Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 13:11:54 GMT -6
To the extent that more popular means easier to organize games, then yes, it matters. You know, I hear this a lot, but I have never, ever, in 44 years had somebody decline to play because it wasn't a current rule set. I wonder if this is a regional thing or what?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 10, 2017 15:29:17 GMT -6
"I'm Michael Mornard, one of the players in Gary Gygax's Greyhawk campaign and Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign. Wanna play in my game? It's the same rules I've used for forty-four years."
"Heck yeah!"
Your celebrity status undoubtedly shields you from some edition discrimination.
|
|
Keps
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 118
|
Post by Keps on Mar 10, 2017 21:15:15 GMT -6
I think it's inevitable. It's a nostalgic thing for some of us but it has a convenience(rules light)thing as well which I believe young gamers will eventually gravitate towards. Whether it's OD&D/B/X or 5e basic. When they teach their kids D&D and at the same time don't have the time to play with them, they'll teach them a rules light version.
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Apr 1, 2017 22:24:01 GMT -6
Nice... I'm such a new-comer here that I hesitate to post about this. The original rules were "disorganized", and following suppliments didn't help in that regard. And, anyway, I subscribe to the following point... My only OD&D experience is with the original from 1974-1978'ish. The game was very "fluid", meaning that anyone could/would interpret things the way they wanted to. My impression was that Gygax wanted to standardize things to create a "canonicial" version of the game. I'm probably rephrasing what you have said... But, in addition, I've understood that Gygax was a bit of a megalomaniac and wanted, and succeeded, to create a great commercial product - that was his... very cool... I'll submit one bit from my 1970's experience showing the local Detroit gamer experience with OD&D, with John van de Graff's, et al, use and contribution to the development of OD&D - odd74.proboards.com/thread/5986/ryth-chronicleCheers, State
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 2, 2017 5:17:33 GMT -6
I'm such a new-comer here that I hesitate to post about this. The original rules were "disorganized", and following suppliments didn't help in that regard. I should probably clarify my position on this a little... When I first started playing OD&D, the rules were all in one little white box and with 3 little booklets. Other than the errata sheet enclosed (typos and such) I thought that the rules were very well organized and my group had little difficulty understanding them or interpreting them. When Supplement I Greyhawk came out the organization was still solid, and it wasn't hard to hop back and forth between the four books. Same with Supplement II Blackmoor. Honestly, we didn't use Eldritch Wizardry or G,DG & H much, so they didn't add to the problem. It wasn't until much later that I really realized how some of our rules were from different the way that others interpreted them, or that I grew frustrated with the fact that the rules were scattered through several books. My solution on the latter was to type up the things I wanted together, but my problem then and now has become what to keep and what to throw away. I like all d6 hit dice progression, for example, but still want to include supplemental classes like the paladin and the thief. This means that my campaigns don't have a single, coherent, set of rules that I use each and every time; instead I may toggle rules on and off depending upon my fancy for each new campaign. Very Arnisonian, I suppose, but also sort of frustrating. I wish for a rules set which was official with all of the right artwork and puts everything in its right spot. Of course, even if I got it I might dislike it because my whim of the day might not match the canon of the new book. Such is the life of a gamer, I guess. Anyway, the advantage of such an edition could be that it might enhance OD&D's popularity. It would have the "Dungeons and Dragons" name recognition, would project a proper "old school" vibe, and would be more useful to a newcomer than the original that was scattered through so many pamphlets. Just my two coppers.
|
|
|
Post by statemachine on Apr 2, 2017 23:18:04 GMT -6
No worries from me. I spent 25 years in IT (computers and such... ), where standardization was essential, and spent enormous amounts of time and effort to achieve "organizational effectiveness", and ... I hesitate to say, achievement within the CMM ( searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/Capability-Maturity-Model). I have worked with programmers that did work on NASA programs, and were blown away by their skill and rigor and such... This all by the way of saying, or repeating, or agreeing, that OD&D was not exactly cut in stone. As you mention, and I reference to the Detroit experience (Ryth and all that), that different people and communities did what they wanted to with the rule sets. Which fit the times, as it were. I don't know if AD&D is the answer to the notion of standardization since I don't know it at all. But, all my experience with standardization is that it is a very good thing for creating reproducable results and processes... This is not something I associate with RPG, and I think it is quite healthy that there is variation. Bleck! Sorry for corporate-speak in my response. Ugmm... Cheers, and all that, State
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 3, 2017 13:05:13 GMT -6
Aside from creating your own reference sheets, does any of this "perfect version" consolidation and rewriting actually change anything about how you play? You're not going to actually benefit yourself by rewriting, say, the combat rules into something you think is superior, are you? You know all that stuff already, right? Who's the target audience for a rewrite?
Maybe your players, but you just teach them by playing, right? They don't need streamlined and consolidated rules. You can't distribute the thing without violating copyright laws, unless you use the OGL and make a retro-clone, which isn't exactly a faithful rewrite.
I've thought of rewriting the rules for clarity or consolidation, and I always draw the conclusion that the only person who actually cares about my own perfect rule book is me, and I already know how to play so I don't really need it.
|
|
|
Post by Gynsburghe on Apr 3, 2017 13:44:06 GMT -6
I came to D&D through AD&D 1e, late in the Gygax Era ('83-'84) - and when 2e came out, we all asked, "Why?" I don't believe any of that group (which could swell to upwards of 12 people) ever bought any of the later TSR stuff during the 90s. I think a few returned in 3e, but I'm very uncertain of that even.
I went through the 90s, alternately frustrated and disinterested - nobody seemed to play 1e anymore. Maybe it was my shifting geographic regions of the time, but eventually I updated to 2e to game with others.
It was Hackmaster that changed that for me - and I think the key was that it was 'in print' and I was eventually able to find players (Ebay has made 'out of print' book finding much easier since). It also gave me a bit more ground to stand on - I wasn't alone, even if this particular incarnation had a enormous amount of what looked like "house rules" from a long running campaign. You took what you wanted, ignored the rest - and, lo, it really felt like AD&D at the table. I know this game brought others back to regular gaming, not just me... and then I went down the rabbit hole as the OSR developed...
I'm not sure how I feel about OD&Ds increasing popularity - I honestly think it is easier if you do come at it with a knowledge of 1e, which gives clues as to where to find rules. I'm also not sure if I'd call it 'popular' with Pathfinder, D&D 5e and other glossy games taking most of the market. Despite having been accused of it, I'm not being a 'hipster grognard' when I profess my preference for retroclones and the older editions. My regular gaming group has pretty much refused to even consider OD&D as an option, AD&D has not suffered the same (though, honestly, it is usually Hackmaster 4e). I guess, in a way, I'd be happier if people found a love for the roots in 1e first unless someone can show them how OD&D works - rather than enduring a bunch of folks complaining about the abstract & obtuse.
Not everyone has a Gronan in their neighborhood, I'm not sure that Vermont even knows that there was D&D before 3e sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 5, 2017 15:24:51 GMT -6
I've been following the thread for a while, but haven't said anything yet, because it seems like everyone's talking about the popularity of OD&D in different ways.
Do I want more people to learn about OD&D, and start playing it? Not in the sense that I worry about it, but yeah, I'd like there to be at least enough new players to replace those who lose enthusiasm. I want the tradition to continue, and if it grows a little, that's fine, too.
Do I want OD&D to "win" in a popularity contest vs. 5e/4e/3e or whatever? Don't care. Especially since some of the people boosting modern editions and criticizing OD&D are looking for a completely different experience and would NOT be happy if they switched to OD&D, and more importantly would make our experience worse. I want the people into rules mastery to have their own set of rules so that they leave us alone.
Do I worry about OD&D getting "too popular"? The way some people into indie or punk worry about their fave bands getting too popular? What does that question even mean? I don't play OD&D because it's a niche game and I want to look cool. I play it because it's the approach I look for in an RPG.
Do I want OD&D to be more popular so that there is better product support? No. I don't care about commercial products. I enjoy seeing something new, especially if it's a fresh take, but I don't need to buy anything else to play the game. I just need the three booklets. Or not even that, since I have the basic rules memorized and could improvise the rest, or find someone's fan-created replacement on the internet if I were desperate.
I guess the short answer is that I don't care how popular the game is, but I'm always happy to meet another person who likes it.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Apr 7, 2017 12:19:43 GMT -6
removed
|
|