Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Duvanok 02-16-06, 05:55 PM	I currently play with a DM who has been playing since first edition and had some trouble "evolving" with the game (though he's gotten much better over the last year). Reading some other posts I've noticed the term "old school DM" used to descirbe a particular style of game. So I thought I'd list some traits of what I have experienced as old school dm thinking: 1. DM versus player attitude. 2. Hack and slash oriented 3. NPCs exist purely to screw over the pcs. 4. Every action needs a roll of the dice. 5. Face lights up like a christmas tree when his BBEG rolls a natural 20. 6. Loves ridiculously powerful and complicated traps. Loves them even more when the party has no rogue. 7. Every rogue is a "thief." 8. Calls sneak attack "backstab" and gets a bewildered look when a pc rolls "backstab" damage for a frontal attack.
DeadKeepWalking 02-16-06, 07:03 PM	Amongst the DMs I have played with, I have most commonly seen: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Another thing I have noticed, most quests are one-hit wonders, and completely irrelevent to the story/plot or world at large, aside from the treasure received.
SilentOne 02-16-06, 07:08 PM	Now, is there anything wrong with this per se? You make it sound as though it is, but this is just their choice of play style. They like hack-and-slash, and unrelated encounters, and fun traps. Some of them (like the backstab) actually does make some sense and might be their houserule. Don't be hating them just because their style is different.
MistWolf 02-16-06, 07:11 PM	That's not "Old School" DMing, that's a control freak. I'm an Old School Game Master & I can tell you, the players I had during my formative years strung me up by the toenails and flailed me with a rope imedded with broken glass for that kind of behavior. Of course, when one of them GMed and made the same mistakes, I returned the favor. There is an undercurrent very similar to this problem in gaming today. On this very forum I've seen folks post they would make Rangers roll to know something about their favored enemy to avoid "meta-gaming", that it's wrong for DMs to ever fudge a roll, that players should be punished for stupidity with a TPK, it's wrong to allow a player to swap a feat/special ability the character cannot use for one he can and other such nonsense. Granted, no one is the RPG Police and can't tell you what to do. But experience has taught me this style of GMing leads to arguing over rule points. I've run into this Control Freak DM in the past- I can tell you, it's hell to play PS- Rogues are Thieves, and a Sneak Attack is a backstab. Political correctness be damned. I'm just glad I can now stab my opponent in the back and look him in the eye to do it
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-16-06, 07:34 PM	7. Every rogue is a "thief." This isn't Old School, this is gospel truth.
celtredleg 02-16-06, 07:58 PM	This isn't Old School, this is gospel truth. At last, something I agree with you about!!
Shaggy_Shaggs 02-16-06, 08:17 PM	PS- Rogues are Thieves, and a Sneak Attack is a backstab. If this is true, how come I can't start my career as a fighter with ridiculously high Str, specialize in shortswords, then switch over to thief and explode things with critical backstabs anymore? :weep:
allencon 02-16-06, 08:35 PM	It seems the criteria you have listed more accurately describe innefective DMing techniques, or at least styles of DMing that do not match your personal tastes or expectations, which is perfectly fine. Expectations and style of game play is a necessary topic of communication between DM and PCs to promote a healthier and more enjoyable game play experience. Just be careful to differentiate or better qualify "old school" so that the term doesn't get confused with people and DM's who prefer to play with sources and rules from previous editions of the game. Even now though a devotee of edition 3.5, I still periodically get nostalgic about some of the old rules, conceits, or concepts that existed in older editions. Communicate with your DM about what you want and need as a PC. Then work on compromising a situation that best meets the needs and expectations of all people involved, to arive at the best experience possible under your particular circumstances. If things can't be worked out due to creative or ideosynchratic differences, there is no harm about finding other people or DM to game with. It is better to work for a compromise or find a group/DM more in line with your tastes than to ever mull about in an unpleasant situation. It will only frustrate you, and likely spread to the other PCs and the DM.
