TheRPGSite

Ive played in scores of games and run more than a few successful campaigns over the years but when looking back it seems to me that nothing was as fun as those first few tentative dungeon crawls in 1977 with the very beginnings of D&D or a bit later The Fantasy Trip.

In time and through a continued changing of groups the adventures have become more complex, the settings more detailed and the overall scale more epic but when I sit and daydream I cant recall ever having as much fun as in those early days, sometimes Descending into the Depths of the Earth or assaulting the Vault of the Drow, others just wandering around someone's graph paper dungeon. It seems the excitement and enthusiasm of those early days cant be duplicated no matter how good the material, the GM, the players or what have you.

Anyone else feel this way? Were those games that great or was it the newness of it all that made them so memorable?

For me, being 10-13 years old did add the "discovery" aspect, a learning/invention aspect, the enthusiasm and wonder of my friends, and the enthusiasm we had for non-homework activities and free time together, etc.

I miss having fairly frequent multi-hour gaming sessions with like-minded creative friends who are now scattered around the world, married, too busy, etc. to spend much time creating or playing in elaborate RPG worlds of our own invention.

Also we were more easily satisfied. Going to the orc tavern for combat and loot was a good time, and we didn't yet realize that the rate of combat and death meant that the lands of our world must've had at least 100x the population we thought they did, much of which was choosing to be thugs, brigands and adventurers and setting off to kill and loot each other with a very low life expectancy. That could still be fun for a bit, but now we want at least somewhat more logic or it just seems ridiculous.

But we still tend to retain a lot of the flavor of our early games, except for the new tastes we've added for consistency. We did back off a fair amount of the swing we did in the opposite direction, what we call the "pervo-culture" phase, where we were designing game-world cultures that were wildly imaginitive and crazy and would require us to think about all sorts of differences from expectations in practically every aspect. We dialed that back a lot to find a mix that's workable and fun.

As for the game systems themselves, We started with TFT, tried D&D and stopped, played TFT until we were sensitive to its limits, started designing a new game system, then GURPS came out and we were relieved that it did 99% of what we wanted, but elegantly, so stuck with GURPS and added house rules to taste. We tried various other systems over the years but basically we're satisfied with something on the TFT to GURPS-plus-house-rules spectrum. I still have a strong nostalgia for TFT, but we've almost always player our own settings (well, TFT's main setting is just a context to make your own setting). TFT is my minimum level of combat detail, beneath which I'm annoyed at what's missing, and even TFT annoys me a bit because of the lack of active defenses, the engagement system, the too-high DX penalties for armor, and the limits of the Talent system... though TFT with house rules for those things can still be quite acceptable. When I look at other game systems, I try to give them a fair try, but they tend to be full of many things I will reject right away for being too gamey/artificial for my tastes, so I usually relate to them as possible house rules and/or settings or expanded rules sections to use with my usual rule set. Also, there's tends to be a large learning and play experience curve before I could catch up to how well I know my usual rules, which is a problem for GM'ing well (because I don't know how things will play out etc).

I still play 1e AD&D, and on occasion original D&D.  I can confirm that they are still good games.

I got in the hobby late in life. I was already a grown up (in chronological age at least), I missed the whole "Stranger Things" moment so whatever memories I have aren't tinted by childhood nostalgia.

The first few games I played were electric. With hindsight I can see these games were unremarkable, but the experience was all so new, it blew my mind.  

The honeymoon didn't last very long, maybe a few months. I became a little more discriminating,  a little harder to please but there was still very pure and passionate about how I played my characters.

A year or so later I started GMing occasionally. That changed my perspective on gaming altogether. I got more interested in the craft of roleplaying, the theory and techniques involved in running a good game. That has stayed. Even when I am just playing, the GM part of my brain never quite switches off. Even as I play I mentally deconstruct how the GM is handling situations.
, temper may character's choices based on how it might impact the game and the enjoyment of the players.

So yeah, the novelty and initial enthusiasm faded, but on the positive side my GMing has improved (I was a very patchy GM) and as player I've moved passed some more self-indulgent "My Guyisms" behaviours leaving me in a better place now.

Quote from: Soylent Green;920050I got in the hobby late in life. I was already a grown up (in chronological age at least), I missed the whole "Stranger Things" moment so whatever memories I have aren't tinted by childhood nostalgia.

The first few games I played were electric. With hindsight I can see these games were unremarkable, but the experience was all so new, it blew my mind.  

The honeymoon didn't last very long, maybe a few months. I became a little more discriminating,  a little harder to please but there was still very pure and passionate about how I played my characters.

A year or so later I started GMing occasionally. That changed my perspective on gaming altogether. I got more interested in the craft of roleplaying, the theory and techniques involved in running a good game. That has stayed. Even when I am just playing, the GM part of my brain never quite switches off. Even as I play I mentally deconstruct how the GM is handling situations.
, temper may character's choices based on how it might impact the game and the enjoyment of the players.

So yeah, the novelty and initial enthusiasm faded, but on the positive side my GMing has improved (I was a very patchy GM) and as player I've moved passed some more self-indulgent "My Guyisms" behaviours leaving me in a better place now.

Boy does that ring a bell... "Today a GM always a GM" I mean. I completely understand. I haven't had many opportunities to play but when I did I was plagued by the intrusion of the GM side constantly second guessing what the real GM was doing, how I would do it, what I could have done to make that better or how they did something I would never have thought of and so on. I never said anything but it was definitely a distraction. Its one of the reasons I all but gave up on playing years ago and stuck to GMing exclusively. (I get my player fix a little when I solo play - another discussion altogether)

Ill have to admit, I miss just being able to lose myself in a character completely.

I miss the regularity that we gamed with. I miss the length and lack of distraction.

Other than that, I still really love our sessions. I'm better as a player and especially as a GM than I was when I was a kid and that lends a lot to my enjoyment.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920040Ive played in scores of games and run more than a few successful campaigns over the years but when looking back it seems to me that nothing was as fun as those first few tentative dungeon crawls in 1977 with the very beginnings of D&D or a bit later The Fantasy Trip.

In time and through a continued changing of groups the adventures have become more complex, the settings more detailed and the overall scale more epic but when I sit and daydream I cant recall ever having as much fun as in those early days, sometimes Descending into the Depths of the Earth or assaulting the Vault of the Drow, others just wandering around someone's graph paper dungeon. It seems the excitement and enthusiasm of those early days cant be duplicated no matter how good the material, the GM, the players or what have you.

Anyone else feel this way? Were those games that great or was it the newness of it all that made them so memorable?

I GM Old School or original D&D and Traveller games often and continue to enjoy them preferring them over just about any other game. As a GM, I get lots of players that really enjoy playing D&D or Traveller. They like the part where we concentrate on the story and storylines and where we drop the story creation to resolve challenges using combat, skills, or attributes rolls. The old school games can move very quickly and we can cover lots of ground, there's enough content to run the game, but the best part is allowing the players to come up with, or include their ideas, and then making up the mechanics to include that content on the spot.

For example, In one recent game we have giant riding cats, think extraordinary large cats that do extra damage and can serve as mounts. One of the players wanted a snow cat, being a riding cat acclimatized for arctic or cold weather activities. What we came up with (on the fly) was this;

Snow Panther (Mount)
HD 3d8
Str 3d6+4 Dex 3d6+6 Int 2d6 Wis 3d6 Con 3d6 Chr 3d6
AC: 6  (+4 for S&W or d20 based games)  
Dmge/Attk:
x2 Claws 1d6 Bite 2d6
Skills: Listen +4, Move Silently +4, Scent +4,  Spot +4, Jump +4
Carry Capacity: Player + 800 Gp  (or 2,300 GP total)
Description: 4 1/2' tall at the shoulder, White fur with brilliant blue, green, or red eyes


Feats:
Cold Resistant +2 Saving throw versus cold and cold based attacks. Cold based attacks only do 1/2 damage, 1/4 damage if saving throw made.
Fire Vulnerability -4 Saving throw versus fire based attacks, Fire attacks do double damage x2, and normal damage, even if the Saving throw is made.

Memorable is all about having unique things in your game, especially things you like, and the things your players like. What makes the original games so memorable is the degree of customization that was afforded to players. Literally, the only limit was their imagination, and having a framework of rules and guidelines for properly integrating that into the game.

I think that, if those games weren't great, I wouldn't still be playing some version of them today. Being on the backside of life now, I am more thankful for time spent gaming, whereas perhaps, in earlier times, I might've lost sight of the point of it all, and worried about trivialities, like exactitude and perfection. Maybe they weren't as great as I remember, or aren't as great as I think. But I can forgive a fault here and there, now, thanks to a broader perspective that lets me see the whole. It is the same with everyone, I think. Wisdom balms and enhances, and I am thankful for that, too.

