That's also true...it's the other side of the coin. One side of the coin says these are all the things you can do, and precisely only how you do them. On the other side, there are thus many, many things now that you cannot do...including, apparently, thinking creatively for yourself as the DM or the player. It's a seeming great trap, filled with "cool" art, but once inside you either succumb without ever realizing it, or simply don't care anyway. Very few find their way out of this trap, I'm afraid, to genuinely rpg goodness! Again though, that's IMHO, and certainly if it ain't yours, then good luck and have your happy gaming I guess. Thnx for tuning in! 👍
As a young kid In 1984 I started on this, moved on along with the newer versions up to AAD 2. With Covid I got back into the game after over 20 years off and hit the ground running first playing but then back to DMing 5e. I quickly added some hose rules to nerf some of the player power glut - slower healing, class restrictions etc. I just bought and read the Old-School Essentials Rules Tome and casually read it over the weekend. Because of the unparalleled succinct writing and layout of the book that covers the rules you talk about here without the disorganization and poorly written parts in the original books, I was able to get a firm grasp on the rules with ease. I have embraced this simplicity and can’t wait to run it after my current 5e campaign which has been a blast but the prep has been cumbersome thanks to one full page monster stat blocks. My players who are a mix of veterans who played this but also younger players that started on 5e are totally ready for this.
Wow, that's really awesome! I've not read through Old School Essentials, but I'm sure it's pretty doggone good too. I'm glad you liked the video and certainly hope you all have a great time with your new game!! 👍🙂
As an old-school DM & someone designing a game now, I’ve found that the desire for more options or effects creates the temptation for three more rules for each new one. D&D added advantage/disadvantage to simplify modifiers, but now there are a dozen new rules for ways get or give advantage & disadvantage. The old games weren’t perfect. They had very clunky rules: every check was a different die, & some were roll-over & others roll-under. There wasn’t enough for fighters to do. And character options were very limited. Pathfinder & D&D nowadays have _too many_ options and also read like legal contracts. People say they can’t play without knowing all the rules is because not only are there so many rules, but the rules are so tightly integrated (conditions, the action, economy, etc.)
Thnx for tuning in, subbing, and certainly commenting! I agree with each of your points without doubt. I've experienced and heard these things over and over in some fashion or another! Blessings in your design efforts! 👍🤓
Basic Fantasy Roleplay is essentially B/X without THAC0, pdfs are free on their site and amazon sells the print copies for cost so about $5 US. A good option if you want to play old school on the cheap.
Actually, we've just barely started it with the family too! Yes indeed, you can't beat free!! And yes, Amazon.com has it for $5 with free shipping if you've got Prime. We got everything they have in print for around $47. That's amazing.👍I'm likely going to be discussing and including BFRPG in future videos for this OSR channel as well.
Well I would say that BFRPG is more of a stripped down & simplified AD&D. What really makes BX, in my view, is descending AC but also race as class which I really prefer personally.
I grew up with this series, and it is still the best set of rules. Period. Pure, simple, easy to play, easier(cheaper) to get into. In 5th edition you are basically a God and it's almost impossible to get killed. The old rules were exciting because there was an element of danger.
This is going to sound snooty and elitist as all get out but I truly think the BEST way to save "The Game" is to allow what has become of it in the modern sense to go its way.....Mass acceptance will soon run its course and it will be no more than a fad that has been forgotten. I like what the OSR people are doing at the moment, bringing back the "older flavor" with better writing, etc. I like your videos! We share a common headspace in the philosophy and spirit of D&D. Keep up the good work.
Actually, Steve, my hope is that in fact you're very, very right. Thnx for the compliments! Thanks for watching and I hope to continue this growing community, to the benefit of all of us old schoolers. 👊😁
I strongly agree. And I think there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that supports what you’re saying and that it’s already happening. As the grognard in our neck of the woods, I’m regularly asked if I can DM OSR for people that started in 5e because they’re curious. Most go out and buy older edition rules after a few nights of playing. I’d like to say it’s because of me but I think it’s actually because of the style of play that comes with OSR.
So much of what you say applies to any game system. I love players who don’t care about the rules and just trust their GM to handle things. Because that’s what allows you to play a fluid fun adventure, rather than a straightjacketed combat simulator with a bit of RPG thrown in.
