TheRPGSite

The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

I think it depends on the game. If we are talking about the retroclones, then Swords and Wizadry, Labrynth Lord, and Beyond the Wall are all way easier to run than 3.5 or even 5e.

However, DCC seems quite a challenge, but I could be wrong since I haven't had a chance to run it yet.

I used to play Rolemaster and that was very tough.

Rules light is easier than Rules medium or Rules heavy. It doesn't even have to be New vs. Old School.

AD&D 1e RAW and D&D 3e are rules medium, but Swords & Wizardry (or Castles & Crusades) is rules light. AKA, rules light games rarely require going back to the rulebook during gameplay. That is what makes them easier. The more you need to reference rules, the "harder" the game becomes because now the game has to stop so we can jerk off to some half assed paragraph on page 324.

Faster, more intuitive gameplay leads to more immersion because we aren't breaking the suspension of disbelief constantly by going to the books.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1036934The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

From the games I watch, it all depends on the Gamemaster's skill at running a game. Most players just want to sit like lumps and be told when to roll their shiny D20. They don't even know or care old from new school.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1036942Rules light is easier than Rules medium or Rules heavy. It doesn't even have to be New vs. Old School.

I agree whehter a game is easier or harder to run is more about whether it's rules light/med/heavy. Old school isnt necessarily easier, look at 2e or old shadowrun vs new 5e; 5e is simpler and easier to run (not as fun as the other 2 games, imo, but easier).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1036934The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

Not in my experience, but it's not harder.  It's just a different set of expectations.  'Old School' requires a lot more work from the DM, especially those who are new to the experience.  They have to do a lot more on the spot adjudication and making up of rules.  There's a lot more trial and error.  Not everyone is built for that.

Newer games try to solve every potential problem, not always successfully, but it tries to give a groundwork as to what a DM can do to fix whatever issue that arises.  Does it always work?  Hell, no.  But it tries to give a level of consistency.  Again, that might drive people away.

QuoteIs Old-School Really "Easier" than New School?

No, because oldskool relies more on "player skill".

You know, other way of saying for: rolling four new characters every session to find out the various ways this particular dickwad of a DM is trying to kill my characters.

Quote from: Moracai;1036960You know, other way of saying for: rolling four new characters every session to find out the various ways this particular dickwad of a DM is trying to kill my characters.

Is that what Old School GMs do? All of them? Everywhere? All the time?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2447[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036965Is that what Old School GMs do? All of them? Everywhere? All the time?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2447[/ATTACH]

Well I try but sometimes players are crafty fuckers.

Depends on the players and GM and what they want or like, and how experienced with the rules they are..

Also depends on what game systems you're talking about.

Quote from: Moracai;1036960No, because oldskool relies more on "player skill".

You know, other way of saying for: rolling four new characters every session to find out the various ways this particular dickwad of a DM is trying to kill my characters.

LJL, sounds like someone's genderfluid dragonman PC with a 16 page backstory got killed.  Your post was stupidly off topic and distracting.  Take it to Tangency.

Getting back on topic, anything with the OD&D-B/X "engine" is gonna be easy to play, regardless of whether it's a bare bones light system like S&W or a huge pile of (mostly for the DM) rules like ACKS.  Why? Because the amount of information you need to memorize (and even internalize) to play a character is not hugely taxing.  DCC (mentioned above) might be stretching it a bit, but even then, most of the complication comes from the amount of tables, and not the amount of "out of the box" options a player has.  

Now, easy to run is more a function of the GM's background, attitude, and willingness to prep than it is the specific system at hand.  

There's a lot more to be said on this topic, and I'm sure the stalwart posters here at therpgsite will deliver.

You make a good point: easy to run and easy to play are two important distinctions.

Quote from: Moracai;1036960No, because oldskool relies more on "player skill".

You know, other way of saying for: rolling four new characters every session to find out the various ways this particular dickwad of a DM is trying to kill my characters.

Show us on the doll where old school play touched your character in a bad way.

So the rest of us can line up and do it again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1036934The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

Well in the case of OD&D, what mechanics actually exist are easier, simply because there are so few of them.

The ability to know your world well enough that you can make rulings, however, seems to be extremely difficult for a lot of people.  Free Kriegsspiel requires an umpire who knows the setting cold, and high trust between players and umpire.

Quote from: Arkansan;1036967Well I try but sometimes players are crafty fuckers.

Agreed! The foes in my settings are definitely striving for that TPK every time at every table.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036974You make a good point: easy to run and easy to play are two important distinctions.

Complicated monster stat blocks and NPC stat blocks make new school D&D harder to run IME.

All editions of D&D have lots of spell descriptions that need to be accessed during play. IME this is one annoying thing about running any edition of D&D and is the same old school vs new school.

The worst thing about running old school D&D for me is looking up the saving throw tables, otherwise running Classic D&D is about as easy as running 5e D&D.

Swords and Wizadry have the old singular saving throw, as does Fantastic Heroes & Witchery while Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy stick with the original 5 and DCC use the more modern 3.

I have to say that I prefer the one save that is modified to an ability score.

To be honest, 'Old Skool' does have a tendency of a LOT of player deaths, especially by those swayed by the lack of pages.  Tends to end up having several TPK's until they understand the dynamic that 'OSR' games tend to promote.  Some DM's revel in it, others get turned off, some figure out a balance.

I think that the fundamental difference between editions starts with the depth of character creation. OD&D has six simple stats and you play, unless you are a spell caster in which case you spend a few minutes picking spells. As later editions came into being the player options increased -- from 2E's kit options through 3E's skill lists, and so on.

More options for the player has two effects.
(1) More player options means more time creating a character, and thus more trauma in losing a character.
(2) More player options means more inherit work for the DM because he has to have similar options for monsters for game balance, plus he has to be able to anticipate better what players can do when designing an adventure.

For me, both of those effects diminish my fun as a DM. As a player it's not so bad because I only have to track one pile of data, but the DM has longer stat blocks and more rules to juggle.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036940However, DCC seems quite a challenge, but I could be wrong since I haven't had a chance to run it yet.

DCC may look tough because of the large rulebook, but at its heart it is a very simple and easy game. Much of the bulk of pages is caused by the fact that each spell has its own individual spell effects chart. If you make a single generic chart for each level of spell, it's a lot fewer pages. If you have each wizard copy his own spell charts into a book, the DM doesn't have to deal with that part. It can be a very easy game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1036981Well in the case of OD&D, what mechanics actually exist are easier, simply because there are so few of them.

Very true. OD&D gives a general skeletal structure for rules and the DM is expected to interpret each situation in a logical and orderly manner, while games like 3E and Pathfinder try to give a rule for each situation. I'd much rather be able to "wing it" and keep the flow of the game going, rather than to have to pause to look up a rule.

Quote from: Moracai;1036960No, because oldskool relies more on "player skill".

You know, other way of saying for: rolling four new characters every session to find out the various ways this particular dickwad of a DM is trying to kill my characters.

This is obviously stupid.

But...Old school does require a shift in the way players approach the game.  If players are used to new school approach it takes a while for some players to wrap their heads around the fact that the DM is not going to stock the dungeon with a series of level appropriate encounters and that maybe they should think of a way to get around combats rather than wade straight into them.  It can take some TPKs before this becomes clear.

But if you've never done either of them, I don't think it's any harder.

It is definitely easier in the sense the character creation tends to be faster, and play tends to be faster. But in terms of complexity it depends on the system. You can get pretty complex with AD&D based stuff.

Rules that are concise, well-organized, and carefully chosen to maximize options with minimum fuss are relatively easy to run.  Games that have interesting details that help the players and GM engage with the characters and the setting make it worth running.  Those two imperatives aren't diametrically opposed, but in practice focusing on one tends to hurt the other to some extent.  The trick is to limit the details but make the ones included carry their weight.  

There may be a slight focus shift in new school to focus on the first, but as always, the execution seldom quite matches the goal. For example, the D&D 5E core engine is much easier to understand and run than the AD&D core engine.  How that engine expands as it engages with the details chosen, it isn't such a clear advantage.  Which is part of the reason that it is easy for a moderately thoughtful GM to run 5E as an old school game simply by cutting stuff out.

My glance through RC D&D tells me it's as hard to run as Savage Worlds. But your Savage Worlds PC is more likely to live

There is plenty of rules but less core mechanics. Medium crunch games like Savage Worlds have skill based characters, an inherent skill system, and everything revolves around that.

The core stat for BECMI characters for what they can personally do mechanically is charts/THAC0. It's not a streamlined jumping off point, so adding rules is clunkier.

I'm not calling it bad, it's just that certain design decisions can effect how much your rules cover per page so I don't see basic D&D as even all that much easier to run, just easier to die in, if we're measuring difficulty that way.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1036957Not in my experience, but it's not harder.  It's just a different set of expectations.  'Old School' requires a lot more work from the DM, especially those who are new to the experience.  They have to do a lot more on the spot adjudication and making up of rules.  There's a lot more trial and error.  Not everyone is built for that.

Newer games try to solve every potential problem, not always successfully, but it tries to give a groundwork as to what a DM can do to fix whatever issue that arises.  Does it always work?  Hell, no.  But it tries to give a level of consistency.  Again, that might drive people away.

I just want to comment that that was a reasoned, reasonable and honest take on old school gaming, and I appreciate the effort.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037002To be honest, 'Old Skool' does have a tendency of a LOT of player deaths, especially by those swayed by the lack of pages.  Tends to end up having several TPK's until they understand the dynamic that 'OSR' games tend to promote.  Some DM's revel in it, others get turned off, some figure out a balance.

And then before anyone else jumps on that, I think you mean character deaths. Time, beer, and Cheetos are the major factors in old school player deaths. :p

Quote from: RPGPundit;1036934The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

Easier at......?
Learning, playing, running, comprehending?

