Paizo & Pathfinder

Taking the Game Beyond Edition 3.5.
As this year draws to a close, I suppose it is appropriate to look back on what has recently passed in our gaming lives and also ahead to what the future may bring us in the coming year. I recently wrote about my experience with the 4th edition, mentioning briefly some of the controversies that are frequently associated with that version of the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game and offering some of the reasons I still like the edition. Closely associated with the era of 4e in my thinking is Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. The 3rd edition of D&D is famously associated with the Open Game License which allows anyone to use the Standard Reference Document as the basis for a roleplaying game - giving appropriate credit as is due, of course. The OGL as it is often referred to, quickly became the basis for many roleplaying games, several remain with us today. Pathfinder is one of those.

Paizo Inc. began life as a publisher of the Dragon and Dungeon magazines. Founded during the 3e era (in 2002), Paizo during that time produced some of my favorite RPG magazine content of any era. The magazines published under Paizo's production were colorful and the art quality was top shelf. The writing was excellent and their adventures were often better than those being produced in-house by the brand holder and company publishing that famous parent game. Of course this is all just my humble opinion. YMMV - as the saying goes.

What is more a matter of record is that during that 3e era Paizo developed a loyal following and when the trade-mark brand holder decided to drop Paizo as their magazine publisher in 2007, the folks at Paizo struck out on their own and begin publishing their popular line of adventure paths on their own that continue to feature excellent writing and stellar fantasy art right up to the present. 

Without the contract to publish Dragon and Dungeon, Paizo soon began developing their own game based on the OGL and with significant fan-based playtesting and feedback. The finished product (seen by many as a successor to 3e) was published in 2009 as the Pathfinder RPG. For many of us in the hobby, Pathfinder arrived at a time when we were looking for a game that would scratch the itch we were feeling to play something that felt more like a familiar fantasy roleplay system than we were experiencing with 4e.

As I have been mentally walking down 4e memory lane, I find myself once again at the end of that journey standing before Pathfinder - and the Pathfinder memories come flooding back. As a smile breaks across my face, I recall the many new friends I made while playing Pathfinder, as well as  a number of the fun adventures (many of them published by Paizo) that we have shared together while playing this now older and so familiar version - we played Pathfinder for a number of years almost to the exclusion of all other games. Yes, Pathfinder has been a very good FRP experience for me, even though the system (much like 3e before it) eventually became bloated with so many supplements in print that it was almost impossible to master all the content. Then came a new playtest version followed by release of a second edition in 2019.

Prior to the pandemic, I was running and playing a lot of Pathfinder 2e, more so than of any other FRP game. The pandemic affected gaming for many of us hobbyists, often in surprising ways! An increase in solo play and playing online replaced regular game night gatherings as we sought to keep our group FRP gaming interests alive by changing our way of  engaging with our hobby and of "getting together". As I enter this new year, and face-to-face gathering again, I find that I am experiencing a great desire to resume some regular play of Pathfinder. It really is a good game in both its editions.

An Old School Heretic's Critical Look back at 4e...

...and why I still willingly play it!

I did not start with the 4th edition of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game, so my perspective is likely to differ significantly from those for whom 4e was their introduction to the hobby. I tread lightly even mentioning 4e. My hope is that this post will not be be taken as my attempt to argue the merits of one edition over another. For a variety of reasons, 4e seems to be the most "controversial" edition and it seems to be forever connected to the term "edition wars". This post is in no way an attempt to fan those flames and what follows is entirely the humble opinion of one person, me the writer, and nothing more. I write this out of sincere enthusiasm for our hobby and as an exercise in sorting through my own thoughts on the matter at hand. So if you are still curious about what my humble opinions on the matter are, keep reading. 

I will state from the beginning that I sincerely like 4e...and I also sincerely dislike 4e. For that simple reason, I am sympathetic to those who criticize this version of the game that we all enjoy, and I also understand the feelings of those who defend it. Like every other edition of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game, good things can be said of 4e, but 4e isn't without its flaws. The 4th edition is plagued by a volume of errata which will testify to its being far from a perfect game. Yet I find it an enormously fun game to play, provided everyone at the table is cooperative!

Powers

The publishers of 4e seem to have aspired to give us what essentially is a level-up of the game to a more "supers" feel. Characters in 4e start off at level 1 already as competent and heroic (levels 1-5 are termed the Heroic Tier of play in 4e). I will readily admit that it can be great fun to play an heroic character that feels super powerful. (I recall my surprise upon playing this edition for the first time as I saw how much damage my level-1 PC dealt out and absorbed!) Overall, my play experience with 4e satisfies a sometime desire to role-play a "superhero" and does so in a way that is harmonious with my preference for a setting that at least superficially resembles ancient or medieval times (fantasy!). This is one of the appeals of 4e for me and also one of the aspects which led me (and others) to eventually desire a more traditional FRP experience where low-level play is dangerous and it's a challenge just to survive to make level-2. I missed the feel of my old D&D.

