Quote from: Akrasia;281601I'm accomplishing "having a good time with my friends."  It's not really that hard to understand.

I've been running a 0e D&D campaign with a couple of old friends using Swords & Wizardry since New Year's day.  It was easy for us to get cheap copies from Lulu.  (The 0e D&D rules are expensive these days, and although I own a box set, I would rather not use it at the game.)  S&W is more clearly and better organized than the 3LBB + supplements.  The game itself plays fast and fun -- just right for a few tired gamers in their late 30s on a weeknight.  It's exactly what we want in a FRPG.

Really, it's extremely simple.  Retro-clones are both free (or cheap, if you want a print version) and fun.  I don't understand the opposition.

Spot on.  

If I had the wherewithal to print out OSRIC or S&W, it's a matter of minutes to print the pages that get torn or spilled on, and it's back to the game.  And you can break out sections of OSRIC into separate folders, if you choose.  Less than a $1 for a report cover, or a couple of bucks if you want a nice one.  No need to cram all 300+ pages into one heavy duty ledger book or somesuch.

Quote from: RandallS;281614Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to recapture anything. Those old days never really went away for me. I tried 3e and 4e, found them not to my taste and continued playing what I had always been playing.

Agreed 100%.  It is a matter of using simple rules to introduce new players on the one hand, and a matter of using well-known rules for a session that is, perforce, shorter due to the other constraints of adult life.  In high school I could blow off 12hrs on Saturday and wrap it up with another six the next day.  Which could very well have been noon on Saturday until 6am on Sunday.

It also lends itself to online play, as has been mentioned.  I have several players in my PbP here using OSRIC, as they were unable to find their old books, or never had them to begin with.  Everyone can use the same rules because they are all available online.

Quote from: Lawbag;281594Ultimately you need to ask yourself what you are seeking to accomplish by going old school anyhow? An attempt to recapture those halcyon days? Its not going to happen, we are too jaded for that. They only way it will happen is by recruiting a new bunch of players or teaching your children to play.

I never really caught onto the "new school." I got out of gaming almost completely when 2e started with the kits and options and all that. I never went White Wolf. I just... stopped.

And looking back, my "halcyon days" were absolute crap. I had no idea what I was doing back in the 80s and early 90s. I would never want to recreate those days.

With the networking the internet allows to have contacts with the veterans of the gaming scene, not to mention gaining knowledge about how and why the game was designed the way it was, I'm able to run my D&D games better in every way (enjoyment, organization, knowledge of how the rules work), all without touching any core rules made after 1983 (counting the simulacra as restatements and not "new rules").

If I only knew then what I know now...

Quote from: JimLotFP;281631And looking back, my "halcyon days" were absolute crap...With the networking the internet allows to have contacts with the veterans of the gaming scene, not to mention gaining knowledge about how and why the game was designed the way it was, I'm able to run my D&D games better in every way...If I only knew then what I know now...

That point resonates with me.  I wouldn't go so far as to say my gaming was crap, back in the day, but I do understand the philosophy and assumptions behind the old systems much, much better, now, and consequently I run a much better game than I used to.  That "if I only knew then what I know now" is spot on.

I aspire to "If I only knew then what I know now..." in the sense I hope one day to be master of my craft enough to say that. I've been GMing longer than I care to mention and I've learned a lot along the way but I just never seem to get to that point where I can say "I know what I am doing here and it works."

Sort of off topic, sorry.

Quote from: Soylent Green;281641I aspire to "If I only knew then what I know now..." in the sense I hope one day to be master of my craft enough to say that. I've been GMing longer than I care to mention and I've learned a lot along the way but I just never seem to get to that point where I can say "I know what I am doing here and it works."

Sort of off topic, sorry.

It's a continuing process. Five years from now I hope to look back at my current games and know I'm doing it so much better. I'm just finishing up a blog post noting some mistakes and not-so-good pacing in my game last Friday. It's never perfected. I just hope in five years I don't consider my current games total crap. (then again, the games I do consider total crap... come on, I was a self-taught pre-teen gamer... that is not a combination that signifies quality.