It depends on your background. I'd say new school (3e and up) is easier to both learn and play because the rules are more easily spelled out and more people are on the same page. I've played a bit of 2e AD&D and didn't know what the hell I was doing and the DM didn't really help out even though I was new. I've tried reading 1e and I got bored with the number of lists and boxes and side bars.

I'm confident that had I done either two systems now with an experienced DM and went over everything, I'd have a better perspective on the significant differences between them all.

Quote from: Batman;1037036I'd say new school (3e and up) is easier to both learn and play because the rules are more easily spelled out and more people are on the same page.

A great observation. Older rulebooks are a lot shorter, but a lot of the bulk of newer rulebooks is found in the form of examples and explanations of how the game works. That is one feature of a newer rules system that is superior for a newcomer.

I wish they would sell newer rulebooks in parts -- something that tells how to play being separate from the core rules. That way I can discard the extra bulk once I get a handle on the rules and revert to a thinner rulebook for general play. (For example, newer rulebooks give me flavor text of what my fireball looks like. That's not something that I need because I have a decent imagination and may or may not care about the air crackling around me and fire leaping from my fingertips. After I've played a time or two, that stuff just takes up space.)

Quote from: finarvyn;1037037I wish they would sell newer rulebooks in parts -- something that tells how to play being separate from the core rules. That way I can discard the extra bulk once I get a handle on the rules and revert to a thinner rulebook for general play. (For example, newer rulebooks give me flavor text of what my fireball looks like. That's not something that I need because I have a decent imagination and may or may not care about the air crackling around me and fire leaping from my fingertips. After I've played a time or two, that stuff just takes up space.)

I've thought about the idea of a game having a main text surrounded by marginalia like some medieval book where you have text around the text explaining the text. Thus the main text could be lifted out and put in a smaller book specific for those who don't need the examples (or discussion, etc.).

Quote from: finarvyn;1037037A great observation. Older rulebooks are a lot shorter, but a lot of the bulk of newer rulebooks is found in the form of examples and explanations of how the game works. That is one feature of a newer rules system that is superior for a newcomer.

True. I think in regards to 3e, specifically, the examples are there but largely in part because the rules are........convoluted, to a degree. I mean look at the pages (plural) for Grappling alone *ugh*. Later versions don't require as many example because the rules are much clearer.

Quote from: finarvyn;1037037I wish they would sell newer rulebooks in parts -- something that tells how to play being separate from the core rules. That way I can discard the extra bulk once I get a handle on the rules and revert to a thinner rulebook for general play. (For example, newer rulebooks give me flavor text of what my fireball looks like. That's not something that I need because I have a decent imagination and may or may not care about the air crackling around me and fire leaping from my fingertips. After I've played a time or two, that stuff just takes up space.)

That would definitely be an interesting endeavor, heck one I'd even pay for. It would certainly lighten up the page count on the PHB and DMG for sure.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037029For example, the D&D 5E core engine is much easier to understand and run than the AD&D core engine.  How that engine expands as it engages with the details chosen, it isn't such a clear advantage.  Which is part of the reason that it is easy for a moderately thoughtful GM to run 5E as an old school game simply by cutting stuff out.

This is what I love and hate about D&D5e.  I was playing a Champion fighter in a campaign, which is basically the 5e version of a 1e AD&D fighter: kill things, be athletic, and keep the squishy PCs safe.  Fun times.  Each and every other PC in the party was loaded down with special options, feats, and spell choices that turned what I thought would be a concise game into a slog.  I wonder if the DM would have been better served by playing a modern D&D retroclone and adding things like Advantage/Disadvantage, and adjudicating edge-case rules as they came up.  He certainly did not like all the extra options clogging things up.  At least, he should have banned most of the feats, and laid the law down the moment a player wanted to start playing out combats in 5-foot squares.  

I will say that some of the early-era D&D and RPG writing was downright opaque, especially if you were new to the hobby. I think that a combination of good, clear, concise writing, combined with rules-light mechanics, is an absolute must in any gaming environment, OSR or otherwise.

Quote from: Heavy Josh;1037047I think that a combination of good, clear, concise writing, combined with rules-light mechanics, is an absolute must in any gaming environment, OSR or otherwise.

They do, it's called Hero Quest

AD&D 2e was extremely simple but could be more complicated than WotC versions depending how many knobs you tweaked.  But it was easy enough that 9-10 year old me was able to pick it up with little guidance and DM it.  Older versions certainly didn't hand hold as much as newer versions but not having as many rules to govern everything led to more making stuff up and learning to house rule.

Mileage may vary depending on how you learn and how you handle improvisation.

What do you consider new school?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1036934The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

What do you consider new school? Path Finder and beyond?

Quote from: vgunn;1037144What do you consider new school?

Me?  WotC editions.

"Easier" in which dimension?  It's certainly easier when a player tries some random action for the GM to say "sure, roll under [stat]" than to stop and look up the particular rule.  It's easier to read a stat block, and faster to write up a new one.  So far so good.

I would say old school is harder to run well, and easier to fuck up than new school.  Old school you need to know when to say "sure, that works, no roll" or "there's a chance, roll some dice" when a player comes up with a crazy plan.  It's very tempting, and I've seen it done, for old school DMs to shoot things down because they're making something "too easy", or bypassing a challenge entirely.  New school tries to get around that by providing DCs for everything, so the GM isn't saying "no", he's saying "let's look it up".  (I think in the grand scheme of things that was a profound strategic error, but I can understand how we got here.)

Too, I've run bad or boring old school sessions.  Dungeon delves where nothing much happens, one player maps, they somehow miss all the treasure, all the Saturday night specials, and most of the traps and monsters, and I hope anybody shows up the next week.  (That can still pay off in the long run, when the same group finally breaks through to a good treasure or cool moment and really feel they've earned it - but it is a delayed payoff and a down session at the time.)  A new school quest may be on rails, but at least you're guaranteed a set-piece combat, a few neat monsters and some level-appropriate treasure.

So on a couple of levels you could say old school runs light (although AD&D doesn't fit neatly in that scheme), but it runs without training wheels.  There's more space to crash and burn, which isn't my definition of "easy".

Quote from: Dave R;1037176So on a couple of levels you could say old school runs light (although AD&D doesn't fit neatly in that scheme), but it runs without training wheels.  There's more space to crash and burn, which isn't my definition of "easy".

Yeah, old school is very much "low floor, high ceiling" in the hands of some random GM.

Taking chances has the chance to fail, but also to succeed brilliantly.

New School is Olive Garden.  Old School is the little clam shack in a small seaside town.

Old School is easier for me because Holmes/AD&D are the editions I grew up on, played the most, and am the most familiar with. I know all the rules I like to use, and can run a game easily with them.

That doesn't mean that "New School" (WOTC) editions are really more complicated, it's just that when I played and ran them (and I've run two campaigns and numerous one shots of 3.x, Played a campaign of Pathfinder, and a couple dozen sessions of 4.0), I found myself constantly looking up stuff, and wondering why I was going to all that trouble when I could pretend to be an elf just fine with the games I was familiar with.

Lots of people play later editions and that's what they're used to, and they're perfectly happy with them. And to them, probably if you showed them a 1e AD&D DMG, they'd think you were nuts for wanting to use that book.

Different people like different things.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037179Yeah, old school is very much "low floor, high ceiling" in the hands of some random GM.

I'm suddenly imagining a room with both a Trapper, and a Lurker Above in it...

I cannot fathom how AD&D would be easier than 5e. B/X, on the other hand...

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1037193I cannot fathom how AD&D would be easier than 5e. B/X, on the other hand...

AD&D is easier than 5e if you ignore all the bullshit that everyone ignored when they actually played it.

Quote from: Rod's Duo Narcotics;1037194AD&D is easier than 5e if you ignore all the bullshit that everyone ignored when they actually played it.

Like?  Honest question, I've played run several years of AD&D 2e, and I changed what rules I used from campaign to campaign.

By far the easiest for me is to run a new school game in old school mode.  But that's because of all the time I've spent running both types of games.  I'm finding this easier to teach, too, now that I've got some new players interested in the GM chair.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1036934The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

I dunno. One of my players who I have played with since '86 was absolutely thrilled when I ran a 5e sequel to our 1e campaign, and found out that he could roll a d20 for just about everything, excluding weapon and spell damage. He also liked that Advantage and Disadvantage saved him from having to look up tables. That's pretty damned easy.

Keep in mind that the term "Old School" is a construct, which is just a fancy way of saying the rules that existed before current rules. The Rules Cyclopdedia, AD&D 1e, and even 2e are good games. All of them. They all have their flavors that make them appealing. The RC (as opposed to BECMI and older because it's a damned good book, yes I'm drinking) pretty much has everything you need to run a campaign. For the most part your combat rolls are d20 roll over, and skill rolls are roll under. I'm not a big fan of d20 roll under because it's not aesthetically pleasing. In 1e we used d% rolls for a lot of stuff which for some reason felt more satisfying as a roll under mechanic, probably because of thieves. The Red Box was a great starting point, and I know for a fact that kids 13 and under can totally grok it, otherwise I would not have been playing. :D As a player, the mechanics are pretty straightforward. Back in the day, everyone just wanted to hit things so it was good.

I started playing 1e literally one week after I learned on the Red Box. This was great because once my DM got the 1e stuff, he just gave me the Red Box. I got the books pretty soon after, using money I got delivering papers. Sentry Box was still a hole in the wall shop in the Marda Loop strip mall next to Smiling Buddha before Smiling Buddha moved to the stand alone building on the same property. The guy behind the counter kind of looked like Dworkin from the Chronicles of Amber. Amusingly the first D&D book I bought for myself was Oriental Adventures because Ninjas. AD&D certainly had it's complexities. such as weapons vs armor types that everyone only used once. These days I use the Fantasy Grounds Virtual Tabletop even for Face to Face games because it accepts manual die input (meaning players can roll their own dice) and it's a right good campaign manager. If I could enter in something like weapon type vs armor... I would really have to be having a good day to learn to code that, though I have coded custom modules so it's not exactly impossible. Anyway, yeah. AD&D 1e. It has it's complexities. Hah hah! Psionics. Which I loved and have used in editions from 1-3.x, as I'm still undecided about the 5e take.