I was flipping through the 2e Monster Manual not long ago.  It's not aged well.  Not bad, but not well.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920051Boy does that ring a bell... "Today a GM always a GM" I mean. I completely understand. I haven't had many opportunities to play but when I did I was plagued by the intrusion of the GM side constantly second guessing what the real GM was doing, how I would do it, what I could have done to make that better or how they did something I would never have thought of and so on. I never said anything but it was definitely a distraction. Its one of the reasons I all but gave up on playing years ago and stuck to GMing exclusively. (I get my player fix a little when I solo play - another discussion altogether)

I still both play and GM. It's maybe 50/50, maybe a bit less. And I can still have a great time in the player role, but that's not always a given and sadly there have been times I've just gone through the motions playing my character.

GMing I find more interesting but I've always been in groups with a surplus of GMs, it would not be fair to monopolise the GM chair. Also I don't always have the spare time to run.

What I remember most fondly are the people I've played with, vs. whatever happened in the games. Whatever cool thing happened was all the better because it was my friends who were doing it.
That's one of the reasons that watching video of other people's games doesn't do much for me... I have no connection with those people.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;920049I still play 1e AD&D, and on occasion original D&D.  I can confirm that they are still good games.

Me too, along with EPT. I feel the same way regarding 1e AD&D/D&D.  

Shemek

Quote from: rgrove0172;920040Anyone else feel this way? Were those games that great or was it the newness of it all that made them so memorable?

I think DCC managed to capture some of that lightning with their use of the unusual dice, mercurial magic, critical tables, that kind of jazz. It felt very much like my old games.

Also, there's a good series of articles on The Alexandrian about open table play versus dedicated tables, that I think captures some of that as well.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/38643/roleplaying-games/open-table-manifesto

For me it is very much a state of nostalgia. When I look back at those games I can't believe we used them. But the pleasant memories of those gaming sessions of my youth are still wondrous and eternal. I will cherish them always. And I will never play those games again.

For me the way I ran games as a kid was very DM of the Rings, me having grand ideas of epic adventures and trying to herd my players along with "come on guys, you're supposed to be the HEROES" fighting the system all the while while being encouraged by crappy 90's Dragon Magazine advice columns.

Game's much better these days.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920040Ive played in scores of games and run more than a few successful campaigns over the years but when looking back it seems to me that nothing was as fun as those first few tentative dungeon crawls in 1977 with the very beginnings of D&D or a bit later The Fantasy Trip.

In time and through a continued changing of groups the adventures have become more complex, the settings more detailed and the overall scale more epic but when I sit and daydream I cant recall ever having as much fun as in those early days, sometimes Descending into the Depths of the Earth or assaulting the Vault of the Drow, others just wandering around someone's graph paper dungeon. It seems the excitement and enthusiasm of those early days cant be duplicated no matter how good the material, the GM, the players or what have you.

Anyone else feel this way? Were those games that great or was it the newness of it all that made them so memorable?

Some games have stood the test of time (Classic Traveller, d6 Star Wars, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D) while some have not (Villains & Vigilantes, Star Frontiers, Battletech/MechWarrior, Robotech). I honestly miss the people more than the games themselves in a lot of cases.

Yes.

Fun is fun.

No. They were even better! :cool:

So glad I went back with fresh eyes to see the engines underneath the Dagwood sandwich of 'All Options On', slathered house rules, and pubescent GMing. They really are even better now from my adult perspective!

Depends on the game.

Many of the early games are still tremendous fun.

I suspect that this answer varies a lot, depending upon the group.

1. Games were simpler back then, with an emphasis on play over learning rules.
2. I had lots more time then, as a student, than I do as an adult professional. That time to play is important.
3. The newness and discovery of everything made things fresh. Once folks have "seen it all before" it's hard to wow them again.

So, in my book the "good old days" were better than today. Don't get me wrong, today is still fun. :-D

While it is definitely true that nostalgia for formative periods and experiences is a real thing (and I would say a good thing!), I believe there is also something objectively special about the games themselves. The core rules from this period varied greatly in overall size and complexity - Melee or Tunnels and Trolls can be learned in a few minutes; 1E Chivalry and Sorcery would take a lifetime to learn to play as written. But all of them shared some things that have nearly disappeared: the writing is simple and efficient; the rules are 'gamist'; and the overall structure of the rules are closer to 'teach a man to fish' than 'give a man a fish'. You get the sense that when the OD&D or Traveller boxed sets were being assembled, everyone involved assumed this was pretty much all anyone was going to need or want, in terms of commercial product, and the customer would take it from there. So, when your group sat down to play, they was always a lot of personal involvement, you were not going into A dungeon; you were going into Jim's dungeon. And god only knows what that bastard Jim has in store for you.

Many games written now contain tons of fictional interludes, elaborately explained settings, wandering, repetitive explanations of simple rules, gobs and gobs of artwork, they often expend a lot of effort and page count serving 'simulationist' and/or 'narrativist' ideas, and many of the commercial products are really thought of as on-ramps to even more verbosely written walk-them-through-it adventures. Also, there is surprisingly little quantitative data in new games. OD&D and 1E actually have a shit ton of information explaining how to run a campaign organized around founding and growing a feudal domain, building castles, levying taxes, etc. Maybe that isn't what you are into, but it is all there, and can be assimilated in a few pages. The ratio of data to words in modern treatments of these subjects (say, in 5E) is basically zero. It is like they are meant to be read more than played.

Not for me.  I know so much more now than I did back then.  And I've found it's not the games, it's the people you gamed with.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920040Ive played in scores of games and run more than a few successful campaigns over the years but when looking back it seems to me that nothing was as fun as those first few tentative dungeon crawls in 1977 with the very beginnings of D&D or a bit later The Fantasy Trip.

Anyone else feel this way? Were those games that great or was it the newness of it all that made them so memorable?

I think the reason everything seemed so exciting and new when I first played D&D in 1978 is that I was 12 years old at the time.

Some of the game systems were good, some less so. The sense of discovery and the "bubble" of having this arcane lore, shared amongst friends on countless weekends when media and life distractions were few, can't be replicated.

As other note, it's a mixed bag. Moldvay B/X D&D holds up really well (having recently put this to the test with a group of players new to it). Traveller as well.

Some of TSR's other games (Gangbusters, Marvel Super Heroes, et al), well, we had fun with them anyway. I've looked through them recently as well, however, and while there are the occasional good ideas, overall I don't think they are particularly good.

This thread makes me think of rpg.net, where any mention of OD&D, etc, tended to bring out the "well, you're just old and nostalgic. Those aren't actually fun games" crowd. That always cracked me up. Oh, yes, my players are just imagining having a good time, but we're all just miserable without knowing it!

The fun of pure discovery and unlocking the wonder of role playing games cannot be duplicated. Those early games will always be special because of that. 36 years later I am still having fun with these games playing old systems or new. I am running a bi-weekly AD&D campaign now and it is every bit as fun to play now as it was in the early days. It is the people that really make the game experience special.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;920315As other note, it's a mixed bag. Moldvay B/X D&D holds up really well (having recently put this to the test with a group of players new to it). Traveller as well.

Some of TSR's other games (Gangbusters, Marvel Super Heroes, et al), well, we had fun with them anyway. I've looked through them recently as well, however, and while there are the occasional good ideas, overall I don't think they are particularly good.

This thread makes me think of rpg.net, where any mention of OD&D, etc, tended to bring out the "well, you're just old and nostalgic. Those aren't actually fun games" crowd. That always cracked me up. Oh, yes, my players are just imagining having a good time, but we're all just miserable without knowing it!

Laugh, Ive read a few of those!

I react to RPGs from the 70's and early 80's much the same as anything else (music, tv shows, clothing, etc) from that time period. While a few may be considered "classics" most of them just make me wonder "WTF was I thinking!?"

Quote from: Larsdangly;920217So, when your group sat down to play, they was always a lot of personal involvement, you were not going into A dungeon; you were going into Jim's dungeon. And god only knows what that bastard Jim has in store for you.

But poor Jim totally lost it when THAT guy at his table kept saying "He's dead Jim!" every time they killed a goblin.

It was never about the game system. It was about the experience. My first gaming as a player (I'd been a GM for a year earlier) was in an Empire of the Petal Throne run, and the rush was so huge we gamed for ten straight hours on each of three consecutive nights.

Now the EPT system was decidedly mid-seventies, the DM was a pig who never failed to have his viewpoint NPC bed as many of the female players' PCs as possible, and one of the three original players was this side of certifiable. That doesn't matter. It was new, it was wild, we didn't know any better, and to paraphrase Hal Brown, we were gamers once, and young.

It's a universal theme. On my LARP's discussion board, a similar thread started recently from a few people wanting to return to the pre-1997 rules because it was so much more fun then. The thing is that the rules were scanty, filled with holes, limited, and provoked many a fight over what they really meant. What was REALLY fun then was that it was new for the players complaining.

