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