Rapid turnover of characters (easy death and rapid chargen) do I think aid a frenetic pace to a game - its less about long term character development but that can allow for characters that don't get "blunted" by long term play - higher energy roles that can be played actively for a shorter time but would be tiring to plan out.
The "living on the edge" vibe is interesting in play too - thats something that you don't get in 4th as far as I've seen - you'll always get the chance to run.
Thread A: "Why are you so negative? Talk about what you like!"
Thread B: "Why are you feeling like you need to justify your taste in gaming?"
A guy can't win for losing. :P
You know, I came into this thread expecting "this is what I like about early editions" to be a backhanded way of complaining about what you don't like about the later editions. But I didn't see a bit of that. Aside from the justifications about game lethality and player masculinity (which is a real phenomenon seen on these very boards), this just read to me like you were talking about the kind of games you like.
I'll admit I don't always like what you have to say on the subject of gaming, but I really like reading this kind of positivity. It actually makes me interested in trying out this mode of gameplay.
__________________
Running: D&D4 (Dead of Winter)
Playing: Nothing
Want to Play/Run: Savage Worlds, Barbarians of Lemuria, Anima Prime
Rapid turnover of characters (easy death and rapid chargen) do I think aid a frenetic pace to a game - its less about long term character development but that can allow for characters that don't get "blunted" by long term play - higher energy roles that can be played actively for a shorter time but would be tiring to plan out.
The "living on the edge" vibe is interesting in play too - thats something that you don't get in 4th as far as I've seen - you'll always get the chance to run.
Living on the edge is one thing. Losing initiative and getting one-shotted before you can act is quite another.
I do find it amusing when people say 3E/4E allows for less "roleplay" (i.e. character development) than previous editions, when, as noted here, those earlier ones tended to discourage the attachment necessary for such because of their totally random lethality.
__________________
You will be a dodging MACHINE. You'll be dodging shit like a zookeeper on monkey house duty. --Kai Tave on Exalted sorcerers and Dodge Charms.
Living on the edge is one thing. Losing initiative and getting one-shotted before you can act is quite another.
I do find it amusing when people say 3E/4E allows for less "roleplay" (i.e. character development) than previous editions, when, as noted here, those earlier ones tended to discourage the attachment necessary for such because of their totally random lethality.
Past level 1, you generally wont get one-shotted much.
But honestly, there's tons of games that are far more lethal than old D&D or AD&D, and they do just fine with roleplaying.
those earlier ones tended to discourage the attachment necessary for such because of their totally random lethality.
I am in favor of developing a character through play more than having a fully fleshed-out personality and background ready from the start.
And I daresay in a high-lethality environment that is low-level previous-edition D&D, without investing some interest and trying to take care, you're very much lessening your chances of reaching higher levels to begin with.
But yes, the lose initiative, die in one shot scenario is possible. although I think it makes getting to level two a bit more momentous if you've lost three characters before managing to gain that level with the current one. And a first level character is hardly a pain to replace.
Living on the edge is one thing. Losing initiative and getting one-shotted before you can act is quite another.
I do find it amusing when people say 3E/4E allows for less "roleplay" (i.e. character development) than previous editions, when, as noted here, those earlier ones tended to discourage the attachment necessary for such because of their totally random lethality.
Is a sonnet or a haiku automatically less effective than an epic saga, in verse? Sometimes the most effective moments come from working within a constrained form. And there's more to roleplaying than a single character. The group itself can become more than the sum of the individuals who were a part of it. C.f. the Black Company, or (contact)'s Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (3E!) story hour over on EN World. Both have brutal death rates; both have effective characterization.
__________________
"Then the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes."
I think the OP's list is a fine summation of a lot of the good things present in pre-3e versions of D&D. I own copies of OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, and Mutant Future because I like that stuff in my games.
I don't believe that all of that those things are possible only in older versions of D&D. The truth of the matter is that a lot of that stuff is still in the game. 4e is no more or less deadly than any edition of D&D, because at the end of the day the DM determines how deadly the game is.
And I think that's the root of it. All too often I see "problems" with 4e placed on the players and DMs. Players are precious snowflakes who want everything handed to them on a silver platter. DMs are wimps who feed players a steady stream of disposable enemies. Real, bad ass men flip a coin to see if their character is dead or alive.
I think the OSR catches so much flack because, for those of us who have been in the hobby for a few decades, we saw this all before when White Wolf launched Vampire. It's the same thing, just with the added attempt to co-opt the "true" nature of D&D. Back then, it was role vs. roll. Today, it's new vs. old, and it's just as tiresome, time wasting, and banal as ever.
There are many, many fine qualities to older versions of D&D. They're more freeform. It's faster and easier to crank out a character. Combat zips by. When you pull away a lot of the rules, it can be liberating.
However, the Puritanical drive some OSRers have to bemoan what other, lesser games dare do at their tables is counter to everything that RPGs are about. Quoting Gygax chapter and verse to figure out the right way to play, stuff like that, is the antithesis to the creativity, freedom, and intellectual curiosity RPGs, at their best, can and should encourage.
So yeah, old games are cool. The gaming Taliban? Not so cool. Let's enjoy retro games without getting all bitchy about new ones.
__________________
Mike Mearls
Professional D&D Geek
Is a sonnet or a haiku automatically less effective than an epic saga, in verse? Sometimes the most effective moments come from working within a constrained form. And there's more to roleplaying than a single character. The group itself can become more than the sum of the individuals who were a part of it. C.f. the Black Company, or (contact)'s Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil (3E!) story hour over on EN World. Both have brutal death rates; both have effective characterization.
The problem is that these games didn't explicitly encourage that kind of thought. It's a great idea, and can be a lot of fun, but that's really something that is being added to the mix, and not so much the default.
__________________
You will be a dodging MACHINE. You'll be dodging shit like a zookeeper on monkey house duty. --Kai Tave on Exalted sorcerers and Dodge Charms.
Linear Mode