Duvanok 02-16-06, 09:20 PM	Lighten up people! Jesus! This is supposed to be a humorous "jab" at those DMs who come from the "old school" Gygaxian theory of dming. i.e. "How can I kill my players today." I've been DMing since 2nd ed. and don't consider myself "old school" because I have evolved with the game and refuse to cling to old obsolete rules and am more concerned with providing a fun world for which my players to interact with than running them threw some meat grinder for my own giggles. So, let me get us back on track. 9. Thinks that "town" consists of an Inn and a Temple. (p.s. Rogue does not equal theif).
olshanski_home 02-16-06, 09:41 PM	10. Thinks a ring of protection gives a bonus to AC and saving throws. 11. Never heard of Tanari and Baatazu 12. Thinks if you fail a saving throw vs poison you die
BadCatMan 02-16-06, 09:46 PM	NPCs cast 2E spells that no longer exist. Because they were stupid. Sticks to Snakes? DM claims that such and such a spell effect has such and such an effect that no longer applies. Raise Dead: He says you lose Con. You say that's only at 1st level. Feebleminded: He says you have Int 3. You don't argue. :D
bassist33333 02-16-06, 09:53 PM	Well, some of those things aren't that horrible. Like rolling dice for everything. Sometimes it's necessary to keep things fair. Also, it adds comedic effect to the game when someone says "Okay, I get out of bed and walk outside" and I jokingly say "OK. Roll..." and they roll a 1. It's funny, at least for my group anyway.
Adriac 02-16-06, 09:58 PM	i know its offtopic but can someone help me with my really big prob i have a thread about it
Demon Lightfoot 02-16-06, 11:56 PM	11. Never heard of Tanari and Baatazu Ain't no such critters. Those are PC terms slapped onto Demons & Devils so the Angry Moms of America wouldn't get their knickers in a twist because Jack and Jane were playing "That Devil Game".
Docrailgun 02-17-06, 12:27 AM	13. Insists on writing stats in the Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Chr format.
Viper3220 02-17-06, 12:32 AM	When you tell him you have a 12 ac he snickers and says "this'll be too easy"
Dag 02-17-06, 03:08 AM	1. DM versus player attitude. 2. Hack and slash oriented 3. NPCs exist purely to screw over the pcs. 4. Every action needs a roll of the dice. 5. Face lights up like a christmas tree when his BBEG rolls a natural 20. 6. Loves ridiculously powerful and complicated traps. Loves them even more when the party has no rogue. 7. Every rogue is a "thief." 8. Calls sneak attack "backstab" and gets a bewildered look when a pc rolls "backstab" damage for a frontal attack. This is a joke. I feel like going 1 - 8 through your silly old school traits but I'll just give it a good old fashioned rant instead. But keep in mind that I disagree with each of those above listings. Old schoolers know better than to assume a DM vs. Player attitude, that is a mark of a silly immature DM, not a 30 something person who has been running D&D long enough to know better and who would have lost a number of campaings over this issue if he had been up to it since 1st edition. Old schoolers know that NPCs are to add flavor and texture to the campaign and as adventure hooks and prods. Only a fool thinks an NPC's sole purpose is to screw over the party, why would anyone think this is the mark of an old-schooler? I play a game or two with rotating DMs and every time one of the old schoolers DM I know it's going to be a great game and it's going to be DMed correctly, I've never seen anything on that list from an old schooler, and had I seen half that stuff in any DM I'd leave the game. These things mark an idiot DM who should not be running a game, not an old school DM. Old schoolers are usually more roleplay oriented than today's video game hack and slashers. You've really got this wrong to an extreme degree and I can't imagine how you came by this way of thinking, unless you're basing this presumption on a single idiot old schooler who is so lousy that he has to gather up young kids to DM for because true Old School players have driven him from their ranks. Old-schoolers are the elite. They are not some old fashioned relic that needs to 'evolve' as you say. The game has changed but what makes a good DM has not changed, and only a fool needs more than a few weeks to catch up with the 3.o and 3.5 systems. These are not old geezers who wont catch up with the changing game world, they've got it and they've mastered it, keeping a few ideas from the old-school days when it suits them, and generally when it makes the game better. I can't believe I posted to this silly topic, but it's just so incredibly wrong, and no one else seems to have remarked on that so I felt it necessary to educate you and correct you.