I guarantee you, if you DO find an OD&D game around this town (good luck) it won't be nearly as magical as you remember, because it won't be 1979 again.  What's wrong with gathering magic from games people are actually likely to play?





(The punchline is that this a cut-and-paste of one of the very first posts I made to TBP, thirteen years ago.  The more things change ...)

For D&D at least, I think there is something special about the early rulesets and adventures - they are much more open world/sandbox style, than offerings in later years - esp the last 2 years. Everything Wotc produces is a linear adventure path (well, maybe not the starter set - which was quite good).

The rule sets were simpler in the early days, making improvisation and GM rulings the norm. The more mechanical D&D got, and with the rise of adventure paths, you lose the .... player driven side of the game, and improv becomes harder.

The adventures are a massive part of the play experience. And 5e seems to want to cater to AP's, presumably because they think that is the best beginners market/grow the game/folks will progress onto sandbox later.

So, to answer the OP - yes the old games really were great, and still are, and some of those reasons still hold true today.

Quote from: Psikerlord;921116Everything Wotc produces is a linear adventure path (well, maybe not the starter set - which was quite good).

Not really.  I am running Princes of the Apocalypse now and it's pretty open.  So is Curse of Strahd once you get past the Death House adventure or if you just don't use it.

Quote from: yosemitemike;921119Not really.  I am running Princes of the Apocalypse now and it's pretty open.  So is Curse of Strahd once you get past the Death House adventure or if you just don't use it.

They've gotten better but are still, ultimately, big adventure path books, as opposed to little drop in adventures (of course, you can poach parts of an AP for drop ins)

Quote from: Crüesader;920063I was flipping through the 2e Monster Manual not long ago.  It's not aged well.  Not bad, but not well.

Which one? The binder or the book?

One game that I actually think has become better with time is red box D&D. I do admit there is some nostaligia involved but I think it earned its place at my table through its own merits, compared to other games I have even more nostalgia for but never play because of the rules.

I am often more nostalgic about a certain idea of a game I had before playing it in practice (from maps, illustrations, flavor texts etc).

For me, no, my old games are not as good as I remember them. Probably because I began playing with Gurps, Shadowrun and AD&D 2e - games that I had lots of fun with back then but came to find terrible as soon as my rpg milieu widened.

If I had started with the likes of Runequest or OD&D though, I'm sure I would still find them good nowadays.

Quote from: Ravenswing;921109I guarantee you, if you DO find an OD&D game around this town (good luck) it won't be nearly as magical as you remember, because it won't be 1979 again.

You just hate OD&D with a passion, don't you?
I kinda hated D&D back in the day too, any 'magic' came from playing with friends... but I've been in a number of OD&D (OSR) games over the past several years and I've been having a great time of it. New 'magic' that doesn't need to replace the old.
Still not my favorite system, but the actual games are great.

The system I really loved back then was RQ2... which spawned BRP... which is still the system I love the most, in many of its various permutations.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;920315This thread makes me think of rpg.net, where any mention of OD&D, etc, tended to bring out the "well, you're just old and nostalgic. Those aren't actually fun games" crowd. That always cracked me up. Oh, yes, my players are just imagining having a good time, but we're all just miserable without knowing it!

grrrrrr...

"We were gamers once, and young" sums it up nicely (although it was Hal Moore, Hal Brown was a baseball player).

The old games work just as well as they always did, and the results can still be satisfying, even amazing, today.  But the magic...that original sense of wonder...even the greatest gaming sessions these days, which in almost every way might be superior to those of days gone by, will still miss that sense of discovery, that opening of a whole new world.

Quote from: Daztur;920170For me the way I ran games as a kid was very DM of the Rings, me having grand ideas of epic adventures and trying to herd my players along with "come on guys, you're supposed to be the HEROES" fighting the system all the while while being encouraged by crappy 90's Dragon Magazine advice columns.

Game's much better these days.

The 1990s were definitely a Dark Age for RPGs - much like comics. :D

Quote from: Itachi;921755For me, no, my old games are not as good as I remember them. Probably because I began playing with Gurps, Shadowrun and AD&D 2e - games that I had lots of fun with back then but came to find terrible as soon as my rpg milieu widened.

If I had started with the likes of Runequest or OD&D though, I'm sure I would still find them good nowadays.

I am definitely of the view that some old rulesets were objectively good - and some were not. There was a lot of bad game design back then. I picked up Daredevils a few years ago and was struck by how pointlessly bad some of the rules were - needless extra steps in character generation & task resolution.

There were also games that were objectively well designed - I would include all pre-2e D&D, Classic or pre-New Era Traveller, pre-3e Runequest, Call of Cthulu, and probably everything produced by West End Games (though I've only played Star Wars & PARANOIA) as well-designed games.
Looking at that list, I think there was a tendency for initially well-built classic games to drift focus (2e AD&D) or accumulate rules cruft (eg 3e Runequest Fatigue Points) or both (Traveller: The New Era) which eventually harmed the game. By the 1990s the general quality of games design was well down on the 1970s. I think the more recent tendency has been positive, with games more likely to achieve what they set out to do.

Quote from: CRKrueger;921802The old games work just as well as they always did, and the results can still be satisfying, even amazing, today.  But the magic...that original sense of wonder...even the greatest gaming sessions these days, which in almost every way might be superior to those of days gone by, will still miss that sense of discovery, that opening of a whole new world.

GMing Classic D&D currently with a group including my son, it's new to him and definitely evokes that Sense of Wonder in him. Notably to a much stronger extent than when we play newer iterations of D&D - 3e/PF 4e & 5e. I think the rules in the newer sets really get in the way of that SOW.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920040Anyone else feel this way? Were those games that great or was it the newness of it all that made them so memorable?

To me, it isn't the newness or (within reason) which game but who you play with and how they play. The best games I've played were with people who embraced that spirit of the game. By this I mean things like:

1. Build characters based on a character concept, not on rules-lawyer maximizing of skills
2. A new character has different personalities and quirks from the previous
3. If you agree to play from commercial modules, embracing (within the bounds of character personality) the module instead of moaning about railroading
     (I'm not talking about forcing things to happen a certain way here, I mean gleefully following up the lead on the mysterious thing on the edge of town that you heard about.)
4. Playing to win is fine but don't lose track of having fun and enjoying the game

This is opposed to:

1. Refusing to start from level 1 and having no background for your character, only a list of maxed out skills
2. Always playing the same character personality, regardless of class, setting, or anything else
3. Sucking all the fun out of the game in pursuit of "winning"

For the most part, no. It's nostalgia and not knowing any better at the time. I've re-read many of the games I played back in the day, with few exceptions I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole now. Or at least not without heavy hacking to change all the stuff I think is stupid.

The only pleasant surprise I've had is how good much of the supporting stuff (on wilderness/overland travel and so on) for the Expert Set is, which made its way into ACKS.

I was nine when I started playing D&D. There are a lot of things I loved when I was nine that I can't recapture. That's perfectly natural. You can't go back and recapture the magic of discovery and imaginations firing wildly. I don't even get the same total immersion from reading fiction that I used to.

So I have a working theory that may or may not be complete bullshit, but I wonder if those who believe that Runequest is as good as it was way back when is due to the fact that the rules system hasn't really changed much.  Not like D&D, or Champions/HERO or GURPS/TFT.

So it's not 'nostalgia' as it's pretty much the same system as its always been.

I sincerely wonder about that.  

And I freely admit that I could be wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;922415So I have a working theory that may or may not be complete bullshit, but I wonder if those who believe that Runequest is as good as it was way back when is due to the fact that the rules system hasn't really changed much.  Not like D&D, or Champions/HERO or GURPS/TFT.

So it's not 'nostalgia' as it's pretty much the same system as its always been.

I sincerely wonder about that.  

And I freely admit that I could be wrong.

I'd say that's definitely part of it.  Take Call of Cthulhu.  7th is the only edition that wasn't nearly identical or easily compatible.  The different versions of the various d100 systems are all closer to each other than just about any other game.  D&D, Traveller, Shadowrun, WW, all have some significant changes between systems ,in some cases wildly different.  The only other game that might be as broadly compatible across editions is GURPS.

I'm running an AD&D event at my FLGS; I had 7 seats available, through the facebook announcement the shop owner put up it filled up in like...2 hours?  Or so?  And it is billed as 1e AD&D.  So make of that what you will.

Quote from: rgrove0172;920040Ive played in scores of games and run more than a few successful campaigns over the years but when looking back it seems to me that nothing was as fun as those first few tentative dungeon crawls in 1977 with the very beginnings of D&D or a bit later The Fantasy Trip.

In time and through a continued changing of groups the adventures have become more complex, the settings more detailed and the overall scale more epic but when I sit and daydream I cant recall ever having as much fun as in those early days, sometimes Descending into the Depths of the Earth or assaulting the Vault of the Drow, others just wandering around someone's graph paper dungeon. It seems the excitement and enthusiasm of those early days cant be duplicated no matter how good the material, the GM, the players or what have you.