Now 2e, that was an interesting beast. If you include the Player's/GM option stuff, it could get quite complex. I really really liked Combat and Tactics and when I ran with miniatures, I liked how initiative and round segments meshed, and was able to put together a combat system which calculated action by segments rather than rounds. It sounds complex, but I just used a piece of graph paper to plot out all the relevant actions and how they sequenced then called out players to roll when their turn came around. It was a good amount of work, but combat was very satisfying for everyone.

Rambling aside, I don't think you can really make clear distinctions about one thing being easier than another. Mechanics change, but how easy or complex they are, are not edition specific. The mathematical mechanics underlying them, as well as how that math is presented, are both factors in ease of use. In 5e, from the player side it might be pretty damned easy. May it's more work for the DM, but hey, we got apps on our phones and tablets and laptops now. If I want to build an encounter on the fly, all I need is the DM's Guide, and my phone using Donjon. If I want to make something special, I have Hero Lab. I can do it quick. I can customize a monster/NPC and the software will tell me the CR of my creation. The rest is math.

I like 5e. I like it a lot. I can pull out my OD&D/AD&D 1e/2e stuff and just eyeball conversions if I need to. I can just use the Basic Rules and SRD stuff for free, free, and run a game which really doesn't feel much different from RC/1e. No backgrounds. No feats. Hell, you could even ignore ability score increases if you wanted. The main difference between old school and new school is that new school at least makes some sort of token attempt at doing most things under a unified mechanic. Sort of. Things scale similarly in newer editions, which wasn't as much of an issue in older editions.

There is one more glaring problem with making a distinction between Old School/OSR games and something like 5e. That is the fact that mechanically, 5e IS very much an OSR. A lot of old school players took to it because a lot of the content was instantly familiar. Who cares about whether AC is ascending or descending? You still roll that d20 and aim to roll high. Moreover, the players matter. A group of new players running 5e are not going to run the same style of game as a group of Grognards. The Grogs are going to hold on to the old ways, though they may bring in newer rules which work. If I run a game, and the group wants to Murderhobo, I am going to let them Murderhobo. Sure, there might be consequences, but that's part of the fun, as they can show me just how good they can Murderhobo. If they want something more nuanced, or combat light with more roleplay, sure we can do that. It's always been that way.

Really though, easier or not... It's math. I can and have on this forum (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36881-Adapting-the-Mentzer-Monster-Reaction-Chart-for-5e) distilled the Mentzer Monster Reaction Table into something simpler which retains the exact same probabilities as the original table with redundant recursion. Though I like the recursion and think it could be used for something more interesting, which would negate the redundancy. Or if you wanted to keep it simple, it can be mapped to a d20 while still retaining a similar outcome. When I mapped it to d20, it changed the probabilities a little bit, but odds are it wouldn't even be noticed much in play if at all. Mind you, that was mostly an academic exercise, as I find rolling 2d6 to be more visually pleasing with regard to the Menzter Table than a d20. The d20 table is because one day I might need it for a 5e game. :D

The thing is, Pundit, whatever information that you are trying to mine here, there is not going to be a right answer. Use the mechanics that you like. If you want your ability score bonuses to scale like they do in the RC, then do that. If for some reason, you think Bend Bar/Lift Gates percentage rolls are a good idea, then use it. In my old group, BB/LG was a catch all for feats of strength, which added to the usefulness of fighter types. Nowadays, you roll Strength versus a DC, but the idea is the same, which translates to a similar mechanic.

I think something you may want to consider, Pundit, is aesthetic. What I am saying here is that there are old mechanics, like the Mentzer Table, which just look neat on paper. They are visually appealing, and easy to read. I mean, come on, if you can get kids to understand a table with two levels of recursion, then you probably made a pretty good table. Think about the stuff you like, and particularly the layout, and try and think what it is that is appealing. As I mentioned earlier, presentation matters. If it is visually appealing, you can sneak in more complexity and it will still get grokked.

Quote from: Rod's Duo Narcotics;1037194AD&D is easier than 5e if you ignore all the bullshit that everyone ignored when they actually played it.

Sure, if you ignore all the bullshit, I guess I agree... it appears not even Gygax played AD&D RAW IIRC.

I think that the one thing later editions have that argue in their favor are more streamlined systems; less weird subsystems or wonky rules that work differently from everything else in the game.

But then, in place of that, there's shitloads of feats and special powers that complicate things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037471But then, in place of that, there's shitloads of feats and special powers that complicate things.

And for me this is way worse than the fiddly bits of something like B/X. I couldn't stand it for 3e/4e, Pathfinder, and the like. 5e cuts it down and smoothes some of this out--but not enough for me. I had a version of D&D Next playtest version (can't remember which one) that I really enjoyed. Very straightforward and minimalist.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1036940DCC seems quite a challenge, but I could be wrong since I haven't had a chance to run it yet.

I LOVE the idea and presentation of DCC--playing it, not so much. Too fiddly for it's own good and it takes away from the game IMO.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1037193I cannot fathom how AD&D would be easier than 5e. B/X, on the other hand...

AD&D at its core is very rules lite really. What it has though is a huge collection of situational rules that might never come into play, or might. It was a toolbox much like Gurps is, just going at it in a very different way. On the player side AD&D is even simpler.

The problem is there are people who look at all the situational rules and then bitch the game is too complex. Or who claim things like spell lists and equipment are rules too and its all just ever too much for their little brains to handle. wahh wahh wahh. Rinse repeat with the next moron.

As for "old school" theres no such thing as what people are mostly playing now is the exact same thing people were playing then. With all the variations. And back then there were attempts to "streamline" OD&D and later AD&D so you got things like Tunnels & Trolls and The Fantasy Trip amongst many many others. And also some that thought AD&D was too simple. They wanted MORE situational rules to cover every little happenstance.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037471I think that the one thing later editions have that argue in their favor are more streamlined systems; less weird subsystems or wonky rules that work differently from everything else in the game.

That might make them easier to run, but affect play not at all, provided you're playing under the original paradigm of "don't think about rules, just tell me what you want to do."

Quote from: vgunn;1037584And for me this is way worse than the fiddly bits of something like B/X. I couldn't stand it for 3e/4e, Pathfinder, and the like. 5e cuts it down and smoothes some of this out--but not enough for me. I had a version of D&D Next playtest version (can't remember which one) that I really enjoyed. Very straightforward and minimalist.

Most likely the Core Rules. One archetype for each class, no feats or Backgrounds, no crazy races, straightforward sub-classes, etc.

Quote from: vgunn;1037584And for me this is way worse than the fiddly bits of something like B/X. I couldn't stand it for 3e/4e, Pathfinder, and the like. 5e cuts it down and smoothes some of this out--but not enough for me. I had a version of D&D Next playtest version (can't remember which one) that I really enjoyed. Very straightforward and minimalist.

What are the fiddly bits of B/X for you?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1036979Show us on the doll where old school play touched your character in a bad way.

So the rest of us can line up and do it again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.

Not directed at you personally OG. My first character ever died in the first monster ever presented. Red box, carrion crawler. I was about 11 years old.

[not directed at any of you, but a chant of a guild that I'm part of: Blood rains down from an angry sky, my cock rages on, my cock rages on!"]

Quote from: RPGPundit;1036934The rulebook is certainly shorter, or usually shorter (there's a few 500-page OSR rulesets, after all).  But does that mean the mechanics are actually easier?

Short answer: yes

Longer answer: There is way more reliance on referee arbitration, hence less actual rules are required to run the game smoothly. The mechanics for most old school games is basically "do whatever makes sense". Contrast this with more modern games which explicitly spell out how to do things in "meta space" like haggling or convincing NPCs to do stuff...

I think this says more about the condition of the modern gamer than anything else. The inability to do anything without explicit permission takes precedence over doing whatever is fun, which is sad, really. Whatever happened to just making up shit and having a good time?

Quote from: Brad;1037608I think this says more about the condition of the modern gamer than anything else. The inability to do anything without explicit permission takes precedence over doing whatever is fun, which is sad, really. Whatever happened to just making up shit and having a good time?

1) Hundreds of letters per month begging for more rules to pay for, by 1976.
2) The decision in 78 or 79 to market to the 11-to-14 male demographic

Quote from: Brad;1037608I think this says more about the condition of the modern gamer than anything else. The inability to do anything without explicit permission takes precedence over doing whatever is fun, which is sad, really. Whatever happened to just making up shit and having a good time?

Even more than that.  On average, the modern gamer doesn't know how to make a sensible ruling on many things, because they have little to no world experiences that would inform the ruling.  I'm willing to bet, just to pull one example at random, that 80s gamers had a higher percentage of people that had some idea of what night is like.  Everyone I played with in the 80's at some time or another had been outside, late at night, with no light source, multiple times, in various terrains and conditions of starlight, moonlight, and cloud cover.  Including the ladies.  None of us were Army Rangers, but we at least had some idea of what going through the woods at night was like.  Today, no way.

It was about the 90s when I begin to encounter people that didn't know what a cow was.  Note, not that they hadn't seen one, but didn't know what it was.  I think such a person is incapable of running any game, even a Star Wars game after having spent a decade obsessively watching the movies and having read every sourcebook and novel.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;10376101) Hundreds of letters per month begging for more rules to pay for, by 1976.
2) The decision in 78 or 79 to market to the 11-to-14 male demographic

I totally looked for you at Garycon, to no avail. I was hoping to hear some good stories.

Quote from: Brad;1037613I totally looked for you at Garycon, to no avail. I was hoping to hear some good stories.

I spent almost the entire time in the Legends of Wargaming room.

