TheRPGSite

I have always loved the basic D&D red book.  Sure, I fiddle with the Thief skills and houserule a bit here and there, but overall, I have found that book terrific fun.

It only goes to Level 3.  Then you gotta buy the Blue Book.

Or not.

Decades ago on a whim, I ran a Red Book Only campaign and built the campaign world on the concept that 3rd level was the highest level of any PC or NPC.   I've chatted about it on Dragonsfoot, but not here.  I have done several RBO campaigns since then and its been a blast.

Over the years, that world has probably become my favorite fantasy creation.   I love the thought experiment of saying "here are all my playing pieces, what can I build?" and working within the strict limitations has been really awesome.

But what about players?  

There is no question that players who game because they love leveling are not going to enjoy my RBO campaign.  Instead, I draw players who want more of a gritty, grubby Sword & Sorcery feel where its about amassing worldly power via followers, influence and gold.  

Of course, these players are cool with the PC meat grinder.   The Red Book is full of nasty, nasty monsters way beyond 3rd levelers.  En masse adventuring, scouting before ambushing and fleeing are smart tactics that RBO players really enjoy.

And yes, they fight dragons...even slayed a few.

Sounds fun. Have you put any of your world online?

Going about slaying (adult) dragons with 3rd level characters in a Mentzer game certainly would feel like a challenge! Original tactics, use of decoys and troops and cunning and all these things which do not directly rely on the numbers on a character sheet would be paramount.

There is no doubt in my mind I would love to play such a game. :)

Pnakotic Ruins (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=45943), the S&W White Box/Holmes megadungeon campaign I am playing in seems relevant to this topic. :)

(Although there is bit of a safety net to keep death less of an everyday occurence, even if the characters are antisocial assholes who deserve everything they get.)

[edit]Here is a good Dragonsfoot thread (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=27128) on the subject[/edit]

That's a cool idea.  the hp implications alone would have a big effect on the game.  No miraculous healing, not even cure disease or neutralize poison.  
 
I'd be a bit stingy with XP and maybe throw in cantrips rules.  I'd also throw out 90% of permanent magic items, makign the remaining ones unique or from gods.

I did a lot of that with Holmes, which I think had a broader range of monsters than either Moldvay or Mentzer.

It's more like most of the mythology, fairy tales, and classic heroic fantasy with which I'm acquainted. Rather than mowing down mobs of dragons and giants to work up a sweat, heroes are likely to be known for outwitting truly legendary monsters -- THE Dragon or The Giant, at least this side of whatever defines the horizon.

There are endless possibilities for unique or frangible magics to take the place of the "common technology" that more standard spells by level would otherwise be.

Quote from: danbuter;447496Sounds fun. Have you put any of your world online?

I keep debating about making it a PDF/POD.  I'd combine it with my own retroclone based on the houserules I've used.  I also debate making it for S&W or LL as well if either develops FLGS market penetration where that tying to one system is better than just calling it "compatible with the Original Fantasy RPG"  

Quote from: Nicephorus;447508the hp implications alone would have a big effect on the game.  No miraculous healing, not even cure disease or neutralize poison.

Sometimes I use CON score as the base HP for PCs.  I use this when I have players who want more meaty, long term characters.   OR you get to reroll HP at the end of the game session.  If your new roll is higher than your current max HP, that roll becomes your new HP. If not, you keep your old HP.

I have also dorked around with PCs get Max HP which seems to be the mid-ground between rolling and CON as base.  

I have had Cure Wounds spell will cure poison, paralysis and disease. Overall, I've gone back and forth on this, sometimes just having the Cure spell give a second saving throw instead of curing those conditions.   It empowers Cure Spells notably, but a 3rd level Cleric with 18 Wis in my game will only have 4 spells....and its not for sure he'll have all cures.  

My gods are fickle.  Clerics don't choose spells, the gods send them to the cleric as potential omens.   Each god has their own 6 favorite spells and the cleric rolls 1D6 per spell slot to see what the god sends.   Its very cool because it reinforces that the cleric is a servant of a divine power whereas the Mage is all about knowledge and self-determination.

Quote from: Nicephorus;447508I'd be a bit stingy with XP and maybe throw in cantrips rules.  I'd also throw out 90% of permanent magic items, makign the remaining ones unique or from gods.

You don't need to be stingy with XP.  PCs die like rats in a blender most of the time.  Usually, it takes them 6-7 sessions to hit 3rd level and then they are like gods...until they meet 12 Orcs and need to reroll a new dude.

I do something akin to what is mentioned in Melan's Pnakotic Ruins thread.  A mage who knows a spell gets to do cantrip versions of known spells that he loaded into his head that day and the cantrip power lingers until the mage sleeps.  So if you know Light and Sleep, you could make a mouse or bug fall asleep or make your finger glow.  

The big thing for mages are scribing scrolls and brewing potions.  I let them write them for 100 gold / level with a week of scribbling, but require various monster bits for potions and inks.  

Also, I allow the recharging of wands and staves.  

As for permanent items, they are from the gods or from some ancient time.  
The Red Book has listing of a couple higher level spells and players have found a few of these awesome artifacts of power, usually carved into ancient tablets which disintegrate once used.  

I have flip-flopped on the magic item charts repeatedly.  For some campaigns, I have done RBO and not deviated from listed magic.  However, I find myself prefering unique magic items, but I flipflop.

Quote from: Melan;447499Pnakotic Ruins (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=45943), the S&W White Box/Holmes megadungeon campaign I am playing in seems relevant to this topic. :)

THAT is an awesome thread!

I really do not get the point of this.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;447696I really do not get the point of this.

Nor do I.

Low-level play is quite fun and challenging. But in the normal course of Red Box D&D, it will take many adventures, and probably several PC deaths (or TPKs) to get to level 3 anyway. So why prolong it? Even level 3 PCs are pretty fragile, so the mortality rate is still high. A party of level 3 PCs probably won't have a very long lifespan until it's time to make new PCs anyway.

I guess since my group always started PCs at level 1, and played quite deadly games, we were already playing about 70 per cent of our D&D at levels 1-3. I just don't see the merit in staying in that mode perpetually.

It strikes me as just another symptom of the ultra-orthodox streak running through the old-school community these days, fasting and wearing hair shirts as some sort of testament to self-denial.

Quote from: Haffrung;447788Low-level play is quite fun and challenging. But in the normal course of Red Box D&D, it will take many adventures, and probably several PC deaths (or TPKs) to get to level 3 anyway. So why prolong it? Even level 3 PCs are pretty fragile, so the mortality rate is still high. A party of level 3 PCs probably won't have a very long lifespan until it's time to make new PCs anyway.

That makes a lot of assumptions about play style and setting.  Suppose a historical fantasy setting with few monsters and focused mainly on court intrique. High level spells won't fit in.
 
The reason for cutting off advancement for any level is simple.  If you really like D&D but either like the feeling of a particular level or you want to mimic a particular setting, going on to super hero levels kills it.

Quote from: Haffrung;447788It strikes me as just another symptom of the ultra-orthodox streak running through the old-school community these days, fasting and wearing hair shirts as some sort of testament to self-denial.

Like you ascetics who choose to play up to 40th level instead of starting there, eh? It's all relative, man.

I guess that to you it must be severe masochism that leads people to play games that don't involve wielding superhuman powers at all, such as those set nominally in the real/ historical world (En Garde, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gangbusters, etc.).

It couldn't be that people just happen to find such games fun, could it?

Quote from: Haffrung;447788It strikes me as just another symptom of the ultra-orthodox streak running through the old-school community these days, fasting and wearing hair shirts as some sort of testament to self-denial.

LOL Whatever, mate! :D

Quote from: Melan;447499(Although there is bit of a safety net to keep death less of an everyday occurence, even if the characters are antisocial assholes who deserve everything they get.)

It's a lot to read. Can you point to where the safety net is detailed?

About this general mode of play, I'm not sure I'd use D&D, but a D&D-based system (classes, hit points, AC) with characters all at the equivalent of 3rd level--or starting at 1st and progressing no farther than 3rd --seems like it should work if Traveller works.

Quote from: Phillip;447814Like you ascetics who choose to play up to 40th level instead of starting there, eh? It's all relative, man.

I guess you didn't bother to read my whole post. Like the part where I say that 70 per cent of the D&D I've played and DMed has been levels 1-3.

But thanks for assuming that I'm a powergamer. You've just supplied more evidence for my theory that much of the sensibility of today's old-school movement is nothing more than a bitterly orthodox reaction to changes in modern game styles.