Anyone else feel this way? Were those games that great or was it the newness of it all that made them so memorable?

Not me, my current campaigns are filled with more enthusiasm than resulted from most of our first sessions, though there were some great sessions back then!
It might well be because we became better overall, and thus, the average session became more enjoyable for everyone, or it might be because we ditched Those Guys (and These Gals) and forbid the inept Referees from ever touching a GM screen:).

Bottom line, I've got better systems and more mastery as both player and Referee these days, so I don't feel like going back;)!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;922448I'm running an AD&D event at my FLGS; I had 7 seats available, through the facebook announcement the shop owner put up it filled up in like...2 hours?  Or so?  And it is billed as 1e AD&D.  So make of that what you will.

Until we find out if the players think that the game system holds up, or whether they signed up because they had a knee-jerk nostalgia from when they were younger, we can really gain no information from that relevant to the question at hand.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;922468Until we find out if the players think that the game system holds up, or whether they signed up because they had a knee-jerk nostalgia from when they were younger, we can really gain no information from that relevant to the question at hand.

Welp, I'll share it.  Your tone tells me you might not believe the data under any circumstances; I will say that a few of the sign-ups have told me they've only ever played newer D&Ds, but we'll see.  I'll report back.

Games aren't like cars or computers where heavy use and time wear them out.  Yes, old games are just as good as the new ones and vice versa.  Consider this the answer 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ect years from now.

Quote from: RunningLaser;922473Games aren't like cars or computers where heavy use and time wear them out.  Yes, old games are just as good as the new ones and vice versa.  Consider this the answer 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ect years from now.

Hey, to the computer analogy I always say there's people who do their day-to-day, on the reg. computing with some very ancient platforms. :)  Ever seen an Apple2gs browse the web?  Or a C64 playing back a DVD?  I have! :o :)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;922477Hey, to the computer analogy I always say there's people who do their day-to-day, on the reg. computing with some very ancient platforms. :)  Ever seen an Apple2gs browse the web?  Or a C64 playing back a DVD?  I have! :o :)

Oh man, that's funny:)  

I work for an online insurance broker.  Every once in a while, we'll get an older couple asking for things to be sent to their webtv email account:)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;922471Welp, I'll share it.  Your tone tells me you might not believe the data under any circumstances; I will say that a few of the sign-ups have told me they've only ever played newer D&Ds, but we'll see.  I'll report back.

Not at all (and I think you might be too used to people who think that these forums are for winning arguments, not having conversations. I guess I'll have to prove that I'm not one of those). I am simply saying that the base fact that they signed up genuinely doesn't tell us anything. We'll have to find out why they signed up for it to inform the topic of this thread.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;922448I'm running an AD&D event at my FLGS; I had 7 seats available, through the facebook announcement the shop owner put up it filled up in like...2 hours?  Or so?  And it is billed as 1e AD&D.  So make of that what you will.

2 hours?  For just seven seats?  Hmm.  OK, this is NOT fact, but anecdotally, we can fill 22 seats (Approx. four tables) in about 30 minutes after advertising a 5e game, in Ottawa.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;922448I'm running an AD&D event at my FLGS; I had 7 seats available, through the facebook announcement the shop owner put up it filled up in like...2 hours?  Or so?  And it is billed as 1e AD&D.  So make of that what you will.

That could indicate an interest in older editions of D&D.  It could also indicate a DM shortage.  I have a group of people showing up to D&D Adventurers League because their old DM moved out of town and none of them want to do it.

Quote from: RunningLaser;922473Games aren't like cars or computers where heavy use and time wear them out.  Yes, old games are just as good as the new ones and vice versa.  Consider this the answer 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ect years from now.

What we accepted in our youth may well not be acceptable as we mature. The farthest I'll go 'back' is the 1992 edition of Gamma World and I would still port over a *whole* lot of 3.5/PF before I would run it. I won't touch anything earlier with a 10' pole. My tastes and needs are different today then yesterday.

If you had fun playing a game when you were a kid or teen, then it was a good game for you then. If you don't have fun playing that same game anymore, then maybe it's not a good game for you now. Doesn't mean that it's all of a sudden become an objectively bad game. The game itself hasn't changed at all.

Some of the games I had patience for when I was younger, I do not now. Some of the games I did not have patience for when I was younger, I do now.
Some of the games I thought had clunky mechanics, I now enjoy for those detailed mechanics.
Some of the simpler games I embraced I now find too simple.

Tastes change. Really, when I get down to it, no matter which RPG I'm playing I'm playing the same "game", same techniques. My yardstick for games nowadays is how much prep do I need, how convoluted are the mechanics, and what does advancement offer the players (and at what rate).

But to answer the OP directly, I think there are classic games that remain classics. I think OD&D is still great, and enjoy both B/X and AD&D1E. I really like Runequest. I have a soft spot in my heart for MERP. On the other hand, my Marvel Super Heroes is showing its age badly, especially beside newer offerings. Palladium games have not aged well, and playing them now produces frustration instead of fun (even though I'm playing with the same physical copy I used 20+ years ago). The magic of my first FATE game has not held up in subsequent attempts to run FATE. I still want to play Traveller...

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;922655The magic of my first FATE game has not held up in subsequent attempts to run FATE. I still want to play Traveller...

This really. What I always come back to is that games which have stood the test of time, are ones that have overcome long forgotten competitors and retain some element that keep you returning to them again and again.

For some games there is an element of nostalgia, and things like presentation and mechanical adroitness have probably improved generally across the board - but there is always some core element or innovation that make those classic games stand out and always will.

TL;DR: My interest in a game almost never matches its popularity level or newness.

My attitude towards current high popularity of things tends to range from high skepticism to assuming the thing appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm almost never very interested in the most popular games, and when I am interested in a popular game, I'm usually happier playing it when the initial popularity wave has waned, so there are more serious players playing it. I'm often happiest when I have enough players for a niche game, as the players tend to be those who were interested enough in the niche to find it and be excited for the chance to play that niche. Of course, the game itself also has to be good.

Quote from: Skarg;922682TL;DR: My interest in a game almost never matches its popularity level or newness.

My attitude towards current high popularity of things tends to range from high skepticism to assuming the thing appeals to the lowest common denominator. I'm almost never very interested in the most popular games, and when I am interested in a popular game, I'm usually happier playing it when the initial popularity wave has waned, so there are more serious players playing it. I'm often happiest when I have enough players for a niche game, as the players tend to be those who were interested enough in the niche to find it and be excited for the chance to play that niche. Of course, the game itself also has to be good.

Word.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;9225482 hours?  For just seven seats?  Hmm.  OK, this is NOT fact, but anecdotally, we can fill 22 seats (Approx. four tables) in about 30 minutes after advertising a 5e game, in Ottawa.

Considering 5E has a bigger marketing machine behind it than 1E, I don't find this surprising. The only way we'll know is if you can fill any 5E seats when 6E comes around.

Short answer, yes. Games were a hell of a lot more fun before "system mastery" became a big deal.  And I first encountered SM sometime in the 21st century.

Not only are the old games as good as we remember, they're BETTER now than they were back then (thanks to the OSR).

Quote from: RPGPundit;923181Not only are the old games as good as we remember, they're BETTER now than they were back then (thanks to the OSR).

:D
 “This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant.

Sometimes, that axe even improves;)!

Quote from: RPGPundit;923181Not only are the old games as good as we remember, they're BETTER now than they were back then (thanks to the OSR).

I am confused how something that you claim hasn't changed has gotten 'better'. Now, I can understand how your personal appreciation or preference has changed. But if the game is the same it's overall quality has not been altered. The 1E books on my shelf are the same today they were when I bought then new upon release. I however have come to see them as unplayable. The books are the same it is I that is different.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;923132Short answer, yes. Games were a hell of a lot more fun before "system mastery" became a big deal.  And I first encountered SM sometime in the 21st century.

'System mastery' is an excellent term. Thank you. Give me that over the 'old school' chaos any day ending in 'Y'.

Quote from: Tetsubo;923426I am confused how something that you claim hasn't changed has gotten 'better'.

It's simply loose capitalism in action. Now 'old games' put money in Pundit's pocket. Back then...nada for Pundit. So obviously now is better than then.

Quote from: Bren;923455It's simply loose capitalism in action. Now 'old games' put money in Pundit's pocket. Back then...nada for Pundit. So obviously now is better than then.

That's a logic I think anyone could appreciate, but I think Pundit just means games like DCC, which he's running;).

Quote from: AsenRG;923458That's a logic I think anyone could appreciate, but I think Pundit just means games like DCC, which he's running;).

Maybe, the old games are now better because the competition is storygames, which by definition for Pundit are worse? :p

Perhaps OSR supplements cross-usable in old games making the old games better?

Quote from: RPGPundit;923181Not only are the old games as good as we remember, they're BETTER now than they were back then (thanks to the OSR).