And will pretty much from now on.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1037611Even more than that.  On average, the modern gamer doesn't know how to make a sensible ruling on many things, because they have little to no world experiences that would inform the ruling.  I'm willing to bet, just to pull one example at random, that 80s gamers had a higher percentage of people that had some idea of what night is like.  Everyone I played with in the 80's at some time or another had been outside, late at night, with no light source, multiple times, in various terrains and conditions of starlight, moonlight, and cloud cover.  Including the ladies.  None of us were Army Rangers, but we at least had some idea of what going through the woods at night was like.  Today, no way.

It was about the 90s when I begin to encounter people that didn't know what a cow was.  Note, not that they hadn't seen one, but didn't know what it was.  I think such a person is incapable of running any game, even a Star Wars game after having spent a decade obsessively watching the movies and having read every sourcebook and novel.

What

Quote from: vgunn;1037587I LOVE the idea and presentation of DCC--playing it, not so much. Too fiddly for it's own good and it takes away from the game IMO.

What about it do you find "fiddly"?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1037595That might make them easier to run, but affect play not at all, provided you're playing under the original paradigm of "don't think about rules, just tell me what you want to do."

Maybe, but this thread was about which type of rules is easier to play.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1037854Maybe, but this thread was about which type of rules is easier to play.

Um... anything that comes in a red box. :D

Quote from: Krimson;1037860Um... anything that comes in a red box. :D

...or a white or brown box...

Quote from: Krimson;1037860Um... anything that comes in a red box. :D

Quote from: GameDaddy;1037862...or a white or brown box...

Even D&D 4e?

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/TIVB0FlnRyI/AAAAAAAAA4g/uJlvSDoiWtM/s1600/4E+Red+Box.JPG)
(http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/galleries/display/68/68390.jpg)
(https://montymaxwell.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/redboxreview-001.jpg)

Quote from: Moracai;1036960No, because oldskool relies more on "player skill".

You know, other way of saying for: rolling four new characters every session to find out the various ways this particular dickwad of a DM is trying to kill my characters.

As I recall from the old days, "player skill" wasn't anything that couldn't be produced by actually listening and paying attention to what was going on, and applying a bit of rational common sense to the situation in an ever repeating cycle. About the worst thing to happen to D&D in more modern iterations has been the development of the individual turn. This construct encourages players to zone out, play on their phone, etc. until it is their personal turn.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;1037987As I recall from the old days, "player skill" wasn't anything that couldn't be produced by actually listening and paying attention to what was going on,

"Waaaa!   WAAAAA!  You're being MEAN to me!"

Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

Quote from: Brad;1038041Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

Damn good question, old sport.  I've been asking that since I drifted back into this hobby around 2000.

A lot of people seem to want to construct a homonculous and watch it perform.  One guy in one thread even said "I don't want to think about things, just have my character make an INT roll and tell me the answer."

Just like my assertion that "if you want your character to be a good negotiator, learn to negotiate.  NEGOTIATE skills suck."  That one never fails to get my ass hairs set on fire.

Personally, I suspect the answer is "most people are lazy."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;1037987As I recall from the old days, "player skill" wasn't anything that couldn't be produced by actually listening and paying attention to what was going on, and applying a bit of rational common sense to the situation in an ever repeating cycle. About the worst thing to happen to D&D in more modern iterations has been the development of the individual turn. This construct encourages players to zone out, play on their phone, etc. until it is their personal turn.

Interesting. I like your concept about the individual turn. The game I wrote for my players doesn't have individual turns, because we didn't want to record keep that. And you are right, as a result, everyone is engaged throughout a turn. It also helps that an individual action is really quick.

However, I don't deny that a lot of "old school" GM's modus operandi isn't accurately described as "player hostile". :D

Quote from: Brad;1038041Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

Some players like using their own knowledge to solve problems. The GMs for such players often like to craft player-skills tests in those games. Here, I've seen people require players to pick locks, solve crosswords, and play chess.

Some players want to use player skills and knowledge they don't have themselves.

To both groups, this is the purpose of role playing.

Putting one kind of player under the other kind of GM can make both miserable.

Like many other situations like this, there is often poor communication on the subject and unclear initial pre-conceptions.

Quote from: Tod13;1038066Some players like using their own knowledge to solve problems. The GMs for such players often like to craft player-skills tests in those games. Here, I've seen people require players to pick locks, solve crosswords, and play chess.

Some players want to use player skills and knowledge they don't have themselves.

To both groups, this is the purpose of role playing.

Putting one kind of player under the other kind of GM can make both miserable.

Like many other situations like this, there is often poor communication on the subject and unclear initial pre-conceptions.

But is that really addressing my question? Putting some sort of chess game in a dungeon, and expecting the players to actually make moves to win the game, isn't the same thing as "it's probably a good idea to take a 10' pole and probe for pit traps."

Quote from: Brad;1038070But is that really addressing my question? Putting some sort of chess game in a dungeon, and expecting the players to actually make moves to win the game, isn't the same thing as "it's probably a good idea to take a 10' pole and probe for pit traps."

It was supposed to be. ;-)

The first group (player skills) would use the 10' pole approach. Depending on the group and edition, they might not even expect to roll for trap detection.

The second group (character skills) would use the "check for traps" skill, and maybe expect a bonus or penalty for having or lacking appropriate tools (the 10' pole).

Quote from: Brad;1038070But is that really addressing my question? Putting some sort of chess game in a dungeon, and expecting the players to actually make moves to win the game, isn't the same thing as "it's probably a good idea to take a 10' pole and probe for pit traps."

Yeah your second example is more along the lines of what I'd call "Player Skill" in D&D.  Different gear load outs and uses for gear (like why would you prefer to use an Axe instead of a Sword), how watches should be set, marching order, clearing and searching rooms, all the procedural stuff that shouldn't just be covered by a die roll.

I'll let players roll to have their character negotiate or get clues/solutions to puzzles but I won't allow one to roll for "maybe we should have someone at the rear who can actually see things well and not the myopic bookworm wizard."

Quote from: KingCheops;1038073"maybe we should have someone at the rear who can actually see things well and not the myopic bookworm wizard."

And when they hit a dead end and get surprised by a wandering monster attacking their back rank, the wizard is gone in one gulp...

But truly, what IS a cow? ;) (And, besides INT checks only on Negotiations, how do I have one? :D)

As for "How did we get here?," I'd blame 'Fast-Forward to the Fun!' attitude that didn't want to apply consequences, or bookkeeping, or even that pesky roleplaying. I mean, we don't do make-believe combat For Realzies at the table for legal reasons, (and I would hope for some of you, moral reasons too!). But I'd like to think we can at least have fun with make-believe during In-Character conversations, and even indulge in describing our actions.

But behaving in any way "Contrary to the Fun!" (there's a loaded term that should be defined before starting,) gets dumped for happy feelz. For example, rations are barely counted, Goodberry handwaviums away Survival issues. Same applies to material components or ammo, magical focus or ignored quivers (or my fave, magical ever-full quivers) becomes prominent.

It's these little things that New School introduced -- to wave away Maintenance -- that causes me the largest headache. That and they are intrinsically embedded within an interlaced framework -- leading to my oft complaint about minor houserules having cascading consequences. They've left a legacy of "I don't wanna be bothered! Please me already!" entitlement that I don't have in me as a GM to cater, yet with all the system landmines inside I must learn to excise carefully.

This gives me a sad. :(

Quote from: Tod13;1038072It was supposed to be. ;-)

The first group (player skills) would use the 10' pole approach. Depending on the group and edition, they might not even expect to roll for trap detection.

The second group (character skills) would use the "check for traps" skill, and maybe expect a bonus or penalty for having or lacking appropriate tools (the 10' pole).

The second group is playing a boardgame, though. Not that it's a bad thing (sometimes you do just want to roll dice and sort of mentally checkout), but I really wouldn't call it roleplaying.

To make what I mean clearer:

Player: I probe ahead for pit traps with my 10' pole.
DM: Okay, you poke along the floor and a expose a pit trap.

OR

Player: I roll my Traps skill.
DM: Make a DC 25 check.

The second case isn't even really treating the situation any differently than if the trap were a poison needle or teleportation trap. It's distilling literally billions of possibilities into a single die roll, which eliminates any roleplaying. At least in the first case the player has a nominal chance to find the trap, even if his character sheet says he's a terrible trap finder. The fact that the player is deciding to do something has precedence over whatever a flavorless die roll would dictate.

Quote from: Brad;1038080The second group is playing a boardgame, though. Not that it's a bad thing (sometimes you do just want to roll dice and sort of mentally checkout), but I really wouldn't call it roleplaying.

To make what I mean clearer:

Player: I probe ahead for pit traps with my 10' pole.
DM: Okay, you poke along the floor and a expose a pit trap.

OR

Player: I roll my Traps skill.
DM: Make a DC 25 check.

The second case isn't even really treating the situation any differently than if the trap were a poison needle or teleportation trap. It's distilling literally billions of possibilities into a single die roll, which eliminates any roleplaying. At least in the first case the player has a nominal chance to find the trap, even if his character sheet says he's a terrible trap finder. The fact that the player is deciding to do something has precedence over whatever a flavorless die roll would dictate.

I understand but I disagree--to me, both are playing an RPG. For us, role-playing is the character personalities, not the skills/knowledge. It is just a matter of where your interests are.

Hence, my description of the two groups. Both are playing RPGs. For your group, the "role" is dungeon adventurer with emphasis on tactics and action/skill knowledge. For my group, the role could be a somewhat selfish fairy with a riding wolf, who needs be bribed with armor for her wolf for her to go on a mission that otherwise doesn't offer immediate pay-off.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1038079It's these little things that New School introduced -- to wave away Maintenance -- that causes me the largest headache. That and they are intrinsically embedded within an interlaced framework -- leading to my oft complaint about minor houserules having cascading consequences. They've left a legacy of "I don't wanna be bothered! Please me already!" entitlement that I don't have in me as a GM to cater, yet with all the system landmines inside I must learn to excise carefully.

