Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 03:00:17 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2021, 02:54:58 PM
In short, I use original D&D as a foundation for "my own" D&D.

LOL!  I think that's true for everyone who's ever played OD&D or AD&D (probably more AD&D).  The rules are so convoluted that I don't think anyone ever played RAW.  Even now, if I reread carefully, I can find something that totally contradicts what we did at the table back then.

True!

No two tables were the same.

Quote from: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 03:54:06 PM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

Quote from: Arkansan on January 03, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

Quote from: Arkansan on January 03, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

By that line of thought, every discussion is pointless, and we should shut down all the message boards.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2021, 06:27:14 PM

Quote from: Arkansan on January 03, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

By that line of thought, every discussion is pointless, and we should shut down all the message boards.

And the courts. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 06:19:03 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 03:54:06 PM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

Quote from: Arkansan on January 03, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

Greetings!

Good points, Visionstorm! Indeed, OD&D and AD&D both are not perfect, and there are a good number of critiques you could make of them. As you pointed out, having vague or few articulated rules for several topics and issues easily come to mind. And I hear you on the other Grognard's critiques of everything bad with D&D started at 3E. *Laughing* I also loved 3E, too! I have an enormous library of books and modules that I collected for it, running 3E for *years* 3E eventually developed the same problems that Rolemaster possessed--especially the huge time sink in making characters and NPC's, a pack of books that you as the DM had to carry that would cripple a mule, and a bazillion skills and special powers and abilities. Characters required--and developed--multiple pages for all of their skills, special powers, spells, all of their special modifiers against X or Z, and more, I'm sure. As much as a fan of 3E I was, geesus it became a laborious thing to run. *Laughing* Our conversations with you and I though don't have the prerequisite napalm that some of our fellow members like though.

I like 5E as well, because it is simple and easy to run and do characters, easy for the players, and yet also has some of the newer "advances" of modern games--so avoiding some of those same critiques and flaws of the older games. 5E or AD&D for me, either one is excellent for myself.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 11:42:24 AM
...But ultimately you didn't answer my question. Which was:

Why do you prefer BAD rules, on the principle that you can ignore them? With all the touting of how 'Rulings not rules' OD&D was, one would think it would be a single page with 'I dunno roll a 20' on it. But it's not. Its pages and pages of contradictory (mostly just unfinished) resolution mechanics, with specific examples and things to do in multiple scenarious.
...

I certainly don't. Bad game design is bad game design.

Give me a retro clone that cleans things up any day over the hot mess that was early D&D.

Of course in D&D's defense - it was the first of it's kind, and it took a few editions to sort things out.

By todays standards, OD&D's design was crap. You try to release OD&D today without "D&D" on the cover and everyone would go: "What the fuck is this shit...!?"

So while it can certainly be said the system was a bit pants, as a game, it was lightning in a bottle..

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 03:00:17 PM
...LOL!  I think that's true for everyone who's ever played OD&D or AD&D (probably more AD&D).  The rules are so convoluted that I don't think anyone ever played RAW.  Even now, if I reread carefully, I can find something that totally contradicts what we did at the table back then.

AD&D1e was a hot mess. And it was lucky that B/X was around.

That said, the title "Advanced D&D" was marketing brilliance. 

I played OD&D in the 70's.  I would never use those little brown books now that cleaner versions, like Swords & Wizardry, are available that consolidate and explain everything. The game is essentially the same, of course. If you have tried it and don't like it, play something else. If you have already heard explanations of why other people like it, and don't agree, then there isn't much point in asking for more explanations.

No matter what edition I'm running, I discard or change rules I don't like. Newer editions just require me to change or discard a lot more than OD&D ever did.

Why have different tools and materials when you're gonna start with the same apprentice projects? 

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 06:19:03 PM

Quote from: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 03:54:06 PM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

Quote from: Arkansan on January 03, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

No one makes you hear or read about anything, you choose to stay. I mean this thread is basically you demanding everyone argue against your strawman of the OSR. Go be somewhere else if you aren't happy with the flow of the board or the games that are popular here.

