Okay, just had some thoughts and I'd like your feedback. Many of you know I've played BD&D, AD&D, D&D 3.x and fourth edition. I've also played Castles & Crusades and Hackmaster as well as a wide variety of other RPGS but we'll stick to fantasy for right now. As many people have shared, I truly enjoy the first system I "cut my teeth on" but I also came to like D&D 3.x. However, with that said, I've come to find that I am beginning to prefer less rules rather than more. For some reason, I find myself drawn to some of the retro D&D clones or Castles & Crusades. I think part of the reason is I'm tired of arguing over rules and just want to sit down and play with people and C&C as well as retro-clones make it much easier to do so. Has anyone else had similar experiences? How about different experiences? Do you like a rules heavy game? If so, why? Why not? What do you like about your particular drug....errrr.....RPG of choice? Thanks, GP
I've been down the same path as you. I'm a bit on the young side, and never played OD&D, but grew up on Basic (Mentzer rules) and then graduated to AD&D, then 2nd then a blending of the two. I quit playing altogether around 1993 or so until about 3 years ago when I joined in a group playing a 1st & 2nd ed. hybrid. I convinced everyone to switch to 3.5 after purchasing a couple of the books but quickly soured on the game. I suppose one can take 3.5 and make it work a bit like the originals but why re-invent the wheel? I abandoned that game and found another group that was playing Basic, then C&C then back to 1st ed. I never played 4th edition and upon a cursory reading, I decided that I never would. I could probably enjoy a game based on Swords & Wizardly or OSRIC or the other retro clones, but again, why re-invent the rules? I already have what is perhaps the most interesting RPG system ever invented. C&C is a good runner up if I want a 3.5-style system without the bloat, and the Trolls are good guys to boot.
funny thing, that was my 2009 experience. i've learned to play the game with the 91 black box, the first to came here in brazil. me and my friend played that book all the way to 5 level, the limit level. then, as we dont had any suplement here, a rpg magazine i used to bought "invented" some rules inspired by the oficial books, and then we played more to get more levels.. this magazine was the only thing i had acess as a teenager with no credit card and no internet (or slow internet, dont remember quite well), so we used all the optional rules, and played with ninjas, werewolves, and such. THEN, 2ed AD&D finally got here! i bought the 3 books and soon we started playing with our old characters. time pass, we stared using some rules from "player's options" and in some point, we grown older. life (that bit** lady!) interrupetd our games. i got a job, a wife and a lot of adult problems. in this year, i managed to play once a week, a 1:20 game with my long time friend, and for some mysterious reason, we started to drop some rules, like "proficiences" and "kits". i started DMing Greyhawk, bugging the guys at Canonfire! with alots of questions, and today, our game is very simple, and most of the "not the basic-attack, dexterity check, etc" rules are decied by commom sense and a dice role. our "evolution" happen when we came closer to the point where we started. funny thing life is
The main reason I like C&C and some of the retro clones is the positive Armor Class. It's a lot more intuitive and since I often find myself introducing someone new to gaming it's much easier to show them AC from that viewpoint. Yes, charts and the like are good and back in the day it was okay to pass them around. I still don't mind them a whole lot but I try and keep from having to refer to them as much as possible. One of my biggest pet peeves is having to refer to the book during the game. And, yes, TLG people are fun. I had some drinks with them when they came to MidSouth Con in Memphis a few years back and have spoken with them at GenCon a few times....especially back in '07. I love the feel of the small companies and guess that's why I always find myself talking with people like TLG and KenzerCo. Of course, I know the guys at Kenzer better but, overall, they seem to have the same kind of spirit. Plus, being in the same age range as many of these guys probably also has a lot to do with it. Similar life experiences and all that make it much easier to talk with them. FWIW
Speaking for myself, I found that playing with a rules-intensive system was much like watching a guitarist who every couple of minutes abruptly stops the song he's playing to tune his guitar - it gets boring to watch and listen to.