Which is why I stick with OD&D.  The more I hear about, and even play, the new, the less I like it.  Nostalgia my ass, new school games suck.

Quote from: Brad;1038041Why is "player skill" a dirty word when applied to rpgs? If you get your ass handed to you in chess or poker, the first thing someone will says is "learn to play better". Why does this not apply to D&D?

'Skill'? Define skill?  Problem solving?  Historic knowledge?

And at what point does characters actually matter then?  If you're 'problem solver' is the Fighter because they are that naturally intelligent, but they rolled a 6 for Int.  Then you have the charismatic fellow, the one that can get other players to go along with him, and is a pretty good team leader, but is the Mage with an Int of 18, but a Cha of 6.  What if you have a chemist (I do, he teaches it at a local high school, really cool guy, he also has a background in neuroscience) whose playing the Cleric, and suddenly Gunpowder is happening, evidence is disappearing because medieval historic period investigations won't be finding the bodies.

At what point point do the stats actually mean anything?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038098Which is why I stick with OD&D.  The more I hear about, and even play, the new, the less I like it.  Nostalgia my ass, new school games suck.

At this point, I think it's more fear of change than nostalgia.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037892Even D&D 4e?

I don't recall 4e being particularly difficult to play. :D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038112'At this point, I think it's more fear of change than nostalgia.

Bullshit.  Newer games are less fun.  It may be different for other people, but I've played "new school" games and they stink worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.  (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038125Bullshit.  Newer games are less fun.  It may be different for other people

Well, yeah. I know people for whom 4e D&D is the most fun. Some people even enjoy 3e/PF most. Personally I probably like an OSR-drifted 5e most as GM, with 1e & Classic as runners-up. As a player I think I've had the most fun with actual old school play (mostly Labyrinth Lord), primarily because it plays so fast in combat, but 5e is good too; even 4e can be good for a particular sort of experience.

Different people like different things, people who prefer OD&D and people who prefer Pathfinder just have different preferences, not false consciousness.

Meh. I don't find that there's really a common thread between all Old School games or all New School ones. 4e and 3e/PF are hugely different. oD&D and 1e* are different in complexity, focus, and even general advice about really important things like whether balance is a goal, whether deviating from the rules is bad or the norm, etc. etc. etc.
*mind you, huge swaths of the 1e-playing population back in the day skipped a bunch of that complexity, but that's another thread to unravel.

Really, the far boundaries of the game already occurred by 1979, the rest is just details. And even beyond that, you have to limit yourself to D&D to day that the extreme ends look like they are far apart. The character-building mini-game of 3e and 4e? Child's play compared to building starships in Traveller or Mechs in Battletech (yeah yeah, that's a wargame, but that just brings up the complexity of building armies in Chainmail). The rules complexity of 3e, 4e, or AD&D--flip through Aftermath. Being able to roll a find-traps skill instead of saying your character probes ahead with a 10' pole? Well, one D&D had that since '75 but also RQ and the like had skills which could replace most actual thinking again way back in the day. There's nothing new under the sun and most of the outer boundaries of what one can do with a TTRPG had been figured out within a half decade.

After that, it's just what do you personally like doing, what does a specific ruleset incentivize, and what tradeoffs (which there always are) are you most comfortable with.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038125Bullshit.  Newer games are less fun.  It may be different for other people, but I've played "new school" games and they stink worse than three feet up Jabba the Hutt's ass.  (Many Bothans died to bring us this information.)

Bullshit.  You've already set your expectations based on the past and for the most part have not willingly tried to anything new.

I'm willing to try anything and I've liked most of what I tried.  But nothing in my experience is 'easier' than the other.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038112And at what point does characters actually matter then?

I guess they don't, to be honest. We spend so much time and effort as players trying to decide how some fictional entity should act, all the while pretending our own biases and abilities play no role (or at least shouldn't play a role) into those decisions. Unless you're a robot, any character you play will be some sort of extension as yourself. Maybe we should stop pretending that's not the case.

Quote from: S'mon;1038157Well, yeah. I know people for whom 4e D&D is the most fun. Some people even enjoy 3e/PF most. Personally I probably like an OSR-drifted 5e most as GM, with 1e & Classic as runners-up. As a player I think I've had the most fun with actual old school play (mostly Labyrinth Lord), primarily because it plays so fast in combat, but 5e is good too; even 4e can be good for a particular sort of experience.

Different people like different things, people who prefer OD&D and people who prefer Pathfinder just have different preferences, not false consciousness.

Mortification of the Body is globally quite popular, too. So why not Mortification of the Mind/Spirit? :D Hence 3.PF & 4e. ;)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1037892Even D&D 4e?

We're talking about D&D here. Not non-D&D products.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038664We're talking about D&D here. Not non-D&D products.

Honestly if the system had come out with a different name, like 11th Age, it probably would have had lower sale, but been better received. My main issue was that it wasn't recognizable as D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038664We're talking about D&D here. Not non-D&D products.

LOL. It says so right on the cover. Stop living in a fantasy land.

Anyway, to contribute to this thread, I find the age of the system highly irrelevant. Most often who I am playing with matters more.

Quote from: Krimson;1038695Honestly if the system had come out with a different name, like 11th Age, it probably would have had lower sale, but been better received. My main issue was that it wasn't recognizable as D&D.

• Wizards using spellbooks to memorize spells
• Clerics turning away the undead and blasting foes with Radiant power
• Fighters cleaving through monsters galore with a big ol' battleaxe
• Ascending armor class
• Saving Throws
• Hit Points
• Attack rolls and damage rolls
• d8 Longswords
• Skills
• Feats
• XP reward system
• Magical items and Holy Avengers
• Beholders
• Mindflayers
• Terrasques

But the books interior design though.....and those stupid color coded "Powerz" boxes.....yeah I can't see the D&D in it at all.

The answer, as with most things, is 'it depends'. Old school D&D used to leave a lot more to Games Master interpretation so there was a lot less specific information and a lot more pulling shit out of your arse on the fly.
For some people that's easier. For some, it's harder.
Old school also tended to have more subsystems - where it did bother to define things - which could be trickier.
Some people work better given freedom, others work better given direction. Some people fail to understand when they can, or should, improvise and instead stick to the letter - as though they were playing monopoly or something.
There's no good, straight or correct answer.

Quote from: Batman;1038720But the books interior design though.....and those stupid color coded "Powerz" boxes.....yeah I can't see the D&D in it at all.

Yeah the presentation and MMO like powers was what turned me off. When I picked up 5e, I could tell right away that I could use my old pre-3.xe books with it.

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. :D

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. :D

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.

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.

If I remember, I do what I did last time.  If somebody else remembers, I do what I did last time because I trust my players.  If nobody remembers, we don't sweat it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040240If I remember, I do what I did last time.  If somebody else remembers, I do what I did last time because I trust my players.  If nobody remembers, we don't sweat it.

This is pretty much the way my games go. I might ask to see if anyone remembers how we ruled something, and if not we just make a ruling and move on.

One thing that I hated about AD&D when it first came out is that it had so many rules that some of our DM's would stop action totally to look up some rule just because he remembered that he saw some rule on it somewhere... well, for our group that was a real adventure-killer.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1040073My 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.

YES. Absolutely.

Interesting difference of opinion about  the subject of Bryce's latest review posted here and tenfootpole:
http://tenfootpole.org/ironspike/?p=4214

Rare are the modules that receive such high praise. Oh and it's PWYW

Moreover Princeofnothing loves it too
https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2018/05/01/review-mines-claws-princesses-5e-3pp-holy-oldschool-holy-grail-batman/

However, Chris Kelly, the lead writer for Wizard's Laboratory, does not share the enthusiasm
http://www.wizardslaboratory.com/category/danddproductreviews/

QuoteThe lack of a compelling story that takes the characters beyond the dungeon entrance is one.  

Well there is certainly a plot but not the tiresome four(teen) pages of background that I usually find unusable because, guess what, my group of PCs are running their own story.

QuoteIf this module was released 30 years ago it would have been a hit.  

And this is a bad thing because.... Right there is a mind being tightly shut: old is bad and new is progress is good. Baa baa.

QuoteHowever, the D&D community has moved on to a more comprehensive story/character driven role play experience.

Is this the official Goodrightfun now? Speak for yourself Kelly, my lad.

QuoteI was also a little take aback by some of the artwork and mature themes that wouldn't be appropriate for D&D players under 18 years old. I'm not adverse to mature themes or artwork but I don't like works that leave out a large portion of the D&D community that is under 18 years old.

Oh Lordy! Won't somebody think of the children?

I have bought and read the scenario: LotFP it ain't FFS. And his kid has probably played GTA for thousands of hours by now.

QuoteFor want of a few words, sketches, and gratuitous themes that should have been edited out by Oswald Publishing, as a father I cannot recommend this adventure for D&D players under 18 years old.

Self-censorship is your new freedom of expression!

QuoteThe entire adventure is written for the DM which is great, but it leaves the DM without descriptions for the players. The lack of boxed text to read or even a paraphrase paragraph to engage th players is very troubling. Leaving it up to the DM to scratch build descriptions of rooms, areas, and encounters is quite a challenge and a lot of extra work.

No boxed text, you say?  SOLD! You have a deal, sir!

Yes, I can do without failed fan-fic writers and the purple prose, thank you very much.

Quoteif your looking for a pure hack and slash dungeon crawl "Mines, Claws, and Princesses" fits the bill.

Damned by faint praise, eh? I think I know a passive aggressive slur when I read one. Like when he leaves a defintion of Monty Hall for the young'uns in case they didn't pick up on the gist.


Besides being a terrible review imho (YMMV) is this a good illustration of the difference between old and new schools?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040427Besides being a terrible review imho (YMMV) is this a good illustration of the difference between old and new schools?

Certainly a difference. There aren't a lot of absolutes once you start talking about things as ephemeral as 'old school' and 'new school,' but one of the near-consistencies for old school thought is that old school prefers more white-space on the page, as it were, with a sign saying 'DM will fill in here, to make module fit their established campaign.'