And no,  I don't play 4E. And I only played 3E briefly. I play a home-brew variant of Moldvay Basic. I'm on-board with old-school approaches to D&D. But I find it difficult to stomach the frankly absurd levels of conservatism that a lot of old-schoolers are advocating these days.

A lot of D&D grognards on these boards seem to aspire to be more old-school than anyone really was 30 years ago. It's like some sort of competition to see who can promote the most stripped-down, lethal, low-power, sandbox variant of D&D. I didn't see that on forums 7 or 8 years ago.

Quote from: HaffrungBut thanks for assuming that I'm a powergamer.

I didn't, but thanks for the unwarranted assertion that seems only further to emphasize the snobbery of your position.

What I did was point out the silliness of proclaiming any one particular range of superhuman stuff thrown in as incumbent on all who would not be labeled either as devotees of "fasting and wearing hair shirts as some sort of testament to self-denial" or (to the other side of your arbitrary sub-set) as "powergamers".

QuoteA lot of D&D grognards on these boards seem to aspire to be more old-school than anyone really was 30 years ago.

This has nothing to do with "being old school".

It has a lot to do with games that I actually played both 33-34 years ago and more recently.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447696I really do not get the point of this.

For me, it started as an experiment.  

In the early 80s, our group played a metric shit ton of RuneQuest and Arduin.   In RQ, even a Rune Lord or a Rune Priest could easily be taken down.  BRP is vicious and it kept the mortality high.  Arduin bolted to AD&D was high level, nigh-demigod insanity that I now duplicate in Rifts and Phase World.  

I have heard lots about people playing campaigns that have lasted many years or even a decade.  That's not been my experience.  Our groups were always very ADD and short arc campaigns were always best for us.    One year / 50 sessions was about as long as it ever got and realistically six months was a better time frame.  

I think my first RBO campaign was a summer home from college and it was all about a creative writing experiment of taking limited resources (the Red Book) and building an interesting campaign world.   To my delight, my players loved the idea and I've run it with several other groups since then.  

It has nothing to do with orthodoxy.

Quote from: SpinachcatArduin bolted to AD&D was high level, nigh-demigod insanity that I now duplicate in Rifts and Phase World.

So potentially was AD&D without Arduin, only IIRC
(A) Levels meant less in proportion with the Runes of Doom hit point rules (and the Arduin attack/ save/ turn/ etc. tables).
(B) It was harder to get the most from magic with Arduin rules for mana and higher level spells (with higher intelligence prerequisites) -- sort of like T&T.
(C) There were more monsters and stuff to challenge what would be literally godlike in AD&D. "Nigh-demigod" was no longer merely 10th, 20th or even 30th level.

I think the experience rules in Arduin made it easier (considered on their own) to advance to very high levels. On one hand, there were fewer points earned because you got none for most treasures and only 375 for Satan's own pitchfork, while points for monster slaying were in the same ballpark as AD&D. On the other hand, it took only about 2 million points to reach 105th level and maybe 60,000 per level thereafter (YMMV by character type).

The big question might be how often your DM had critical hits come up!

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt's a lot to read. Can you point to where the safety net is detailed?

About this general mode of play, I'm not sure I'd use D&D, but a D&D-based system (classes, hit points, AC) with characters all at the equivalent of 3rd level--or starting at 1st and progressing no farther than 3rd --seems like it should work if Traveller works.

Basically,
1) Characters don't die at 0 Hp, but at minus something (1/2 Con? Something like that)
2) Characters are slightly more powerful, i.e. spellcasters do get extra spells, and can over-memorise with some risk, plus spells have secondary effects.
3) Devices like drinking brandy healing you, helmets/shields protecting vs. critical hits etc. are used in the system.
4) We have been able to run away when the situation was really rough.
So it's not a "first level game" by the orthodox standard, and not the remorseless slaughterfest I initially expected.

I am enjoying it a lot, though; we are accustomed to slightly higher-powered gaming (I start campaigns at third level), and it is an interesting change of pace. Very little character advancement, but there is the joy of exploration, using mundane equipment to solve dungeon puzzles and so forth.

Quote from: Haffrung;447833A lot of D&D grognards on these boards seem to aspire to be more old-school than anyone really was 30 years ago. It's like some sort of competition to see who can promote the most stripped-down, lethal, low-power, sandbox variant of D&D. I didn't see that on forums 7 or 8 years ago.

Sometimes, yeah, that is true, much like people, including fans and detractors, assuming the existence of Tomb of Horrors implies classical D&D is all Tomb of Horrors all the time. But then looking back to 7-8 years ago, what Necromancer Games was offering wasn't exactly "1e" either - it was a revisionary, more metal reconstruction.

It definitely has fuck all to do with Orthodoxy.  Back in the olden days, we couldn't fucking wait to be 9th or 12th or 20th level.

This whole "E-number" thing may be some kind of utterly made-up pseudo-nostalgia, but its the farthest thing from genuine old-school that I can imagine.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;447917It definitely has fuck all to do with Orthodoxy.

It's just in Haffrung's head. Nobody said squat about orthodoxy or nostalgia.
This has really nothing to do with any such thing.

Could it be that -gasp!- it could be fun to play for some of us? Un-believable! ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;447917It definitely has fuck all to do with Orthodoxy.  Back in the olden days, we couldn't fucking wait to be 9th or 12th or 20th level.

We couldn't wait, either, but we never achieved it, because unless your DM was a wuss who fudged everything, nobody made it past 5th level anyway.

The characters were limited in level by mortality. Limiting them in level by rules seems to me... redundant.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447917This whole "E-number" thing may be some kind of utterly made-up pseudo-nostalgia, but its the farthest thing from genuine old-school that I can imagine.

Well, could it be we don't strive to be 100% genuine old-school; rather, use the stuff that appeals to us and change the stuff that doesn't? Just like, you know, most sensible roleplayers? :hmm:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;447931The characters were limited in level by mortality. Limiting them in level by rules seems to me... redundant.

In most AD&D campaigns I have been part of, 5th-6th level was where a character could expect to find some way to be raised from the dead. Usually through a quest, and of course it wasn't always available, but for long-running characters, it was already a possibility. Baseline AD&D implied a fairly magic-rich world. Now 1st to 3rd level characters - yeah, they dropped like flies, and weren't worth bothering with once they did. That splat factor, at least to us, was a major part of the fun.

It's just a game, neither more nor less arbitrary than the mass of other games.

If you prefer another game, then fine; play it! I happen to enjoy Advanced D&D, as well -- but even if I did not then I would not find it necessary to accuse those who do of being fanatics for choosing it instead of Arduin.

It's not The Word of God that there must be exactly 7 levels of cleric spells and 9 levels of magic-user spells, or that the combat tables must have so many entries for fighting men and only so many fewer for magic-users, or whatever.

I very much doubt that, left to their own resources of imagination, the One True Way faction would have come up with those factors in the first place. If D&D Supplement I had never been published, or if this part of it had not been included in AD&D, then they would probably be railing against the "power game" heresy of spells beyond cleric 5th and m-u 6th.

And if Holmes or Moldvay had been THE Dungeons & Dragons game? Yep. You've guessed it, haven't you?

Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does -- and it ain't the Blue Book and Red Book players who are doing it here!

I never thought about Red Book only games. But in effect, my D&D games were Red Book/Blue Book only affairs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;447931We couldn't wait, either, but we never achieved it, because unless your DM was a wuss who fudged everything, nobody made it past 5th level anyway.

The characters were limited in level by mortality. Limiting them in level by rules seems to me... redundant.

That kind of mirrors my experience.

In my games it was not mortality but the experience point ratio. Even in AD&D, Level 5-7 was the highest I ever saw in my longer, ongoing campaigns, and the only level 12 character I ever played was specifically created for that adventure because the DM wanted to run us through Tsoycanth.
(We also never bothered with demihuman level limits. In actual play it didn't matter whether they were in effect or not.)

That said, I perfectly understand the notion of limiting the play level to the "sweet spot" (wherever that may be for any given group). So Red Book E3? Third Edition E6? High Level RIFTS? Go play!

Personally, I could live with a S&S Core book that went only to level 10. Lower page count, easier to find stuff in.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447917It definitely has fuck all to do with Orthodoxy.  

Show us on the teddy bear where the Orthodoxy touched you.

I should actually be flattered. On Dragonsfoot, I am freaking heretic.

So getting to be both theRPGsite's resident 4e Tyrant of Fun and the OSR High Priest of Orthodoxy must be great geek honors!  