I have traveled down this road as well. I started with Holmes Basic, then played AD&D 1e and B/X. Dabbled in a bit of Runequest, my first skill based fantasy system then on to house rules based on Bard Games' Arcanum. With some Gamma World, Star Frontiers and Top Secret thrown in for good measure. All of this pretty much took me through the 80's, at the end of which I went off to college and set gaming aside in favor of heavy alcohol intake. I came back and drifted into an AD&D 2e group via a coworker. That group then switched to Cyberpunk 2020 for a couple of years, then back to AD&D 2e. Some other gamer buddies played Vampire, followed by Castle Falkenstein. During this period (90's), I tended towards preferring skill-based systems (such as CP2020) that still played fairly quickly and drifted away from the AD&D rules family - particularly when the AD&D 2e rules bloat - especially the class/kit splatbooks - got out of control. Neither I nor my gamer buddies paid much attention to D&D 3.0 when it came out or for the first two years it was out. Then one group decided to switch to 3.0 and that campaign has run off and on ever since. The more I played 3.x, the less I liked it. When it arrived, I thought it might be a good reboot which cleared away the clutter of late 2e - but instead, but it became even more of a crunchy interlocking bloated rules monstrosity than 2e ever was. And so I find myself wanting to play Holmes, B/X and 1e again. Personaly, were I to run I'd likely use the core of 2e but strip it down and add bits from Holmes, B/X and 1e. Unlike some, I actually like the Player's Option books as a DM's toolkit to customize classes and the like. Sadly, no such books were ever released for 1e. I've looked at Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, Castles & Crusades and the like. I am not hung upon 3.x elements therein like ascending armor class - I actually prefer the old descending armor class system (and the combat results tables from AD&D 1e - I always hated the THACO mechanic). I like the retro clones mainly since they give gamers the ability to create new material compatible with OOP systems and distribute it. Some is crap, but a lot of it is good stuff, and in any case it is good for the gaming community. All of which is a long way of saying yes, you're not alone in your changing preferences towards rules sets. Like yourself, I prefer a minimalist approach. With 3.x, you need to study the rules like a college course just to get the whole interlocking clockwork nature of it, it takes hours of time between games to do the paperwork, and a single large combat can take upwards of 2 hours. Meh. In the same amount of time I can run a whole series of encounters using one of the older, less byzantine sets. Andy
Some friends of mine and I addded (O)D&D to our gaming rotation (along with wargaming, boardgaming, and miniatures wargaming) in 1974. For my part, I have since followed the (O)D&D - AD&D 1E - AD&D 2E - D&D 3E - D&D 3.5E path (and I have played some D&D 4E but have not purchased, nor do I plan to purchase the game). It should be noted, though, that I have been a Core Rules Only kind of guy for the most part, so power creep and rules bloat have never been a part of my gaming equation. I am also primarily a homebrewer when it comes to settings and adventures, though I have enjoyed playing in many of the classics under other DMs (I was fortunate enough to play in the "Giants" adventure when part of the D&D Open at Gencon). Along the way many other RPGs were tried and played for varying periods of time, from Boot Hill, Champions, and Traveler through Pendragon, Feng Shui and Paranoia; Tunnels & Trolls, Bunnies & Burrows, RIFTS, GURPS, TOON, WFRPG, ICE, etc. While I, too, have loved the attention to detail of D&D 3.5 and it is one of my favorite RPG systems, perhaps largely because of the OGL, I also think that simpler systems with concise rules that do not require a great deal of rules mastery and cross-referencing during play can be a great deal more fun and action-packed. I think there is, somewhere, a game that removes the complications in rules without disolving the complexity of play. If it cannot be found, then it needs to be written.
The best RPGs increase in complexity as the player gains levels and expertise. A good example of this is Classic D&D (Moldvay, Mentzer, etc.). The "basic set" is easy to jump into, and has a narrow focus: dungeon exploration, small-scale combat, etc. As you get into the later sets (Expert, Companion, Master) new ideas and possibilities are introduced, such as mass battle, naval warfare, and weapon mastery. I ran a 6 hour mid-to-high level Classic D&D adventure (one of only two offered) at GenCon 2009, that featured siege warfare (I had a special castle map printed professionally for the adventure), mass combat (complete with flying dragons and spell casters), and wilderness adventure. One of the players, who was used to later editions of D&D, remarked "wow! this is pretty complex!" The game was to illustrate the possibilities of the classic system, and it went pretty well (although the players lost the final battle). Complexity should be an option, not a requirement. If the game is too complicated from the start, people will have a hard time getting into it (Rolemaster anyone?). Another problem is games that feature complex rules just for the sake of adding content to the game. A good example of this is 3.5 edition and 4th edition. While there are some good ideas in these editions, the games give players too many choices and options. It leads to slow gaming, arguments over rules, and confusion. I really liked the 3rd edition Players Handbook, but Hasbro almost immediately started turning the system into a complicated video game. The biggest problem with 3rd edition and beyond is the Feats, which alter the game dynamics and rules on an individual case basis ("warrior one can attack once a round, but you can attack two, because you chose feat x"). Minimalist gaming reinforces the idea of role-playing, and gives the DM/GM the perogative of creating interesting settings and NPCs.
I find that I enjoy games that have a core of simplistic systems. The complexity comes from their interactions. What I mean by this is there is a mechanic governing combat, one for spell progression/power, experience, and so on. I like systems that have rules exceptions, but I like consistency, so all exceptions should be governed by a simple rule.
