Old fashioned pen and paper face to face role playing!

[Silvercrest]

Does anyone ever play the above mentioned "old school" games any more?

Yes, in fact if the only games somebody plays are computer or video games I don't consider them as being a gamer.

Ugh. Spare me peoples made up "categories" to make themselves feel special. I'm as big a pen-and-paper RPGer as you're likely to meet, but the word 'gamer' clearly includes people who play computer games. The word you're thinking of is 'RPGer' or 'roleplayer'.

True, but it really annoys me when people refer to computer games as "role-playing games". You're not playing a role, you're moving an action figure around on the screen. Those people never learned what the term "role-play" is supposed to mean.

I've been playing in the same face to face D&D game for over 21 years. We have upgraded characters from 1e to 2e to 3e and now to 4e. Only two of us were there at the beginning

Same here! Technically my D&D universe has existed since 1983, but it wasn't until 1990 that I could get together a coherent 1e campaign with a committed group. There are three of us from that group who are still around.

Starting in 1991 we scaled back to meeting only every couple of months due to people's schedules. Another player and I alternated as DM through 1999, then we ended it. After a modest change in the roster, the other fellow started his own 2e campaign that he ran from 2000 to 2009 (switching to 3e halfway through).

After he ended his, at the end of 2009 I started yet another campaign which combined 3.5e with d20 Modern rules, as well as the short-lived Stargate system from AEG. It's still going on now. At that time we had another change in the roster where I was able to entice back a few people from the 1990s group-- and they brought their kids with them! So now we're training the next generation of pencil/paper gamers.


All three of our campaigns have been part of the same continuity; the characters mostly hail from the same world even though the games are now set elsewhere. Some of them are second- and third-generation characters. (My username Silvercrest is from a family line of adventurers.) The history back to 1990 covers about 50 years of campaign time; back to 1983 it goes back about 100 years.

It took a lot of convincing to switch me to 2e and I still don't like it. However, I latched on to 3e right away, as it seemed much more coherent and consistent than the previous versions. I'm still quite fond of 1e, but it did have a lot of problems. I am not, however, interested in 4e at all.

I agree with the poster who referred to the glacial pace of the later versions, but most of that seems to stem from the tedious "attacks of opportunity" rules and similar things. Rather than deal with whether I'm "crossing into someone's threat zone", or "invading their personal space", or whatever you call it, we just don't use those rules. Ditto with the hairsplitting "half action", "partial action" and "free action" rules, etc. We pay lip service to them, but otherwise we just proceed without them-- and the pace is much faster.

 

[malchya]

I purchased my 1st Edition Prime Directive directly from Amarillo Design. For a whopping $5.00 U.S! And yes, Mongoose Traveller works better for me. I've been a Traveller fan since the first run of the LBBs and picked Mongoose up about a year ago. Glad to hear about the change of focus. One of my favorite things from the old FASA rules was the integration of just about any crew position one would care to fill. And, all on my own prior to TNG or "Prime Teams", I had a designated LPO (Landing Party Officer) and team assigned to my group's ship. They filled other positions underweigh, but were the first chosen for ground side action.

 

[Nerroth]

I didn't realise they still had old copies on hand.

If you want to pop in to some of the discussion/debate about PD Traveller, there are threads on both ADB and Mongoose's boards which might be of use. (They are a bit quiet lately, with so much of the attention being hogged by the Starline 2500 model developments, but they will probably pick up once the book starts getting closer to publication.)

 

[Rocketeer]

I actually picked up the 1st edition of Prime Directive. I've run GURPS for years, ever since the first Man to Man rules came out in fact, but I've never made the upgrade to the new edition and lost my 3rd edition rules during the move down from Alaska. So I am currently GURPS less. (And, in honesty, after running a steady diet of GURPS Japan for almost four years, I'm kind of burned out on the system.) I am most emphatically not a fan of WotC or the D20 system. (When I play AD&D I still run 1st edition! I'm a crusty old grognard.)

I know, as a long time GM (since 1979 and my first copy of Boot Hill!) that no rule is set in stone. There was just something about the presentation of the "Prime Teams" and "Prime Central" that left a bad taste in my mind. And the backstory of the founding of Prime Central struck me as a gratuitous Fanwank of the first order. But I'm not giving up on it. I'll finish the book and happily run the (edited for content) setting if I find players.

And I love the inclusion of the Kzinti.

