Quote from: Benoist;316924*opens can of worms*

I call it "not D&D", personally.

It's kind of like Corey Feldman.  He can wear the same clothes as Michael Jackson all he wants, but Feldman is still just half of the Coreys.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;316917My group used minis about as far back as when we first started gaming (late 70s/early 80s). Well, not "minis" exactly, for the most part - we had a hard enough time scraping the money together for D&D books, let alone minis. We had a few here and there, but mostly we used whatever we had handy to represent where we all were during combat. Remember "marching order"? That was important to us back then.

Sure, marching order was important. You needed to know who might fall into a pit, or get jumped from behind by wandering monsters.

But there's a world of difference between that use of miniatures and using a battle-grid with the exact location and facing of all participants meticulously tracked, and with loads of PC abilities built around squares and facing and blocking and sliding around the grid.

I agree with the OP that a game where everyone gathers around a battle grid moving their pieces around according to strict rules, and one where guys sit back on a couch describing what their characters do, are fundamentally different games.

Quote from: Nicephorus;316899How so?  It's got the blank slate of OD&D.  2e was cleaned up AD&D.  It had a usable bard and weapon and nonweapon proficiencies standard.  S&W doesn't have many classes or a skill system.
 
Osric with your favorite bits of 2e added back in would be the best match.  Though I'm finding Basic Fantasy easy to modify and have added a simple proficiency system.

If you're going to start adding bits from 2e to any reotroclone to create a 2e experience, then why not just play 2e?

I suggest S&W over OSRIC for the same reason I would suggest nearly any other retro-clone over OSRIC: I believe in starting with a lighter framework.

Quote from: 1989;316841...
I really like the light feeling of S&W (and the Old School primer really describes my philosophy of DMing), but the whole default alignment assumption (law vs. chaos, with good/evil being personal preference) that characters are neutral and out for fame and fortune (as opposed to the High Fantasy assumptions of good vs. evil) makes me wonder if I am suited for that game. I've never enjoyed playing in a company of morally neutral characters.
...

That's easily ignored.  One could run a 'high fantasy', 'good-versus-evil', S&W game with no problems, and no rules changes.

And no miniatures.  

Quote from: 1989;316853Does anyone else share my dislike of the physical representation thing, or are players like me more of an anomaly? If there are people like me here on this board, which system(s) are you currently playing?

I never use minis in my games these days, and much prefer gaming without them.

Because I have limited time for actual gaming these days, I like "light" systems that don't require minis.

Quote from: Haffrung;316927I agree with the OP that a game where everyone gathers around a battle grid moving their pieces around according to strict rules, and one where guys sit back on a couch describing what their characters do, are fundamentally different games.

Somewhat.  but it's nearly orthogonal to version of D&D.  I haven't played 4th or OD&D but I've played every other edition with and without minis.  The same sorts of issues come up when minis aren't used and different sorts of issues when they are used.  All versions have area of effect spells, missile ranges, and well defined movement rates that vary according to race and armor/encumbrance.  The usefulness of minis has always depended on how much you're willing to handwave these distances.

Quote from: jrients;316928If you're going to start adding bits from 2e to any reotroclone to create a 2e experience, then why not just play 2e?

The OP already covered that.
 
The question was more which clone is closest to 2e, not which clone was your favorite.

Quote from: Nicephorus;316932The question was more which clone is closest to 2e, not which clone was your favorite.

S&W isn't my favorite, and the OP didn't ask for which retroclone was closest to 2e.

Quote from: 1989;316829I eventually moved on to 3E, thinking it would be just an update of the 2E. How wrong I was. Play started shifting to grids and physical representation. This killed it for me. 3.5 was even worse. 4E is . . . there's just no words for it. From where I sit, 2E and 3.xE/4E are different hobbies.

None of the retroclones require miniatures for play any more than the games they are clones of did. All have "abstract" combat systems.  However, if you like 2E, you can just keep playing it. Lots of people do. Sure, not as many as play 3.x or 4, but 2E still has a good number of players.

Quote from: Nicephorus;316930All versions have area of effect spells, missile ranges, and well defined movement rates that vary according to race and armor/encumbrance.  The usefulness of minis has always depended on how much you're willing to handwave these distances.

Fair enough. And in some editions, it's easier to handwave those matters than in others.

Thanks for all of the good advice.

It's nice to know that at least I am not alone in not using physical representation (besides a quick sketch on paper if verbal description fails to describe a complex situation). Nice to know that I am not the only one who feels that the minis-game vs. the no minis-game feel like, well, two different types of activities.

2e may very well be the anomaly for its underemphasis on miniatures. I thought I heard someone on the internet say that the further you move away from 2e in either direction, the closer you get to physical representation/minis.

I'll share a story about my earliest days. Maybe some people can relate.

I had just moved to a new city when I was 12. A friend that I was hanging out with that day said he was going over to a friend's house to play D&D. He asked me if I wanted to come. I had no idea what it was, but I said, sure. So, we rode our bikes over. They kindly gave me a character to play (I remember it was a thief-acrobat). I didn't really understand the rules, of course. They just told me to roll this or that die, and say the result. They interpreted it.