Quote from: RPGPundit;447917Back in the olden days, we couldn't fucking wait to be 9th or 12th or 20th level.

This is where my experience diverges from yours.

I was very fortunate that our local community center hosted a Gaming Club that was open to teens and adults.  One of the first things I was introduced to by the older gamers was starting campaigns at higher levels.  

The usual club setup for our Arduin D&D games was you got 100K XP and 50K to make items after you rolled your stats in front of the GM.  Lower level ones would have half that, higher level ones ten times that number.

So we never waited to play 16th level mages.  We got a tremendous amount of high level play, often in my Gamma World / D&D crossovers, so there was huge novelty and excitement for us in a RBO game.  

Perhaps this is why I enjoy 4e.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447917This whole "E-number" thing may be some kind of utterly made-up pseudo-nostalgia, but its the farthest thing from genuine old-school that I can imagine.

Then you need to imagine more.

My gaming experience is MY genuine Old School experience.  I am abundantly clear that it was not THE experience of everyone.

Point of order:

Orthodoxy doesn't always follow how forebearers really behaved. It's often a fierce over-reaction against the perceived heresy and self-indulgence of modern times.

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

Quote from: Spinachcat;447972I was very fortunate that our local community center hosted a Gaming Club that was open to teens and adults.  One of the first things I was introduced to by the older gamers was starting campaigns at higher levels.  

Ah, I see. If you had played B/X D&D in the conventional manner, you would have learned that playing most of the game at level 1-3 happens naturally. It doesn't take any special rules to run a campaign with 6 straight months of level 1-3 play.

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

Dude, you are the ONLY ONE on this thread who points out some kind of link between this E3 game and some sort of orthodoxy. Nobody actually agree with you this constitutes any kind of orthodoxy and/or nostalgia. It's in your mind.

Quote from: Haffrungthe arbiters of old-school D&D promote an ever more stringent and pared-down version of the game.

What arbiters? The only time I remember anyone calling himself the arbiter of D&D was E.G.G. in 1978, and the response to that has been mixed (to say the least).

I have seen NOBODY but you and your fellow anti-old-school crusaders suggesting that the game with three character experience levels is a standard of "old school-ness".

Hell, Spinachcat -- the one who started this thread, IIRC -- is into Arduin and 4e! Arduin has plenty of "old school" fans and has experience charts that go more than 3 times as far as 4e's 30 levels. The latter is the flagship of the "new school" of D&D.

4e really implements the concept of Official Rules for tournaments and pick-up games in a comprehensive way, providing in practice the ideal that was more of a Gygaxian pipe dream when it came to Advanced D&D. It's not my cup of tea, but if it were then I would probably adore today's RPGA.

The 'E3' jargon comes from the 'E6' game of 3e D&D, the previous flagship of "new school D&D".

And there ain't no "ever more" about it! The 'Basic' D&D books -- the early, blue-covered ones of which were billed simply as D&D --  are still what they were in 1977, 1981 and 1983.

Where did you get this high horse from which you proclaim Basic D&D not a legitimate game? THAT is the newly stringent and narrow view, NOT the enjoyment some of us take in playing the game.

Quote from: Benoist;447918It's just in Haffrung's head. Nobody said squat about orthodoxy or nostalgia.
This has really nothing to do with any such thing.

Could it be that -gasp!- it could be fun to play for some of us? Un-believable! ;)

No one is questioning your having fun with it, just analyzing the issues of WHY some people are finding it fun today.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;447931We couldn't wait, either, but we never achieved it, because unless your DM was a wuss who fudged everything, nobody made it past 5th level anyway.

The characters were limited in level by mortality. Limiting them in level by rules seems to me... redundant.

That wasn't really my experience.  Yes, I probably played in dozens of abortive "campaigns" where we never made it past 3rd or 4th level.  But what I found was the rule in campaigns that were planned out to be long-term in the first place was that you'd go through several characters, with high mortality, until you got (through luck or skill) a character that made it up to 5th or 6th level, and enough resources and success, and after that it became difficult for a character to die permanently.

A few years back I ran my famous RC campaign, completely by the book, where the characters all made it to maximum level or just about. You could say that its because we were adults by then; but long, long before that I played a BECMI campaign, also by the books pretty much, where we got to about 20th level (still far from the maximum level of 36, we topped up at the "Companion" level before the campaign fell by the wayside, but a far cry from level 5).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spinachcat;447972This is where my experience diverges from yours.

I was very fortunate that our local community center hosted a Gaming Club that was open to teens and adults.  One of the first things I was introduced to by the older gamers was starting campaigns at higher levels.  

The usual club setup for our Arduin D&D games was you got 100K XP and 50K to make items after you rolled your stats in front of the GM.  Lower level ones would have half that, higher level ones ten times that number.

So we never waited to play 16th level mages.  We got a tremendous amount of high level play, often in my Gamma World / D&D crossovers, so there was huge novelty and excitement for us in a RBO game.  

Perhaps this is why I enjoy 4e.

That is certainly a divergence.  To me and the people I played with in my formative gaming years, that would have been seen as "cheating". I don't see it quite like that now, but I still have no interest in the concept.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Haffrung;447975Point of order:

Orthodoxy doesn't always follow how forebearers really behaved. It's often a fierce over-reaction against the perceived heresy and self-indulgence of modern times.

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

Yes. That's what I was getting to with the term "pseudo-nostalgia".  It reminds me of fundamentalist christians, who in their youth dated as teenagers, and kissed, and maybe made out, and certainly held hands, pushing today for their children to not date, or kiss, or hold hands but do some bizzare pseudo-biblical concept of "courtship" instead.  Its not really "how we always did it", but they try to imagine it was, out of a sheer sense of disgust at what they view as the increasing immorality of the outside world.

My "Old school" certainly isn't that; but maybe its because I was there when it was actually happening (kind of near the end of it, but still). I don't want to create a reactive, invented pseudo-past.  Unfortunately, its my perception that far too many self-styled "old-schoolers" want exactly that; and what they play and run isn't so much old-school as a grotesque ultraconservative parody of the same.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Phillip;447989Where did you get this high horse from which you proclaim Basic D&D not a legitimate game? THAT is the newly stringent and narrow view, NOT the enjoyment some of us take in playing the game.

Basic D&D is certainly a legitimate game, one of the best iterations of the D&D game, and the best introduction to RPGs in general ever made.  Part of that game is that it is the POINT of the game to make it PAST 3rd level.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;448026Basic D&D is certainly a legitimate game, one of the best iterations of the D&D game, and the best introduction to RPGs in general ever made.  Part of that game is that it is the POINT of the game to make it PAST 3rd level.

RPGPundit

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

It's just the same baloney as the claim that the POINT of D&D is to play up to 36th or 100th (or some other arbitrarily high) level -- being sure of course to buy TSR product #2156, DM's Option: High Level Campaigns, TSR product #1017, Immortals, and/or TSR product #1082, Wrath of the Immortals.

It's on par with the claim that it's NECESSARY to keep starting over from 1st level, however long one has been playing (and quite regardless of what Mr. Gygax wrote in the DMG).

It is, in short, even more ludicrous than it is annoying.

Quote from: RPGPundit;448018No one is questioning your having fun with it, just analyzing the issues of WHY some people are finding it fun today.

RPGPundit

To me, it'd be the challenge of survival, of not relying on the propect of gaining experience and levels to make it and live to see another day in the dungeon. Explore ever further, ever deeper, down to the ten hit dice red dragon and make it out, once again, alive.

It's fun for me today for the same reasons it was fun 33 years ago: the original premise of danger, excitement and uncertainty, the fascination of putting one's true fantasy-adventuring mettle to the test, the delight in discovery as opposed to recitation from rote.

best done with house rules for gruesome critical hit tables, detailed poison rules, and such-like; death-porn.

Quote from: two_fishes;448051best done with house rules for gruesome critical hit tables, detailed poison rules, and such-like; death-porn.

Not for me. I'd be much less interested by critical hit tables, poison rules and death porn.

What I find interesting in the premise is precisely that you don't count on the rules to make you tougher or take you out of a situation that is really dangerous. It's about you thinking outside the box and outplaying the environment. Not about random die rolls and rules upon rules added to the game.

Quote from: two_fishes;448051best done with house rules for gruesome critical hit tables, detailed poison rules, and such-like; death-porn.

If that's your thing, then level is pretty much beside the point!

Good luck getting to 10th level in Empire of the Petal Throne -- but then you're more likely than ever to die because of the 1/200 chance that any blow, from however pathetic a foe, can deliver instant death from lucky hit to the vitals.