Very cool.. any chance you could post the adventure and map online somewhere? Would love to have a gander at it - always been a big fan of mixing roleplaying and wargaming, being a fan of both. Andy
I gave 3.x a fair shot behind the screen, running it from 2002-2004, and I've no desire to DM it again. With the right guys, I'll participate as a player, though. As a matter of fact, my buddy wrapped up a 5+ year long 3.5 game at the end of 2009, and I was along for the ride for all but the first year. You won't find me worrying about character build or selecting the optimal feat chains, etc..., it's not the way I roll. 3.x to me represents needless complexity. Sure, it is customizable as hell, and you can build up two fighters which look/fight/whatever completely different, and all that other ballyhoo, but from a DM perspective, all the extra widgets represent needless complexity, and far outweigh the "pimp my character" aspect, IMO. If you're the kind of twinky who thinks he needs to have a unique character, from a rules/mechanic perspective, you probably don't want to sit at my table anyway. Make your character unique through play, not stats and feat chains, please. And don't even get me started about the sense motive and diplomacy skills. So, while I dislike the complexity of 3.x, I do like some variety, and AD&D fits that pretty nicely. My favorite mix of AD&D is the core 3 books, plus some spells, magic items, tracking, and unarmed combat rules from Unearthed Arcana, while dropping the monk, bard, psionics, weapon vs. AC, and a modified/simplified initiative and timing system. At one point, I took '74 D&D, and started cherry picking bits from the supplements. When I was done, I had a game which was basically AD&D without round segments and casting time. At that point, I realized I'm an AD&D guy, and quit fooling around trying to build the ultimate system, ending up with what I delineated above. If/when I want a simpler system, I fall back to Moldvay/Cook basic/expert, pretty much per the book. In regard to the retro clones, I was very tuned into the idea of version 1 of OSRIC, which was it was a platform for which to write 1e AD&D adventures and supplements to. Essentially, it's a clone of the AD&D API, sort of a bit of RPG middleware, to use IT terms, and all made possible by the OGL. Then came the retro clones, including OSRIC 2, for those who wanted a complete game, and less of an API (personally, I'm still puzzled by this turn of events.) My initial reaction to the retoclones was, "Meh. I still got a couple shelves full of D&D stuff with publication dates ranging from 1974 up into the mid-80s, and I can (and did) buy up most of it in PDF format. Why the hell would I want to play a "clone" when I can play the real system?" I still feel that way, to a very large degree. However, WOTC yanked the PDFs, and my attitude toward the retroclones changed, with no legal means outside of ebay and used bookstores to get the old version of the game (which still isn't that big of an issue. Life existed before the internet, afterall....) Now, I see a niche for retroclone: give a reasonable approximation of the old-school rules in a new product. No, when I say retroclone, I'm talking about BFRPG, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, and Swords and Wizardry. I don't consider C&C to be a retroclone (that's personal opinion, please don't let it hurt your feelings if you disagree.) I've given C&C a good look, and while there are several merits to the system, I simply don't see a need for it, as well, I still have copies of the original works. Why would I want an approximation (one considerably farther away than the retroclones, at that) when I can play the original? To me, C&C suffers from one of the problems that 3.x does: in some ways, it feels like D&D, and it others, it doesn't. And by doesn't, I mean in a, "Wait. WTF?" kind of way. This sort of dual-personality never set well with me with 3.x, and when I read through the C&C player's book (did they ever release the keeper's guide, BTW? I quit caring a while ago.) and the monster book, I had the same sort of "sticking out like a sore thumb" reaction to parts of the book. Simply put, I have AD&D and 3.x. C&C felt like halfway between them, with the addition of the SIEGE system, and frankly, I don't want another version of D&D with yet another core resolution mechanic. If I'm going to go that far, I'm going to jump ship to another system, like RuneQuest/Stormbringer and be done with it.
kveldulf: I'll see if I can dig up the maps and materials from the GenCon game (Assault on Karameikos) I played C&C a few years ago, and while I enjoyed it, I didn't see an improvement over the older rules. I did love the artwork though. One thing I will say in defense of 3rd edition is that some things were improved a bit: movement is standardized and is easy to understand. The skills system is pretty good, and a little easier to figure out than the system proposed in the Rules Cyclopedia. I like the opposed roles (spot vs. hide in shadows, etc.). The main problem with that system, is that they got carried away, and added needless complexity on top of a really good core mechanic. Attacks of opportunity, feats, byzantine saving throw rules--all this stuff seems "added on" to the core idea. It only gets worse in 3.5 and 4.0. I am known by my many gaming buddies as being highly demanding when it comes to rules: I really evaluate systems from top to bottom before deciding if I like them. Fancy artwork and a million gingerbread supplements don't impress me--just give me a good core system. One system I am trying to get my head around right now is Mayfair Games' DC Heroes (from the 1980s). Anyone here play that? It looks pretty cool, but it is very complex.
I bought the first edition of DC Heroes when it came out--I thought character generation was complex, but it played quite smoothly. I didn't get to play it often, as my gamer friends weren't that big on superheroes, but I did run in one campaign (not in the DC universe) that ended when the GM graduated college, and a con adventure set in the Tick universe where I played the 4-Legged Man. Both times I had fun. As far as minimalist gaming goes, the three games in my experience that are least rules intensive are Marvel Super Heroes (the FASERIP system) by TSR, GHOSTBUSTERS RPG by West End Games (the basis for their STAR WARS RPG) and TWERPS by Jeff and 'Manda Dee (where your character had only one stat--Strength.) For myself, I've always felt that "Simplicity = Playability" and that the fewer rules to learn, the easier it is for starting players, especially younger players. Hope that helps.