DUde honestly your intros are may favorite part. You can make them as long as you want. It sets the mood, captures your imagination and takes you on a journey into the history of dnd, bringing the past to life!
Our group played Basic Moldvay for years. If we wanted to do something outside the rules we just made it up. There was a discussion then the GM made a ruling . Easy.
Loved the NFL analogy. I will say with Encumbrance, I only recall one time where it was an issue - and it was when everyone ended up in a large body of water (what can you realistically swim to shore with). Another thought regarding players trying to carry a sword, a shield, and a torch with only two hands ..... one thing I love with my kids is they never try and do anything like this, they are thinking realistically (I can't hold all of that etc ....), vs players I have run games with that are always trying to push the limits :D.
Yep... indeed! Glad you're raising them that way in their gaming. Again, verisimilitude. I think it matters a great deal, and so does the ever-present challenge that having death there at the door provides. 👍🤓
I think a big thing about the old games that newer games lack is trust. WotC's versions of d&d have rules for everything to protect the players from the DM, as if they cannot be trusted. 5e especially the culture of play seems to be the cleave to the rules with an almost religious zeal. Many 5e groups I've played with find even the idea of doing something outside the rules anathema.
I agree completely! And also I'd like to point out the fact that the 5e DMG seems to be filled with alternative "rules or ways to play and change stuff" and a little other stuff too, but it's as if "Hey, the DM's don't need a guide or help."... let's just sorta call the book that. Again, just my two cents there. If it works for you that's ok, but it is sad to see this in the games now, for me. So new DM's have to sorta learn by trial and error? 😔 I hope our OSRevolution really catches fire! 🔥
Good message. I think in the past 40 years we’ve had less than ten questions asked of the DMs running our games and that was because of differences in spell effects or some such. I think this low number of questions is because of what you seem to be saying about rulings rather than rules. We always respect our DMs and accept that they’ve put together something for us to enjoy and if the rules they’re employing are different from the books, maybe we just don’t know the complete story arc yet. And our play has evolved to the point where rules from the book provide only the barest skeletal framework for the game with the DM and the players spinning the tale in a cooperative venture based more on realistic description than dice rolls determining how the adventures progress. Simpler is, simply put, so much better.
Thnx a lot! Great to hear from you guys who've done such good videos along this same vein as well! I'll look forward to hearing from ya'll again soon too. 👊
Nice video! My dislike of complex rule systems is also based on the fact that they are conter intuitive and restricting at the same time! On the one hand, there is always some hole in the rules, which allow power-gamer to make five backstab surprise critial attacks from bag of holdings. Systems are always broken, everyone complains. On the other hand players start to believe, that the only things they can do are things explicitly described in rule books. And they have some points. First, If I can do anything, then why do we need these specific rulings for these specific actions? Why they are so special? And second is associated with previous point, freedom will break complex interactions between rules. Especially in overcomplicated combat. Thank you for your efforts! Hope, your channel will grow!
Thnx for tuning in and subscribing! I love your comments here! Overly complex can both kill creative play in many ways IMHO, and playing the sheet happens quite easily when every potential choice is sorta scripted for you and the DM. I believe that since the advent of Oriental Adventures and also then 2nd edition and the skill/proficiency system, that kinda started. But, that's just me. If "scripted/laid-out/spelled-out is your thing, then go for it, but I don't care for that style of play at all. I'll leave my "trees" (feat trees) in the forest please. Thnx for the reply!!
I agree fully, and although you made a lot of points worthy of debates, I'll keep my comment short if I can. I like to argue that, the simpler the ruleset, the faster the play and the more creativity is engaged. It is hard to illustrate that without playing that way. Perhaps another way to put it might be, resourceful players soon try to find solutions to survive rules that, at first read, seem very harsh and seemingly fixed rather than open. Yet, very quickly, this imaginative play is rewarded with, well, fun but also expected results and adventure based on pure imagination rather than prolonged rules-lawyering. But the harsh simple ruleset seems necessary, to keep players motivated to pay attention and brainstorm in real time AKA immersion and grounded logic. Sadly, that all got lost for recent generations of players, who shun OSR based only on their reading of the rules. I suggest the only way to communicate is through actual play streaming of OSR gaming.