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040440old school prefers more white-space on the page, as it were, with a sign saying 'DM will fill in here, to make module fit their established campaign.'

Had I known that sooner, I would have saved a whole load of time and money. I can't quite put my finger on when, but TSR stopped writing those awsome modules that you could knit seemlessly into your own campaign. They started making lengthy backgrounds with plots and names and places that were frickin' boring as fuuuuu..because ultimately I had PCs and a campaign world that had all that stuff already. As for when that change came, I think it must have been around the late 80s, maybe a bit later. Being British I distincly remember White Dwarf adventures taking a nose dive around then.

It was also around then I jumped to Rolemaster and discovered the Loremaster series which were really sandboxy. Then ICE f@*ked that up too with their scenarios circling the drain that was the Shadow World Master Atlas in which there was a cast  "interesting" NPCs and factions there was little need for PCs. A plethora of uber GMPCs that PCs could meet if they played their cards right but, at 60th level (about 40th in 3.5 D&D terms)_ were frickin useless. In fact at one point Terry K Amthor had basically made his creation a vehicle for his own fiction.

Like Forgotten Realms post grey box, I guess.

That was pretty good Mike.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040427No boxed text, you say?  SOLD! You have a deal, sir!

I like boxed text. For whatever reason, I do great ad-libbing of NPCs talking and coming up with conversations and personalities. (Although, I've had NPCs suddenly have a strange new accent after 2-3 session for some reason.)

But, I do horrible at room descriptions. So I like room descriptions. YMM(and does)V. ;)

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040444Had I known that sooner, I would have saved a whole load of time and money. I can't quite put my finger on when, but TSR stopped writing those awsome modules that you could knit seemlessly into your own campaign. They started making lengthy backgrounds with plots and names and places that were frickin' boring as fuuuuu..because ultimately I had PCs and a campaign world that had all that stuff already. As for when that change came, I think it must have been around the late 80s, maybe a bit later. Being British I distincly remember White Dwarf adventures taking a nose dive around then..

It was earlier. TSR published Dragons of Despair in 1984. The same year, Hickman and Weis who introduced the railroad story adventure with Rahasia. I remember when I bought and read Rahasia at release, I recognized it as something new, and something that was not for me. There were no forums to define what was happening, and I doubt the term 'railroad' had been coined yet. But I called Rahasia an 'insert characters here' module. I read Dragons of Despair and recognized the same thing. Rahasia was the last TSR adventure I bought for almost a decade. It was clear that D&D was moving in an unwelcome direction, and I'd have to make up all more own adventures and settings going forward.

Quote from: Chris KellyHowever, the D&D community has moved on to a more comprehensive story/character driven role play experience.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040427Besides being a terrible review imho (YMMV) is this a good illustration of the difference between old and new schools?

Well, it certainly shows the damage that accepting "Roleplaying is shared storytelling" or "Roleplaying is playing a story" or similar definitions in books as "close enough" has done.  People like this idiot Kelly don't even realize that "Story" and "Character-Driven" aren't the same thing, in fact, work in opposition to each other, because the more Story the GM brings, the less driving the characters actually do.  Based on the description of that module, my PCs would be all-in and RPing the fuck out of it without needing text to tell them what they are thinking and feeling.

Generally speaking:
Old School is Roleplaying characters in a world we're experiencing.
New School is Roleplaying characters in a story we're telling.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1040451Old School is Roleplaying characters in a world we're experiencing.
New School is Roleplaying characters in a story we're telling.

I agree with the distinction just not the labels. It been a mixed bag for a while especially since the issue is mostly been one of presentation not rules. For example done way AD&D 1st edition is the ultimate sandbox RPG, done another way it wraps the campaign tightly in a story like with Dragonlance. Done in one way, Vampire the Masquerade wrap the character in the tragic story of a cursed existence being driven towards a apocalyptic end.  In another it is monsters with super powers beating the shit out of each other.

The only way force a set of RPG rules into a narrow narrative niche is to limit the scope of what the RPG handles. Rather than presenting rules to make any character in a setting or genre, presenting rules that only makes characters that fit a specific situation doing specific activities. Taken to extreme the result would the same as a scenario/module/adventure presented with a cut down a set of rules one can use to run  it.

As far as I am concerned what Dave Arneson developed in Blackmoor and what he did with Gygax in the publication of Dungeon & Dragon was an activity that allow people to pretend to be characters in a imagined setting doing interesting things that are fun. To call it storytelling is as nonsensical as going to a travel agent and asking them to make them a story about visiting the Eastern Mediterranean or the Caribbean islands.  

A tabletop roleplaying referee can make something that could be an interesting experience just like a good agent can select a series of destination and a method of travel that could be interesting to his client. But the story comes afterwards as the experience is recounted.

People were wowed by the idea of Star Trek's Holodeck and the idea of virtual reality circa 1990 but we had that with pen & paper since the early 70s thanks to Gygax and Arneson.

As usual, I don't disagree in any way, but also don't feel particularly threatened or off-put but others wanting to do something different. Gygax & Arneson also made a game about warriors/fighters (mostly, plus some wizards, etc.) where the goals (if there could be said to be one) included doing as little fighting as possible, and managing scarce resources and no small number of people almost immediately said 'well good if you want to do that, but I'm going to take these rules, ignore encumbrance for the most part and fight every monster I run into.' I will not pretend I don't feel that they missed out on a really fun game. But if they had fun with hacking and slashing, more power to them. The only thing I want is separate, semi-formal names people understand to distinguish the two, such that I can find the peeps interested in the same experience. Old and New School (and moreso 'storygaming' and 'traditional RPG') are poor terms to have landed on, but they serve as long as everyone knows what we're talking about.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040457AThe only thing I want is separate, semi-formal names people understand to distinguish the two, such that I can find the peeps interested in the same experience.

Yeah well people been trying to do that for a while. What muddies the waters is that the ideas behind tabletop roelplaying are just so darn flexible. And because of that people latch onto the rules as THE definition of this game is X and that game is Y. Which is the wrong thing to do because what makes a campaign X versus Y is what the players and referee choose to focus on and how they accomplish that. Hence my assertion that in one campaign AD&D 1st can be a experience about adventures in a fantasy setting and in another's a framework that a group use to tell a story about a characters in a fantasy setting.

To use a more recent example there nothing the rules that stops me from using Fate in the exact same manner as I do GURPS or OD&D for my Majestic Wilderlands. But the majority of the hobbyists that use it run campaigns that focuses more on narratives.

I think the best way is for you (or anybody) to do is the exact same thing that Wesely, Gygax, and Arneson did for their respective campaigns. Make a short punchy description of what the campaign is about and see who show up or in your case discusses things with you.

For example I would like to talk about setting formatted as a series of locations key to location on a hex map. Commonly known as the hexcrawl format.

Or I would like to talk about running a campaign where the setting has a life of it's own and while their larger event happening the focus is on the players driving the campaign by what they choose or not choose to do as their characters.

Or how about a campaign where we collaboratively build a setting together within the Old West of the United States. Then create some characters and adventure while rotating the referee duties between members of the group.

Back when I first started publishing hexcrawl formatted setting and material on sandbox campaign, the most popular terms in use were known only by a handful. So to get anyway I had to refine a short description to describe what I was presenting. Even to this date I find that short description far more useful then trying to push sandbox campaigns or hex crawl formatted settings.

Quote from: Tod13;1040446That was pretty good Mike.

Cheers! :cool:

Quote from: Tod13;1040446I like boxed text. For whatever reason, I do great ad-libbing of NPCs talking and coming up with conversations and personalities. (Although, I've had NPCs suddenly have a strange new accent after 2-3 session for some reason.)

But, I do horrible at room descriptions. So I like room descriptions. YMM(and does)V. ;)

Each to his own, but I think boxed text can be done well (concise, salient, evocative), so as to do what you mentioned.

OTOH it can be counter-productive if it is verbose, irrelevant, or just waffle.

Case in point: Grave of the Heartless by Morten Greis
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/227738/Grave-of-the-Heartless

It works, and the guy can write! For not being a native speaker of English he puts us native speakers to shame, imo.

kudos once again to Bryce for flagging this one

Quote from: estar;1040456As far as I am concerned what Dave Arneson developed in Blackmoor and what he did with Gygax in the publication of Dungeon & Dragon was an activity that allow people to pretend to be characters in a imagined setting doing interesting things that are fun. To call it storytelling is as nonsensical as going to a travel agent and asking them to make them a story about visiting the Eastern Mediterranean or the Caribbean islands.  

A tabletop roleplaying referee can make something that could be an interesting experience just like a good agent can select a series of destination and a method of travel that could be interesting to his client. But the story comes afterwards as the experience is recounted.

Yes, and even then, telling a story about at RPG experience is only sometimes done, and when it is, is mainly done as a way of remembering the experience and fun playing and being immersed in the game and  generally not for the story itself.

These seem like relatively accurate descriptions of most of my campaigns, and campaigns I mostly want to play in:

Quote from: estar;1040458... For example I would like to talk about setting formatted as a series of locations key to location on a hex map. Commonly known as the hexcrawl format.

Or I would like to talk about running a campaign where the setting has a life of it's own and while their larger event happening the focus is on the players driving the campaign by what they choose or not choose to do as their characters.

But as you wrote:

Quote from: estar;1040458Back when I first started publishing hexcrawl formatted setting and material on sandbox campaign, the most popular terms in use were known only by a handful. So to get anyway I had to refine a short description to describe what I was presenting. Even to this date I find that short description far more useful then trying to push sandbox campaigns or hex crawl formatted settings.

While some people might want to label my campaigns sandboxes and hex crawls, it seems like many people who use those terms seem to think they imply something a bit unlike what I tend to run, perhaps usually because they're familiar with campaigns where the GM has a story or plot arc in mind, and if there is a map, it's not really a very significant element of play.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040463Cheers! :cool:
Each to his own, but I think boxed text can be done well (concise, salient, evocative), so as to do what you mentioned.

