Overcoming Skepticism

[James Maliszewski]

I am intent on starting an OD&D game, but, when I approached my regular group of players about the possibility, they almost universally rejected the idea. Naturally, I pressed them on the question of just why they didn't want to do so. Most of their answers were pretty incoherent and unhelpful, having to do with some vague sense that OD&D was "too old" and therefore not as fun as more modern games. The most articulate answer I got was that OD&D -- and by extension all old school games -- provided insufficient mechanical differences between characters. This player found it hard to abandon the "range of options" that more modern games offer. To him, OD&D seemed to be "incomplete."

So, how to handle this? Has anyone else encountered similar skepticism?

[doc]

Well, just tell them that it would be a good idea to play OD&D because, as gamers, they should have an appreciation of where their hobby came from and give them a sense of history. If not for the little brown books, they wouldn't have their bright, shiny 3.5.

You could always just ask them to try it for one adventure, just so they can actually say "yeah, I played the original game." Thus gaining some serious geek cred

Or, you could sneak it in the way that I did. I was running a 3.0 game a few years back and all of the characters got blasted back to the earliest history of our game world some 3000 years in the past. With glee, I took their 3.0 character sheets away from them and replaced them with their same characters done in OD&D terms. They had been blasted so far into the past that they went from 3.0 to the LBB!! While there was a lot of "you have GOT to be kidding me!" in the beginning, most of the gamers really got into the raw gaming mindset of going for broke with no skills or feats to fall back on. A year or so later our 3.0 game ended (none of us were willing to buy all of the 3.5 upgrades) and we moved on to other games, but eventually we started up a new OD&D campaign that we have been playing to this day!

Doc

[korgoth]

I'm with doc on the "Geek cred" idea. Where philosophy and prudent counsel fail, peer pressure and implications of absent virility may succeed.

Of course, once you have buffaloed the group into playing the one-shot, you're basically honor-bound to knock their socks off with a top-tier gaming session. No pressure.

[calithena]

This problem is more of an issue with experienced gamers, I think. A lot of casual players and new players will play whatever the DM wants to run.

One thing you can maybe do is go into 'full improvisation' mode. Challenge them to think up any character they want to play, and write up new classes, races, whatever if what they want falls outside the norm. If it doesn't, then no big problem.

Another way is to allow a little personalization up front - say, three minor gifts/special abilities that differentiate their character from others. AD&D's secondary skills, Arduin's and Thieves Guild's special abilities charts are not a bad approach to this.

[badger2305]

doc said:

Well, just tell them that it would be a good idea to play OD&D because, as gamers, they should have an appreciation of where their hobby came from and give them a sense of history. If not for the little brown books, they wouldn't have their bright, shiny 3.5.

You could always just ask them to try it for one adventure, just so they can actually say "yeah, I played the original game." Thus gaining some serious geek cred

This usually works, in my experience. Though some players cannot seem to get out of the mindset that OD&D = Basic D&D = "kid's game" (sigh)

Or, you could sneak it in the way that I did. I was running a 3.0 game a few years back and all of the characters got blasted back to the earliest history of our game world some 3000 years in the past. With glee, I took their 3.0 character sheets away from them and replaced them with their same characters done in OD&D terms. They had been blasted so far into the past that they went from 3.0 to the LBB!! While there was a lot of "you have GOT to be kidding me!" in the beginning, most of the gamers really got into the raw gaming mindset of going for broke with no skills or feats to fall back on. A year or so later our 3.0 game ended (none of us were willing to buy all of the 3.5 upgrades) and we moved on to other games, but eventually we started up a new OD&D campaign that we have been playing to this day!

Doc

THAT rocks!

[James Maliszewski]

These are all excellent ideas. Thank you!

Right now, my likely plan of attack will involve an ambush. What I'll do is simply generate some characters in advance, plan out an adventure, and spring them on my players when they're over one night, simply handing the characters -- with short back stories and personality profiles -- and seeing where they go with them. My guess, knowing my players, is that they'll initially be hesitant but will quickly get into the spirit of things provided I have a really compelling adventure.

Therein lies the problem. I can think of many adventure ideas I'd love to run but very few of them have the appropriate one-shot-that-could-spawn-a-campaign feel to them. I want something short, sweet, and to the point but that still possesses sufficient depth and dangling hooks that, should they enjoy themselves, I can use it as a springboard for future forays into old school gaming.

[makofan]

Do they know the beginning dungeon in Mentzer Basic book? That has quite a few customization ideas, and a larger campaign intimation (Bargle as an arch-villain)

Do they enjoy freaky adventures that make the skin crawl, or do they have a 'this dungeon ecology better make sense' attitude? What makes them tick?

[Finarvyn]

The big key for me is that the DM gets to pick the rules for the game. If only a couple players are willing to try OD&D, tell the rest that they can re-join sometime later on, but run something for the ones willing to give it a try.