Wow, you've brought back some memories. I own a copy of Boot Hill somewhere. Even played it a few times. I sold most of my 1st Ed AD&D books for a small fortune on eBay. Kept a few for old times sake though.

TSR made some nice games like AD&D, Star Frontiers and Gamma World. I also like the FASA material. I'm trying to write a book on my Star Frontiers character's adventures. Perhaps after I retire, I'll be able to finish it.

 

[malchya]

I never played Gamma World, I'm afraid. Star Frontiers a couple of times only. On the other hand I had some real luck with both Boot Hill and Gangbusters, having players who were fans of both westerns and the '20s. My Boot Hill campaign actually ran for almost three years. 1st edition Top Secret, too. I miss TSR.

I admit that I'm a bit disconcerted by the total lack of response to Star Trek in my new locale. I've advertised at the local game shop and on the local forums for players, but haven't had a single person show interest. I was even told that if I would only make the change to Pathfinder I would have players beating down my door. Unfortunately, I am so burned out on fantasy that I just can't build up any enthusiasm.

 

[CaptainStoner]

True, but it really annoys me when people refer to computer games as "role-playing games". You're not playing a role, you're moving an action figure around on the screen. Those people never learned what the term "role-play" is supposed to mean.

I know what you mean. It can be a hard thing to quantify, though. There have always been a mix of RPG'ers who focus almost entirely on the tactical aspect of the system, and those that role-play to varying degrees.

We've all seen this argument play out before. The tactical gamer points out that, for him, D&D was always about moving figures on a grid, and they never role-played. It was about killing things and taking their stuff. Old school.

And then someone will point out that the amount of role-playing has always been a choice, and that you can choose to role-play on your CRPG, or not. The real discussion usually ends around here.

But to quantify this to someone who hasn't played a "real" RPG with a good DM - I think "real" role-playing comes down to the rush of fun when the DM puts you on the spot. The 100% tactical gamers dislike this, and may not play RPG's. Munchkins generally avoid it likewise. You know, it's when the DM, playing an NPC, asks your character a question, and your response is in real time. I also like DM's that do this during combat - the goblins have leapt out of the shadows, initiative is determined, and its your turn - no time to read your books now! If you can't decide in 10 seconds or so, you've lost your initiative. That kind of stuff. Because otherwise our definition of role-playing is something like quasi-acting. Which is useful, but the quasi-acting is usually brought to a focus by the DM putting the player on the spot in a constantly interactive way that computer games don't approximate. Not many RPG'ers are sterling actors. It's not really about acting. It's being pulled into the game by the DM that makes it happen. Piles of rules tend to inhibit this. Good players tend to do it automatically.

I agree with the poster who referred to the glacial pace of the later versions, but most of that seems to stem from the tedious "attacks of opportunity" rules and similar things. Rather than deal with whether I'm "crossing into someone's threat zone", or "invading their personal space", or whatever you call it, we just don't use those rules. Ditto with the hairsplitting "half action", "partial action" and "free action" rules, etc. We pay lip service to them, but otherwise we just proceed without them-- and the pace is much faster.

That might be the only way I could tolerate the edition. That and usually requiring more descriptive effort and immersion for skill checks.

I was even told that if I would only make the change to Pathfinder I would have players beating down my door.

Yeah, but let's face it. You would have munchkins beating down your door, and those are best repelled with flaming oil, or even just a good old fashioned baseball bat.

Honestly though, I have had a similar problem. Not realizing it, I wrote up a whole module, in basic A/D&D for a local event. Not. One. Player. Fucking Pathfinder Society with its recurring tournament characters really sucks up a lot of players that would probably have more fun in a more dynamic, lighter rules system.
Seriously. There was only one rules lawyer, the most munchkin'd out character of course, that really knew the fucking system. He literally told all the other players what to do, on every round of combat, what spells to cast, etc. Except my dwarf fighter, who stood by the rest of the party and contemplated letting him die after charging into unknown circumstances.
"Listen, people. Elves. Etc. We all know we need another fighter, besides me, in this party. But let's face it. Guys like him are a liability in dungeons and dungeon-like settings. I say we let the shithead die, head back to town, and hire us an axe or two with half a brain."
But noooo this went on for hours. The rules lawyer telling everyone what they can and can't do. The constant counting of movement points and all this interminable bullshit with the grid, and the munchkin always getting his sometimes 5 or 6 attacks per round at 2nd or 3rd level. Whatever. Bottom line is, the players and DM's weren't having much fun. That much was plain to see.