But those aren't the old games...  And so, you're effectively saying 'no they aren't, but we can improve them, so we did!'.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;923132Short answer, yes. Games were a hell of a lot more fun before "system mastery" became a big deal.  And I first encountered SM sometime in the 21st century.

If you think that 'system mastery' didn't exist until 3e, I'm laughing.  You've never had players that read the DMG ad Monster Manual as well as memorizing the PHB?  NEVER?  Because rules lawyers and power gamers ARE the epitome of system mastering.  And you've somehow NEVER encountered them, whether or not you've let them in your games of 30+ years ago, then you're possibly the LUCKIEST gamer in all of existence.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923490But those aren't the old games...  And so, you're effectively saying 'no they aren't, but we can improve them, so we did!'.



If you think that 'system mastery' didn't exist until 3e, I'm laughing.  You've never had players that read the DMG ad Monster Manual as well as memorizing the PHB?  NEVER?  Because rules lawyers and power gamers ARE the epitome of system mastering.  And you've somehow NEVER encountered them, whether or not you've let them in your games of 30+ years ago, then you're possibly the LUCKIEST gamer in all of existence.

You seem to be using a different definition of system mastery. But - and I am only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Different definition indeed, but Laughing Boy routinely shits himself in these kinds of threads, so never mind.

Quote from: AsenRG;923221:D
 “This, milord, is my family's axe. We have owned it for almost nine hundred years, see. Of course, sometimes it needed a new blade. And sometimes it has required a new handle, new designs on the metalwork, a little refreshing of the ornamentation . . . but is this not the nine hundred-year-old axe of my family? And because it has changed gently over time, it is still a pretty good axe, y'know. Pretty good.”

― Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant.

Sometimes, that axe even improves;)!

"And this is the axe I have been using forty years man and boy.  Sharpened, yes, and my skill is better, but otherwise in all ways the same axe."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923490But those aren't the old games...  And so, you're effectively saying 'no they aren't, but we can improve them, so we did!'.

   Well, the difference is that now those games have the Pundit, Hell's gift to gaming. ;)

QuoteIf you think that 'system mastery' didn't exist until 3e, I'm laughing.  You've never had players that read the DMG ad Monster Manual as well as memorizing the PHB?  NEVER?  Because rules lawyers and power gamers ARE the epitome of system mastering.  And you've somehow NEVER encountered them, whether or not you've let them in your games of 30+ years ago, then you're possibly the LUCKIEST gamer in all of existence.

   In a certain sense, 'system mastery' goes back to Gygax's talk about 'playing the game well' in the AD&D PHB. But in the contemporary sense of the term, it tends to refer to 'manipulating the rules'--especially as regards character definition--as opposed to 'manipulating the situation' or the perennial 'manipulating the GM and/or other players.' Indeed, in older games, system mastery as related to character definition was practically impossible, as nearly everything related to mechanical character definition was tightly constrained by the dice and/or the GM.

   Of course, you saw this starting to show up as soon as games added options beyond the D&D core, so part of this is just Gronan's tendency to treat his personal experiences as the rule for Everygamer. We all do that to some extent; he's just more unique in the experiences and more vulgar in the expression. :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;923490But those aren't the old games...  And so, you're effectively saying 'no they aren't, but we can improve them, so we did!'.



If you think that 'system mastery' didn't exist until 3e, I'm laughing.  You've never had players that read the DMG ad Monster Manual as well as memorizing the PHB?  NEVER?  Because rules lawyers and power gamers ARE the epitome of system mastering.  And you've somehow NEVER encountered them, whether or not you've let them in your games of 30+ years ago, then you're possibly the LUCKIEST gamer in all of existence.

You know, the old games can be good, and your game can also be good at the same time, right?  Or is there only so much "good" to go around and you MUST lobby for every speck of it?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;923548and more vulgar in the expression. :)

I aim to please. :D

Quote from: Bren;923455It's simply loose capitalism in action. Now 'old games' put money in Pundit's pocket. Back then...nada for Pundit. So obviously now is better than then.

Ah. Thank you for the clarification.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;923501You seem to be using a different definition of system mastery. But - and I am only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

Fair point.  What IS the definition of 'System Mastery' being used in this context, because as I understand it and as written in 3rd edition, it's effectively memorizing the three books (and more, if there is) and using said rules to your advantage.  Now in 3e, that was mandatory (Thanks, Monte Cook, really.  Thanks, and next time, don't) to supposedly get the most out of it, assuming you played it as written, which outside of the old WoTC forum thought experiment section known as Char Op, no one actually did, they houseruled it to DEATH, resurrected it, and then did it again.

So what DO YOU claim is 'System Mastery'?  And no, it's not snark, or sarcasm, and no judgement, I honestly want to know what you (or anyone) mean by it.

Thank you for your time.

Quote from: cranebump;923559You know, the old games can be good, and your game can also be good at the same time, right?  Or is there only so much "good" to go around and you MUST lobby for every speck of it?

I've never said it wasn't.  What I'm rolling is the assertion that the old stuff is ALWAYS better, because it was first, and nothing can improve it.  Which this 'OSR' is clearly trying to do (improve it), even if they claim they're not.  The old stuff just is.  Was it fun?  For me, it was at it's time, but I've found newer stuff I like better.

And let me repeat in caps:  STUFF I LIKE BETTER.  This isn't science or math, so it ain't objective.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924151What I'm rolling is the [strike]assertion[/strike] strawman completely created wholly in Brady's mind and nowhere else that the old stuff is ALWAYS better, because it was first, and nothing can improve it.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924151So what DO YOU claim is 'System Mastery'?  And no, it's not snark, or sarcasm, and no judgement, I honestly want to know what you (or anyone) mean by it.


I've never said it wasn't.  What I'm rolling is the assertion that the old stuff is ALWAYS better, because it was first, and nothing can improve it.  Which this 'OSR' is clearly trying to do (improve it), even if they claim they're not.  The old stuff just is.  Was it fun?  For me, it was at it's time, but I've found newer stuff I like better.

And let me repeat in caps:  STUFF I LIKE BETTER.  This isn't science or math, so it ain't objective.

I'm aware of that, CB. And I feel like some of what makes 5E somewhat successful is a nod toward the conceits of older editions. A trend toward base simplification with the ability to add dimensions.

I'd like to speak to the question about system mastery, even though the question is not directed at me (and my idea of it may not be everyone else's). To me, the more widgets, especially those present on the character sheet, the more "systemy" the game gets.  I feel like system mastery is about finding the correct combination of codified abilities to solve a problem, using a purely mechanical approach. Noses in books, eyes and minds mostly on sheets, generally speaking.

Quote from: cranebump;924177I'm aware of that, CB. And I feel like some of what makes 5E somewhat successful is a nod toward the conceits of older editions. A trend toward base simplification with the ability to add dimensions.

I'd like to speak to the question about system mastery, even though the question is not directed at me (and my idea of it may not be everyone else's). To me, the more widgets, especially those present on the character sheet, the more "systemy" the game gets.  I feel like system mastery is about finding the correct combination of codified abilities to solve a problem, using a purely mechanical approach. Noses in books, eyes and minds mostly on sheets, generally speaking.

I see.  Hmm.  Thing is, and this is just MY experience...  The entire Magic system seems it is designed that way to me.  I mean, the player gets a repertoire of exclusionary rule blocks that are designed to be used selectively.  Sleep gets past groups of low level goons, Levitate and then Fly bypass pits, so on and so forth.  The mastery part is knowing when to use them or not.

I dunno, it just seems to me that even this form of what you call System Mastery was prevalent from the word go.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924175Fixed that for you.

Did I like steal your girl or something?  You really have it out for me.  What, can't handle the Internet?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924214You really have it out for me.

You keep spouting complete and total nonsense whenever the topic of older D&D comes around.  You're a worthless idiot on that topic for some unfathomable reason.  You go beyond misconceptions at time to outright deception.  So as long as you're going to spout shit, I'll call it for what it is.  

You set up a complete strawman not based on anything said in the thread (or on this site, not even by Geezer).  You thought no one was going to call you on your horseshit?  You know what site you're on, right?

Were the good ole games as good as we remember?

Yes, No, Maybee.

Depends on the person. well duh.

rev/2e Gamma world, Star Frontiers and BX D&D I still use even now. Also AD&D with a sprinkling of 2e elements like Spelljammer. I like the open endedness and overall blank slate of these older games. And they tend to play smoother with far far fewer moving parts. Especially BX.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924214I see.  Hmm.  Thing is, and this is just MY experience...  The entire Magic system seems it is designed that way to me.  I mean, the player gets a repertoire of exclusionary rule blocks that are designed to be used selectively.  Sleep gets past groups of low level goons, Levitate and then Fly bypass pits, so on and so forth.  The mastery part is knowing when to use them or not.