Quote from: estar;281587The problem I see with FtA! is that it has failed to gain any type of traction among the old school market like Mutant Future has. I rarely see any conversation about in any of the old school forums. Does anybody know if T&T fans are aware of FtA!.

Mutant Future has several hooks:  

It's evocative of early Gamma World
It's based on Basic D&D rules
It's free - go take a look for yourself
And of course it's a well-written, high quality product
Plus Dan Proctor is well known as a nice guy, which I think makes a different among active members of the Internet RPG community

Assuming FTA is also a high quality product, if it were free it could reasonably hope to gain the sort of attention Mazes & Minotaurs has.   But it needs to be marketed, it needs hooks to bring people in.  And T&T is a much less successful game than D&D, so 'like T&T' or even 'like Nethack' is less of a hook, I think.

Quote from: HinterWelt;281580Now, do not get me wrong, yes, you could house rule it...or you could try a system that has it built in from the get go. Neither is "right" or "wrong" but more a case of preference.

Generally, I'd rather house rule it than change from a game that works well for me to another game that might not (without a lot of house rules to make to do what I want it to do). Of course, I got my start with OD&D which was intended for house rules. In fact, making up needed rules was considered part of the fun of being DM so I've never considered the RAW to be holy writ in any RPG.  

To be blunt, I have a hard time understanding those who do consider the RAW holy writ, especially as I firmly believe that RPG rules should be adapted to fit the campaign world and not the campaign world bent and warped to fit the rules. I do understand that others feel differently and respect that (by not inviting them to my games ), but I cannot begin to understand why they feel as they do. It's my job as GM to run a game (and a campaign world) that works for my players and the original designer of the game wasn't designing the rules for my homebrew world or the specific needs of my players -- changing the RAW to work for my world and players is part of my job as GM.

Quote from: Lawbag;281594Ultimately you need to ask yourself what you are seeking to accomplish by going old school anyhow?

As with all games, to have fun.

Quote from: LawbagIts not going to happen, we are too jaded for that.

Speak for yourself.

Quote from: LawbagThey only way it will happen is by recruiting a new bunch of players or teaching your children to play.

For an rpg to feel fresh and new to a person, the person doesn't have to be entirely new to roleplaying. It's enough that they're new to this particular rpg, or that it's presented to them in a new and lively way, and that a few people in the group are enthusiastic about it.

Quote from: AkrasiaReally, it's extremely simple. Retro-clones are both free (or cheap, if you want a print version) and fun. I don't understand the opposition.

Some people don't like an rpg free market, or a game group free market. They want a monopoly of their favourite game, or perhaps an oligopoly of their favourite three or four. They don't like the competition. I love the competition, because it means lots of new ideas get tossed out there, and old ideas presented in a new way, and it keeps me on my toes and encourages me to be a better, more enthusiastic, more interesting and fun GM and player.

Quote from: RandallS;281650Generally, I'd rather house rule it than change from a game that works well for me to another game that might not (without a lot of house rules to make to do what I want it to do). Of course, I got my start with OD&D which was intended for house rules. In fact, making up needed rules was considered part of the fun of being DM so I've never considered the RAW to be holy writ in any RPG.  

I know a game publisher is supposed to tell you how you NEED the latest rules but I agree with you entirely. This is possible for some folks...and not for others. Some folks are quite happy with the system they play...others are looking for something new or different...and when they switch, they may end up playing that game forever more very happily. If you can house rule something (and to be honest, hit locations is just one dear to my heart and pretty easy to graft to any system) then hell yes, you should stick with that system you enjoy. Why? Because it may have a load of other elements you are very happy with.

However, I just started gaming last week so I don't know anything about "old school"...what is this "b-a-s-i-c D-And-D" you speak of?