OTOH it can be counter-productive if it is verbose, irrelevant, or just waffle.

True. I meant to indicate this when I indicated "room descriptions" as opposed to a wall of prose, but my coffee hadn't kicked in yet.

:) LOL
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2506[/ATTACH]

Ecco! Prego.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1040451Generally speaking:
Old School is Roleplaying characters in a world we're experiencing.
New School is Roleplaying characters in a story we're telling.

My personal experience is the other way around.  I started with characters using AD&D to tell a 'story'.

And frankly, it's a matter of taste.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040427Is this the official Goodrightfun now? Speak for yourself Kelly, my lad.

It's been the Official Goodrightfun at least since I wandered into the online hobby forums in 2003 or so.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040457As usual, I don't disagree in any way, but also don't feel particularly threatened or off-put but others wanting to do something different. Gygax & Arneson also made a game about warriors/fighters (mostly, plus some wizards, etc.) where the goals (if there could be said to be one) included doing as little fighting as possible, and managing scarce resources and no small number of people almost immediately said 'well good if you want to do that, but I'm going to take these rules, ignore encumbrance for the most part and fight every monster I run into.' I will not pretend I don't feel that they missed out on a really fun game. But if they had fun with hacking and slashing, more power to them. The only thing I want is separate, semi-formal names people understand to distinguish the two, such that I can find the peeps interested in the same experience. Old and New School (and moreso 'storygaming' and 'traditional RPG') are poor terms to have landed on, but they serve as long as everyone knows what we're talking about.

Yes, anybody can play the way they want.  But after 15 years of innumerable random peener-pullers on teh INTARwebs telling me I'm "doing it wrong" or "Those rules are objectively BAD" or "you only like that game for nostagia" (grrr!) I've just about fucking had it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040487Yes, anybody can play the way they want.  But after 15 years of innumerable random peener-pullers on teh INTARwebs telling me I'm "doing it wrong" or "Those rules are objectively BAD" or "you only like that game for nostagia" (grrr!) I've just about fucking had it.

Clearly. And that undoubtedly stinks. And the "you only like that game for nostagia" is just plain self-indulgent [strike]solipsistic[/strike] (possibly slight misuse of the term, just 'can't believe anyone would ever not have their own perspective') and insulting. That is horrible.

And I really don't mean to be insulting, but honestly, when not going out and chucking rocks at hornet's nests, how often does this really happen? Both you and Chris B on the other side of the line have undoubtedly-true senses of personal grievance at people telling you that this thing you like is bad that I am just amazed with. Is it really a constant thing? I mean, I get it, it's the internet. You get called a basement dwelling teenage neckbeard for voicing an opinion on the newest action movie in the wrong place. But stuff vaguely personally aimed?  

Maybe because I don't share as much, or because I genuinely don't have strong opinions on lots of issues others take very seriously, but I just don't have that experience and am amazed by both of yours'.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040479My personal experience is the other way around.  I started with characters using AD&D to tell a 'story'.

And frankly, it's a matter of taste.

As has been proven countless times (and will continue every time you post about it), anything you could possibly say about anything "Old School" is ridiculously incorrect.  In your posts, the inclusion of "AD&D" just tells readers to assume the exact opposite of what you're saying is true. :D

Quote from: Skarg;1040467While some people might want to label my campaigns sandboxes and hex crawls, it seems like many people who use those terms seem to think they imply something a bit unlike what I tend to run, perhaps usually because they're familiar with campaigns where the GM has a story or plot arc in mind, and if there is a map, it's not really a very significant element of play.

Yup, which is why if I use terms like sandbox campaigns I follow it by an explanatory paragraph and move on.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040490Maybe because I don't share as much, or because I genuinely don't have strong opinions on lots of issues others take very seriously, but I just don't have that experience and am amazed by both of yours'.

It is easy to get into a bubble. When I started blogging and publishing I got a lot more contrary opinions than I do now. And to be honest even when I was it was rare I got an outright argument about how I was doing it wrong. Most negative responses either ignored what I had to say, or just give the stare of incomprehension as some of the concepts I talk about were atypical to the experience of most hobbyists. They are still not common because the idea got spread around. Just like the number of people grew who played older editions of D&D grew. And the Internet has only gotten better at keeping people in touch.

Again it easy to get into a bubble.

As an aside the the final word on any of this stuff is what happens at an actual table. If a hobbyist gives me some of this time playing at my time, it far easier for me to show than write what I am talking about. Whether sandbox campaign, playing GURPS, playing OD&D, or whatever. But I only have so many hours in a day.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040490Clearly. And that undoubtedly stinks. And the "you only like that game for nostagia" is just plain elf-indulgent [strike]solipsistic[/strike] (possibly slight misuse of the term, just 'can't believe anyone would ever not have their own perspective') and insulting. That is horrible.

And I really don't mean to be insulting, but honestly, when not going out and chucking rocks at hornet's nests, how often does this really happen? Both you and Chris B on the other side of the line have undoubtedly-true senses of personal grievance at people telling you that this thing you like is bad that I am just amazed with. Is it really a constant thing? I mean, I get it, it's the internet. You get called a basement dwelling teenage neckbeard for voicing an opinion on the newest action movie in the wrong place. But stuff vaguely personally aimed?  

Maybe because I don't share as much, or because I genuinely don't have strong opinions on lots of issues others take very seriously, but I just don't have that experience and am amazed by both of yours'.

It doesn't happen here much.  In the past and at other forums, it has happened a lot.  Usually in the form of

"Old Game Stinks"
"Hey, I like Old Game"
"You're stupid and you smell bad!  Only stupid smelly people like Old Game!"

That's not as much an exaggeration as you might think.  And several years of that sort of shit, frankly, has put me in a bad temper.

Made worse by the fact that I now live in the fucking middle of nowhere with all my friends several hundred miles away.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040496Made worse by the fact that I now live in the fucking middle of nowhere with all my friends several hundred miles away.

I realize I may sticking my hand in the shredder here ;) But have you tried or consider something like Roll20 and VoIP app like Discord? That and Fantasy Ground earlier kept my original high school group gaming together since 2000 despite moves and overseas deployments.

Face to face is preferred but keeping geographically separate hobbyists together gaming is where the tech excels.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040496It doesn't happen here much.  In the past and at other forums, it has happened a lot.  Usually in the form of

"Old Game Stinks"
"Hey, I like Old Game"
"You're stupid and you smell bad!  Only stupid smelly people like Old Game!"

Change that to 'New School' and you have a lot of this forum.  And Ottawa.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040496That's not as much an exaggeration as you might think.  And several years of that sort of shit, frankly, has put me in a bad temper.

Getting old sucks.  I don't recommend it for anyone.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1040496Made worse by the fact that I now live in the fucking middle of nowhere with all my friends several hundred miles away.

Which is surprising to me, as buttfuck middle of nowhere tends to be the most conservative (as in they don't get new stuff as often as a major city, like where I live) is so against the 'tried and true'.  If anything, I've seen (as I've moved way too much in my life) small towns and villages double down on the older stuff, because it's what they know.  Unless, your town is relatively new, as in it's got a lot of young families.

Which is why the 'OLDER IS BETTER' attitude among gamers over here, in Canada's Capital, is exceedingly shocking to me.  You'd think a city with the amount of wealth we have they'd want to try the something new, for novelty's sake.  But nope.  It's all about Rules Cyclopedia at the youngest over here.  Anything else is New School and sucks donkey balls, and if you like anything past that, you're a donkey ball sucker.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040503It's all about Rules Cyclopedia at the oldest over here.

Sounds awesome.:eek: You have it good.:cool:

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040505Sounds awesome.:eek: You have it good.:cool:

Not really.  I mean, I've never actually played it more than a session (and I meant latest game, woe betide if you started with AD&D 1e or later.)  Thus that makes me, as per Gronan's tongue in cheek statement, 'A Stupid Smelly Person' around this forum and my town.  It's a little tiresome, but it's also 'You're doing it WRONG' insult that people say is bad, but label me all the time with.  One gets used to it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040508woe betide if you started with AD&D 1e or later.

BECMI (which was printed together as Rules Cyclopedia) and AD&D 1st edition were developed at the same time in what was described as a "two-pronged strategy."

Just thought you might like to know:D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons#Two-pronged_strategy

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040510BECMI (which was printed together as Rules Cyclopedia) and AD&D 1st edition were developed at the same time in what was described as a "two-pronged strategy."

Look, I'm not stating facts, I'm stating that people around here claim that anything after RC, which they lump in AD&D as after, is garbage and if you like ANYTHING after that, you are a garbage human.  Which sadly includes me.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040510BECMI (which was printed together as Rules Cyclopedia) and AD&D 1st edition were developed at the same time in what was described as a "two-pronged strategy."

Just thought you might like to know:D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons#Two-pronged_strategy

That wasn't BECMI.  That was Holmes.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040427Besides being a terrible review imho (YMMV) is this a good illustration of the difference between old and new schools?

Maybe I'm jaded by all the 70s and 80s movie reviews I read where you had to parse the critics' biases the way the old Iron Curtain citizens had to parse Pravda--but it sounds like a good review to me.  After you read it, you had a much better understanding of the product.  Granted, that was an unintentional byproduct of the reviewer's efforts, but it still happened. :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040503Which is surprising to me, as buttfuck middle of nowhere tends to be the most conservative (as in they don't get new stuff as often as a major city, like where I live) is so against the 'tried and true'.  If anything, I've seen (as I've moved way too much in my life) small towns and villages double down on the older stuff, because it's what they know.  Unless, your town is relatively new, as in it's got a lot of young families.

From 1973 to 2012 I lived in the largest city of every state I lived in; Minnesota, Massachusetts, and New York.