UltimateReality 02-17-06, 02:17 PM	You forgot: 14. Has a weird critical hit and/or called shot system in place which is too complicated to even begin to understand. 15. Has a weird, complicated, time-consuming critical miss system in place he refuses to explain. 16. NPCs are godly. Especially his old PCs. ;) 17. Pronounced lack of ability to consistently follow the RAW. Often mixed with... 18. Likes to "port in" rules from an earlier edition (doesn't matter which one, as long as the old rule completely does not mesh with the new version you're playing). For those good "old schoolers" out there (and I've met them)... a. doesn't bring any DM notes to session. session kicks ass anyway. b. rolls with whatever the party does, instead of railroading or calling it early. c. isn't afraid to say "oops, I messed up" and do a one-time do-over. d. so creative that if he was a musician he'd be mozart.
Vaalingrade Ashland 02-17-06, 03:12 PM	(p.s. Rogue does not equal theif). It damn well better >_< You have pickpocket (burn this slieght of hand crap) as a class skill for a reason!
ShadowDragon8685 02-17-06, 03:20 PM	It damn well better >_< You have pickpocket (burn this slieght of hand crap) as a class skill for a reason! Sleight of hand has more uses than lifting things. Like concealing weapons about your person, for one.
LeftmostCat 02-17-06, 03:40 PM	Personally, I think that the mentality of "how do I kill the players today" is a good one, to some extent. All of the best games I've played have the DM pitting the PCs against monsters that can and will kill them very, very dead unless the players can think their way out of it. High stakes mean more excitement, more quick thinking, more fun. For me, at least. I don't enjoy games when I sweep through thirty monsters and don't get touched, unless I've done something legimately clever to give myself an advantage. I've played too many games where very powerful PCs crush scads of wimpy monsters effortlessly and not enough where very powerful PCs get through by the skin of their teeth. The world could do with a few more DMs who try to kill the PCs.
Bruunwald 02-17-06, 06:50 PM	So I thought I'd list some traits of what I have experienced as old school dm thinking: 1. DM versus player attitude. 2. Hack and slash oriented 3. NPCs exist purely to screw over the pcs. 4. Every action needs a roll of the dice. 5. Face lights up like a christmas tree when his BBEG rolls a natural 20. 6. Loves ridiculously powerful and complicated traps. Loves them even more when the party has no rogue. 7. Every rogue is a "thief." 8. Calls sneak attack "backstab" and gets a bewildered look when a pc rolls "backstab" damage for a frontal attack. You are wrong in a way that makes Baby Jesus weep so hard that the moon might fall out of the sky. Okay, so I can see #7 and #8 happening. I'm not guilty of them, but I can at least see it. #'s 1 through 6 (with the exception of #5) are things I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, saw, ever in my life, at all, or even were hinted at in the slightest way that could be detected by the most sensitive being in the Multiverse before 3.0 came along. #s 1, 2, and 3 are specifically products of the last few years and are constant, recurring complaints on this website, particularly directed at newb DMs who never knew the game existed before 3.5, and worse, actively embraced by those newb DMs, who I for one, am CONSTANTLY advising against such behavior. #4 is specific to 3.0 and 3.5 in a way that can't be expressed enough. We rolled the dice almost exclusively for combat prior to the enormously-changed skill system of 3rd Edition. Every old school DM I know reserves the rolling for when the roleplaying fails. "Old school" actually is most used on this forum to describe a style of playing that doesn't rely solely on dice, by the way. I hope you were kidding. I really do. Because I've been playing for just about 25 years, and all the people I play with have been, also. And this is about the most absurd thing I've read on these forums in months. This description of a DM would be totally alien to my veteran player friends. You basically described the Ultimate Newb 3.5 DM and accused us of doing it. Shame on you.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-17-06, 06:58 PM	i know its offtopic but can someone help me with my really big prob i have a thread about it No.
darkdrow66 02-17-06, 07:04 PM	"PS- Rogues are Thieves" Sam Fisher from the "Splinter Cell" video game series is a perfect example of a rogue who is not a thief (and who is also lawful). Agent 47 from the "Hitman" video game series is another example of a rogue who is not a thief.