But there is fortunately a good variety of options at an upcoming gaming convention near me, even some OD&D - a Dave Arneson module being run. Call of Cthulu, various other RPG's, a shitload of Pathfinder, some classic Battletech, all manner of minis and board games, and a Starfleet Battles tournament running the whole three days.

I think, for gaming events, I'd have more luck running some recognizable classic Gygax and others' modules in 1E, than in writing new content for the old systems.

 

[Silvercrest]

True, but it really annoys me when people refer to computer games as "role-playing games". You're not playing a role, you're moving an action figure around on the screen. Those people never learned what the term "role-play" is supposed to mean.

I know what you mean. It can be a hard thing to quantify, though. There have always been a mix of RPG'ers who focus almost entirely on the tactical aspect of the system, and those that role-play to varying degrees.

We've all seen this argument play out before. The tactical gamer points out that, for him, D&D was always about moving figures on a grid, and they never role-played. It was about killing things and taking their stuff. Old school.

And then someone will point out that the amount of role-playing has always been a choice, and that you can choose to role-play on your CRPG, or not. The real discussion usually ends around here.

All true.

I agree with the poster who referred to the glacial pace of the later versions, but most of that seems to stem from the tedious "attacks of opportunity" rules and similar things. Rather than deal with whether I'm "crossing into someone's threat zone", or "invading their personal space", or whatever you call it, we just don't use those rules. Ditto with the hairsplitting "half action", "partial action" and "free action" rules, etc. We pay lip service to them, but otherwise we just proceed without them-- and the pace is much faster.

That might be the only way I could tolerate the edition. That and usually requiring more descriptive effort and immersion for skill checks.

Fixed the quote-- that was still me.

I don't know about descriptive effort and immersion for skill checks, but at least I've figured out how to engage my players. First, I allow them additional bonuses when they do skills as a team. I also have them do "meta-game" activities. Basically, when they're performing a check for a certain skill, I take those players aside and give them a real-world task that corresponds to it. For Hide/Move Silently, they're required to do the good old Potato Race from one side of the room to the other. For Track, I hand them an image of animal tracks and they have to go through a book I've prepared, to try to match them up. For Heal, they have to play "Operation". For Computer Use (this is D&D combined with Stargate), they have to play "Simon".

This really breaks up the monotony and generates some interest in something besides, "Okay, roll your skill check. You succeed. Wow."

 

[malchya]

I've used physical activities from time to time to engage the players more in the moment. Blocking out a well described piece of swordplay or taking them to a particularly dense patch of secondary growth forest so they can see what their characters are dealing with. My favorite, though, was making them do calisthenics during a Paranoia session. "The computer wants you to be happy. Fit clones are happier clones. Don't you want to be a fit clone, citizen?"

 

[CaptainStoner]

This really breaks up the monotony and generates some interest in something besides, "Okay, roll your skill check. You succeed. Wow."

Those are some great ideas - tracking is the skill check that was mind-numbingly abused.
I do think some effort from the player ought to be encouraged. Another one is find traps. When the player says, "I check for traps", I'm inclined to say, "ok, what are you doing?" Same with tracking. Not to make it tedious for them in other ways (making them check every nook and cranny) but to use those checks as opportunities to add some more detail about the environment.

I've used physical activities from time to time to engage the players more in the moment. Blocking out a well described piece of swordplay or taking them to a particularly dense patch of secondary growth forest so they can see what their characters are dealing with. My favorite, though, was making them do calisthenics during a Paranoia session. "The computer wants you to be happy. Fit clones are happier clones. Don't you want to be a fit clone, citizen?"

Nice. I haven't done any LARP but it sounds like you're mixing in some of that. We definitely need ways to get the gamers up from the table on occasion. One player in my last session was so obese it was sympathetically painful to see - labored breathing, great difficulty and pain just moving. Others were just plain overweight. As am I, no judgements, just hard to see someone suffering like that.
I'm psyched for this convention coming up. I'm starting out in Starfleet Battles, then on to some RPG's, next morning Classic Battletech, more RPG's, a board game in there somewhere, and on Sunday morning the author of an old school RPG "Dragons at Dawn", Daniel Boggs, is running a Dave Arneson module in OD&D.