I am now in an area of 1265 square miles, with 18,000 some people, that voted 70% Trump, and a state that has gone Republican with Electoral votes every election since 1972.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1040513That wasn't BECMI.  That was Holmes.

Well if we can differentiate between D&D authors, then Rules Cyclopedia was Allston and that makes it over a decade older than AD&D 1st edition.:p

Point is Brady's compatriot players declaring AD&D 1st ed is not as aold as RC are mistken.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040512Look, I'm not stating facts, I'm stating that people around here claim that anything after RC, which they lump in AD&D as after, is garbage and if you like ANYTHING after that, you are a garbage human.  Which sadly includes me.

Wow. That's quite the anecdote.

Speaking of anecdotes, when I was in my teens, I watched the whole dichotomy develope through the pages of White Dwarf and Dragon Magazine letter pages, reviews and articles. I still have a lot of those magazines in print and there is no doubt in my mind that the coining of terms like "Monty Hall" , "Hack and Slash"  and "Dungeon Crawl" (like those used ine the review I posted) were deliberate distortions of the style of gaming that we now refer to as Old School.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040548Speaking of anecdotes, when I was in my teens, I watched the whole dichotomy develope through the pages of White Dwarf and Dragon Magazine letter pages, reviews and articles. I still have a lot of those magazines in print and there is no doubt in my mind that the coining of terms like "Monty Hall" , "Hack and Slash"  and "Dungeon Crawl" (like those used ine the review I posted) were deliberate distortions of the style of gaming that we now refer to as Old School.

It's ALL old school 'style'?  Because I've seen so many different gaming styles from various DMs over the years.

Quote from: estar;1040494It is easy to get into a bubble.

Clearly. And I am clearly in one (over in the 'how to play a supergenius' thread not long ago, I determined that I overestimated how many of us here were overcompensated, underchallenged IT nerds). Still, I am just a little amazed (and maybe even a little incredulous, thanks people for not getting offended).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040503Getting old sucks.  I don't recommend it for anyone.

I don't know which way to go with this, 'beats the alternative,' is the straightforward joke, but then there are Carrousel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_(film)) references that could be made. Oh, decisions... :p

QuoteWhich is why the 'OLDER IS BETTER' attitude among gamers over here, in Canada's Capital, is exceedingly shocking to me.  You'd think a city with the amount of wealth we have they'd want to try the something new, for novelty's sake.  But nope.  It's all about Rules Cyclopedia at the youngest over here.  Anything else is New School and sucks donkey balls, and if you like anything past that, you're a donkey ball sucker.

That is decidedly odd. We've established I don't have the social distribution of gamer demographics down pat, but the impression I get is, regardless of talks of old school resurgence or the like, 5e and PF are combined somewhere between 51% and 90% of the D&D gaming (which is 51% and 90% of the TTRPG gaming) out there at the moment. I wonder if it's one of those local phenomenons like Runequest ruling in the UK.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1040548Well if we can differentiate between D&D authors, then Rules Cyclopedia was Allston and that makes it over a decade older than AD&D 1st edition.

The general (arbitrary) distinction that is usually made is oD&D (being precursor to both lineages) and then 1e and 2e on the AD&D side, and the Holmes (B), Moldvay/Cook (B/X), and the BECMI (everything after, starting with the Mentzer boxed sets). For whatever reason, RC and the 90s intro boxed sets are rolled into Mentzer.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040577Clearly. And I am clearly in one (over in the 'how to play a supergenius' thread not long ago, I determined that I overestimated how many of us here were overcompensated, underchallenged IT nerds). Still, I am just a little amazed (and maybe even a little incredulous, thanks people for not getting offended).

Being in a bubble is not necessarily bad.  Think about the default mode of playing RPGs as a hobby. Sitting around a table (or a screen with in the case of a VTT) with a small group of friends for months on end. The fact we are interacting with the larger hobby makes us the weird ones.

One of the only thing I would call an issue for a specific hobbyist is not being aware of the above. The flexibility of RPGs means there are lot of "right" ways of running a campaign. Which is the other thing I consider an issue among many hobbyists, that the way you play now is not the only way to achieve the things you like about a campaign. That over the long haul it pays to be flexible and that RPGs by their nature are kit-bashes of disparate elements. For example if I ever run another Majestic Wilderlands campaign using GURPS it would benefit from all the work I did while running the Majestic Wilderlands with OD&D.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040577That is decidedly odd. We've established I don't have the social distribution of gamer demographics down pat, but the impression I get is, regardless of talks of old school resurgence or the like, 5e and PF are combined somewhere between 51% and 90% of the D&D gaming (which is 51% and 90% of the TTRPG gaming) out there at the moment. I wonder if it's one of those local phenomenons like Runequest ruling in the UK.

If you lived in Pittsburgh in the late 80s you will would think that Palladium and Rifts were king of the hill and TSR was a has been.

SO yes Chris B is seeing a local phenomenon.

If you want to see what a look at how a group centered on a game store in a rural area looks like then check out the monthly schedule of the Gold Stars Gamer Guild. But keep in mind it represents what that group of 20 or so hobbyists like. If you move 15 miles south to the game store in my town it 5th edition, and adventurer's league all the time. If you move north towards Erie, PA the fourth largest city in PA, then you will see a lot of board games due to the Erie Gamer's Guild who runs Erie Day of Gaming. Along with Magic the Gathering and other collectible game. The prime source of tabletop roleplaying material is a used bookstore with no space for gaming tables.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/209358555776191/

If you move 30 miles to the west to Lorian, then you run into a game store whose owner goes out of his way to collect and sell OSR and other all small publisher material.

Meanwhile there are dozens of small groups that I know of that never pops up at any of these places except to buy something.

The above is why I long gotten into the habit of working something like this into my works and post. "This is some things I wrote to use at my table, hope you find it useful.".

Not to say there isn't some common elements found among all these gamers. But that mostly has to do with how rules and products are presented and what they get for the price rather than specific types of mechanics, settings, and genres.

It can be either way. 1st ed AD&D is old school (AFAIK), and I find those rules hopelessly Byzantine. I have to admit that I would probably figure it out if I liked it (Rolemaster and Artesia are also complex, and that didn't daunt me), but I guess I don't.

Quote from: Trond;1040687It can be either way. 1st ed AD&D is old school (AFAIK), and I find those rules hopelessly Byzantine. I have to admit that I would probably figure it out if I liked it (Rolemaster and Artesia are also complex, and that didn't daunt me), but I guess I don't.

According to this forum.  You are wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1040704According to this forum.  You are wrong.

That's OK, this forum has occasionally been known to be wrong before :D

Quote from: Trond;1040715That's OK, this forum has occasionally been known to be wrong before :D

Amen, Bruh, amen.  :D

Good games continue to be good, regardless of age.
New games that are good are also good.

There is also a LOT of territory between "sandbox" and "railroad", both are terms with too much baggage.

My experience is that players like having a overarching situation but the freedom to approach it however they want. Neither Sandbox or railroad describes it.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1040752My experience is that players like having a overarching situation but the freedom to approach it however they want. Neither Sandbox or railroad describes it.

My players are like this. They like having a mission. Sometimes the first step in a mission is to convince the other characters to participate. :D

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1040752My experience is that players like having a overarching situation but the freedom to approach it however they want. Neither Sandbox or railroad describes it.

Take a page from computer game design: "freeform" and "non-linear". You can railroad the shit out of your players but so long as you offer them multiple ways to finish the scenario, they won't give a crap. Or, you can present your players with a metric shit-ton of possible missions... but all of them have to be solved in a specific way -- again, you could do this and your players will be cool since they get to choose the one they do.

I personally favor the former approach but so long as I'm doing either of these or a blend, I'm doing my game and my players justice. I tend to stay away from the term "sandbox": this isn't the X-series or GTA, we're playing fucking vampgames.

You know, if they are:

• free to choose their mission
• define their own 'success'
• abort said mission if it no longer suits their motivation
• you the DM will not steer them or the world in such a way as to get them back into the mission if they deviate from it, and
• the rest of the world keeps going on as it would outside of the mission (although probably with less high-resolution/thought put into it)

then I don't see how that is not compatible with the concept of sandbox gaming.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1040752My experience is that players like having a overarching situation but the freedom to approach it however they want. Neither Sandbox or railroad describes it.

"Sandpark" is the term I've heard most used for that.  Not quite a sandbox, not quite a themepark.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1040752My experience is that players like having a overarching situation but the freedom to approach it however they want. Neither Sandbox or railroad describes it.

Same, actually.  May players grew up on Lord of The Rings and it's Adventure Coupon style of adventure, but like you say, they want the freedom to approach it anyway they can.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1040746There is also a LOT of territory between "sandbox" and "railroad", both are terms with too much baggage.

My general rule is that if I am going to railroad the characters, the adventure has to take place on a train.

Quote from: Krimson;1041115My general rule is that if I am going to railroad the characters, the adventure has to take place on a train.

Well played!  May I steal steal that?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1041122Well played!  May I steal steal that?

Sure. Adventures on trains can be great fun. You can have preplanned encounters and players are fine with it.

Quote from: Krimson;1041124Sure. Adventures on trains can be great fun. You can have preplanned encounters and players are fine with it.

Running a Savage Worlds Rippers game, and the players had to deal with a murder on the Orient Express, a month ago?  I think. :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1041127Running a Savage Worlds Rippers game, and the players had to deal with a murder on the Orient Express, a month ago?  I think. :)

The last Forgotten Realms game I ran had players who were very well versed in the novels. I threw them for a loop by starting the game at the Waterdeep Station in around 1850 DR, and the train was the Kara Tur Express. :D

Awesome! I could see some amazing FR/FFVII mash up right there!

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040577Clearly. And I am clearly in one (over in the 'how to play a supergenius' thread not long ago, I determined that I overestimated how many of us here were overcompensated, underchallenged IT nerds). Still, I am just a little amazed (and maybe even a little incredulous, thanks people for not getting offended).

I was an undercompensated underchallenged Humanities nerd.