OD&D is all about options, not limits -- ask a 3E player how many feats are in the book, and how many his character will actually get to use. It really doesn't matter how many cool options appear to be out there if you can't do them. Remind them that without skill lists any character can try just about anything, so OD&D actually gives them more choices than later editons does.

[jdrakeh]

Well, the truth is that OD&D is very rules light and, in fact, does not provide many mechanics with regard to creating highly individualized an unique characters. A lot of characters are the same or similar, mechanically speaking. OD&D isn't the game for people who want characters that are mechanically unique.

This isn't a matter of skepticism, it's a matter of preference. If your player prefers games that provide for a large number of mechanical options aimed at customizing characters, he'll likely never prefer OD&D to systems that do what he likes (you know, 'cause it doesn't). .

[philotomy]

Yeah, I agree with jdrakeh. If you're lucky, the player is just having difficulty seeing how a lighter game with fewer mechanical rules/options could be just as fun (or more fun). He's got a "More mechanics == More Options == More Fun" equation in his head. It's possible that this is just a perception problem, in which case trying OD&D could change his viewpoint. (For example, he might find that few mechanical options doesn't really mean fewer options for what his PC can do in play. Or he might find that fewer mechanical options doesn't really mean less fun.)

It's also possible that it's a real and fully-considered preference for heavier mechanics.

[Deleted]

Talk with you group & let them know that you wan't to try an experiment for a couple of games; that your "taking a break form the norm", so to speak--I'm sure they would acquiesce (if not, there's a completely different problem going on). That's how I got 2 out of the 3 players in my group: they both were solid 3rd. ed. players. Once they got a taste of what this game had to offer them, while not having to conform to a set standard, as well as their character being able to try anything & not worrying about "skill ranks" or "feats", they never looked back. Both have said that it really opens up the creativity process for them while playing, & all this without having to lug around a dozen or more books.

That's worth it all by itself!!

[James Maliszewski]

philotomy said:

It's also possible that it's a real and fully-considered preference for heavier mechanics.

Possible but not likely. I suspect their expressed "preference" is mostly the atrophying of their old school gaming muscles. I intend to give them a workout.

More seriously, I think that most of the reticence simply comes from the fact that we haven't played older style games in many years, so, naturally, they're a bit reluctant to "go back to the Dark Ages." However, if I can give them an unforgettable adventure that highlights the benefits of a more free-form system, I think they'll take to it like natives and never look back.

At least that's what I'm hoping -- which is why I need a brilliant adventure.

[badger2305]

Well, in the spirit of an unforgettable adventure, you might make the adventure focused on things where mechanics don't really matter, but careful thinking does. To keep it in the style of older games, a quest (or even a geas) might do the job - but that's a little heavy-handed.

One truly strange idea would be to sort out the endings cards from Once Upon a Time, and then draw some cards at random to see what elements need to be put in place for that ending. I'm thinking of this as a kind of subconscious stimulation for your own creativity. (Heck, you could make it an adventure centered on a Deck of Many Things - but that's been done before, too. Hmmm.)

[crimhthanthegreat]

Great advice guys, here is my 2 cps. If you go back to the beginning one of the things they can do is have two groups of players, (we were talking about this is an different thread) one group Lawful and one group Chaotic and you just referee the game, two groups one dungeon and they can be anything, a young balrog, a young titan, anything. Throw them so real curves.

[dwayanu]

And you don't need to look up a BTB "template" and whip out a calculator ...

[Finarvyn]

Run them through a game of Amber Diceless and see what they do. That's the best way to break out of the "must have a rule for it" syndrome.

[James Maliszewski]

admin said:

Run them through a game of Amber Diceless and see what they do. That's the best way to break out of the "must have a rule for it" syndrome.

Not likely. Diceless gaming is a step too far for me and even attempting it would probably frighten away my players even more than I already have.

[crimhthanthegreat]

Let us know how it goes as you work on persuading your group to give it a try.

[James Maliszewski]

crimhthanthegreat said:

Let us know how it goes as you work on persuading your group to give it a try.

This Sunday is the big day. You can be sure I'll write up an after-action report to let everyone know how it goes. Interestingly, two of my players have suddenly been a lot more positive about this than they had been previously and I've even attracted a new player to our group because he heard we'd be playing OD&D.

[crimhthanthegreat]

Best Wishes for an inspired game day and for winning many converts for a fun campaign. Can't wait to here how it goes.

[korgoth]

jamesm said:

crimhthanthegreat said:

Let us know how it goes as you work on persuading your group to give it a try.

This Sunday is the big day. You can be sure I'll write up an after-action report to let everyone know how it goes. Interestingly, two of my players have suddenly been a lot more positive about this than they had been previously and I've even attracted a new player to our group because he heard we'd be playing OD&D.