(Why more likely? Because you're less likely to die from accumulated hit points of damage, or from poison.)

Quote from: Phillip;447989Where did you get this high horse from which you proclaim Basic D&D not a legitimate game? THAT is the newly stringent and narrow view, NOT the enjoyment some of us take in playing the game.

Where in fuck did I say that? I play Basic D&D. I just find a hard-wired limit of level 3 pointless. If you have a DM who doesn't fudge, you'll have plenty of time to enjoy levels 1-3 (20+ sessions, if you go by Holmes guidelines) without any rules enforcing a limit.

Seriously, start actually reading my posts or shut the hell up.

Quote from: RPGPundit;448024It reminds me of fundamentalist christians, who in their youth dated as teenagers, and kissed, and maybe made out, and certainly held hands, pushing today for their children to not date, or kiss, or hold hands but do some bizzare pseudo-biblical concept of "courtship" instead.  Its not really "how we always did it", but they try to imagine it was, out of a sheer sense of disgust at what they view as the increasing immorality of the outside world.

My "Old school" certainly isn't that; but maybe its because I was there when it was actually happening (kind of near the end of it, but still). I don't want to create a reactive, invented pseudo-past.  Unfortunately, its my perception that far too many self-styled "old-schoolers" want exactly that; and what they play and run isn't so much old-school as a grotesque ultraconservative parody of the same.

Okay, so at least one other person in this thread gets what I'm talking about.

A couple years ago I came across a local campaign, advertised at my FLGS, where the DM was running an old-school B/X game. I wasn't able to attend any sessions, but I was on the mailing list and followed the after action reports and comments by the DM and players.

The DM was about my age, and had played D&D in the late 70s/early 80s. The players were all strangers who met through the FLGS ad, but they had all played pre-3E D&D before. The DM admitted he was getting his ideas of how to run the game from various old-school D&D forums.

As the campaign progressed, it became evident that the players were a bit disappointed. Lots of PC deaths, lots of aimless sandbox play. When the campaign wound up, the DM issued an assessment of what the players did wrong - they didn't hire enough hirelings, didn't investigate rumours, didn't scout enough, weren't thorough enough planning outdoor expeditions, or searching for secret doors, etc. In the end, he admitted that the players didn't seem to really understand the kind of campaign he was running.

What annoyed me about the campaign was that the DM set it up with the specific goal of being an old-school game, as defined by the grognards on the old-school forums. He was enforcing an ultra-conservative playstyle because he had recently learned that's the way B/X was supposed to be played. The campaign was simply a checklist of defining characteristics that have coalesced on old-school forums in the last 3-4 years.

And this wasn't an isolated case. I've come across many comments on forums in recent years where someone asks how to set up a real old-school game. Invariably, helpful grognards recommend the most pared-down, low-powered, sandbox game that ticks a whole bunch of boxes from the game according to bitterly reactionary threads on Dragonsfoot and Knights and Knaves Alehouse. These suggestions are invariably more conservative than most people actually played in 78-84. That's why I dislike the strain of old-school conservatism so often promoted on forums these days.

Quote from: Benoist;448053What I find interesting in the premise is precisely that you don't count on the rules to make you tougher or take you out of a situation that is really dangerous. It's about you thinking outside the box and outplaying the environment. Not about random die rolls and rules upon rules added to the game.

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

Quote from: HaffrungWhere in fuck did I say that? I play Basic D&D. I just find a hard-wired limit of level 3 pointless.

Basic D&D includes only levels 1, 2, and 3.

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

Playing Basic D&D is what you called

Quotejust another symptom of the ultra-orthodox streak running through the old-school community these days, fasting and wearing hair shirts as some sort of testament to self-denial.

Metamorphosis Alpha has no levels at all!

In 1st ed. AD&D, hit points are the only benefit of levels beyond 17th for fighters, 29th for clerics, etc.. Druids absolutely stop at 14th without Unearthed Arcana, monks at 17th. Non-humans have much lower level limits.

The 3e D&D PHB covers levels only up to 20th. 4e ends at 30th.

So what? The "POINT" of a fantasy adventure is not to be just like whatever arbitrarily selected item Haffrung or Pundit may arbitrarily select. The point is FUN.

People play Basic D&D because they enjoy it, the same reason people play Classic Traveller, or Marvel Super Heroes, or Halo 3.

It's got nothing to do with wanting to imitate YOUR ideological bully attitude. It's just playing a game, you fucking ass.

Quote from: Haffrung;448104These suggestions are invariably more conservative than most people actually played in 78-84. That's why I dislike the strain of old-school conservatism so often promoted on forums these days.

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

Also, I think the assumption of many people (except the real fundamentalists) giving advice like you describe is that the game will start as they describe and then the GM will modify it as it is played to better suit what the group wants. This is how most of us did it. We started from this "conservative" position and house-ruled things as we played to fit exactly what we wanted.

A number of people who like the set of house rules I used for my Microlite75 version of Microlite20 0e have asked me to do a S&W supplement with those rules in S&W form. I will try to do so sometime during the next couple of months. 0e with these house rules may be closer (at least in spirit) to the type of games many if not most 0e/1e campaigns circa 1975-1982 actually grew into. However, even with these or other such house rules players will still have to hire enough hirelings, investigate rumors, scout before rushing in, plan expeditions, search for stuff, etc. more than they probably have to in more recent versions of the game. And trying to attack everything in sight (under the -- inane IMHO -- assumption that anything the PCs encounter should be defeatable by the PCs in combat) will still likely result in a lot of TPKs.

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

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

Seanchai

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

Who said you "need" a level 3 cap? Dude, I'm running OD&D and AD&D right now. You don't "need" a level 3 cap to have a challenging game. I love D&D without level caps. I can't possibly enjoy trying something else? Who's the orthodox conservative, here? Have you actually had a look at the thread where I specifically dispute (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=19708) the game is "broken" past 7th level?

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

Chill out, mate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presented for your consideration...

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

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

For clerics:
(e) better chances of turning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPGPundit

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

Here's another reason I enjoy RBO campaigns.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPGPundit

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

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

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

I wondered about the basis for this.

But then you clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

Whoah whoah whoah.

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

:huhsign:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Cole;448429A variant that might be interesting would be if the 3 levels were unrelated to XP, but in-campaign achievements; for example for a fighter, second level might be dependent on being knighted or commanding a mercenary unit of X characters, while 3rd might require a character to be landed or become a chief, etc.

Oooh, now that is a really interesting idea. Whether or not it is tied to 3 levels or 4 or whatever--tying acquisition of levels to specific IC achievements.

Quote from: Phillip;448128Point the Fifth
Specific consequences of specific adventures -- e.g., Sigurd bathing in Fafnir's blood, Perseus going from the Graeae to the Hesperides to the very Olympians to obtain aids in his quest for Medusa's head, Orastes' s measures to acquire the Heart of Ahriman and raise Xaltotun from the dead to learn what that worthy knew of the artifact -- were typical of the mythology and fantasy with which I was acquainted.

This is interesting too - as a 3rd level character you have achieved all you can achieve through a "passive" mechanism but might be able to seek out rare or mystical improvements through specific, in-campaign means. A possibility here is that these "active" improvements might usually include a drawback.

Quote from: two_fishes;448431Oooh, now that is a really interesting idea. Whether or not it is tied to 3 levels or 4 or whatever--tying acquisition of levels to specific IC achievements.

You could go alternately with the basic OD&D-Chainmail correlation (for fighting men) that level 4 is Hero, and level 8 is Superhero in nature, or go with a later scale that level 9 equals a landed character with a stronghold, tower, temple or whatnot, then determine retroactively what the steps or milestones (e.g. levels and specific in-game achievements tied to them) are to get there.

Or give XP for followers and land, not for gold.

Since you mostly get followers and land by paying for them, them this might be the same thing in most cases, but you could lose levels if your followers were killed or your land taken away.

Quote from: Phillip;448410Yeah. It blows my mind that annoying punks like Pundit are still -- after more than 30 years, plenty of time for them to have grown up and gotten a clue -- so caught up in trying to tell us old hands that their snot-nosed fixation is The One True Way that they still can't understand the real Thing One about D&D.

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

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

Hardly. You can do what you like.  You just don't get to pretend that this is "old school".  

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;448521Hardly. You can do what you like.  You just don't get to pretend that this is "old school".

Wait wait.

By this logic, nothing that would deserve the moniker of "old school" could ever be anything else than some extreme reactionary conservatism cloning the exact same game over and over again. It's like a self-fulfilling statement then when you attack the OSR for being "too conservative." It's a logical fallacy, a rhetorical loop. It's bullshit.