What was amazing was that this was all happening in the imagination and I could try anything I wanted and interact with environment in any way. It didn't resemble any other game I had ever seen. No board. No playing pieces. Just dice, books, and the imagination. That, combined with the coolness of Easley's oil paintings, and the big tomes of arcane knowledge (rulebooks; which made it feel like a very mature sort of activity) sealed it for me.

I played a few more sessions with these guys. At that point, I understood that:

1. The DM runs the world, creates dungeons, and can make anything happen based on his imagination. When you want to do something, he asks you to roll a die, and he tells you what happens.
2. You roll dice to attack and for damage. Higher is better. The DM tells you if your result is high enough to hit.

I didn't have enough money to buy these rulebooks. I managed to secure some photocopies of some photocopies of the MM. I found some d6s in a Scrabble game. I got some graph paper from my dad.

At that point, I was ready to go on my own. I started sketching up dungeons on graph paper, populating them monsters from the MM (I didn't understand the stats, I just decided if the roll to hit was high enough based on how tough I thought the monster should be), and ran players through them. A lot of the time, I would just make up a monster from my imagination, on the fly.

I didn't understand the rules for hardly anything. It was basically fighters going down into the dungeons, rolling dice to kill, getting treasure, avoiding traps and other things based on dice I told them to roll. Everyone had a blast! Unbridled imagination. True unpredictability in the dungeon.

Anyway, the point of this story was to show that my very first play experiences were quite loose and free, and, I guess, now, many years later (after buying probably $10,000 worth of RPGs), I find that this is actually a great play style, and is all I feel that I really need

I mean, it's all just rolling dice when the outcome of something is in question.

I remember Gary saying that the best kept secret is that the DM doesn't need any rules. That's almost how I feel at this point. You just roll the dice when you feel you need a probability. The DM assesses all relevant factors (i.e. PC skill, monster skill, environmental factors, etc.) and assigns a probability.

But a lot of people don't feel that way. I think it may be because some DMs use the absence of more codified rules to make the game somehow unenjoyable for players. I'm not sure. I've always trusted the DM. I'm not there to win or lose. If you feel the DM is being too heavy-handed or not playing in good spirit, you can always walk, and start DMing your own game.

Anyhoo, just some stuff to add to the conversation.

I completely relate with what you're talking about, 19 (that'll be my nickname for you. I write on forums as I speak).

Read my welcome entry to the Citadel of Eight. You'll find some striking similarities with your own experience and conclusions.

Quote from: mhensley;316895T&T - it's combat is so abstract that it's the only game I can think of that can't be improved with minis.

Actually, I've found that adding minis or counters really helps T&T, by encouraging breaking melees into several separate melees.

Especially with MR critters; your big buff warrior holds off one or two with his armor soaking the damage, while the rest of the party holds the others, and the wizard zaps from behind the lines (and out of danger) or within the lines (to soak damage).

Movement in increasing speed order; MR monsters go on a speed equal to 1/10 their initial MR if you're nice, 1/3 if you're mean, and MR if you're psycho-kill-the-pcs-gonzo.

Quote from: 1989;316961Anyway, the point of this story was to show that my very first play experiences were quite loose and free, and, I guess, now, many years later (after buying probably $10,000 worth of RPGs), I find that this is actually a great play style, and is all I feel that I really need

I mean, it's all just rolling dice when the outcome of something is in question.

I remember Gary saying that the best kept secret is that the DM doesn't need any rules. That's almost how I feel at this point. You just roll the dice when you feel you need a probability. The DM assesses all relevant factors (i.e. PC skill, monster skill, environmental factors, etc.) and assigns a probability.

But a lot of people don't feel that way. I think it may be because some DMs use the absence of more codified rules to make the game somehow unenjoyable for players. I'm not sure. I've always trusted the DM. I'm not there to win or lose. If you feel the DM is being too heavy-handed or not playing in good spirit, you can always walk, and start DMing your own game.

Anyhoo, just some stuff to add to the conversation.

Agreeing upon a set of rules is a social contract, an agreement that enables players a better understanding of what their character can do. Or can't.

And rules are what make it a game, and not just a shared authorship story. It's not the dice, it's the rules that make it a game.

Playing without rules isn't a game. (Tho' it may be fun with the right group.) But it sounds like you had a set of rules, even if you didn't elucidate them on paper.

Quote from: Benoist;316846I think what I'm mainly trying to get at here is that pretty much all retroclones are at least as good without miniatures as 2nd edition was. If you were comfortable with 2nd edition rules, you can pick your retroclone based on other criteria (such as "do I want rules light or rules heavy?" and such). You'll be fine.

This pretty much nails it. If the retro-clone is simulating anything 1e or before, you can play it without minis.

(I'd say 2e or before, but there's not a 2e clone).

I hate using minis. I've hardly ever done so. Fortunately most old school games don't tend to require them.

RPGPundit