• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Listening to old-timers describe RP in the 70s and 80s

Hex08

Hero
The issue isn't that they talk about the old days. Its that they present the old days in a way that over-generalizes from their own experience and do so with an often authoritative tone.
I'm not sure if you are responding to me since you didn't quote me, but that is kind of the point I was making. People assume the way they view the world is the norm and when justifying/defending that there is often a lot of over-generalization and lack of nuance. It seems to me that when people are talking about what they perceive to be their shared experiences that an authoritative tone would be natural (although not necessarily correct) and that it's not just old-school gamers who are guilty of it.

Those of us who played in the early years of the game didn't have the benefit of the internet and the shared community it can create. We can only rely on our personal experiences or spend a ton of time many of us don't have looking into all of research and study into the hobby that has emerged recently.

Maybe the issue isn't just the over-generalizations and authoritative tone of older gamers but also the younger gamers ignoring of the principle of charity when listening to those who started gaming when AD&D 1E or 2E were the standard.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
My take on the old days- starting in Aurora, CO in ‘77- is:

1) the potential for death added excitement. My first D&D character died in the penultimate room of the dungeon we were going through, the last of his party. When he went down, there were cheers and groans and high-fives. I was hooked.

2) Just months after that game, our family moved to Manhattan, KS. There was a decent gaming community, but not much in the way of supplies. One bookstore had D&D books (original & AD&D) & modules, ElfQuest, Dragon, Dungeon, and a few Heritage, Ral Partha and Grenadier minis. There was a small section of a rack with the Traveller black books. The college bookstore had much the same, but was a great source of GRAPH PAPER! That was needed for both party mapping and homebrewing.* The college store also had stuff like Star Fleet Battles and Avalon Hill bookshelf games (Acquire, Squad Leader, Diplomacy, etc.).

But once you bought the TSR books & modules, the only new things that came in were the magazines and the occasional mini. To get almost everything else, you had to go to Lawrence, Topeka, Wichita or Kansas City, So anytime someone in your game group announced their family was visiting one of those cities, you’d be given at least one bag with someone’s saved allowance and a shopping list.

3) I never knowingly played in a randomized adventure in D&D, but did in The Fantasy Trip/In The Labyrinth.


* well, for games played at someone’s house. At school, it was almost exclusively TotM, though we didn’t call it that.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I'm not sure if you are responding to me since you didn't quote me, but that is kind of the point I was making. People assume the way they view the world is the norm and when justifying/defending that there is often a lot of over-generalization and lack of nuance. It seems to me that when people are talking about what they perceive to be their shared experiences that an authoritative tone would be natural (although not necessarily correct) and that it's not just old-school gamers who are guilty of it.

Those of us who played in the early years of the game didn't have the benefit of the internet and the shared community it can create. We can only rely on our personal experiences or spend a ton of time many of us don't have looking into all of research and study into the hobby that has emerged recently.

The problem is that isn't true. I knew in 1976 that there were a wide variety of ways that OD&D was being played, and its not like that hasn't been reinforced over the years since.

So basically, I don't think its too much to ask that if someone can't be bothered to find out how true that was, that they take the time to qualify a phrase like "This is how it was done" with either "where I was" or "in my experience". If they won't bother, then I think its legitimate to bust their chops about it a bit.

Maybe the issue isn't just the over-generalizations and authoritative tone of older gamers but also the younger gamers ignoring of the principle of charity when listening to those who started gaming when AD&D 1E or 2E were the standard.

I am an older gamer (I'll be turning 66 in a couple months, and started gaming in late 1975), and if these other folks are getting eyerolls from the younger ones, I think they asked for it. Especially since a fairly large number of them try to weaponize their claims to criticism of anything that has changed in the D&D sphere since. I'm not even a particular fan of D&D (haven't been for, really, about 40 years now) and the reaction it evokes in me is "Oh, give me a break."
 

Just remember, some day you will be the old fart talking about the good old days of 5E (or whatever edition) and the people playing 9E will hate how you view your glory days playing the game.

People tend to naturally assume that those around them view the world the same way they do. It's why a casual work acquaintance with start talking about politics to you as if you had the same outlook without actually knowing if you do. It happens to me all of the time, people just assume I am Christian even though I am not. Why should gaming be any different?

Hearing younger players talk about 3e as "old school" shows that "back in the day" is a sliding scale, and always will be.

And while there will always be a previous generation that disdains the tastes of the current generation, that doesn't make them right. Even when D&D was first created in 1974, there were older wargamers that derided this new-fangled heresy.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Caveat about how we all played differently.