By this same logic, Stars Without Number or the Majestic Wilderlands can't possibly be "old school," which -honestly- doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou just don't get to pretend that this is "old school".

Really? Says you?

Who put on red caps and made you Pope of Old School?

I don't give a shit whether Basic D&D is "old school" or not. It's old (1977-78), and we played it at school, and we had fun.

The attitude that's it's groovy is definitely "old school", though, by contrast with your "new school" of uptight conformity.

Quote from: Gygax & Arneson... for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!

As a point of reference, from games I knew about back then and recaps of old games online, it appears that there was much less consistency in game style in the 70's and 80's than there is now.  D&D was The Game and most people didn't even know about other games.  So, it was stretched to whatever people wanted to play.  There was also no internet so peeks of other games through Dragon magazine was the main source of what normal was.  You had slow grinds where it took months go gain a level and other games that were epic Monty Haul games vs. gods.  There was time travel, interplanetary travel, and whatever people pulled from books that they'd read.  Big lists of house rules were the norm.  

There's really no one thing that is old school.

The advocates of orthodoxy are not the ones who get accused of being such on this thread.

I made a couple of what I thought were constructive suggestions for Forward! To Adventure: if it's meant to be similar to a roguelike, go the whole hog and make a board-game version, and if you want people who like old D&D to play it, make it compatible with old D&D. Both times Pundit responded with insults. So there's a sense in which Pundit's beef with the OSR is a self-inflicted injury.

Quote from: Benoist;448537Wait wait.

By this logic, nothing that would deserve the moniker of "old school" could ever be anything else than some extreme reactionary conservatism cloning the exact same game over and over again. It's like a self-fulfilling statement then when you attack the OSR for being "too conservative." It's a logical fallacy, a rhetorical loop. It's bullshit.

By this same logic, Stars Without Number or the Majestic Wilderlands can't possibly be "old school," which -honestly- doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Nonsense.  Anyone who knows my record knows that few people have railed as much against the dinosaur excesses of the OSR as I have. And the problem I see with the "E-number" concept is that it comes from the same root as the guys claiming that "old school" means "trying to recreate some arbitrary ultra-narrow definition of games as they were played prior to some random date, and only those games".
It is based on pseudo-nostalgia: claiming that this is "how it was" back in the "good old days", when in fact it was nothing of the sort.  
The very idea of "old school" being restrictive is pseudo-nostalgic, because it runs completely current to what was the real zeitgeist of that time: an excitement for what was new and upcoming.  So saying "old school is playing OD&D and nothing else" is actually nothing at all like old-school, its a completely modern notion with made-up nostalgic trappings; because people back then loved all the new shit that was coming out and wanted to play new games.  Likewise, saying "old school is when you play only till 3rd level and then STOP" is absurd and likewise pseudo-nostalgia, because gamers back then wanted games that let them do MORE, not less, and wanted to have a character work his way to "name level" and beyond.

The notion that E3 is somehow "old school" is utter fantasy.  Its not even like trying to claim "back in the 50s women were happier because they were taken care of", its more like trying to claim "back in the middle ages people lived longer because they used crystal healing instead of modern vaccination".

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;448537It's like a self-fulfilling statement then when you attack the OSR for being "too conservative." It's a logical fallacy, a rhetorical loop. It's bullshit.

Yes. :)

I am staggered by the close mindedness of many of the posters in this thread. E3 is an interesting experiment. Don't feel threatened by it if its not your cup of tea and for gods sake don't get excitedly caught up in whether it is old school or not.

I played through the red book era and E3 was certainly not a concept we had. I'm older and more mature now, however, and interested in exploring more aspects of the game than when I was 12.

Perhaps a large part of OSR is not so much trying to recreate a 'golden age' that may or may not have existed, but rather adult gamers revisiting the games of their youth but filtered through their experiences of 20+ years of gaming.

Spinachat and Phillip are not advocating a one true way, just a way and its as legitimate as any other.

Quote from: Fiasco;448621Perhaps a large part of OSR is not so much trying to recreate a 'golden age' that may or may not have existed, but rather adult gamers revisiting the games of their youth but filtered through their experiences of 20+ years of gaming.

Spinachat and Phillip are not advocating a one true way, just a way and its as legitimate as any other.

For me, This.  I don't want to go back to a time when our group totally misunderstood rule X.  I also find OD&D not to my taste.  For me, it's seeing if there are new things in the games that most veteran gamers know.  There's very little to teach players if you can say "it's just Basic but Y."

There does seem to be a small group of zealot's dedicated to Gary's Way.  But they're a small part of the people playing old games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;448609Nonsense.  Anyone who knows my record knows that few people have railed as much against the dinosaur excesses of the OSR as I have. And the problem I see with the "E-number" concept is that it comes from the same root as the guys claiming that "old school" means "trying to recreate some arbitrary ultra-narrow definition of games as they were played prior to some random date, and only those games".

Umm, no.  The "E-number" idea originated with a guy playing 3e, which is hardly "old school" and was never claimed as such.

Read the OP again; nowhere does it mention E3 being "old school."

Quote from: Nicephorus;448570As a point of reference, from games I knew about back then and recaps of old games online, it appears that there was much less consistency in game style in the 70's and 80's than there is now.  D&D was The Game and most people didn't even know about other games.  So, it was stretched to whatever people wanted to play.  There was also no internet so peeks of other games through Dragon magazine was the main source of what normal was.  You had slow grinds where it took months go gain a level and other games that were epic Monty Haul games vs. gods.  There was time travel, interplanetary travel, and whatever people pulled from books that they'd read.  Big lists of house rules were the norm.  

There's really no one thing that is old school.

The variation is "old school". The drive for conformity may be equally old, but it's not the ethos of the "school".

Not everything old is "old school", and the "old school" itself is a concept not nearly as old as the hobby. Indeed, as a reaction against views perceived as "modernist", it of necessity postdates some of those views.

Quote from: Nicephorus;448629There does seem to be a small group of zealot's dedicated to Gary's Way.  But they're a small part of the people playing old games.

That's because their attitude -- if not their devotion to AD&D books in particular -- more informs new games (which some of them went on to design).

The "Gary said" kids (who annoyed me) and the Runequest rules and presentation (which I liked) struck me back in the day as two new movements. A couple of decades later, WotC-D&D was their love child.

The fanatical (and often plain wrong) rules-lawyering and 'dogmatic' version of Gary's Way is not identical with the way of play that Mr. Gygax actually most consistently advocated. It is at best a shallow reading of certain works, more often a sheer mockery. It is not, for instance, the Gygaxian D&D that fascinates the habitues of the Knights & Knaves Alehouse -- but the dedicated AD&Ders there are also often not aligned with the more OD&D-ish "do your own thing" aspect of the "old school".

Quote from: Age of Fable;448451Or give XP for followers and land, not for gold.

I have used Dave Arneson's idea of gaining XP by spending gold.  That adds some interesting aspects to gameplay.  

Quote from: Fiasco;448621Perhaps a large part of OSR is not so much trying to recreate a 'golden age' that may or may not have existed, but rather adult gamers revisiting the games of their youth but filtered through their experiences of 20+ years of gaming.

For me, the experimentation with D&D and other RPGs is why I game.  Its not a new fad for me. My first fascination was combining GW and D&D and probably still my most enduring fun. Our group got into Champions 1e and customizing that game and "genre-tripping" was very normal for us.  Keep in mind that original Hero is quite rules light by comparison to Gurps 4 or Hero 5.    

I just completed two massive articles for the Rifter Zero PDF project which is all about expanding The Mechanoids based on various oddities and hints of a wider setting within the original text.

For me, RBO - Red Box Only - is much more than just limiting the game to 3rd level but building an entire world based only on the one text.  My core RBO is actually quite radical.  You may notice that there are no listings for horses, neither among monsters or equipment...but there are mules.  Thus, many domesticated monsters are pack and riding animals.  Even crazier is the lack of normal meats.  

But it leads to cool stuff, like breweries with Killer Bee nests that make honey mead and taverns that serve huge circular steaks of giant snake meat.  PCs are hired to go hunt wild boar which is a real hoot since RB boars can survive in the monster haunted lands.

Quote from: Fiasco;448621Perhaps a large part of OSR is not so much trying to recreate a 'golden age' that may or may not have existed, but rather adult gamers revisiting the games of their youth but filtered through their experiences of 20+ years of gaming.

Nail hit firmly on head. Brilliant post, and spot on.