I dunno, it just seems to me that even this form of what you call System Mastery was prevalent from the word go.

Well, it is going to be prevalent from the word go. Once the game has rules, you are going to be interacting with them. The instant you can weigh (do I do X for Y bonus, or A for B bonus?), you will be taking the system into account (and thus mastering it). Where it can differ from system to system or from playstyle to plastyle is going to be how much it is up front and obvious and also in how much it is encouraged.

In 3e, as I feel most people play(ed) it, system mastery was every warrior-type build (that wasn't doing some other specific strategy) using a spiked chain, because it had all the useful options set to "yes" in exchange for a nominal drop in damage. In 3e as CharOp boards see(/saw) it, no one chose a warrior type, because a natural spell druid could walk around as a bear and be just as good a warrior, but also have spells and an animal companion. In AD&D (ignoring some later 2e CharOp like Bladesinger kit or the Player option build-a-class stuff), system mastery mostly boiled down to things like choosing to set up a flank instead of staying with high ground, because high ground only gave a +1 to hit and a flank +2, or maybe the ubiquitous always-choose-longsword-proficiency-because-the-magic-item-table-favors-it.

I agree with Cranebump about 5e. It encourages more thinking about what the character would do in the situation. Flank? High ground? Doesn't matter, neither one is going to offer more than 'advantage,' now make the decision based on the battlefield and real world style strategy (as in "If I set up the flank, the rogue character can capitalize on it as well, but if I stick with high ground and the archers drop the foe before we engage, I'm set up to charge down this corridor at cut off the kobolds trying to flank us."). It's not going to stop one from knowing that the wizard has a sleep spell memorized and that sleep follows specific rules that means he'll use it in situation X but not Y, but at least it encourages a little more thought about what happens off the character sheet numbers by making them 1) not change very quickly, and 2) not be as significant as the advantage you can set up by interacting with the game environment.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924151So what DO YOU claim is 'System Mastery'?  And no, it's not snark, or sarcasm, and no judgement, I honestly want to know what you (or anyone) mean by it.

My guess as to what "system mastery" means in the present context is the possibility of character optimization (to the point that unoptimized characters are nigh unplayable), maybe combined with counterintuitive tactical elements that stem only from interactions of the rules.

In a more general sense of system mastery, I agree that it was there from the beginning; as it is written in the first of the sacred booklets, "If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS and DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein." and "keep the rules nearby as you play. A quick check of some rule or table may bring hidden treasure or save your game "life."". Yeah, this was probably mainly aimed at getting players to also buy the books (thus selling four to fifty times as many), but it's still in there.

Quote from: rawma;924476In a more general sense of system mastery, I agree that it was there from the beginning; as it is written in the first of the sacred booklets, "If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS and DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein." and "keep the rules nearby as you play. A quick check of some rule or table may bring hidden treasure or save your game "life."". Yeah, this was probably mainly aimed at getting players to also buy the books (thus selling four to fifty times as many), but it's still in there.

That is not system mastery. Thats just telling the player that it might, oh I dont know, be kinda usefull to know the rules or have them handy when in doubt. That is NOT "system mastery"

Quote from: Omega;924499That is not system mastery. Thats just telling the player that it might, oh I dont know, be kinda usefull to know the rules or have them handy when in doubt. That is NOT "system mastery"

Agreed.  "Knowing how to play X may be helpful when actually playing X.  You should buy books to tell you how to play X." That's not System Mastery, that's Logic 101 combined with Ad Copy.

Quote from: Omega;924499That is not system mastery. Thats just telling the player that it might, oh I dont know, be kinda usefull to know the rules or have them handy when in doubt. That is NOT "system mastery"

Potayto, potahto. ;)

It's telling the player that it might, oh, I don't know, be kinda useful to know the rules or have them handy in order to gain some game success (gaining treasure or saving your game "life").

System mastery, in a more general sense. I didn't think that was what was meant earlier in the thread, but it's hard to distinguish from the other kind of system mastery, unless system mastery just means "use of RPG rules that you don't approve of". And please don't make me quote from Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery. Nobody wants that.

Quote from: rawma;924506Potayto, potahto. ;)

It's telling the player that it might, oh, I don't know, be kinda useful to know the rules or have them handy in order to gain some game success (gaining treasure or saving your game "life").

System mastery, in a more general sense. I didn't think that was what was meant earlier in the thread, but it's hard to distinguish from the other kind of system mastery, unless system mastery just means "use of RPG rules that you don't approve of". And please don't make me quote from Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery. Nobody wants that.

1987 system mastery - picking longsword because it shows up more often on magic tables.
2000's system mastery - about as similar to the above as the wright brothers plane is to the fucking space shuttle. (https://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/3.5e_Character_Optimization)

Quote from: rawma;924506Potayto, potahto.

So in other words your idea of System Mastery is "everything on earth". Thanks for clarifying that.

You just fired yourself from the conversation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;9245201987 system mastery - picking longsword because it shows up more often on magic tables.
2000's system mastery - about as similar to the above as the wright brothers plane is to the fucking space shuttle. (https://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/3.5e_Character_Optimization)

That's a good analogy - they're clearly different in scope and scale, but they're both flying machines.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;924567That's a good analogy - they're clearly different in scope and scale, but they're both flying machines.

While in the aircraft analogy, "Flying Machine" pretty much stayed general, and a ton of new words were created for the new things, "System Mastery" meant something different and "CharOp" wasn't even coined yet.  Now, for some weird reason, people want to take the meaning of "System Mastery" and "CharOp" defined by WotC versions of D&D and apply those backwardly to the earliest forms of TSR D&D.  It's lazy and inaccurate at best, disingenuous at worst.

Some people should unclench their buttocks. The notion that character optimization was insignificant in 1987 is laughable; that choosing a longsword was the only thing you could optimize in D&D by that point is, why yes, disingenuous. I played a lot of D&D before 1987 and there was plenty of system mastery; I got raked over the coals for taking Charm Person in the second expedition my first character went on in 1977, same as I was advised to take on the first expedition, because the other players were annoyed that I couldn't cast Sleep when the stirges attacked. The ten foot pole itself should probably be the emblem of early D&D system mastery. D&D took a lot of criticism from fans of the Hero System for the limited range of characters you could generate; inevitably, widening that range creates opportunities for the bad kind of using the rules well that is called system mastery as opposed to the good kind where you use the rules effectively to gain an advantage that somehow doesn't garner criticism (how many anecdotes along those lines has Gronan boasted of? Like porn vs. erotica, everyone knows the bad kind when they see it but only agree with each other on the most egregious sort). One person's negadungeon is another's level-appropriate challenge; one person's character optimization is another's unremarkable play style. In my experience, people who are expert in that other wargame, contract bridge, don't much care to play with beginners because they won't be challenged to pull off card reading, finesses, coups, endplays and dummy reversals, so it's not much fun for them. And so it is with D&D and RPGs in general.

Christopher Brady: you should now have a clearer idea of what "system mastery" means for this thread and probably this forum as a whole -- the definition I initially gave, before commenting on a more general sense, is probably accurate enough -- and what an emotional hot button it is for some posters.

Quote from: rawma;924597Some people should unclench their buttocks. The notion that character optimization was insignificant in 1987 is laughable; that choosing a longsword was the only thing you could optimize in D&D by that point is, why yes, disingenuous. I played a lot of D&D before 1987 and there was plenty of system mastery; I got raked over the coals for taking Charm Person in the second expedition my first character went on in 1977, same as I was advised to take on the first expedition, because the other players were annoyed that I couldn't cast Sleep when the stirges attacked. The ten foot pole itself should probably be the emblem of early D&D system mastery. D&D took a lot of criticism from fans of the Hero System for the limited range of characters you could generate; inevitably, widening that range creates opportunities for the bad kind of using the rules well that is called system mastery as opposed to the good kind where you use the rules effectively to gain an advantage that somehow doesn't garner criticism (how many anecdotes along those lines has Gronan boasted of? Like porn vs. erotica, everyone knows the bad kind when they see it but only agree with each other on the most egregious sort). One person's negadungeon is another's level-appropriate challenge; one person's character optimization is another's unremarkable play style. In my experience, people who are expert in that other wargame, contract bridge, don't much care to play with beginners because they won't be challenged to pull off card reading, finesses, coups, endplays and dummy reversals, so it's not much fun for them. And so it is with D&D and RPGs in general.

Christopher Brady: you should now have a clearer idea of what "system mastery" means for this thread and probably this forum as a whole -- the definition I initially gave, before commenting on a more general sense, is probably accurate enough -- and what an emotional hot button it is for some posters.