Now that that's out of the way, I largely agree with you. With the lethality of 1e, and the slow xp progression tables, high level (teens or higher) characters were rare unless you started at high levels, or you played Monty Haul. This is anecdotal of course, but from 1981 to 2012 (where I played 1e exclusively) I've had two PCs higher than level 10. One at 16 and one at 12.
Pretty much the same here.

In 40+ years of regular play (ignoring one-offs, see below) the highest-level character I've ever played is 12th and the highest I've ever seen is about to get her 14th; while the highest I've ever DMed were a few 12ths. The highest in my current game is 11th, but that character's on long-term hold; I'm currently running a 6th-7th party.

The highest-level character I've ever played period was one of the pre-gens from Tomb of Horrors when we did it as a one-off some years back; I had the 14th-level Cleric.
For non-tournament modules, having the dungeon right at the doorstep was more rare. Wilderness exploration was much more involved. Off the top of my head, UK2/3: Sentinel, Most of the X series (Isle of Dread, Temple of Death, etc.). Heck, Moldvay/Cook's Expert set was very much stressing the importance of wilderness exploration.
A few of them were nothing but wilderness exploration e.g. Journey to the Rock.
 

Hex08

Hero
The problem is that isn't true. I knew in 1976 that there were a wide variety of ways that OD&D was being played, and its not like that hasn't been reinforced over the years since.
The problem is that isn't true. I knew in 1976 that there were a wide variety of ways that OD&D was being played, and its not like that hasn't been reinforced over the years since.

So basically, I don't think its too much to ask that if someone can't be bothered to find out how true that was, that they take the time to qualify a phrase like "This is how it was done" with either "where I was" or "in my experience". If they won't bother, then I think its legitimate to bust their chops about it a bit.



I am an older gamer (I'll be turning 66 in a couple months, and started gaming in late 1975), and if these other folks are getting eyerolls from the younger ones, I think they asked for it. Especially since a fairly large number of them try to weaponize their claims to criticism of anything that has changed in the D&D sphere since. I'm not even a particular fan of D&D (haven't been for, really, about 40 years now) and the reaction it evokes in me is "Oh, give me a break."
Once again, I have to disagree, but you are reinforcing the point I was making. Not everyone lived where you lived or shared your experiences. I know I didn't. I lived in a small town and was exposed to very few gamers and had no reason to think others were playing the game any differently than I was. Honestly, most I knew weren't playing differently because either myself or my friend were running virtually every game we were involved in.

As far as others "being bothered" to discover the truth I have to ask: "Why should they?". I would wager that most gamers just play the game and don't bother with forums like this or engage in social media revolving around it. It's just a game to them. Learning how others view the game is entirely irrelevant to them and they aren't under any obligation to engage with the larger community. Until I started posting here about 2 years ago I didn't bother with any online gaming community other than looking for rules clarifications, game reviews or the occasionally interesting article online.

Also, claiming that a "fairly large number of them" are engaging in this behavior is probably without merit, at least without evidence. Maybe a large number of them who make YouTube videos looking for clicks or those who engage with gaming communities online are doing that (maybe...) but making broad assumptions about others is generally a bad idea. We are both "old-school gamers", although you predate me by about a half a decade, and obviously our experiences are different.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Once again, I have to disagree, but you are reinforcing the point I was making. Not everyone lived where you lived or shared your experiences. I know I didn't. I lived in a small town and was exposed to very few gamers and had no reason to think others were playing the game any differently than I was. Honestly, most I knew weren't playing differently because either myself or my friend were running virtually every game we were involved in.

And are you still in that small town? Have you been other places? Heard other things? If so, you should know overgeneralizing is false.

And if you haven't been in other places, and don't know--by itself, that should tell you you shouldn't be generalizing because your experience was extremely local.

Either way, you're making a generalization you shouldn't be making, and shouldn't be surprised when you get taken to task for it.

As far as others "being bothered" to discover the truth I have to ask: "Why should they?"

Because they want to work their mouths and make broad claims? If they can't be bothered, again, they either shouldn't be generalizing, or should be expect to be called on it.

Again, the issues is that all these objections could be pushed off the table by putting the phrase "Where I played..."
Also, claiming that a "fairly large number of them" are engaging in this behavior is probably without merit, at least without evidence. Maybe a large number of them who make YouTube videos looking for clicks or those who engage with gaming communities online are doing that (maybe...) but making broad assumptions about others is generally a bad idea. We are both "old-school gamers", although you predate me by about a half a decade, and obviously our experiences are different.