Quote from: Fiasco;448621Perhaps a large part of OSR is not so much trying to recreate a 'golden age' that may or may not have existed, but rather adult gamers revisiting the games of their youth but filtered through their experiences of 20+ years of gaming.

Could it be? :)

Quote from: Nicephorus;448570As a point of reference, from games I knew about back then and recaps of old games online, it appears that there was much less consistency in game style in the 70's and 80's than there is now.  D&D was The Game and most people didn't even know about other games.  So, it was stretched to whatever people wanted to play.  There was also no internet so peeks of other games through Dragon magazine was the main source of what normal was.  You had slow grinds where it took months go gain a level and other games that were epic Monty Haul games vs. gods.  There was time travel, interplanetary travel, and whatever people pulled from books that they'd read.  Big lists of house rules were the norm.  

There's really no one thing that is old school.

True. So isn't it curious that none of the OSR variants start characters at level 8, encourage generous treasure hauls, have reams of detailed combat options, or set the goal of wiping out a pantheon from Deities and Demigods?

The underlying ethos of the OSR is a reaction against modern D&D. That's why the low-power, gritty, sandbox, simplified modes of play from 30 years ago are championed, and the high-powered, maunty-haul, and highly-complex modes of play from 30 years ago are conveniently ignored.

Pundit nailed it when he drew the analogy of the modern Christians appalled at vulgar modern culture who tell their children that back in the god-fearing olden days everyone was chaste until married.

Quote from: Haffrung;448762True. So isn't it curious that none of the OSR variants start characters at level 8, encourage generous treasure hauls, have reams of detailed combat options, or set the goal of wiping out a pantheon from Deities and Demigods?

The underlying ethos of the OSR is a reaction against modern D&D. That's why the low-power, gritty, sandbox, simplified modes of play from 30 years ago are championed, and the high-powered, maunty-haul, and highly-complex modes of play from 30 years ago are conveniently ignored.

Pundit nailed it when he drew the analogy of the modern Christians appalled at vulgar modern culture who tell their children that back in the god-fearing olden days everyone was chaste until married.

Dude, what has made you, a normally reasonable individual, turn into the goddamned D&D police this week? Here we have a thread about a D&D variant played "decades ago" by Spinachcat, a player who unashamedly enjoys 4e, and you are presenting it as a case study in contemporary revisionism by dogmatic old-school-come-latelies. Meanwhile, you yourself weigh in over in the 3e thread that,

Quote from: Haffrung;447585I've found all editions of the game start to break down at 7th level. I'm just not willing to learn every magical effect, and anticipate every clever or devious use of magic by my players. It becomes a game I'm not much interested in DMing at that point.

What is your point? And meanwhile. pundit is "analyzing the issues of WHY some people are finding it fun today." Now players need to enjoy D&D for ideologically correct reasons? If I think this variant might be a fun experiment, am I not approaching D&D with a sufficient ironic distance? Or is it the opposite, where I am supporting some intolerable OSR hipster irony to your and pundit's D&D true faith? Oy. I have a headache.

P.S. - the start-at-8th level, enhanced combat option OSR variants are out there in force in the form of 2.99 2nd Edition supplements on ebay.

Quote from: Cole;448765Now players need to enjoy D&D for ideologically correct reasons?

Dude, this messageboard is all about telling people which are the ideologically correct ways of enjoying games, which games are ideologically correct, and calling Swine to everyone who is not ideologically pure :D You cannot be surprised.

@ Haffrung.

Climb down from your high horse and talk to the real people in this thread instead of the scary OSR demons in your mind.  

This thread is about exploring an interesting variant of red box D&D. Feel free to leave your preconceptions a the door and join in the discussions.

D&D has pretty much always been married to a level treadmill (nothing wrong with that!)  But what would D&D be like without it? For mine, that is an interesting discussion.  Its in our nature to aspire towards things that are laid out in front of us.  If the rules go to level 20 (or 36), goddamit, we want to get there, cast a wish and slay the dragon with a +5 holy avenger.  I certainly did.  But what if this perfectly enjoyable way of playing D&D takes our focus away form other potentially interesting areas?  That is what E3 is exploring. Maybe its not for most and thats fine. Please don't mistake it for some mythical OSR orthodoxy.

Quote from: Fiasco;448621Perhaps a large part of OSR is not so much trying to recreate a 'golden age' that may or may not have existed, but rather adult gamers revisiting the games of their youth but filtered through their experiences of 20+ years of gaming.

As I said before

To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.


With that, I will don't that if a publisher wants to sell to the group of people that been labelled as the OSR then that publisher needs to keep in mind that most of them are interested in playing a classic edition of D&D. Not something like it but the with one of the older rule sets.

However done the right way, a publisher can come up with a new Old School style RPG that appeals to most of the people labeled as the OSR.  Joseph Goodman and his team are making a good go of it with their playtests of the Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG. Primarily by going to old school conventions (GaryCon for example) and game stores and running games.

Finally much of Old School publishing is based on material under the Open Game License. Coupled with Internet distribution and print on demand means that anybody can have a go at it with their idea. Doesn't mean it will be good or sell. But there are no gatekeepers, no mod clique, no Ron Edwards clique, to act as gatekeepers. It has grown to the point that a person will be hard press to keep it with it all.

As for back in the day, play styles were diverse.  The major difference is that there was no internet so aside from the letter pages of Dragon magazine there was little exposure to what other groups thought.  It wasn't totally insular as D&D was so popular that even

Quote from: HaffrungSo isn't it curious that none of the OSR variants start characters at level 8...

See Gygax, Dungeon Masters Guide, pp. 110-111.

Quote...encourage generous treasure hauls...

You've read every "OSR" module to confirm that none has (whether on average or by instance) richer treasures than Rules Set X recommends? Really? I would be truly surprised if the results were much closer than TSR's or JG's output back in the day.

One might reasonably expect the simulacra or "clones" -- in the basic books, if not the modules -- to show about the same fidelity on this topic as elsewhere. BFRPG by default gives no x.p. for treasure, and partly for this reason has adjusted awards for monster slaying, but I don't recall how the treasure tables compare with B/X.

Quote..have reams of detailed combat options...

Again, this has already been done over and over for about 40 years (Arneson having pretty well rung the changes right at the start). We've had Chainmail, D&D Supplements I-III, Swords & Spells, Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, Judges Guild, The Arduin Grimoire, The Perrin Conventions, Runequest, Thieves Guild, Arms Law, the Tri Tac games, Players Option: Combat & Tactics, Hackmaster, articles in The Dragon and White Dwarf and Alarums & Excursions and The Wild Hunt and Different Worlds, and so on and on.

However, if you go to Dragonsfoot, or Knights & Knaves Alehouse, or Original D&D Discussion, then you will still find plenty of threads on considerations both medieval and fantastic.

I'll bet you'll find some relevant articles in Knockspell and Fight On! as well.

Almost everyone has house rules for topics of special interest. Combat is in this regard no different from magic, monsters, experience, economics, character secondary skills, or just about any topic.

Quote...or set the goal of wiping out a pantheon from Deities and Demigods?...

Hey, why not take that absurdly irrelevant criterion all the way by specifying a pantheon? Not that you actually know whether your claim is true or false, do you? You just pulled it out of the hole where your head is buried.

Haffrung: "AD&D DMs touched me in the wrong places as a child, and the OSR doesn't repeat their mistakes! What the hell?!"

Quote from: Haffrung;448762the high-powered, maunty-haul, and highly-complex modes of play from 30 years ago are conveniently ignored.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Tunnels & Trolls is not ignored (but naturally gets less attention than some other things in the D&D-centric "old school").

Empire of the Petal Throne is not ignored.

Blackmoor and Eldritch Wizardry are not ignored, although their particular implementations of combat elaborations (e.g., hit locations, action sequencing) are not very popular. Those tend simultaneously toward the "gritty" and the "highly complex", though, so of course you can damn everyone regardless of whether we use them or not!

Arduin is not ignored. I would not call Hargrave's game "monty haul", which connotes a too-easy setup. However, it has both high power and complexity probably to rival Rifts or SenZar.

Gamma World (by the original Monty Haul, Jim Ward) is not ignored.

The Dragon and other magazines are not ignored.

Unearthed Arcana is definitely not ignored among 1st ed. AD&Ders, who tend to hold strong opinions about it.

If there are not many 110th-level characters in evidence, I submit that neither are they swamping the discussions of "new school" D&Ders.

Why should we expect there to be? Where but in your fevered imagination do either they or "E3" games predominate?