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 06:19:03 PM
..."everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

I'm happy to discuss what I like and don't like about various editions. However, in my experience, even polite discussion of "dislikes" is often characterized as "hate," especially by people who like whatever edition or rule or whatever. Sometimes even saying "I don't like such-and-such" is enough to be called a "hater." And it's the internet, so there's no guarantee that all participants are going to be polite. And "fandom" type communities tend to include a least some people who have their personal identity heavily tied up in their fandom; such individuals can take dislike or disagreement (about the thing they love) personally.

It goes the opposite way, too: there are always going to be some who like something so much that they aggressively promote it, including bashing alternatives.

My approach to discussions about this kind of thing, especially in "fandom" type forums, is to have a thick skin, be polite, and present my opinions as opinions. Being whiny or overly sensitive tends to get you dismissed. Being rude or stating your opinion as if it were some objective truth gets you categorized as an ass, and dismissed. Polite + thick skin + opinion-not-TRUTH is a recipe that usually works, if one sticks to it. (And I'm not claiming that I infallibly do. But I'm trying...)

Quote from: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 06:19:03 PMObviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

I think it started with the Greyhawk supplement...or maybe those articles in the Strategic Review.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2021, 03:08:17 PM
I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.

The White Box was the packaging that came after the original Brown Box. I think the white boxes came about when they sold out their original print run of D&D.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 06:49:39 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.

Lots of people essentially play RPGs without rules at all.  They call it "cooperative storytelling" or "storygames."  I'm actually in the middle of one right now run by my 11 year old son, the latest of a long series.  I'm not into them like I'm into RPGs but I've been told by those who claim to know that they're more popular than actual RPGs.

I see it as just another part of the continuum.  There's rules heavy, rules light, and rules gone, with stuff all along the line.  I would say the fact that lots of people play and enjoy rules-very-light and rules-gone game shows that it's a valid, useful approach.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2021, 03:24:41 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2021, 03:08:17 PM
I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.

I started with the Holmes Basic Set and moved into 1e AD&D from there. However, I'd say that our early games were a chaotic mix of Holmes, 1e AD&D, original D&D little brown books (there was one guy who had these), and (once they came out) the B/X boxed sets. At the time, we didn't draw any lines between them. Later, that evolved into mostly just 1e AD&D. I played 2e when it came out, but found it to be less to my taste than earlier editions. Played 3e when it came out. I was initially enthusiastic, but after playing it for a while I grew disillusioned and abandoned it. Looked at 4e and gave it a brief shot. I thought it was well-designed, for what it is, but it wasn't anything like what I wanted from a set of D&D rules. Looked at 5e and gave it a brief shot. Again, not really what I wanted from a set of D&D rules; it didn't give me any reason to switch. I never bought the rules for 3.5, 4e, or 5e. I guess I well and truly got off the edition carousel when I abandoned 3e. I've been doing my own thing with my preferred editions ever since.

Wow.  This is precisely my own experience.  Now I'm wondering if you're someone from my original group in eastern Iowa, circa 1980.

Quote from: Mishihari on January 04, 2021, 12:44:58 AM
Wow.  This is precisely my own experience.  Now I'm wondering if you're someone from my original group in eastern Iowa, circa 1980.

That would be pretty cool, but sadly, no. In the 70s I lived in Wichita, KS, and then moved to St. Peters, MO in 1980.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 06:49:39 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. -snip-

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. --snipp--

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? ---snippp---

Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. ----snipppp----

For myself, personally, every point you have just made is way off the mark.I have always seen RPGs which were published before 1984 to be more like structured templates for rules than anything else. I never ignored rules nor have I ever found them to be contradicting in much of the sense other people claim, mostly due to an understanding of where the rules come from which are a variety of sources. I mostly blame DRAGON Magazine and Gygax's notion of including TOO much additional information in 1e AD&D DMG, for instance, when all that is really needed for rules is contained in the PHB. But this is nuance and your post doesn't seem constucted to allow for nuance. But. I'm going to ask you something:
Ever hear of the 1e PC class Manhunter? Or how about the 1e race called Feyre?
No? Never heard of them?
That's because their mine. I put alot of work into these. Never published but played for over 28 years.
And they work. And work well.
That's why I like 1e over newer faire.
It's only a structued template for me. Having no rules means no structure. I don't particularly like that.
I hope my answer helps. But I doubt it.