High Octane 02-17-06, 07:07 PM	#'s 1 through 6 (with the exception of #5) are things I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, saw, ever in my life, at all, or even were hinted at in the slightest way that could be detected by the most sensitive being in the Multiverse before 3.0 came along. Have you ever read the original modules by Gygax? They are horrible cruel ways of destroying your players giving them challenges way beyond the realm of common sense. And this is not just the tomb of horrors! Example: My first edition DM explained to me that Gygax once published that a level 1-2 challenge is, I am not kidding, 3d6 orcs. And remember, back in first edition, you didnt have max hit points at first level as a generally played option,a nd the not dying at negative hit points was OPTIONAL.
allenchan 02-17-06, 07:30 PM	I agree, most of those are rediculous and have nothing to do with being "old school". Indeed, I'd argue most of the old school people I know are LESS hack-n-slash orientated. One thing, however, that never fails, is that old school people say wizards Memorize spells. In 3.x, they Prepare them.
Vileneeds of Q 02-17-06, 07:49 PM	Since I have been playing since 1St ed., I'll throw around some advice. Telling someone they are old for have no skill or a completely weird set of their own rules is rude. OP, you need to read your post to your Dm or the person you modeled your list after. That being said, Being inventive enough to come up with a crit hit/miss system when your players are whining about more realism is a gift to you, if your dm took the time and effort to do it, smile and be thankful you have a dm at all. If you dont like it tell him you appreciate it but are willing to do without. back to the thread....... Your dm is old (like me) when they have maps older than most of his players. Knows what Lahnkmar is, or even The Gazetteer. Has the blue expert rules and the black Advanced rules....oh gold im old....
LCD2YOU 02-17-06, 08:02 PM	This has taken a nasty turn. I think the OP was in jest and I will respond as such. 19: Has the Booklet form of Blackmoor, Dieties and Demigods and their handwriting scribbled inside from 1975. 20: Has books older than many current gamers on this board. 21: Has the original set of Chainmail, or in my case "had" until my mom got mad at the state of my room and threw a lot of good stuff away. To top it off, I could not watch "The Six Million Dollar Man". Boy was I mad. 22: Remembers the first air date of "Monsters and Mazes".
olshanski_home 02-17-06, 08:08 PM	You forgot: 14. Has a weird critical hit and/or called shot system in place which is too complicated to even begin to understand. 15. Has a weird, complicated, time-consuming critical miss system in place he refuses to explain. 16. NPCs are godly. Especially his old PCs. ;) 17. Pronounced lack of ability to consistently follow the RAW. Often mixed with... 18. Likes to "port in" rules from an earlier edition (doesn't matter which one, as long as the old rule completely does not mesh with the new version you're playing). Er, this sounds more like 2nd edition than "old school". I consider "old school" to be Dungeons and Dragons (pre-AD&D)... or possibly AD&D.
AesirRaven 02-17-06, 08:42 PM	23.) You learn an NPC's alignment through magical means. You ask the DM what the NPC's alignment is, and he looks at you with an absolutely straight face and says, "Chaotic." :D
On_the_wings_of_TPK 02-17-06, 11:08 PM	Responds to a joking thread in a way simmiliar to:Bruunwald, Dag, allencon, and, MistWolf. Holy crap on a freaking stick Batman! Calm the :censored: down guys. This thread is ment to be a joke, not a personal attack at anyone. And furthermore, he implied old schoolers in general, not you guys personally. Honestly Judging by your responces I'd say that the first post probally is close to your dming style. Why else would it strike up such emotion in you? Someone hit a nerve? Get alittle too close to home?