You are thoroughly out of touch with the reality both of today and of "back in the day".

I'm of the understanding that during the glory days of the early 80s that tons of red-box Basic D&D were sold?

Starting with the assumption that (in my own opinion, based on the numbers I have seen in real life) significantly more copies of red-box Basic D&D were in circulation than Expert, etc., it seems to me that a considerable percentage of people that did play D&D in the past may very well have effectively been playing red-box E3.

A lot of people also got it for Christmas, didn't play it and put it away, tried to figure it out and then put it away, or played it once or twice and then put it away.

But that happens with all Christmas blitz toys.  Like Furby, they've got their one or two Christmas seasons of good sales and popularity, and then it starts to curve downward.

Quote from: Peregrin;448870But that happens with all Christmas blitz toys....

That post reads to me as if you missed the point of Planet Algol's post. To recap:

Quote from: Planet Algola considerable percentage of people that did play D&D in the past may very well have effectively been playing red-box E3.

The issue was not "how D&D was like Furby in sometimes being an enduring favorite and sometimes not". It was more "how Basic D&D was like Squad Leader in being a game that could be played with or without expansion sets."

SL was (IIRC) the best-selling wargame ever, and not everyone who bought it bought the add-ons or ASL.

By the reckonings I recall, printings of the Basic D&D sets in the 1980s each sold more copies than any other D&D product ever has. They did that year after year, printing after printing, all overwhelmingly to newcomers to the hobby.

Obviously, only a few of those players went on to buy ECMI sets, or PHBs.

Quote from: Peregrin;448870A lot of people also got it for Christmas, didn't play it and put it away, tried to figure it out and then put it away, or played it once or twice and then put it away.

But that happens with all Christmas blitz toys.  Like Furby, they've got their one or two Christmas seasons of good sales and popularity, and then it starts to curve downward.

Furby was doing fine until the introduction of the fleshlight crowded its niche. So to speak.

Kind of like VHS vs. Beta.

Quote from: Phillip;448883That post reads to me as if you missed the point of Planet Algol's post. To recap:

Point taken, and my apologies.

Quote from: Aos;448892Furby was doing fine until the introduction of the fleshlight crowded its niche. So to speak.

More apologies for giving Aos fuel for this post.  I'm going to go scrub my brain with a toothbrush.

Quote from: Aos;448892Furby was doing fine until the introduction of the fleshlight crowded its niche. So to speak.

Q'apla!

But seriously, Squad Leader was conceived and published as a complete game. There is no place in Squad Leader where the procedures of the game push you to a point where you're staring off the edge of a cliff, rules-wise.

I haven't read either Moldvay or Mentzer closely enough to see if one could think, on reading them, that level 3 is the end and that's just how it is until you see the expert box on store shelf. It's interesting that Keep on the Borderlands has some hacks in it to handle "high level characters" without being too clear on what those levels were.

(The fact that lots of Red Box games were sold is neither here nor there, is all I'm saying. Don't mistake this for negative opinion of "E3".)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;448901I haven't read either Moldvay or Mentzer closely enough to see if one could think, on reading them, that level 3 is the end and that's just how it is until you see the expert box on store shelf. It's interesting that Keep on the Borderlands has some hacks in it to handle "high level characters" without being too clear on what those levels were.

Both make reference to higher level characters. That doesn't preclude the possibility that many people may still have continued to play D&D without bothering to buy an expansion. I don't know how much that actually happened, of course. Given the relative sales of basic sets to expert sets, etc., presumably it must have happened to some degree, but I would think the majority of people who enjoyed D&D enough to play for a long period of time would have at least one person in the social circle going for the "upgrade."

Quote from: Cole;448906Both make reference to higher level characters. That doesn't preclude the possibility that many people may still have continued to play D&D without bothering to buy an expansion. I don't know how much that actually happened, of course. Given the relative sales of basic sets to expert sets, etc., presumably it must have happened to some degree, but I would think the majority of people who enjoyed D&D enough to play for a long period of time would have at least one person in the social circle going for the "upgrade."

IIRC, the guys i knew passed on the Expert set and went for AD&D.

Quote from: Aos;448908IIRC, the guys i knew passed on the Expert set and went for AD&D.

Hence the "etc."

That seemed to have happened a lot. I had an Expert set first, though I mixed and matched.

Quote from: Cole;448910Hence the "etc."

.

Sorry, I missed that. I was too busy thinking of my furby.

Quote from: Aos;448908IIRC, the guys i knew passed on the Expert set and went for AD&D.

I'm pretty sure this isn't an isolated experience (how widespread that was further than this, I have no idea, however). I started playing with AD&D. When I started running games, I used the Dark Eye, then ran Basic Mentzer Red Box (once for sure, with which I basically hooked my first long running gaming group), then switched instantly for AD&D. I had the Expert Blue box but never used it in play.

I wish to own the Moldvay/Cook sets as fetish items and because I like the art in those sets a lot.

Quote from: Aos;448930I wish to own the Moldvay/Cook sets as fetish items and because I like the art in those sets a lot.

I also find them easier to use/reference in play than Mentzer/RC, but maybe it's just familiarity.

Quote from: Cole;448932I also find them easier to use/reference in play than Mentzer/RC, but maybe it's just familiarity.

I have no idea bout Moldvay/Cook because I've never used the sets in actual play, but talking about Mentzer D&D, I'd run the game using the boxes instead of the Rules Cyclopedia itself. I like the idea of starting with the basic game and enlarging the game play experience as the characters' levels reach the benchmark of the next box and so on.

Quote from: Benoist;448934I have no idea bout Moldvay/Cook because I've never used the sets in actual play, but talking about Mentzer D&D, I'd run the game using the boxes instead of the Rules Cyclopedia itself. I like the idea of starting with the basic game and enlarging the game play experience as the characters' levels reach the benchmark of the next box and so on.

I'm speaking purely in terms of format.

Quote from: Cole;448936I'm speaking purely in terms of format.

So you find the Moldvay/Cook boxed sets to be better organized/easier to use than the Mentzer boxed sets as well, though that might just be familiarity talking, is that what you're saying (nevermind the RC book)?

Quote from: Benoist;448939So you find the Moldvay/Cook boxed sets to be better organized/easier to use than the Mentzer boxed sets as well, though that might just be familiarity talking, is that what you're saying (nevermind the RC book)?

Right.

I think the Mentzer set did a better job introducing the game concepts to beginners, though. But once you are familiar with D&D, the Moldvay format is more convenient, I think.

Quote from: Haffrung;448762True. So isn't it curious that none of the OSR variants start characters at level 8, encourage generous treasure hauls, have reams of detailed combat options, or set the goal of wiping out a pantheon from Deities and Demigods?

Except for the "reams of detailed combat options", just about any clone except S&W white box (which only goes to 10th level) can handle that easily (as did TSR D&D). Microlite75 certainly can as my Arn campaign world was one of the two worlds it was specifically designed to handle -- and Arn is a high power/high entropy world in the same way Arduin is. Back in the day, however, I did not start people off at 8th level in Arn -- just third.  

As for reams of detailed combat options, I suspect they were far less popular back in the day than starting at level 8, Monty Haul treasure, and wiping out a pantheon  or two from Deities and Demigods were. :)

Quote from: Cole;448942Right.

I think the Mentzer set did a better job introducing the game concepts to beginners, though. But once you are familiar with D&D, the Moldvay format is more convenient, I think.

OK. I wouldn't know. As I said, I've never used Moldvay-Cook in actual play. :)

Quote from: Aos;448892Furby was doing fine until the introduction of the fleshlight crowded its niche. So to speak.

I have no idea what this means.  For this, I'm grateful.  :)

If like the idea of 'E14' -- essentially, the Moldvay Basic rules and the Cook/Marsh Expert rules, taken together as a complete system.  

With a level 14 cap for fighters, clerics, magic-users, and thieves, the level caps for non-humans seem balanced.

And really, B/X D&D has pretty much everything one would need for a classic fantasy campaign.  Rules for running dominions, creating magic items, dungeon adventuring, wilderness adventuring, etc.

Quote from: Aos;448930I wish to own the Moldvay/Cook sets as fetish items and because I like the art in those sets a lot.

The art does rock!  

The classic Otus covers.  Otus, Dee, DSL, and Willingham interior art.  Morgan Ironwolf wearing tight chainmail in cold weather.  It's all win.

Oh yeah, Haffrung and the Pundit are completely clueless with respect to the OSR.  Don't take anything they have to say about it seriously.  (As should be obvious by now.)

