Quote from: jgants;304330The whole "OD&D is cool" bullshit is exactly all about being posers, the big exception of Old Geezer (and perhaps a couple of people similarly situated).  It only started when people didn't like 4e and decided to go "back to the roots". Prior to 4e stuff starting to come out, Old Geezer was the only fucking person on the entire Internet I saw that said he played OD&D.  Now all of a sudden, people want everyone to think its some huge retro-phenomenon.  It's not.

So here's what I've been thinking. jgants is right, in that the whole OD&D et al. revival really seemed to take off with 4th edition. I'd say he is also right in that it is because prior players didn't like the new edition.

I suspect that the retro-gaming movement is a symptom of disaffection with 4e, and its support of a gamestyle people going retro aren't interested in. It doesn't give them what they want from an RPG. I'd further suggest that the reason they are going all the way back rather than to 3.x is that 3.x didn't give them exactly what they wanted either, but was enough in the ballpark that they could put up with it (which also explains why C&C came out, not everyone could put up with it). Not only did 4e not work for them, it also broke 3e's hegemony, and gave people an opportunity to step back and reflect on what it is they actually want from a game, which has led a fair number of folks back to the beginning.

I also think that we will soon see some visions of where OD&D could have gone had it not gone down the path it did, which may give us some alternate evolutionary paths that could be illuminating.

Interesting times, I think.

The "retro" movement is older than 4e.

Quote from: apparition13;304392I suspect that the retro-gaming movement is a symptom of disaffection with 4e, and its support of a gamestyle people going retro aren't interested in. It doesn't give them what they want from an RPG. I'd further suggest that the reason they are going all the way back rather than to 3.x is that 3.x didn't give them exactly what they wanted either, but was enough in the ballpark that they could put up with it.  ... Not only did 4e not work for them, it also broke 3e's hegemony, and gave people an opportunity to step back and reflect on what it is they actually want from a game, which has led a fair number of folks back to the beginning.

I agree with that, although my enthusiasm for modern D&D began to wane during the 3E era, because my default opinion that D&D had the advantage of simplicity over other systems was drowned in the tide of rules expansion.

I began with red-box basic and enjoyed the support of more rules through the following editions.  However, as an experienced gamer, I don't need that sort of hand-holding any more, let alone the prescriptive nature of 4E which insists on taking even the description of a character's actions away from the player.

The teen-emo argument is that anyone moving to classic gaming, but who didn't play OD&D "back in the day", is some sort of poseur.  But eventually they'll grow out of the need to play a super-powered goth from another dimension, and understand the desire to move on to more versatile games, too.

jgants, like most 4E thought police, is just plying the Bulverist argument and can safely be ignored.

Yes, I'm sorry; the retro-movement may have taken off more than it was after 4e came out; but it was around quite a few years before 4e was released, even before it was announced.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Hairfoot;304395I agree with that, although my enthusiasm for modern D&D began to wane during the 3E era, because my default opinion that D&D had the advantage of simplicity over other systems was drowned in the tide of rules expansion.

QuoteD&D, from the very beginning, has been mired in rules expansion - what the fuck was Greyhawk after all?

The retro movement and the anti-D&D4 have got nothing to do with each other. Most of the people who don't like D&D4 do so because they prefer D&D3, and frankly, one has to be completely delusional to consider D&D3 retro.

An incorrect assumption. A period of increasing publicity and organisation coincided with the buildup to and release of 4e, sure, but it could already build on years of discussion, community-building and growth. The issue is visibility: the phenomenon is simply large enough today that people take note (although I am skeptical about an actual "old school Renaissance" taking place).

Of course, 4e renouncing so many D&Disms and turning into a highly codified game experience must have helped some to identify what they were missing from the official game.

I remember when the retro-gaming outfit was just a bunch of guys on Dragonsfoot and all they seemed to discuss was the rules between taking pop shots at 3E and its players. This was around 2000-2002 - I found it all very boring then and I find the latest edition bitchery boring now as well.

It's only now that I see anyone getting off thier asses and playing - a good development - but I prefer they just shut up about thier dislike of 4E - I don't whine that OD&D and AD&D can't do swords and sorcery without copious amounts of fiat because frankly I've come to terms with those games' limitations. That people are still harping the same tune six to nine years later is pathetic.

As an aside, what made the threads of discussion on Dragonsfoot interesting was for all of thier rules mastery, they honestly believed that older editions of D&D seriously gave you a ruleset that depicted worlds of swords and sorcery as molded after the works of Leiber, REH, HP, CAS, when the actual viable setup is actually closer to the Lensman series by E.E. Smith. This doesn't apply just to them. That Spelljammer was the closest campaign setting to articulating this and bombed just shows how deeply rooted the dissonance is in the D&D fanbase.

Quote from: Hairfoot;304395jgants, like most 4E thought police, is just plying the Bulverist argument and can safely be ignored.

I forgot all about that logical fallacy, but it certainly seems relevant to most discussions about this issue. Thanks!

Quote from: Melan;304404I forgot all about that logical fallacy, but it certainly seems relevant to most discussions about this issue. Thanks!

I, in turn, just posted thanks to Ariosto at ENworld for bringing it to my attention!

Quote from: apparition13;304392So here's what I've been thinking. jgants is right, in that the whole OD&D et al. revival really seemed to take off with 4th edition. I'd say he is also right in that it is because prior players didn't like the new edition.

I've never played D&D4e, and only played D&D3.5 a few times. I never even played AD&D2e, only AD&D1e and B/X.

In my case, "old school" as described in the Primer is the way I've always GMed. You can find hints of it in the back third of d4-d4.

My preferring lighter and less exhaustive rules comes simply from the sorts of players I get - they're too lazy to read all the rules, they learn them slowly as they come up in play, and sometimes not even then. That's why I ten years ago abandoned Rolemaster, and why in the past year or so I've abandoned GURPS - why have all that detail if you're never using it?

The "old school" movement has simply put succinctly what I've always done and preferred. What's new isn't the movement, only their clear expression. It's amazing how when an idea is expressed clearly lots of people jump onto it.

Actually, I thought that the new blood on board the OD&D freight train was influenced by Gary Gygax's death. I'd heard that OD&D was Gygax's preferred version of D&D, so when he passed, people suddenly wanted to check it out. I wasn't even aware it had anything to do with 4e at all.

As for the retro-movement, it's been slowly building up for years, even before the 4e announcement. Hasn't it?

Jgants' comment is partially true.

Yes, more then a few of the people saying OD&D is cool are posers.

It's not because of 4E however, in fact it has nothing to do with edition.

Despite this, I do believe that there is a significant but silent audience who welcomes the influx of new gaming material; they just wisely distance themselves from the very vocal nonsense.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;304410Jgants' comment is partially true.

Yes, more then a few of the people saying OD&D is cool are posers.

Well, if the NBA decided basketball would now have rules identical to lawn bowls and backed it with a marketing campaign aimed at kids, people who argued that it should still be about jumping and putting balls through an elevated hoop would be labelled as posers by the children who never knew any different.

What part of "this has nothing to do with edition" do you not understand?