Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038716LOL. It says so right on the cover. Stop living in a fantasy land.

You could paint "Dungeons & Dragons" on the side of a pig too; but that wouldn't make it a D&D game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038925You could paint "Dungeons & Dragons" on the side of a pig too; but that wouldn't make it a D&D game.

Nice hyperbole - where's your actual argument? Was it absent today?

Back to the Old school vs. New school topic, Champions is an old-school game but getting people to play and understand it nowadays with the comparatively sleeker M&M or much easier ICONS available is an exercise in futility. Oddly enough, GURPS seems to have more luck in acquiring new players (based on hearsay, I haven't touched it in two decades).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038925You could paint "Dungeons & Dragons" on the side of a pig too; but that wouldn't make it a D&D game.

Thing is, by this statement, one needs to ask, 'Who owns the name Dungeons and Dragons'?  Because the company who currently does is the company who created 3rd and 5th editions of D&D, so evidence suggests that 4th edition does exist, and is one of their products, thus has the legal right to be called Dungeons and Dragons.

However, this is not the topic you started.

I still maintain that neither is easier than the other.  Because one tries to spell out everything, the other assumes you to fix any holes you find (which is not saying there are or aren't.  It's a common thing.  House rules happen.)

I think that if you look only at the core mechanics, the newer editions (3e and 5e) are easier. But when you look at the whole, and the playing of the whole, old-school is actually easier.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1039353I think that if you look only at the core mechanics, the newer editions (3e and 5e) are easier. But when you look at the whole, and the playing of the whole, old-school is actually easier.

Maybe as a player, but as a DM, my experience says no.  But anecdotal, and personal.

To be fair, after nearly two decades of 3.5e, Rules Cyclopedia and 2E are easier to run as a DM.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1039506To be fair, after nearly two decades of 3.5e, Rules Cyclopedia and 2E are easier to run as a DM.

I played Red Box for a week in '85 before playing AD&D 1e, though I did also play in another BECMI campaign. 1e is the RPG I have played more than any other, but these days if I were to go old school my choice would probably be the RC along with the Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion, so I could have my AD&D in my preferred old school system.

I don't think I would play 3.5e again unless it was the only game in town and I was invited. I didn't like how it enabled power gamers, though power gaming in Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 Persistent Worlds was loads of fun. My favorite d20 D&D was Star Wars Revised Core Rules, which could still be powergamey but not nearly as bad.

I never really played much 2e, but I DMed a lot of stuff set in the Realms, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Planescape. Gah... I have no idea how I did it. I had the Player's/GM Options book and I used High Level Campaigns (for making custom monsters) as well as Combat and Tactics a lot. Since 2e used a d10 for initiative, I had this weird system which incorporated weapon speeds and ran combat with miniatures in segments instead of rounds. Back then, my memory was on the verge of being eidetic, and my math was sharp since I studied electronics. So I could run insanely detailed combats and I could do it quickly. My Casio calculator was used more for D&D than for school, and I think I still have a program on it for calculating the mass of humanoids based on height and density, with a little black notebook that I still have filled with densities of different substances. So if the party found an 8 foot gold statue, I would know how much it weighed. I probably ended up using golems far more than I should have.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039499Maybe as a player, but as a DM, my experience says no.  But anecdotal, and personal.

I'm pretty much only ever a GM. What is actually  harder about old-school compared to 3.5 with all the feats and skills and attacks of opportunity and 5' steps and all that other bullshit to keep track of?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1040006I'm pretty much only ever a GM. What is actually  harder about old-school compared to 3.5 with all the feats and skills and attacks of opportunity and 5' steps and all that other bullshit to keep track of?

Each is difficult in different ways, to different people.

Old School, the GM has to consistently (or consistently enough) interpret the incomplete rules (and then remember that interpretation).
Newer School, the GM has to remember, track, and apply a lot of rules, which may not be commonly applied.

Some find one more difficult. Some find the other more difficult. I tried to find a balance in our homebrew, since I have a horrible memory. I can creatively and in a fun manner interpret rules, but then I'd have to write down and remember the interpretation. And in the more modern stuff, I can't remember all that. And I don't wish to slow down my, and the player's, fun with me doing paperwork.

Quote from: Tod13;1040059Each is difficult in different ways, to different people.

Old School, the GM has to consistently (or consistently enough) interpret the incomplete rules (and then remember that interpretation).
Newer School, the GM has to remember, track, and apply a lot of rules, which may not be commonly applied.

Some find one more difficult. Some find the other more difficult. I tried to find a balance in our homebrew, since I have a horrible memory. I can creatively and in a fun manner interpret rules, but then I'd have to write down and remember the interpretation. And in the more modern stuff, I can't remember all that. And I don't wish to slow down my, and the player's, fun with me doing paperwork.

My present difficulty with Newer School is that players tend to consistently quote the rules to their advantage and then forget the rules.. to their advantage. There's also literally no separation of player knowledge of game elements from actual character knowledge. Shit's annoying. Old school used to clamp down on a lot of that nonsense out by siding with the GM in most cases.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1040006I'm pretty much only ever a GM. What is actually  harder about old-school compared to 3.5 with all the feats and skills and attacks of opportunity and 5' steps and all that other bullshit to keep track of?

You're talking to Mr. "Old School Touched Me In A Bad Way."

Quote from: Tod13;1040059Each is difficult in different ways, to different people.

Old School, the GM has to consistently (or consistently enough) interpret the incomplete rules (and then remember that interpretation).
Newer School, the GM has to remember, track, and apply a lot of rules, which may not be commonly applied.

Some find one more difficult. Some find the other more difficult. I tried to find a balance in our homebrew, since I have a horrible memory. I can creatively and in a fun manner interpret rules, but then I'd have to write down and remember the interpretation. And in the more modern stuff, I can't remember all that. And I don't wish to slow down my, and the player's, fun with me doing paperwork.

You know what?  'Consistency' is a hobgoblin.  If NOBODY, not you, not the players, remember what you did last time, IT DOES NOT MATTER.  Make a ruling that seems reasonable at that moment, and move on.

And some people just seem REALLY AFRAID to have to make a ruling.  Me, I think this is a case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good."  Dave, Gary, and Phil were all masters of "sufficient unto the day."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040099You know what?  'Consistency' is a hobgoblin.  If NOBODY, not you, not the players, remember what you did last time, IT DOES NOT MATTER.  Make a ruling that seems reasonable at that moment, and move on.

Maybe in your group, no one remembers.  Not in any of mine, to which I appreciate.  I also change those rules, should the need arise, but consistency is what makes a game playable for me, so I need, whether or not I GM.  Which I end up doing most of the time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040099You know what?  'Consistency' is a hobgoblin.  If NOBODY, not you, not the players, remember what you did last time, IT DOES NOT MATTER.  Make a ruling that seems reasonable at that moment, and move on.

LOL yeah that totally happens. I've played only since '85 and my longest group where we still play started in '86. I remember getting together and everyone was fuzzy on details of very relevant past adventures.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040147Maybe in your group, no one remembers.  Not in any of mine, to which I appreciate.  I also change those rules, should the need arise, but consistency is what makes a game playable for me, so I need, whether or not I GM.  Which I end up doing most of the time.

My wife has an incredible memory. As does one of our other players. It isn't fair to them to change their expectations of how something works. And the nice thing is, I don't have to, since our home brew system eliminates issues like that, while still giving both the GM and Players a lot of flexibility.