the little punks, though, the great Prophet Frank brought it down from Mount TSR graven on plates of gold or something. It's OFFICIAL, a Product of The Corporate Imagination, so of course anyone who actually uses his own imagination is committing some sort of heresy.

And the irony-challenged anathematizers have the chutzpah to accuse us of being fundamentalists.

Whoah whoah whoah.

I thought story-games were like board-games because they are often inflexible.  Now D&D and trad RPGs are, too?

:huhsign:

Quote from: Spinachcat;448326Here's another reason I enjoy RBO campaigns.  

It says something about the world where there are monsters whose power is far beyond men and where elves are twice as powerful as any other mortal.  Its these "somethings" that intrigue me.

As for actual play, the players find it interesting to be in D&D and quite soon forget about levels, instead focussing on other aspects of gaining power.  Since 3rd is the cap, that means you can build your castlea and your army whenever you wish. You are an equal to any king in combat, but now the question beckons...how do you amass power?

I haven't had luck with high level campaigns with players who wanted to build armies and castles.  They were always after the next brass ring of level or magic goodie and having a thousand 0-levelers at your beck and call didn't impress them.

I have noticed that RBO/E3 games make gathering followers and minions quite interesting for players.  That aspect has been great fun each time I've run this style campaign.  

These are all interesting points. This post is, I think, the best yet at selling the Red e3 concept.

I am at a loss as to the "this isn't really the way we player in the old school days" tirades, since the idea seems to me to be "this would be a fun experiment in taking a different approach to basic D&D."

Quote from: Spinachcat;448326I've even started one campaign at 3rd level so leveling was out of the picture from Day One and that was interesting for everyone.

A variant that might be interesting would be if the 3 levels were unrelated to XP, but in-campaign achievements; for example for a fighter, second level might be dependent on being knighted or commanding a mercenary unit of X characters, while 3rd might require a character to be landed or become a chief, etc.