I'd agree that you can run a great and fairly complete (albeit "short", by my own standards) campaign of D&D using just the Basic and Expert sets.   But in that sort of campaign, when your characters hit max level, its either time to stop, or to get the Companion set.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;449281I'd agree that you can run a great and fairly complete (albeit "short", by my own standards) campaign of D&D using just the Basic and Expert sets.   But in that sort of campaign, when your characters hit max level, its either time to stop, or to get the Companion set.

Why is that "time to stop," though? If the characters and setting are still interesting, why do the characters necessarily need to improve in personal fighting ability (or magic)? As long as the players are on board, where is there a problem? I am not interested in whether the idea is old school or new school.

Of course there is nothing wrong with the experience --> personal concrete power model that most RPGs follow.

Edit especially if you're going all the way through Expert; 14th level characters are really powerful compared to ordinary men and could take on a vast variety of challenges, enough for a long campaign. But I don't think the scope of adventures possible for even 3rd level characters is a well that would quickly run dry.

Quote from: RPGPundit;449281I'd agree that you can run a great and fairly complete (albeit "short", by my own standards) campaign of D&D using just the Basic and Expert sets.   But in that sort of campaign, when your characters hit max level, its either time to stop, or to get the Companion set.

I could run a campaign for 2-3 years of almost weekly play before I'd be likely to have players with characters anywhere near 14th level. In almost 18 months of play in my current Wilderlands M75 campaign, PCs range from 4th to 7th level -- and the one who at 7th -- a fighter, BTW -- has been played since the TPK near the beginning of the campaign.

In an Arn campaign, the PCs would hit higher levels much faster as Arn is a high power/high entropy world. The Hidden Valley and the Wilderlands are low power worlds.

Quote from: RPGPundit;449281I'd agree that you can run a great and fairly complete (albeit "short", by my own standards) campaign of D&D using just the Basic and Expert sets.

Let us take as granted for the moment your assumption that it's pointless to keep playing a character with no more levels to acquire. (That is not what I have actually seen in practice, even in full OD&D when Hobbits were capped at 4th.)

Let us take for granted your further assumption that "a campaign" is limited to the careers of a particular few characters, so that the retirement of arbitrary Characters W, X, Y and Z means the end of the campaign.

(This is quite at odds with the old usage. That, however, is probably not very relevant to the quote that follows -- even though some numbers of low-level characters died on the way to the emergence of those that rose to high level.)

Quote from: Gygax, Strategic Review #7BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign... To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.

Now, four or five years would be "short" by the expectations of that era (with a different concept of "a campaign"). I think, though, that it would be rather long relative to what (IIRC) is the WotC expectation: between a year and two from 1st to 20th or 30th for 3e or 4e respectively.

Quote from: ColeBut I don't think the scope of adventures possible for even 3rd level characters is a well that would quickly run dry.

There is absolutely no reason it should run out any more quickly than for 4th-, 16th-, or 64th-level characters.

It is not at all the case that any power is thereby arbitrarily excluded. To the contrary, it is notions of "level appropriateness" that bring in such limitations when there are more levels to which magic, fighting power, etc., can be tied as entitlements.

That notion really exemplifies how the "new school" can't see the forest for the trees.

When I run Basic D&D -- or for that matter when I run plain D&D -- the built in vagaries of chance (which are already huge) are just the start of the variations in power that are possible. What matters most is what a player dares and accomplishes.

Want to metamorphose? Raise the dead? Put an enemy in stasis? Leap seven leagues? Steal a magic gem from a sleeping god's crown? Smash the gates of a hell?

Gaining levels was never the only means to these ends! The game encompasses myriad worlds of the fantastic. All things are possible.

Quote from: Arneson & Gygax, 1974There should be no "natural laws" which are certain. Space could be passable because it is filled with breathable air. On the other hand the stars could be tiny lights only a few hundred miles away. Some areas of the land could be gates into other worlds, dimensions, times, or whatever. Mars is given in these rules, but some other fantastic world or setting could be equally as possible.

Quote from: Phillip;449309There is absolutely no reason it should run out any more quickly than for 4th-, 16th-, or 64th-level characters.

It is not at all the case that any power is thereby arbitrarily excluded. To the contrary, it is notions of "level appropriateness" that bring in such limitations when there are more levels to which magic, fighting power, etc., can be tied as entitlements.

That notion really exemplifies how the "new school" can't see the forest for the trees.

When I run Basic D&D -- or for that matter when I run plain D&D -- the built in vagaries of chance (which are already huge) are just the start of the variations in power that are possible. What matters most is what a player dares and accomplishes.

Want to metamorphose? Raise the dead? Put an enemy in stasis? Leap seven leagues? Steal a magic gem from a sleeping god's crown? Smash the gates of a hell?

Gaining levels was never the only means to these ends! The game encompasses myriad worlds of the fantastic. All things are possible.

This is bunch of shi-
No wait, I agree completely.
Well said.

Quote from: Haffrung;448762So isn't it curious that none of the OSR variants start characters at level 8, encourage generous treasure hauls, have reams of detailed combat options, or set the goal of wiping out a pantheon from Deities and Demigods?

Actually, I have been working on a gonzo fantasy RPG.  

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;448901I haven't read either Moldvay or Mentzer closely enough to see if one could think, on reading them, that level 3 is the end and that's just how it is until you see the expert box on store shelf.

The original Blue Book advertised AD&D inside and the Basic Red Book advertised the Expert Blue Book so readers would automatically know they only got an intro to something larger.

My RBO idea came after a writing seminar where we were given X, Y, Z bits that had to be woven into a story, much like those chef shows where you get A, B, C ingredients and have to make a meal.  I really enjoy the power found in manipulating limitations.

I already knew I could do more with more, but I wanted to see how much more I could do with less and the RBO experiments have been terrific fun.

Quote from: Spinachcat;449356Actually, I have been working on a gonzo fantasy RPG.  

Anything you can tell us about this project yet?

Quote from: Spinachcat;449356I already knew I could do more with more, but I wanted to see how much more I could do with less and the RBO experiments have been terrific fun.

That makes sense and I can get behind that. It seemed clear to me from post #! that this was the idea. Yet there we go again, into Pierre Menard, DM of the Rules Compendium territory.

Quote from: RandallS;449288I could run a campaign for 2-3 years of almost weekly play before I'd be likely to have players with characters anywhere near 14th level. In almost 18 months of play in my current Wilderlands M75 campaign, PCs range from 4th to 7th level -- and the one who at 7th -- a fighter, BTW -- has been played since the TPK near the beginning of the campaign.

In an Arn campaign, the PCs would hit higher levels much faster as Arn is a high power/high entropy world. The Hidden Valley and the Wilderlands are low power worlds.

Hmm, now I'm trying to remember how long it took for the PCs to complete "expert" levels in my RC D&D campaign; it was considerably less than 3 years, if I'm not mistaken.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;449418Hmm, now I'm trying to remember how long it took for the PCs to complete "expert" levels in my RC D&D campaign; it was considerably less than 3 years, if I'm not mistaken.

RPGPundit

2 years doesn't seem off given 4-6 hours of play roughly once a week, with occasional missed weeks.

Quote from: Cole;449392Yet there we go again, into Pierre Menard, DM of the Rules Compendium territory.

Are you authentic enough to rewrite the game? :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;449418Hmm, now I'm trying to remember how long it took for the PCs to complete "expert" levels in my RC D&D campaign; it was considerably less than 3 years, if I'm not mistaken.

How fast characters advance depends on a lot of variables: what you give XP for and how much you give, amount of treasure available (especially useful magic items), how combat-oriented the campaign is (especially true if you do not give XP for treasure), the number of PCs (as XP is divided among them), etc.

In general, for my low powered worlds, my average number of PCs (larger than most groups these days), etc. it takes a number of play sessions equal to about 1.5 to 2 times the character's current level to advance to the next level.  That's two to three real months of weekly play just to get to 3rd level.

Quote from: Cole;449392Anything you can tell us about this project yet?

I am committed to putting out one game on PDF/POD by the end of 2011 and I am unsure which of my half-finished projects that will be.  I am leaning toward my espionage game, but it might be the gonzo fantasy or even the RBO setting.

I'll launch a thread about gonzo fantasy and talk more about it.

Quote from: Cole;449392That makes sense and I can get behind that. It seemed clear to me from post #! that this was the idea. Yet there we go again, into Pierre Menard, DM of the Rules Compendium territory.

Although not entirely correctly (since I did not aim to recreate any particular thing), I did dedicate my homebrew system to Pierre Menard. :cool: