Why do we like older rule systems?

[gloriousbattle]

Why do we like older rule systems?

Just asking this as a kind of a fun psychological/sociological question. Nothing serious. I will probably also post it on some other fora.

Anyway, my favorite games are OD&D (today as the LL clone) and Warhammer 40K, 1st ed. Each subsequent edition of each of these games I have enjoyed less and less, until I finally reverted to the originals.

So... Why?

Well, I thought about this, some, and realized that both of these two games have several features in common:

Positives

1. They had simpler rules than the later sets.

2. They required a lesser expense (fewer, cheaper rulebooks), than the later sets.

3. They were less commercialized than the later sets, though probably by default rather than by choice.

4. They were the games I cut my teeth on, and so maintain a certain charm with me for that reason.

Negatives

1. Often the rules were not as well ironed out as later editions (The original D&D rules were comprehensible, the original 40K rules had an absoultely unworkable point value system).

2. Fewer options were available. This is a very fair criticism in a way. If you want to run a fantasy campaign with a late 16th century South-Eastern Cambodian flavor, combined with an invasion of Heinlein's Starship Troopers Arachnids, you can probably find source books for it somewhere today.

3. Production values (especially of the OD&D rules) were, quite frankly, abysmal compared to what is out now.

So, in the end, why do I prefer the original games, when so many others prefer D&D edition 4.xxx? I really think it just comes down to what I first cut my teeth on, and first enjoyed. That one is a powerful motivator, and, in the end, probably has more to do with memories of sitting around with my friends on Saturday nights in my parent's attic as a 17 year old than it has to do with any of the other points listed above.

Is there any force greater than nostalgia?


ADMIN EDIT: I just had to clean out those page breaks.

[tombowings]

Funny thing is, there are a lot of young people who are into older games as well; I'm among them. The real appeal for me is how much is left out of the rulesets and how they don't use any sort of unified system mechanics.

More than just having less to remember when it comes to game time, having the system no-where near polished nor comprehensive allows me the freedom to make the rules work for me (as a referee) rather than having me working for the rules.

[Mr. Darke]

I like the simpler approach of the older games. It seems the newer RPGs are all about cranking up power levels and complexity. I miss games that knew they were games and not simulations.

[aldarron]

Okay, these kind of questions tend to be framed too narrowly. What really defines what people like is only partly defined by the nostalgia of whatever they were first exposed too. I like 80's pop music because, no doubt, its what I was exposed to when I was a teenager but I also have come to really like 19th century folk music and celtic trad, which I never heard of back in the day. So what I'm suggesting is that likes and dislikes are both complicated and complex and also very personal.

Having said that, I think there will still be some reasons that stand out for certain kinds of preferences, such as prefering simpler or more free form types of things over more complex or embellished types of things - like old school vs new school games.

[gloriousbattle]

Jan 17, 2011 19:43:44 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Funny thing is, there are a lot of young people who are into older games as well; I'm among them. The real appeal for me is how much is left out of the rulesets and how they don't use any sort of unified system mechanics.

More than just having less to remember when it comes to game time, having the system no-where near polished nor comprehensive allows me the freedom to make the rules work for me (as a referee) rather than having me working for the rules.

Though I'm a fossil, many of my group are younger players, so I gotta give you that one.

Also, you are right in that the mystery is lost when you have too many rules and know too much.

The Lord of the Rings lost a lot of charm for me after we knew who and what the Black Riders really were. They were a lot scarier (and more fun) as a nameless, shadowy menace, than they were as the bearers of the nine rings of men.

[jasmith]

Jan 17, 2011 18:57:55 GMT -6 gloriousbattle said:

Is there any force greater than nostalgia?

1. Yes. Several.

2. I've been gaming for 29 years. Most of that time, was devoted to 1st ed. AD&D. I then ran 3e for seven years. I went back to TSR era D&D, because I got tired of being smothered and barraged in rules and realized there was a reason I wasn't enjoying DMing as much as I used to. I like the older games a lot more. ;D

In short, I don't identify with the whole "nostalgia" thing. I'm just a life-long gamer who plays what he likes.

[smokestackjones]

Jan 17, 2011 21:22:39 GMT -6 gloriousbattle said:

Jan 17, 2011 19:43:44 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Funny thing is, there are a lot of young people who are into older games as well; I'm among them. The real appeal for me is how much is left out of the rulesets and how they don't use any sort of unified system mechanics.

More than just having less to remember when it comes to game time, having the system no-where near polished nor comprehensive allows me the freedom to make the rules work for me (as a referee) rather than having me working for the rules.

Though I'm a fossil, many of my group are younger players, so I gotta give you that one.

Also, you are right in that the mystery is lost when you have too many rules and know too much.

The Lord of the Rings lost a lot of charm for me after we knew who and what the Black Riders really were. They were a lot scarier (and more fun) as a nameless, shadowy menace, than they were as the bearers of the nine rings of men.

A hearty agreement, GB.

It's also good training for being a DM. I'd trust a DM that knows how to improvise, interpret and make judgements over some guy who has to have every hex of the party's involvement examined, cross-referenced and interprested by whatever chart there is in the rulbook to cover just that specific instance.

-SJ

[18 Spears]

I don't feel it is nostalgia in my case. I bought the OD&D game when it was first published and I never moved on. Not because I thought it was perfect or better than anything else but because it met my needs and I didn't see why I should sink a lot of money into a new system when what I had worked just fine.

Nostalgia looks back on something. I, for one, never left. I play other other games but when I'm given the choice (to play or to referee) I pick OD&D.

[arcadayn]

The simple answer is that OD&D and its immediate predecessors are fun. I think 2nd edition on up lost track of the fun factor.

For myself, I can certainly discount nostalgia. I started with the usual cross-bred mutation of AD&D 1st and B/X back in '81. Within the first couple of months, I was already playing Traveller, Boot Hill, and Top Secret. Point being that I have never been a D&D or Gygax sycophant. I played what was fun, and when AD&D started moving toward 2nd edition (Dungeoneer and Wilderness Survival Guides, Manual of the Planes, etc), it lost a lot of the fun for me. I eventually dropped AD&D completely and got my fantasy fix from Rolemaster.

So, why have I returned after 20 some years of moving on? For me, it was the allure of Philotomie's musings and trying to puzzle out OD&D from the crappy little scans WOTC put out. Half of the fun of OD&D is figuring out how you're going to handle different rules and situations. Now I'm completley hooked. I'm the proud owner of a 5th edtition OD&D set with all of the supplements, I spend hours a day on old school forums and blogs, I have tons of self printed and bound books, and I've dusted off all of my old stuff and added a few vintage modules. I'm having a great time, and that is what really matters.

[sirjaguar]

For me, it's definitely nostalgia. My funnest D&D game was my very first, decades ago. We didn't understand all the rules and were playing "wrong", etc., but so what? It was all about imagination and really was an adventure of the mind.
Being honest, D&D while still fun, has never again been _that_ much fun, even using old-school rules. But it's liberating to play with only pencils and index cards and maybe a piece of graph paper. And even if I can't recapture that same feeling from 30 years ago, I can see it in my kids eyes every time we play.

[kenmeister]

It can't be nostalgia for me. I embraced D&D 3.5 and it became my sole game for a while. I was converting every character I had every played to 3.5 stats. I burned out on it because as I grew more familiar with the system, I realized its flaws. While AD&D certainly has extensive flaws, most are cosmetic and the fundamental underlying design is rock solid. 3.5 however is cosmetically beautiful and its fundamental design is pretty unmanageable, particularly past level 10. I don't think you can arrive at this conclusion without playing the game extensively, however. It really bugs me when people say that 3.5 is superior to 2E because of THAC0 or level limits; that's such small stuff.

[mythmere]

Although there's nothing wrong with nostalgia, either.
I think it's a pretty complex combination of factors that's likely got different weights for each person. Free-form rules, light rules (those are different IMO), nostalgia, writing style of the older rules, illustrations and layout, and setting flavor. All those seem to play a part, not necessarily the same mix, though.

[Finarvyn]

I think that the simplicity of the older sets is the #1 reason for me.

Think about this: you buy a rules set and then decide to house rule it, so you tweak it and you add to it, then you type it up, then you add some more, type it up, and so on. As time passes the rules get more complex because you don't really throw out as much as you create.

You generate rules clutter.

This can be good or bad. Rules clutter means the rules can do a lot more, but it also means that the "entry level" is a lot harder. It's great for companies trying to sell a product, not so good for the frugal consumer who wants one book to rule them all.

I think that's why some folks have gone back. They think "can't I just use the PH, DMG, MM and some dice and play?" and they'd be right.

They can do it, but for many of us it's the building that's the fun part.

[mythmere]

For me, I think it's that the rules don't cover everything, which is often described pejoratively as "DM fiat," but it also frees up a lot of powerful mojo in the hands of a good referee. If the door is simply "locked by magic against everything but a silver blade," or if there is a spell that "ordinary magic-users cannot cast, only those of the lizard-king bloodline," or if there's "an ancient language that a read magic spell can only partly decipher" ... this is the stuff of fantasy. If a less free-form rule set tries to quantify all doors, all magic, all spell effects, etc., into a system - yes, it works better for a game where the players want to know all their resources, but on the other hand it eliminates the "mystery" of those places where knowledge and reason do not reach.

Also, in a more mundane note, it's easier to DM when there aren't many rules.

[kenmeister]

Jan 18, 2011 13:07:31 GMT -6 mythmere said:

Also, in a more mundane note, it's easier to DM when there aren't many rules.

But you can run into trouble. Say the rules system you are using is devoid of grappling rules, and on the spot you make up a mechanic. Well, if it turns out that the mechanic doesn't work well, the players may hold you to it - especially if you used it against them - and all of a sudden you've got a problem.

[18 Spears]

But if the rules-set you are using includes grappling rules you can't stand (OAD&D, I'm looking at you!), you still have the same problem.

[kenmeister]

Jan 18, 2011 15:48:11 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

But if the rules-set you are using includes grappling rules you can't stand (OAD&D, I'm looking at you!), you still have the same problem.

To get back to Fin's point, that would explain why I have sunk hours and hours into my modification of it!

[18 Spears]

Well said! Plus, a poster with a moniker such as mine must needs like a horse with a spear stuck to his forehead!

;D

[Finarvyn]

Jan 18, 2011 15:48:11 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

But if the rules-set you are using includes grappling rules you can't stand (OAD&D, I'm looking at you!), you still have the same problem.

Ah, when I ran AD&D I never used grappling rules. Problem solved.

[18 Spears]

Jan 18, 2011 18:18:18 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Ah, when I ran AD&D I never used grappling rules. Problem solved.

LOL! Yeah, that's one solution!

[verhaden]

AD&D is fantasy gaming, for me.

[Falconer]

I gathered from an article in The Dragon that the simple Weaponless Combat System I given in UA is actually more or less what Gary used from his OD&D days and continued to use even after he wrote AD&D. Anyway, I always found it plenty adequate. (The more complex Weaponless Combat System II is from a Roger E. Moore article, if I recall correctly.)

[DungeonDevil]

Why do we like older rule systems?

Disillusionment with more recent, more complex rulesets which detract from RP.

[Aplus]

My D&D days only go back to around 1994 and AD&D2. In actual practice, what we played resembled classic D&D more than AD&D, as we didn't grasp most of the rules well enough to actually use them.

We picked up playing again after a ~13 year hiatus with the release of D&D4E. We played a session or two, and it didn't really catch on until we tried again last spring with me taking the DM role for the first time ever. We gave it an honest shot, and played about eight 8- to 10-hour sessions with a party of 8 players. It was mostly fun, but those of us that weren't brand new to D&D couldn't shake the feeling that it was something called D&D that wasn't really D&D.

Lately we've been playing Pathfinder, a game which has many great qualities, and is much more in line with what we want from an RPG, but more and more I am feeling like I am subservient to the rules rather than the rules being a tool of mine (much like an earlier poster mentioned). When I am faced with a rules question, I am extremely hesitant to make a ruling, and am more inclined to stop the game and look it up, due to my (perhaps irrational) fear of breaking something or setting a bad precedent that would come back to bite me later. I sometimes feel more like the GameSlave than the GameMaster.

When I first read S&W:WB, it was like an epiphany. The solution to all my DMing woes, right there. That little book told me I was smart enough to make those calls. It told me I was in charge of my game. It gave the promise of being able to dedicate prep time almost purely to creating interesting scenarios to put the PCs in, rather than the constant research of monsters and their intricate web of cross-referenced abilities, in order to ensure that I would do the monster's CR rating justice in the upcoming game.

Since then, I've gone on to read most of OD&D, Holmes, and Moldvay. I am fascinated by the evolution of the rules, and all their quaint little idiosyncrasies.

I have yet to get either of my steady gaming groups converted to an OSR system (one in particular is personally offended by the -1/+1 attribute bonus range in white box), but I will get there. I am going to GaryCon to play in as many games as I can to watch some pros and hopefully learn a thing or two about keeping a group engaged in a game rather than the latest shiny on their character sheet.

Even if I can never convince my players to change systems, I have definitely benefitted greatly from my rabid consumption of the older rules systems. I no longer bow at the almighty rules alter, and I am much more confident in my ability to make good, fair, off-the-cuff rulings when necessary.

This forum has been particularly helpful in answering questions and making me feel welcome, and for that, I thank you all.

[akiyama]

What I like about Holmes/OD&D

The vagueness. I really like the vagueness. It invites you to go your own way with the game, in terms of both setting and house-rules. Of course, one *could* view other games as a collection of optional rules and I like the way 2e encouraged this but in practice I think it's easier to start from something skeletal, like Holmes or White Box, and build on it. And I feel that more modern games have an implied setting which doesn't always gel with what I want to run.

The simplicity. When I ran AD&D as a teenager I was a bit hazy about many of the rules. I'm not sure I even realised there were grappling rules! As for something like Pathfinder - my mind boggles even at the thought of DMing it (although if they ever bring out a Basic Set I might show some interest). I'm writing my own house rules for a Holmes game at the moment and consciously keeping it as simple as possible - my feeling is that I can always add complexity later.

The pulp fantasy, retro-stupid, "do anything" feel of the original rules, the early products and magazines and, the current OSR. There's an inspirational vibe about older D&D rules that the more modern and more complex D&D rules don't have to the same extent.

If I had to sum up in one word what I like about OD&D it would be "openness". Which IMO is the exact opposite of Wizbro's current approach to the game.

[kenmeister]

Jan 19, 2011 1:54:08 GMT -6 Aplus said:

When I am faced with a rules question, I am extremely hesitant to make a ruling, and am more inclined to stop the game and look it up, due to my (perhaps irrational) fear of breaking something or setting a bad precedent that would come back to bite me later. I sometimes feel more like the GameSlave than the GameMaster.

It's not irrational, at every turn DMing 3.5 I found that whenever I went off the official rules, a player complained I was nerfing his character. Players spend so much time choosing their build (classes, skill points, feats, class abilities) that they have an honest gripe. For instance, if I say that it is silly to have wisdom modify spot, the monk will speak up and say that this is what makes him a good scout. Or if I try to houserule that the damage done from an attack of opportunity on a grapple attempt doesn't disrupt the attempt; instead it reduces the chance to hit, well the guy who took improved grapple isn't as pleased about that.

[Finarvyn]

Jan 19, 2011 1:54:08 GMT -6 Aplus said:

When I first read S&W:WB, it was like an epiphany. The solution to all my DMing woes, right there. That little book told me I was smart enough to make those calls. It told me I was in charge of my game. It gave the promise of being able to dedicate prep time almost purely to creating interesting scenarios to put the PCs in, rather than the constant research of monsters and their intricate web of cross-referenced abilities, in order to ensure that I would do the monster's CR rating justice in the upcoming game.

It's written that way because that's the way I've played since the 1970's. We had a copy of this cool game that wasn't a wargame and wasn't a miniatures game and nobody that we knew had ever heard about it before and nobody that we knew could show us how to play.

So we faked it.

Even today I run my OD&D game with copies of the C&C Player's Handbook, Rules Cyclopedia, and Judges Guild GM Screen handy, and I'll just grab whatever I need at the moment. So what if the AC of an orc is slightly different in C&C versus AD&D or OD&D? Let's just grab some dice and play.

That doesn't mean that I don't try to be somewhat consistent in my rulings. I do. I just don't sweat it if I'm not quite the same each time. Those particular orcs might have been extra tough or something.

Glad you made the connection.

[Finarvyn]

By the way, aplus, what you idenify as an "epiphany" some call a "weakness." The main critisism I've gotten about the WB over the years has been that it's too vague and too toolkit-like. They want me to tell them exact rules, not provide options.

Can't please everyone.

[Mr. Darke]

Personally, I like the toolkit feel. Being able to build on the game so easily is what makes games like OD&D or S&W so much fun to use. The framework may have been written but the rest is my own invention that fits my likes and not someone elses.

[vito]

I like the mystery.
I have no idea how anything is supposed to work, so I just have to wing it.
My player's don't know the rules either, so it all works out.