It's not as much "emotional hot button" as "wondering why someone wants to show themselves as bald-faced liar" as to pretend that choosing a ten-foot pole, or a sleep spell is really, honestly the same as this. (https://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Mobile_Glaive_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build))
Here's some snippets from that link:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/Table1.PNG)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/text1.PNG)

Yeah...that's what we were doing in the 80's, no question...
...or not even remotely in the same universe...whichever. ;)

And these "methods of protecting Infantry" are totally the same thing:

(http://www.history.com/s3static/video-thumbnails/AETN-History_VMS/865/963/History_Vikings_Shield_Wall_REV_SF_HD_still_624x352.jpg)

(http://www.military-today.com/apc/ulan_ifv.jpg)

There's not enough ROFL emoticons on the internet for this...

I don't think I'm ever going to use the words "system mastery" for what I would instead call min-max munchkinism. The words system mastery to me make me think of the point when people have internalized the rules so they don't need to look them up, and can predict the likely outcome of complex combats without rolling dice.

At some point, people need to say what they're talking about, or invent new (or remember old) terms for things, or else they're just arguing about an imaginary term, and/or misunderstanding each other.

Though CRKruger is of course correct about the difference between 1980's munchkinism and latter-day uber-munchkinism (or perhaps more like crowd-sourced lazy Internet munchkinism), as he so well illustrated above.

Quote from: Skarg;924603I don't think I'm ever going to use the words "system mastery" for what I would instead call min-max munchkinism. The words system mastery to me make me think of the point when people have internalized the rules so they don't need to look them up, and can predict the likely outcome of complex combats without rolling dice.

At some point, people need to say what they're talking about, or invent new (or remember old) terms for things, or else they're just arguing about an imaginary term, and/or misunderstanding each other.

Though CRKruger is of course correct about the difference between 1980's munchkinism and latter-day uber-munchkinism (or perhaps more like crowd-sourced lazy Internet munchkinism), as he so well illustrated above.

You're right I think in that context forms the basis for the definition (which I'll admit leads to lots of flaming).
In the D&D context when people are deriding WotC D&D:
System Mastery = CharOp Munchkinism or Tactical Powerz Combinations (which, are to such a ridiculous difference of Degree from early TSR D&D, that they effectively become a difference of Kind unless you want the term to have no meaning whatsoever, which some obviously are invested in).

The neutral definition of System Mastery should be "internalization of rules" as you say.  The problem is that the arguing over "System Mastery" as a thing, really came forward during the D&D 3e days, from some of the designers themselves, like Monte Cook, so it is kind of tied to WotC D&D in a way that it probably shouldn't be.

Quote from: CRKrueger;924600It's not as much "emotional hot button" as "wondering why someone wants to show themselves as bald-faced liar" as to pretend that choosing a ten-foot pole, or a sleep spell is really, honestly the same as

I never pretended they were the same thing; obviously you are too emotional about this so I'll leave off.

Given the other use of "system mastery" appearing elsewhere in the forum and that is probably desirable to preserve, I will agree that "min-max munchkinism" is a better term.

And of course it's FAR more fun to shriek "You're WRONG!  on the INTERNET!!!" then to ask "What do you mean by system mastery?"

Quote from: CRKrueger;924600There's not enough ROFL emoticons on the internet for this...

Missed one.

(http://www.mbd2.com/forum/balloon_Animal_Blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/_german_panther_2007_luftballon_luft_kleber_balloon_air_glou_960_x370_x_300cm-m.jpg)

Here. Have a ROFL Tank?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Xf1yVY9YX5o/hqdefault.jpg)

and

(http://orig01.deviantart.net/a755/f/2006/340/4/7/tank_chase_by_ky74n.gif)

Happy now?

Yep, I think we're covered. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;924600There's not enough ROFL emoticons on the internet for this...

OK, that post was funny and correct at the same time;).

Sorry guys, I'm with Rawna, you're using different words to say the same thing.  I know you guys don't think what your thing is 'system mastery', but using the rules to get an advantage in the game IS system mastery, all your definitions read the same.

I think part of the fallacy is that people are picking extremes. and like all things in life there are degrees of severity.

The only thing that the later editions of D&D, well, namely 3e, did was made it forefront and honest about it.  And then took the train off the rails with it.

As for other examples of 'System Mastery' that pre-dates that edition, I'd have to say the Dart Fighter from AD&D 2e, which was happening in the 90's.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924816. . . using the rules to get an advantage in the game IS system mastery . . .

Riddle me this. Let's say I equip my character's men-at-arms with polearms in the first rank followed by two ranks of heavy crossbowmen. The polearms are set to receive a charge - to protect against cavalry -  while the crossbowmen alternate ranks in firing at the enemy - to keep up a steady fire of armor-piercing death downrange.

The rules allow polearms set against a charge double damage while heavy crossbows get a bonus against heavy armor; since the crossbows can only be fired every other combat round, alternating fire allows at least one rank to fire each round.

Now, this particular approach reflects real-world tactics; it takes zero knowledge of how the rules work to decided to equip and deploy the men-at-arms thus. But the rules do a good job of modeling the real-world tactic in game terms, so there is an advantage in terms of the results the game is likely to spit out as a result of using this formation.

Now, is this 'system mastery,' or is it just good tactics which the system happens to reward?

Quote from: rawma;924620Given the other use of "system mastery" appearing elsewhere in the forum and that is probably desirable to preserve, I will agree that "min-max munchkinism" is a better term.

You know, you're right. And for me, system mastery has always been a near-euphemism for munchkinism (though nowhere near a burr under the saddle as "optimization"). Either way, min-maxing has been a thing in D&D as long as I can remember. The only thing I'll add is that t's a lot harder to "optimize" in a system with reduced selectivity. Once we hit the "character builds" strain of the game, this sort of thing felt ingrained. But that's just my feeling on it, of course.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;924849Riddle me this. Let's say I equip my character's men-at-arms with polearms in the first rank followed by two ranks of heavy crossbowmen. The polearms are set to receive a charge - to protect against cavalry -  while the crossbowmen alternate ranks in firing at the enemy - to keep up a steady fire of armor-piercing death downrange.

The rules allow polearms set against a charge double damage while heavy crossbows get a bonus against heavy armor; since the crossbows can only be fired every other combat round, alternating fire allows at least one rank to fire each round.

Now, this particular approach reflects real-world tactics; it takes zero knowledge of how the rules work to decided to equip and deploy the men-at-arms thus. But the rules do a good job of modeling the real-world tactic in game terms, so there is an advantage in terms of the results the game is likely to spit out as a result of using this formation.

Now, is this 'system mastery,' or is it just good tactics which the system happens to reward?

I'd have to go with the latter. Good point.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;924849Riddle me this. Let's say I equip my character's men-at-arms with polearms in the first rank followed by two ranks of heavy crossbowmen. The polearms are set to receive a charge - to protect against cavalry -  while the crossbowmen alternate ranks in firing at the enemy - to keep up a steady fire of armor-piercing death downrange.

The rules allow polearms set against a charge double damage while heavy crossbows get a bonus against heavy armor; since the crossbows can only be fired every other combat round, alternating fire allows at least one rank to fire each round.

Now, this particular approach reflects real-world tactics; it takes zero knowledge of how the rules work to decided to equip and deploy the men-at-arms thus. But the rules do a good job of modeling the real-world tactic in game terms, so there is an advantage in terms of the results the game is likely to spit out as a result of using this formation.

Now, is this 'system mastery,' or is it just good tactics which the system happens to reward?

I don't want to set off CRKrueger again after Omega settled him down with calming emoticons, but why can't it be both? The other thread used "system mastery" as a good thing; this one wants to use the term only as a bad thing.

If you choose a multiple of three for the number of crossbowmen because the rules happen to divide their number by three, rounding down, to determine their effectiveness and the extra ones would be wasted, it's still system mastery and it's tactics the system rewards, but no, not because it's good tactics in a real world sense (but it might be if it were instead some siege weapon that was operated by crews of three). Or if you decided light crossbows were better because the crossbowmen need less ST to use them and can thus have higher DX and hit more often, and based on your guess of how much armor the enemy is likely to have, it works out better--good or bad tactics, or does it depend on whether your guess was right, or does it depend on whether any historic general did that, or do you want to quibble over whether you can even recruit crossbowmen with attributes that specific (and then why not quibble over whether you can find enough qualified heavy crossbowmen)? If the tactics have to do with magic, and that's what I find most interesting in RPGs, how are you going to judge whether the tactics are good except by looking at the rules, since there's no magic in real world battles to compare to?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;924849Riddle me this. Let's say I equip my character's men-at-arms with polearms in the first rank followed by two ranks of heavy crossbowmen. The polearms are set to receive a charge - to protect against cavalry -  while the crossbowmen alternate ranks in firing at the enemy - to keep up a steady fire of armor-piercing death downrange.

The rules allow polearms set against a charge double damage while heavy crossbows get a bonus against heavy armor; since the crossbows can only be fired every other combat round, alternating fire allows at least one rank to fire each round.

Now, this particular approach reflects real-world tactics; it takes zero knowledge of how the rules work to decided to equip and deploy the men-at-arms thus. But the rules do a good job of modeling the real-world tactic in game terms, so there is an advantage in terms of the results the game is likely to spit out as a result of using this formation.