Sender_Jon 02-17-06, 11:32 PM	Old schoolers know better than to assume a DM vs. Player attitude, that is a mark of a silly immature DM, not a 30 something person who has been running D&D long enough to know better and who would have lost a number of campaings over this issue if he had been up to it since 1st edition. Old schoolers know that NPCs are to add flavor and texture to the campaign and as adventure hooks and prods. Only a fool thinks an NPC's sole purpose is to screw over the party, why would anyone think this is the mark of an old-schooler? I play a game or two with rotating DMs and every time one of the old schoolers DM I know it's going to be a great game and it's going to be DMed correctly, I've never seen anything on that list from an old schooler, and had I seen half that stuff in any DM I'd leave the game. These things mark an idiot DM who should not be running a game, not an old school DM. Old schoolers are usually more roleplay oriented than today's video game hack and slashers... Old-schoolers are the elite. They are not some old fashioned relic that needs to 'evolve' as you say. The game has changed but what makes a good DM has not changed...they've mastered it, keeping a few ideas from the old-school days when it suits them, and generally when it makes the game better. Truer words have never been spoken, or typed. Been playing since '79, always put the emphasis on complex stories, roleplaying, and then hack and slash mayhem.
Duvanok 02-18-06, 12:32 AM	You are wrong in a way that makes Baby Jesus weep so hard that the moon might fall out of the sky. First, baby Jesus isn't real, he never existed, you know, kind of like your sense of humor. #'s 1 through 6 (with the exception of #5) are things I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, saw, ever in my life, at all, or even were hinted at in the slightest way that could be detected by the most sensitive being in the Multiverse before 3.0 came along. Ever? Are you sure? Usually people who are really sure use 57 "evers" instead of just 55. Either way, very mature, you have a way with words that shows you're a real thinker. You and Dag must have attended the same school where they apparently sucked out all signs of what could be considered a sense of humor and replaced it with an inflated sense of self importance. #s 1, 2, and 3 are specifically products of the last few years and are constant, recurring complaints on this website, particularly directed at newb DMs who never knew the game existed before 3.5, and worse, actively embraced by those newb DMs, who I for one, am CONSTANTLY advising against such behavior. What in the name of the sweet buttery santa are you talking about? What the hell makes you think I am talking about you? Is it just that inflated sense of self importance kicking in again? Look, I don't even know who you are. And quite frankly, I don't really care what kind of advice you give out on these boards. It sounds like you've really internalized a lot of what I've written. Maybe you should explore that. Either way, if you are not going to contribute to the post, don't post here. As for everyone else who is just not getting it: calm down, take a deep breath and repeat this mantra: "Duvanok is not talking specifically about me. This is just a silly little thread that is supposed to be amusing. I am really not as important as I think I am and I need to stop taking little things so seriously." Good. Now repeat this several times a day as needed, you know, like when you get that tingly little feeling in the back of that brick on your shoulders you call a head that somehow tells you that someone just uttered an opinion about something and you desperately need to set them straight about it. p.s. on the wings of TPK: Thanks for getting it.
DarknessEternal 02-18-06, 12:53 AM	22: Remembers the first air date of "Monsters and Mazes". It's actually Mazes and Monsters. "Maybe he's trying to make his own maze!" and "At the ninth level, of course." Ah, Freylig and Pardu... Man that movie was terrible. If you haven't seen it, scour the earth until you have.
Kalanth 02-18-06, 01:20 AM	It's actually Mazes and Monsters. "Maybe he's trying to make his own maze!" and "At the ninth level, of course." Ah, Freylig and Pardu... Man that movie was terrible. If you haven't seen it, scour the earth until you have. Personally, I love the part where the guys character died in the water pit filled with Spiked Gems. Just seeing their faces as though the actual player just died. . . And not a bad trap either.
Sender_Jon 02-18-06, 02:38 AM	First, baby Jesus isn't real, he never existed, you know, kind of like your sense of humor. Listen, I'm not a religious person, but try and have the class to resist belittling other people's beliefs, no matter what they might be. This is not the place to post that kind of remark.
Duvanok 02-18-06, 02:52 AM	Listen, I'm not a religious person, but try and have the class to resist belittling other people's beliefs, no matter what they might be. This is not the place to post that kind of remark. Belittling other people's beliefs? You mean like stating that something I wrote "made the baby Jesus cry so hard he fell from the sky?" Good one genious. I am not belittling anyone's beliefs, I am just playing to the level of the room.
Sender_Jon 02-18-06, 03:02 AM	Belittling other people's beliefs? You mean like stating that something I wrote "made the baby Jesus cry so hard he fell from the sky?" Good one genious. I am not belittling anyone's beliefs, I am just playing to the level of the room. No, MORON, I'm referring to what you wrote in response. It's "genius," by the way. You'd obviously need a long ladder to play to the level of any room I'm in. You're a primitive.
Kalanth 02-18-06, 03:19 AM	Ok, this is beyond out of hand. I went ahead and reported this thread, which is now the first I have done that to in the three years of posting on these boards.
zenlike 02-18-06, 03:22 AM	What's your comeliness?
Blairconz 02-18-06, 03:36 AM	Well, I am of the opinion that old things are not necessarily out of date. Classic rock, for example, why do people still love it? Because it is genuinely well done music. How much of todays music will we be listening to in 30-40 yrs time? Doubtful if any will make it 1 year. Classic gamers are the same. They come from a time where the only graphics card they had was the one between their ears, when there were no video games full of blood, thunder and uber leet swords of pwnage or PVP. They were armed with endless imagination and intelligece and wove stories that read like a fine novel and played like no one's business. Why did they play? To get away from reality. If you want PVP pwnage, go play World of Warcraft.
MistWolf 02-18-06, 03:38 AM	Responds to a joking thread in a way simmiliar to:Bruunwald, Dag, allencon, and, MistWolf. Holy crap on a freaking stick Batman! Calm the :censored: down guys. This thread is ment to be a joke, not a personal attack at anyone. And furthermore, he implied old schoolers in general, not you guys personally. Honestly Judging by your responces I'd say that the first post probally is close to your dming style. Why else would it strike up such emotion in you? Someone hit a nerve? Get alittle too close to home? Easy, mang. Sure, the original post hit a nerve, but not because it hit close to my DMing style. It's the nerve a few 3.5 DMs have rubbed raw by advocating a similar style- DMs that I've played with and DMs that have posted here. Pure, bittersweet irony. You know how you can tell you've got a new pup DM who cut his milk teeth on d20 3.5? Oh never mind, I've already been taken far too seriously :cool: Changing the world- One DM at a time
Shemeska the Marauder 02-18-06, 03:40 AM	There is an undercurrent very similar to this problem in gaming today. And it's called 1st edition nostalgia working its way into 3e ;) Given the broad themes the OP mentioned, and looking at what I see as the trends in style in past editions of the game, as a person who started in 3e, that 'old school' style is more what I'd say is a 1e / gygaxian approach, tending to be more a ramped up wargaming style with a combating DM versus players, very gamist approach to it all, without much attention to context, character development, metaplot, etc. The DM has placed PCs aka overglorified minis on a battlefield and the players must work through the dungeon that he is challanging them with to win the game, and anything in character beyond that tends to be nearly superfluous. Obviously I might be taking a heavy handed approach here, and I know that under any edition you might have a brilliant DM with a playing style directly opposed to that I described, but that 'old school' aka what I'd refer to as a 1e approach very much seemed to foster that style of play, expect it, and support it. I like to think that the game has progressed since then and expanded itself to supporting things a bit more complex than that, though I suppose some folks really do in their heart of hearts like that style.
Shemeska the Marauder 02-18-06, 03:51 AM	Belittling other people's beliefs? You mean like stating that something I wrote "made the baby Jesus cry so hard he fell from the sky?" Good one genious. I am not belittling anyone's beliefs, I am just playing to the level of the room. One was meant as offhanded metaphor, your response was just offense and apparently meant to be. That doesn't exactly help anyone.