Since we're talking about the people who make claims where others can hear them, the others don't matter. They aren't making such claims, at least where many people will hear them, so they're not in the group being referred to.
 


ilgatto

How inconvenient
It really grinds my gears when people who played [A]D&D in the early days describe their style as if it were the way it was played. I've been listening to people say that the game was, you made a couple characters, started in front of a dungeon and went in. The dungeon was always generated randomly. Brought the loot back to town, lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum. And I'm like, no, that's the way your group played, it wasn't universal. 1e had dozens if not a hundred or more modules. Several of which didn't involve a dungeon at all.

Mostly I just hope it's not turning off the new generation to OSR/OSRIC/FG&G et. al. for no merited reason. I am very much a person who embraces the new blood and sees it as necessary and I don't want them coming in with prejudice. That is all...

Allow me to wonder why such folk would “grind your gears”. Who cares what people say about “how D&D was played in the olden days” and that “that is how the game should be played”? Let them speak, steer the conversation to some of their actual sessions and then sit back and enjoy the ride, I say.

On the subject of “everybody back in the day doing random dungeons only”, I can only say that I rarely played in them. Back in the day, a mate at school handed me the AD&D PHB and told me to read it because “you will like it.” Flipped through the thing when I got home, couldn’t make heads nor tails of it – tables upon tables upon tables – and hated the art. Told my friend I had read the thing when I gave it back to him two days later, mumbled something along the lines of “yeah…. no… lamp… are they acrobats”, and hoped I’d never hear of it again.

But it was not to be, for next Saturday said friend called me and ordered me to get to somebody’s home “now” to do D&D. He kept on insisting and so I couldn’t say no. Got to the house and found two people sitting behind some screen with more bad art (yup, that one) and my friend on the other side, all paging furiously through some books. Told me to roll numbers of dice to make two “characters” – and to make one of them a Ranger or Paladin because “wow! that’s very good scores!” – and then the two guys behind the screen also started rolling dice and paging through more books (more bad art) to make a random dungeon on the flaming fly.

[interlude]Fifteen minutes later I was hooked. One hour later, I was already treating my Druid and Ranger as actual characters each with their own personality and making them behave accordingly.[/interlude]

My second experience with random dungeons was a couple of months later after I had illegally bought the DMG and MM myself – we weren’t allowed to as players because we were players – and I rolled up some characters for some solo-random-dungeoning and let them “happen on” many, many, magic items by rather generously interpreting certain die-rolls.

[interlude]Tired of that after a week or so.[/interlude]

Meanwhile, we’d been playing through anything the DM’s could get their hands on in Holland at the time, which was very little indeed (U1 and Best of White Dwarf Scenarios), as well as through many homegrown “dungeons” part of continuing, albeit primitive, story lines. We’d also met the five other people who played D&D in the lowlands at the time and then we even started going to conventions of old men who pretended to be Napoleon and Blucher and moved huge numbers of tin soldiers across large tables, some of whom had also heard of D&D and even dabbled in it, rather without willingly admitting to it.

At two of these conventions, these men pressured one of their number into “seeing to the nippers over there” and do some D&D with them. The first time, this man reluctantly did so without using any books whatsoever, presenting us with parts of a randomly generated dungeon he remembered from earlier sessions with some other old men.

My fourth experience with random dungeons, after years and years of many, many, story-fueled campaigns of memorable proportions, came a couple of years ago when I decided it would be fun to create one and had the time to do so because COVID lock-downs.

When it was finished [smug warning the second](all 14 levels and 193 pages of it)[/end smug warning the second] and I told my current players of it – most of whom are as old experienced as I’ve noticed many folks in this thread are but I am not – everybody loved the idea and so we did just under 30 sessions in it until circumstances brought things to a premature end, which I rue to this day because they only got to the 6th level, give or take.

Random dungeons rule.

And they probably did for a lot of people back in the day.

P.S.: Interestingly, making this dungeon has taught me that rolling random dungeons in the 1E DMG only gets you as far as the 14th level at most, for then the tables stop providing you with encounters you haven’t had before.

rdenw-1.jpg
 

ThorinTeague

Creative/Father/Professor
Allow me to wonder why such folk would “grind your gears”. Who cares what people say about “how D&D was played in the olden days” and that “that is how the game should be played”? Let them speak, steer the conversation to some of their actual sessions and then sit back and enjoy the ride, I say.

This question was answered in my OP. Since you didn't read my post, allow me to return the favor.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top