Quote from: RandallS;281650To be blunt, I have a hard time understanding those who do consider the RAW holy writ, especially as I firmly believe that RPG rules should be adapted to fit the campaign world and not the campaign world bent and warped to fit the rules. I do understand that others feel differently and respect that (by not inviting them to my games ), but I cannot begin to understand why they feel as they do. It's my job as GM to run a game (and a campaign world) that works for my players and the original designer of the game wasn't designing the rules for my homebrew world or the specific needs of my players -- changing the RAW to work for my world and players is part of my job as GM.

Rules as written is a phenomenon I am just as confounded by. I assume it is a level of comfort thing. Don't get me wrong, to have common ground it is convenient to have a central reference. The RAW is just that to me. If you come to my game table you will not find me playing Iridium as written...yes, I house rule my own system. :eek:

I would argue though, that rather than campaign world, it would be group that you would be houseruling for. If the group (and that includes GM) think that you need specialized rules for swimming, then you should make them. Sure, the setting is part of that and a consideration but it really comes down to what the group wants to do and be able to do.

That said I find rules should support the setting, not be defined by them. But, maybe, that is a discussion for another thread.

I don't have an issue with house rules as such as it someone choosing to customise the style of their campaign. I do however expect the rules as written to be sensible and playable. What is often missed out in these discussions is that you often find out that you need a house rule at the worse possible moment - right smack in the middle of a game.

I like the Gamma World setting very much. However the rules ( was working off the 4th edition at the time) are a mess. When I started running Gamma World I hit a lot f problems.  I went through a long painful process full of false starts and mesed up games until finally at the end of it I ended up with a set of house rules which made the game work for me.  

These days I just don't think I'd have the time and patience to put up with that.

Quote from: HinterWelt;281656I know a game publisher is supposed to tell you how you NEED the latest rules but I agree with you entirely.

I used to think that way and I ended up with a room full of games that I never played and probably never would play. About 1990, I learned my lesson.

QuoteHowever, I just started gaming last week so I don't know anything about "old school"...what is this "b-a-s-i-c D-And-D" you speak of?

LOL.

QuoteI would argue though, that rather than campaign world, it would be group that you would be houseruling for.

I do both. For example, my Arn world requires arcane magic to be different from divine magic and both have to be different than psionics.  If I and my group want to play in Arn and use a game system that doesn't have that separation, I'm going to have to houserule the system so that the rules fit the campaign world (as I am not going to rewrite my campaign world to fit a set of rules).

Quote from: S'mon;281509Is there a free intro or 'lite' version of FTA! available?  I'd like to be able to check it out.

There's a small sample PDF over in the FtA! website on Flying Mice's pages; and a combat and stunt cheat sheet.  That's the closest it gets.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JimLotFP;281561Pundit's rants are pretty shitty when they're just a plug for his own product.

I love how the simulacra movement undermines the niche that FTA! is apparently supposed to fill (a "normal game" in the "war against the swine"), and instead of dealing with it, it is seen as a negative.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're a "Negative" in the sense of them harming the industry or something (like I feel Swine games do); I just think that they're pointless and don't personally like them.

QuoteThe entire idea behind the simulacra is that there is no reason to play another game. D&D, the real kinds (OD&D up through the pre-kitted 2e, all approximately the same game and cross-compatible), works just fine and doesn't need to be "updated" or "modernized."

Except that's my argument for why we DON'T need "Castles & Crusades", "Labyrinth Lord" or any of those other retro-clones, the originals still exist and don't need updating.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spinachcat;281273I highly suggest reading Matt Finch's A Quick Primer to Old School Gaming (its free)
http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

How utterly self-serving that thing was. Wow. Can you say, "Our way is the right way, this new stuff is the wrong way"?

That's like the "old school gamers" who argue that because the original D&Ds basically only had combat rules that the game was really anti-combat and mainly focused on role-playing.

Utter, utter nonsense.

Quote from: S'mon;281648And T&T is a much less successful game than D&D, so 'like T&T' or even 'like Nethack' is less of a hook, I think.

Personally I think that if some FtA! fan were to want to try to promote FtA! seriously, they'd probably do better going and promoting it on Roguelike/Nethack fan forums than on T&T fan forums (if indeed the latter even exist?).

RPGPundit