Now, is this 'system mastery,' or is it just good tactics which the system happens to reward?

That's a strawman.

Simply because your hypothetical is both situational and has nothing to do with the actual rules of the system used.  In fact, you could do that in any fantasy game, not just D&D.  ANd frankly, given how unlikely a bunch of PC's find themselves outside of a dungeon to make a formation battle like that worth it, I'm disappointed you even when there.

Mind using a hypothetical in game situation that WOULD happen?

Don't bother, you'll just try and defend your highly situational and frankly implausible choice.

Black Vulmea,

IF instead my Cavalier had several "feat" trees, proficiencies, special abilities, skills etc. garnered from careful planning and knowledge of the system (bonus points if these various "bits" combine in spectacular ways!) that allowed him to cancel out set charges, ride through pole-arms unscathed and (with their awesome tricked out AC), leap from their mount and lay waste to the unsuspecting double-row of heavy crossbows THAT would be system mastery.

What you described is good tactics. Which is where the players can take on superior numbers and win because they are being smart and creative.

One could also avoid such games which could also be considered Good Tactics. :-D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924909Simply because your hypothetical is both situational and has nothing to do with the actual rules of the system used.  In fact, you could do that in any fantasy game, not just D&D.  ANd frankly, given how unlikely a bunch of PC's find themselves outside of a dungeon to make a formation battle like that worth it, I'm disappointed you even when there.

Players in my campaigns (and campaigns I've played in) have been using formations like that one (and other examples real world tactics) since I playing started in 1975. A variation in this formation even works well in dungeons -- only the front line is using spears. Six people in a ten-foot corridor can generally stop a mass of goblins or orcs for quite a while with something like this.

Quote from: RandallS;924925Players in my campaigns (and campaigns I've played in) have been using formations like that one (and other examples real world tactics) since I playing started in 1975. A variation in this formation even works well in dungeons -- only the front line is using spears. Six people in a ten-foot corridor can generally stop a mass of goblins or orcs for quite a while with something like this.

Hush, you and your "having some fucking idea what you're talking about" and "being smart enough to shit unassisted."

Quote from: rawma;924891If you choose a multiple of three for the number of crossbowmen because the rules happen to divide their number by three, rounding down, to determine their effectiveness and the extra ones would be wasted, it's still system mastery and it's tactics the system rewards, but no, not because it's good tactics in a real world sense (but it might be if it were instead some siege weapon that was operated by crews of three). Or if you decided light crossbows were better because the crossbowmen need less ST to use them and can thus have higher DX and hit more often, and based on your guess of how much armor the enemy is likely to have, it works out better--good or bad tactics, or does it depend on whether your guess was right, or does it depend on whether any historic general did that, or do you want to quibble over whether you can even recruit crossbowmen with attributes that specific (and then why not quibble over whether you can find enough qualified heavy crossbowmen)? If the tactics have to do with magic, and that's what I find most interesting in RPGs, how are you going to judge whether the tactics are good except by looking at the rules, since there's no magic in real world battles to compare to?

And what kind of dressing would you like with your word salad?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924909That's a strawman.

Translation? 'You GUYYYYYS, math is HARRRRRD!'

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924909Simply because your hypothetical is both situational and has nothing to do with the actual rules of the system used.  In fact, you could do that in any fantasy game, not just D&D.  ANd frankly, given how unlikely a bunch of PC's find themselves outside of a dungeon to make a formation battle like that worth it, I'm disappointed you even when there.

Mind using a hypothetical in game situation that WOULD happen?

Don't bother, you'll just try and defend your highly situational and frankly implausible choice.

Actual play example, from when I was thirteen years old.

That tiny little bubble you live in is starving your brain for oxygen. You may want to see to that.

Quote from: trechriron;924917IF instead my Cavalier had several "feat" trees, proficiencies, special abilities, skills etc. garnered from careful planning and knowledge of the system (bonus points if these various "bits" combine in spectacular ways!) that allowed him to cancel out set charges, ride through pole-arms unscathed and (with their awesome tricked out AC), leap from their mount and lay waste to the unsuspecting double-row of heavy crossbows THAT would be system mastery. . . . One could also avoid such games which could also be considered Good Tactics. :-D

Indeed.

Quote from: trechriron;924917What you described is good tactics. Which is where the players can take on superior numbers and win because they are being smart and creative.

Thank you.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924909That's a strawman.

Simply because your hypothetical is both situational and has nothing to do with the actual rules of the system used.  In fact, you could do that in any fantasy game, not just D&D.  ANd frankly, given how unlikely a bunch of PC's find themselves outside of a dungeon to make a formation battle like that worth it, I'm disappointed you even when there.

Mind using a hypothetical in game situation that WOULD happen?

Don't bother, you'll just try and defend your highly situational and frankly implausible choice.

So, either one clueless fucktard, or someone being so disgenuous that it's the same thing...

Quote from: trechriron;924917Black Vulmea,

IF instead my Cavalier had several "feat" trees, proficiencies, special abilities, skills etc. garnered from careful planning and knowledge of the system (bonus points if these various "bits" combine in spectacular ways!) that allowed him to cancel out set charges, ride through pole-arms unscathed and (with their awesome tricked out AC), leap from their mount and lay waste to the unsuspecting double-row of heavy crossbows THAT would be system mastery.

What you described is good tactics. Which is where the players can take on superior numbers and win because they are being smart and creative.

One could also avoid such games which could also be considered Good Tactics. :-D

Quote from: RandallS;924925Players in my campaigns (and campaigns I've played in) have been using formations like that one (and other examples real world tactics) since I playing started in 1975. A variation in this formation even works well in dungeons -- only the front line is using spears. Six people in a ten-foot corridor can generally stop a mass of goblins or orcs for quite a while with something like this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;924955Hush, you and your "having some fucking idea what you're talking about" and "being smart enough to shit unassisted."

...and then 3 people who understand.

Consider the point made, Black Vulmea. ;)

Edit: Nevermind, you ninja'd me yourself.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;924957And what kind of dressing would you like with your word salad?

Translation? 'You GUYYYYYS, reading is HARRRRRD!'

Quote from: rawma;925021Translation? 'You GUYYYYYS, reading is HARRRRRD!'

Well played.

Doesn't change the fact that your post has fuck-all to do with anything I wrote, though.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;925033Doesn't change the fact that your post has fuck-all to do with anything I wrote, though.

Maybe your point is rather opaque, or maybe only to me. You present an example where the tactics that were historically effective and the tactics that the game rules promote are aligned; I would call that good game design, or at least good simulation design. I'm willing to call lots of things system mastery, some good and some bad, and I'm willing to call lots of things good tactics, some of which are only good tactics within a given game and some of which are only good tactics outside that game. What do you intend the answer to your riddle to be?

I think the more interesting case is where the rules don't align with good tactics outside the game, maybe because there's some oddity of abstraction (e.g., going with the grain or against it on a hex map) or because we don't know what good tactics are for something that doesn't exist in the real world (e.g., fighting a dragon or a duel of spells). How should players respond to such games? Refuse to play them at all, make the choices the game rewards, or go down to defeat playing the strategies they think would have worked if only the game were properly designed?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;925033Well played.

Doesn't change the fact that your post has fuck-all to do with anything I wrote, though.

No, but it's this thread's version of "The Major-General's Song."

:rolleyes:

Good tactics is not system mastery.

System mastery is knowing what in the case of D&D magic that you can set up traps that work every time, simply because by not actively targeting things that can resist (AKA have saving throws), the spells always work, so instant pits or the like.  And then you exploit it, over and over again.

Is that a bad thing?  Not really, it's how people work, minimum effort, maximum gain.

I think people here mistakenly equate system mastery with rules lawyerism and power gaming, which it's not.  But is can be USED for it.

So, maybe it comes down to "Mo' system, mo' mastery?"

Quote from: Tetsubo;923426I am confused how something that you claim hasn't changed has gotten 'better'. Now, I can understand how your personal appreciation or preference has changed. But if the game is the same it's overall quality has not been altered. The 1E books on my shelf are the same today they were when I bought then new upon release. I however have come to see them as unplayable. The books are the same it is I that is different.

Well, because I'm not just talking about the old game books, but the fact that now you have a whole bunch of new material for old-school that you can use with them, integrate to them, and even an expanded concept of how to use those games (incorporating everything from new influences in pop culture since then, better access ti material on history or ancient cultures than back then, and ideas that can be brought into old-school games from later RPG developments).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;923470Perhaps OSR supplements cross-usable in old games making the old games better?

Exactly. Mainly this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;925172No, but it's this thread's version of "The Major-General's Song."

You ow  m  a cup of cof   and a n w k yboard.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;926722You ow  m  a cup of cof   and a n w k yboard.

Worth it.  :D