MistWolf 02-18-06, 03:57 AM	And it's called 1st edition nostalgia working its way into 3e ;) You've got a good point there. As much fun I had playing AD&D, there are things I don't miss about it. I never played a 1st edition thief because that cool backstab feature was too hard to set up. I like how it's done in 3.5 and as I said in my earlier post "I'm just glad I can now stab my opponent in the back and look him in the eye to do it." You can't do that in 1st Edition
Daergal_the_Black 02-18-06, 05:12 AM	Other than using old terminology from time to time for nostalgia's sake, I really don't see that many of the negatives listed apply to "old school" DMs. When I forst DMed I definitely was "hack and slash", but as I gained more experience DMing that grew less and less interesting and the emphasis moved to developing interesting characters and plots. I still enjoy combat, and it is still by far the main focus of my player character builds, but the notion that hack and slash is "gygaxian" is I think vastly overstated. Most old school DMs are too sophisticated to limit their game to such a one-dimensional characterization. The actual worst things about long time DMs, in my opinion, are that (1) they are more likely to have a knee jerk negative reaction to psionics, (2) they tend more often than others to emphasize some semi-demi-quasi-"realistic" view of their game worlds...so air travel and trains are "out" as (somehow) "too unrealistic for the setting," and (iii) they are more likely to require role played "training" to advance a level once you have the XP. All three points likely can be rolled into point (ii), come to think of it as (i) and (iii) are really just specific examples of the semi-realist mania. I thionk when you are a multi-decade DM, the fun of getting your world "juuust right" becomes increasingly important, and that precise balance is more likey to have tolkienian/gygaxian basis, rather than an "Eberonnian" one. Not that all DMs share the mania with realism, just that I think it's more likely to be seen in the old-schoolers (Gygax himself called psionics "a mistake" that he was talked into adding).
LCD2YOU 02-18-06, 07:45 AM	It's actually Mazes and Monsters. 2?: And have "senior moments". As for the rest, Come on guys, chill. I started back in the D&D three book set. Yup, way back in 1975. Great thing DnD. Ruined my social life in high school. Made up for it in college. Still, the thread is humorous and take it that way. Thank you for your time.
allencon 02-18-06, 12:50 PM	Before people put words in my mouth, when I responded to this post, it was in a genuine way. From the tone of it, I thought that this was a disagreement between PC's and DM's over style elements of the game. I responded by reitterating important things like the need for communication between PCs and Dms and openness about what each side expects of the other and of the gaming expereince as a whole. This is very important whether you are doing a 2nd ed game, 3.5 or any other RPG. As far as being labled old school, that doesn't bother me. My only intention was to give some simple steps to take to help improve gaming experiences. What I get back in private messages and a few statements alluded to in this post leaves me scratching my head. Nowhere did I suggest the 3.5 edition is evil or that people who prefer a more combat orienated game are inferior. And I do get the puns made about 2nd edition terminology. However, the advice I gave still holds true regardless of what edition is being used. Communication skills and listening skills will be the things next to creativity, that will make your games enjoyable. I have been a PC and a DM since 1994 through the latter years of 2nd edition and now into the 3.5 edition. As for some other people who enjoy older editions, I can at least understand why they may feel a bit emotional. There is on the boards - quite palpably at times - the notion that DMs or PCs who prefer older editions somehow aren't as sophisticated, or are "backwards" compared to those who use the current edition. It may have been out of place for some to vent on a "joke" board, but I do understand why they feel insulted.
Sender_Jon 02-18-06, 02:50 PM	First, I apologize if my reaction to what I perceived to be an inflammatory comment upset anyone. Now, here's how I see things. I thought the original post was very funny. I will admit, I was very hard convert from 1st Edition. TO 2ND EDITION. I hated it. It felt really fluffy and uninspired to me. But I made the adjustment my players asked me to. I learned the system and we had a great time. Then 3.0 came out. I was annoyed. I resisted. And then I read the new motto, referring to "1st Edition feel." This piqued my interest. And after reading the PH, I was willing to give it a go. And it worked. VERY well. I think that the beauty of 3.X is the ability to play a game that captures the feeling of any edition. I always liked psionics. They're there. Some of my players HATE psionics. They don't have to be there. (By the way, I feel that most "old school" DMs are more comfortable with psionics than 2nd Ed-ers.) Sure, I miss things from the old days. I even miss one or two things from 2E. But right now it's a very good time to be a gamer.