Super! Have an Exalt.

So... did you have to resort to any taunts to get them to play? If so, post the more scathing ones.

[James Maliszewski]

I didn't need to use any taunts as such, although I did imply that they were "girly men" if they weren't at least willing to try it.

Mostly, I just told them that this Sunday I would be running a one-shot OD&D game and that I'd provide them with pre-made characters and background information. They're mostly of the opinion that "even bad gaming is good gaming," so they acquiesced to my plans.

As of this moment, I'm going for straight OD&D as per the LBBs and nothing else. Ideally, I'd like any house rules or variants we adopt (should the game go on) to arise organically out of play rather than by imposition from on high. That strikes me as the best approach on many levels.

[Finarvyn]

jamesm said:

admin said:

Run them through a game of Amber Diceless and see what they do. That's the best way to break out of the "must have a rule for it" syndrome.

Not likely. Diceless gaming is a step too far for me and even attempting it would probably frighten away my players even more than I already have.

Well, what I was thinking is that when you run a diceless game the players have to think about actions rather than dice. Even if you run a 10-minute situation (perhaps characters meeting in a tavern) and let the players know that it has to be played out rather than rolled through -- this may help them break the bonds of being rules-heavy.

If your group isn't ready for a diceless game I wouldn't push too hard, either, because you don't want to scare them away. The point is to let them see how they can make decisions without having an extensive skill list handy to tell them what they can and cannot do.

Just a thought...

[coffee]

jamesm said:

As of this moment, I'm going for straight OD&D as per the LBBs and nothing else. Ideally, I'd like any house rules or variants we adopt (should the game go on) to arise organically out of play rather than by imposition from on high. That strikes me as the best approach on many levels.

Absolutely! That's the thing I'm going to do when I start my game.

Have an exalt for that!

[crimhthanthegreat]

jamesm said:

I didn't need to use any taunts as such, although I did imply that they were "girly men" if they weren't at least willing to try it.

Mostly, I just told them that this Sunday I would be running a one-shot OD&D game and that I'd provide them with pre-made characters and background information. They're mostly of the opinion that "even bad gaming is good gaming," so they acquiesced to my plans.

As of this moment, I'm going for straight OD&D as per the LBBs and nothing else. Ideally, I'd like any house rules or variants we adopt (should the game go on) to arise organically out of play rather than by imposition from on high. That strikes me as the best approach on many levels.

Well at least you didn't have to triple dog dare them.

I think you exactly right on the house rules, they should arise organically out of play.

[crimhthanthegreat]

admin said:

jamesm said:

Not likely. Diceless gaming is a step too far for me and even attempting it would probably frighten away my players even more than I already have.

Well, what I was thinking is that when you run a diceless game the players have to think about actions rather than dice. Even if you run a 10-minute situation (perhaps characters meeting in a tavern) and let the players know that it has to be played out rather than rolled through -- this may help them break the bonds of being rules-heavy.

If your group isn't ready for a diceless game I wouldn't push too hard, either, because you don't want to scare them away. The point is to let them see how they can make decisions without having an extensive skill list handy to tell them what they can and cannot do.

Just a thought...

I have never tried diceless, is there any free online game where I could take a quick look at a diceless game?

[James Maliszewski]

crimhthanthegreat said:

I think you exactly right on the house rules, they should arise organically out of play.

Now, if I know my players, I think it quite likely that we might, should this OD&D game last long enough, wind up re-capitulating the entire history of the game as it developed toward AD&D. I'm fine with that. I've long been of the opinion that what separates OD&D and 1E from later editions is that (for the most part) the rules actually evolved in response to play rather than as a consequence of theory or marketing.

It's my guess -- and I'd love to see if it plays out in practice -- that a long-term OD&D game would start edging towards AD&D in many areas. That is, you could recreate the process that led Gygax to institute many of the rules changes he did. I don't think it's an inevitable process nor do I think AD&D as we know it is the only possible outcome, but I do understand how OD&D's "firstborn" acquired the characteristics he did.

But I am getting ahead of myself. I must play first and then we shall see how things evolve on my end.

[crimhthanthegreat]

jamesm,

I think you make an excellent point, IMC we have deliberately kept things simple and while we have tried lots of house rules over the years we don't implement too many at a time, we have deliberately avoided having the game evolve into a more complex game, at times when it has grown more complex we have went back and pruned it back by doing away with house rules. All the variations were fun, but when we want to play AD&D we just play AD&D.

[Finarvyn]

crimhthanthegreat said:

I have never tried diceless, is there any free online game where I could take a quick look at a diceless game?

I think I'd rather have a new thread for this rather than totally derailing jamesm's discussion. Look for it in the "Old School RPG" section, link here