I know most channels in the oldschool field like to focus on the B/X, I had them they were great no one is saying otherwise. Thing is there really isn't any difference between B/X and the BE in BECMI. Looking at them side by side its mostly just editing difference. My point is BX BECMI the rules cyclopedia all pretty much the same thing and I feel if more people pointed that out new people would be more likely to look and see. Simply because there is more for them to look through and build on. But that's me. The RC today is the only book you will ever need and there is no reason to stick with it over other OSE's because it would appeal to some to be playing oldschool actual d&d. Show guys like Perkins and Mercer running it oldschool and people would pick up the old rules again just because. And the state of the thing would be much better, like you mentioned on another video it has moved to furry battle ready spellcaster much like most video games. From 3e on it was only a matter of time, if that's your thing it wasn't mine haha. If anything I would say the reason we didn't need more complex games is because BECMI (including "BX" and the cycolpedia) was never really broken and if it isn't broke why try to fix it? If you really wanted that oldschool game, in my opinion, stick with BECMI era whatver you wish to call it. If you didn't keep it, it's all POD or even PDF now. They are super easy to customize too if thats your thing!
I like your take here! For the most part, you're right, they aren't any real divergences. There are a few tweaks here and there, but they very subtle and make no difference in how it's played at all. OSE seems like it's pretty good in its classic form, not sure about the advanced stuff, and I think if it were a little more affordable and able to get gotten easier, they're printing is high cost and hard to get, others might find it's really great 👍 Thank you for your thoughts and comment, and for tuning in! 👊
D&D3e,4e,&5e are all garbage, no argument from me there. However AD&D is pretty fucking fantastic to be honest. Since 1e and 2e are basically the same game, I look at 2e as simply a better version once you add back in the censored materials (demons, devils, classes, etc..). So it seems to come down to AD&D2e and B/X, both are fantastic, and that really is the heart of real D&D as far as I'm concerned.
Mmm... I disagree to an extent. Yes, rules *can* get burdensome and hinder gameplay, and yes the more rules you have the more the game usually defines what you cannot do... But that doesn't mean rules inherently limit creativity. Humans do like to stay within the bounds of the imaginary walls we put up... But let me try to tell you why I prefer Pathfinder... 1st Edition... Over anything else I have tried: Options. Pathfinder 2e has options but that game gets to be too gameist to me... And D&D 5e has options but that feels like they took 3e (and subsequently 3.5e) and they skinned it alive, took a few patches from 4e, sewed it all together and now you have a skinsuit with little substance stretched over three books... "But we can give more skin if you buy the others!" But maybe that's just 'cause I hate 5e. For me, Pathfinder 1e is the sweet spot... It feels less gameist than 2e, but more substantive than 5e, and just has more to it than any other game I have played (which I guess falls into "more substantive" but I didn't want to group anything with 5e)... Well at least for class and level games, it is unfair to compare something like Call of Cthulhu to all these other games because not only do they not run off the same engine, it is like comparing a shooter to a fighting game. For me, the Old School idea is novel and I would likely have a blast playing it if I could get anyone to play... But I think in the end (as a player) I could only play so many fighting-men or dwarves before I feel like I am doing the same thing... But I guess that also depends on what the GM does. And I might be fine as the GM... But... Well no "but" I find it would be hard to get bored as a GM. I just feel like we are on the verge of an equivalent to the Stormwind Fallacy here... Or perhaps it already exists. Reading through some of your other replies or those you have liked: you are not going to enjoy this response or perhaps might pour yourself some Pinot Noir as you guffaw at my *obvious* failure to adequately asseverate my empirically erroneous assertion... Either way that is the admittedly poorly articulated version of my thoughts. I typed this up on a phone so be forgiving if any glaring errors are present. I wished to try to explain myself more but I do not have all day to keep typing and I was never one to get fast at typing on a phone.
And btw, by choices I mean more of the character options, monsters, classes... Etc. I don't think I made that clear. But for more character options you need more rules... Thus a denser system and round and round we go. You want more spells? Those spells need an adjudication on how they work unless we want... What was that game that had spells that said "Stretch: your body grows rubbery and can stretch" and that's the whole spell? Like originally all weapons were 1d6 damage... So what's the point of choosing anything? That just doesn't appeal to me. A spellcaster has more, obviously... But as a player I always liked the Martial fantasy myself. I said I wasn't going to type more but here I am... I just felt in my fatigued haze I forgot a key description of what I meant by choice.
Let me say this: The way you disagree has made me truly like what you have to say here! 😋😊 In a good way, you're very right, in that if you want to add more and more complex spells, for example, then more rules would be needed, likely. And on and on it would indeed go. Absolutely. Thus systems like PF2E, as you mentioned, which literally tries to gamefy every stinking decision that can be gamefied... if they've thought of it yet. Not to say that people I really, really care about, don't play it and ask me to run them in it, which I have and do, but my overall impression remains kinda the same, in that more options CAN inhibit creativity within the play at the table. Not for everyone though... to each his own. I played 3rd and a little 3.5 when it first hit, but ultimately, I'd rather play around within the old school and somewhat rules lighter choices, myself, and add those things into it in old school ways rather than have designers force that upon me I guess, and thus then force a whole bunch of rules about that then, into it....vicious circle I suppose. Either way, thank you very much for a great, coherent, well-thought-out, respectful response here. It's pretty special and rare! 🤓👏👊And yes, maybe I am walking a line right next to that fallacy (had to look that up to be sure...lol), but I'm good with that. Lol 😅 Thnx for tuning in. Keep watching along.. I may make more fallacious statements. Lol 😅 Prosper and Good Gaming 👍
Hard disagree. You can do whatever you want for situations not described in the rules-- that's the joy of the game-- but If you rule in a way that goes against RAW, I'm instantly out. I agreed to play BX, not your homebrew. Too many players change rules they don't like without taking the time to understand why the RAW are that way in the first place, and when they do it's usually a lesser experience.
Cool. I understand that as well, that's just not how we ever did it, or do it today. But hey, if it's your thing and you have that convo up front in session zero, then that's cool. Thnx for the comment, man, to each his own. 👍
The more rules they write, the more they define what you CANNOT do.
That's also true...it's the other side of the coin. One side of the coin says these are all the things you can do, and precisely only how you do them.
On the other side, there are thus many, many things now that you cannot do...including, apparently, thinking creatively for yourself as the DM or the player.
It's a seeming great trap, filled with "cool" art, but once inside you either succumb without ever realizing it, or simply don't care anyway.
Very few find their way out of this trap, I'm afraid, to genuinely rpg goodness!
Again though, that's IMHO, and certainly if it ain't yours, then good luck and have your happy gaming I guess.
Thnx for tuning in! 👍
As a young kid In 1984 I started on this, moved on along with the newer versions up to AAD 2. With Covid I got back into the game after over 20 years off and hit the ground running first playing but then back to DMing 5e. I quickly added some hose rules to nerf some of the player power glut - slower healing, class restrictions etc. I just bought and read the Old-School Essentials Rules Tome and casually read it over the weekend. Because of the unparalleled succinct writing and layout of the book that covers the rules you talk about here without the disorganization and poorly written parts in the original books, I was able to get a firm grasp on the rules with ease. I have embraced this simplicity and can’t wait to run it after my current 5e campaign which has been a blast but the prep has been cumbersome thanks to one full page monster stat blocks. My players who are a mix of veterans who played this but also younger players that started on 5e are totally ready for this.
Wow, that's really awesome! I've not read through Old School Essentials, but I'm sure it's pretty doggone good too. I'm glad you liked the video and certainly hope you all have a great time with your new game!! 👍🙂
As an old-school DM & someone designing a game now, I’ve found that the desire for more options or effects creates the temptation for three more rules for each new one. D&D added advantage/disadvantage to simplify modifiers, but now there are a dozen new rules for ways get or give advantage & disadvantage.
The old games weren’t perfect. They had very clunky rules: every check was a different die, & some were roll-over & others roll-under. There wasn’t enough for fighters to do. And character options were very limited.
Pathfinder & D&D nowadays have _too many_ options and also read like legal contracts. People say they can’t play without knowing all the rules is because not only are there so many rules, but the rules are so tightly integrated (conditions, the action, economy, etc.)
Thnx for tuning in, subbing, and certainly commenting! I agree with each of your points without doubt. I've experienced and heard these things over and over in some fashion or another!
Blessings in your design efforts! 👍🤓
Basic Fantasy Roleplay is essentially B/X without THAC0, pdfs are free on their site and amazon sells the print copies for cost so about $5 US. A good option if you want to play old school on the cheap.
Actually, we've just barely started it with the family too! Yes indeed, you can't beat free!! And yes, Amazon.com has it for $5 with free shipping if you've got Prime. We got everything they have in print for around $47. That's amazing.👍I'm likely going to be discussing and including BFRPG in future videos for this OSR channel as well.
Well I would say that BFRPG is more of a stripped down & simplified AD&D. What really makes BX, in my view, is descending AC but also race as class which I really prefer personally.
I grew up with this series, and it is still the best set of rules. Period. Pure, simple, easy to play, easier(cheaper) to get into. In 5th edition you are basically a God and it's almost impossible to get killed. The old rules were exciting because there was an element of danger.
Absolutely 💯! Thnx for the sub and the comment👍🤓 Prosper and good gaming!
This is going to sound snooty and elitist as all get out but I truly think the BEST way to save "The Game" is to allow what has become of it in the modern sense to go its way.....Mass acceptance will soon run its course and it will be no more than a fad that has been forgotten. I like what the OSR people are doing at the moment, bringing back the "older flavor" with better writing, etc. I like your videos! We share a common headspace in the philosophy and spirit of D&D. Keep up the good work.
Actually, Steve, my hope is that in fact you're very, very right. Thnx for the compliments! Thanks for watching and I hope to continue this growing community, to the benefit of all of us old schoolers. 👊😁
I strongly agree. And I think there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that supports what you’re saying and that it’s already happening. As the grognard in our neck of the woods, I’m regularly asked if I can DM OSR for people that started in 5e because they’re curious. Most go out and buy older edition rules after a few nights of playing. I’d like to say it’s because of me but I think it’s actually because of the style of play that comes with OSR.
So much of what you say applies to any game system. I love players who don’t care about the rules and just trust their GM to handle things. Because that’s what allows you to play a fluid fun adventure, rather than a straightjacketed combat simulator with a bit of RPG thrown in.
Indeed! "Straightjacketed combat simulator"..Lol...nice! Thnx for tuning in. 👍
DUde honestly your intros are may favorite part. You can make them as long as you want. It sets the mood, captures your imagination and takes you on a journey into the history of dnd, bringing the past to life!
Thnx!
Our group played Basic Moldvay for years. If we wanted to do something outside the rules we just made it up. There was a discussion then the GM made a ruling . Easy.
Absolutely! Love it 👍
Loved the NFL analogy. I will say with Encumbrance, I only recall one time where it was an issue - and it was when everyone ended up in a large body of water (what can you realistically swim to shore with). Another thought regarding players trying to carry a sword, a shield, and a torch with only two hands ..... one thing I love with my kids is they never try and do anything like this, they are thinking realistically (I can't hold all of that etc ....), vs players I have run games with that are always trying to push the limits :D.
Yep... indeed! Glad you're raising them that way in their gaming. Again, verisimilitude. I think it matters a great deal, and so does the ever-present challenge that having death there at the door provides. 👍🤓
I think a big thing about the old games that newer games lack is trust. WotC's versions of d&d have rules for everything to protect the players from the DM, as if they cannot be trusted. 5e especially the culture of play seems to be the cleave to the rules with an almost religious zeal. Many 5e groups I've played with find even the idea of doing something outside the rules anathema.
I agree completely! And also I'd like to point out the fact that the 5e DMG seems to be filled with alternative "rules or ways to play and change stuff" and a little other stuff too, but it's as if "Hey, the DM's don't need a guide or help."... let's just sorta call the book that.
Again, just my two cents there. If it works for you that's ok, but it is sad to see this in the games now, for me. So new DM's have to sorta learn by trial and error? 😔
I hope our OSRevolution really catches fire! 🔥
Very good point.
Good message. I think in the past 40 years we’ve had less than ten questions asked of the DMs running our games and that was because of differences in spell effects or some such. I think this low number of questions is because of what you seem to be saying about rulings rather than rules. We always respect our DMs and accept that they’ve put together something for us to enjoy and if the rules they’re employing are different from the books, maybe we just don’t know the complete story arc yet. And our play has evolved to the point where rules from the book provide only the barest skeletal framework for the game with the DM and the players spinning the tale in a cooperative venture based more on realistic description than dice rolls determining how the adventures progress. Simpler is, simply put, so much better.
Thnx a lot! Great to hear from you guys who've done such good videos along this same vein as well! I'll look forward to hearing from ya'll again soon too. 👊
Really enjoying this series Ray.
Thank you very much! 👍
Nice video! My dislike of complex rule systems is also based on the fact that they are conter intuitive and restricting at the same time!
On the one hand, there is always some hole in the rules, which allow power-gamer to make five backstab surprise critial attacks from bag of holdings. Systems are always broken, everyone complains.
On the other hand players start to believe, that the only things they can do are things explicitly described in rule books. And they have some points. First, If I can do anything, then why do we need these specific rulings for these specific actions? Why they are so special? And second is associated with previous point, freedom will break complex interactions between rules. Especially in overcomplicated combat.
Thank you for your efforts! Hope, your channel will grow!
Thnx for tuning in and subscribing! I love your comments here! Overly complex can both kill creative play in many ways IMHO, and playing the sheet happens quite easily when every potential choice is sorta scripted for you and the DM.
I believe that since the advent of Oriental Adventures and also then 2nd edition and the skill/proficiency system, that kinda started. But, that's just me.
If "scripted/laid-out/spelled-out is your thing, then go for it, but I don't care for that style of play at all. I'll leave my "trees" (feat trees) in the forest please. Thnx for the reply!!
I like your message. I agree 100%
Thnx! Welcome to the community!! 👊
I agree fully, and although you made a lot of points worthy of debates, I'll keep my comment short if I can. I like to argue that, the simpler the ruleset, the faster the play and the more creativity is engaged. It is hard to illustrate that without playing that way. Perhaps another way to put it might be, resourceful players soon try to find solutions to survive rules that, at first read, seem very harsh and seemingly fixed rather than open. Yet, very quickly, this imaginative play is rewarded with, well, fun but also expected results and adventure based on pure imagination rather than prolonged rules-lawyering. But the harsh simple ruleset seems necessary, to keep players motivated to pay attention and brainstorm in real time AKA immersion and grounded logic. Sadly, that all got lost for recent generations of players, who shun OSR based only on their reading of the rules. I suggest the only way to communicate is through actual play streaming of OSR gaming.
Fair enough indeed, and in many cases, I would, in fact, agree with your assessment here. 👍 Thnx!
I discovery your channel by a coment that you did in a pf2e small channel.
And was a great discovery.
Thanks for coming, dude! Prosper and good gaming! 👍
Enjoyed the video and looking forward to more. 🙂
Thnx a lot!
I know most channels in the oldschool field like to focus on the B/X, I had them they were great no one is saying otherwise. Thing is there really isn't any difference between B/X and the BE in BECMI. Looking at them side by side its mostly just editing difference. My point is BX BECMI the rules cyclopedia all pretty much the same thing and I feel if more people pointed that out new people would be more likely to look and see. Simply because there is more for them to look through and build on. But that's me. The RC today is the only book you will ever need and there is no reason to stick with it over other OSE's because it would appeal to some to be playing oldschool actual d&d. Show guys like Perkins and Mercer running it oldschool and people would pick up the old rules again just because. And the state of the thing would be much better, like you mentioned on another video it has moved to furry battle ready spellcaster much like most video games. From 3e on it was only a matter of time, if that's your thing it wasn't mine haha. If anything I would say the reason we didn't need more complex games is because BECMI (including "BX" and the cycolpedia) was never really broken and if it isn't broke why try to fix it? If you really wanted that oldschool game, in my opinion, stick with BECMI era whatver you wish to call it. If you didn't keep it, it's all POD or even PDF now. They are super easy to customize too if thats your thing!
I like your take here! For the most part, you're right, they aren't any real divergences. There are a few tweaks here and there, but they very subtle and make no difference in how it's played at all.
OSE seems like it's pretty good in its classic form, not sure about the advanced stuff, and I think if it were a little more affordable and able to get gotten easier, they're printing is high cost and hard to get, others might find it's really great 👍
Thank you for your thoughts and comment, and for tuning in! 👊
Shadowdark
Actually, yes. I like Shadowdark for sure. Thnx for the join and the comment! 🤓👍
D&D3e,4e,&5e are all garbage, no argument from me there. However AD&D is pretty fucking fantastic to be honest. Since 1e and 2e are basically the same game, I look at 2e as simply a better version once you add back in the censored materials (demons, devils, classes, etc..). So it seems to come down to AD&D2e and B/X, both are fantastic, and that really is the heart of real D&D as far as I'm concerned.
Mmm... I disagree to an extent.
Yes, rules *can* get burdensome and hinder gameplay, and yes the more rules you have the more the game usually defines what you cannot do... But that doesn't mean rules inherently limit creativity.
Humans do like to stay within the bounds of the imaginary walls we put up... But let me try to tell you why I prefer Pathfinder... 1st Edition... Over anything else I have tried: Options.
Pathfinder 2e has options but that game gets to be too gameist to me... And D&D 5e has options but that feels like they took 3e (and subsequently 3.5e) and they skinned it alive, took a few patches from 4e, sewed it all together and now you have a skinsuit with little substance stretched over three books... "But we can give more skin if you buy the others!" But maybe that's just 'cause I hate 5e.
For me, Pathfinder 1e is the sweet spot... It feels less gameist than 2e, but more substantive than 5e, and just has more to it than any other game I have played (which I guess falls into "more substantive" but I didn't want to group anything with 5e)... Well at least for class and level games, it is unfair to compare something like Call of Cthulhu to all these other games because not only do they not run off the same engine, it is like comparing a shooter to a fighting game.
For me, the Old School idea is novel and I would likely have a blast playing it if I could get anyone to play... But I think in the end (as a player) I could only play so many fighting-men or dwarves before I feel like I am doing the same thing... But I guess that also depends on what the GM does. And I might be fine as the GM... But... Well no "but" I find it would be hard to get bored as a GM.
I just feel like we are on the verge of an equivalent to the Stormwind Fallacy here... Or perhaps it already exists.
Reading through some of your other replies or those you have liked: you are not going to enjoy this response or perhaps might pour yourself some Pinot Noir as you guffaw at my *obvious* failure to adequately asseverate my empirically erroneous assertion... Either way that is the admittedly poorly articulated version of my thoughts. I typed this up on a phone so be forgiving if any glaring errors are present. I wished to try to explain myself more but I do not have all day to keep typing and I was never one to get fast at typing on a phone.
Oh, and my apologies if I come off as insulting here... I intended humorous but my dry tone might not convey that well.
And btw, by choices I mean more of the character options, monsters, classes... Etc.
I don't think I made that clear. But for more character options you need more rules... Thus a denser system and round and round we go.
You want more spells? Those spells need an adjudication on how they work unless we want... What was that game that had spells that said "Stretch: your body grows rubbery and can stretch" and that's the whole spell?
Like originally all weapons were 1d6 damage... So what's the point of choosing anything? That just doesn't appeal to me. A spellcaster has more, obviously... But as a player I always liked the Martial fantasy myself.
I said I wasn't going to type more but here I am... I just felt in my fatigued haze I forgot a key description of what I meant by choice.
Let me say this: The way you disagree has made me truly like what you have to say here! 😋😊
In a good way, you're very right, in that if you want to add more and more complex spells, for example, then more rules would be needed, likely. And on and on it would indeed go. Absolutely. Thus systems like PF2E, as you mentioned, which literally tries to gamefy every stinking decision that can be gamefied... if they've thought of it yet.
Not to say that people I really, really care about, don't play it and ask me to run them in it, which I have and do, but my overall impression remains kinda the same, in that more options CAN inhibit creativity within the play at the table. Not for everyone though... to each his own.
I played 3rd and a little 3.5 when it first hit, but ultimately, I'd rather play around within the old school and somewhat rules lighter choices, myself, and add those things into it in old school ways rather than have designers force that upon me I guess, and thus then force a whole bunch of rules about that then, into it....vicious circle I suppose.
Either way, thank you very much for a great, coherent, well-thought-out, respectful response here. It's pretty special and rare! 🤓👏👊And yes, maybe I am walking a line right next to that fallacy (had to look that up to be sure...lol), but I'm good with that. Lol 😅 Thnx for tuning in. Keep watching along.. I may make more fallacious statements. Lol 😅 Prosper and Good Gaming 👍
Hard disagree. You can do whatever you want for situations not described in the rules-- that's the joy of the game-- but If you rule in a way that goes against RAW, I'm instantly out. I agreed to play BX, not your homebrew. Too many players change rules they don't like without taking the time to understand why the RAW are that way in the first place, and when they do it's usually a lesser experience.
Cool. I understand that as well, that's just not how we ever did it, or do it today. But hey, if it's your thing and you have that convo up front in session zero, then that's cool. Thnx for the comment, man, to each his own. 👍