A design goal of the 4e development team seems to have been to "standardize" the experience of playing the game by giving the DM certain tools that would make unnecessary much of the need for DM judgement calls. An attempt is made to balance character abilities across classes, balance encounters so that PCs will prevail, and to clearly spell out all mechanical procedures are however, accomplished imperfectly in the published books. Simply put, I have found DM fiat is still both necessary and desirable despite the 4e game's preference for a formulaic and standardized approach to the role of the DM. The goal of making all player experiences the same across all tables regardless of who is acting as the DM seems to have recently been somewhat abandoned post 4e even by the owners of the D&D brand as evidenced by the changes in approach to rules taken in the follow-up version, the most current 5th Edition.

Markers

As referee, I run most of my games relying on verbal description and imagination only, what we often call "theater-of-the-mind". Preference for this game style is perhaps a carry-over from my earliest days in the hobby when miniature figures representing fantastic creatures were very hard to come by. In their absence we simply made do without them. Dice would occasionally fill-in for the figures we didn't have, but we soon discovered that even such substitute representations could be dispensed with, and that the game worked perhaps even better without them. The rules in the earliest editions of the World's Most Popular Role-Playing Game accommodates the use of miniature figures and even lists game's distances in inches for ease of tabletop play, but lacking the appropriate miniature figures we seldom played this way. With the later advent of cheap, readily available plastic miniature figures, especially monster figures, and most recently the widespread use of virtual tabletops with their associated tokens, theater-of-the mind style play is becoming perhaps less common today. As time progressed, fantasy figures have become readily available and are now an industry in its own right.

Having said all of the above concerning theater-of-the-mind play, 4e practically insists that combat encounters be gamed using a tactical display or "grid" and that figures or tokens be used to represent the characters and monsters, as well as markers to represent the status of said creatures. Many of the powers and abilities of the characters and beasts are geared toward players counting squares and positioning their figures and templates. 

The 4th edition rules seem to excel when it comes to tactical play. It is a strength of the edition, but also a weakness as I see it. Moving figures, counting squares - it all takes time, not to mention player "analysis paralysis" that can accompany tactical decision making. Even smallish combats using 4e can easily take an hour or more to play to conclusion as each participant carefully considers, then positions their figures and any templates to maximum effect. Viewed solely on the basis of being a  game of tactical combat in a fantastic milieu, 4e is perhaps the ultimate gaming experience. It has become my preference for such skirmish style miniature game and even with its publisher moving forward to the next edition (5e), the core mechanics of 4e combat continues on as the basis of a series of board games which are still currently available, and which I enjoy both in group or solo play.

Combat using a tactical display (grid) can be great fun, but there are times when my desire is for a more open and free-wheeling role-playing style with occasional combats. One of the frequent complaints I hear from friends regarding 4e is that it does not encourage role-playing and places too much emphasis on combat. While combat seems to definitely dominate the rule mechanics of 4e (and honestly all other other editions of D&D), the very nature of role-playing itself, with its basis in the back-and-forth verbal exchange between players, definitely encourages, if not mechanically supports, a free dialogue between the referee/DM and players. Such verbal activity is at the heart of the hobby, at least I would argue that, and it is with that statement that I begin to express the way that I, as referee, prefer to use 4e (and really all RPGs). 

My view is that combat, even using 4e, does not always have to be epic, and it does not have to use a grid or figures. There is room for role-playing in any encounter, in any system, in fact I prefer to do just that. Sometimes a quick encounter using 4e may be played using only theater-of-the-mind, reserving the tactical display and full 4e mechanics for those important battles where tactics may decide a close outcome. Pushing through a small group of over-matched minions in order to clear the area for further exploration can be the end result of a series of verbal narrations together with a few dice rolls rather than an hour long tactical combat. 

Skill Challenges

I believe the presence of "skills" in a game inherently changes the nature of role-play. Players tend to look to their character sheet when it contains a list of skills, just to see if they can leverage any of those skills in order to roll for a success. Acting as referee I am fond of saying to such a player, "The answer is not on your character sheet. Tell me what you would like for your character to do and we will find a way to see if that works." 

My hope in such game situations is always that players will come up with some idea that will succeed with no dice involved - dice can be fickle! I like to encourage logical problem solving and creative thinking whenever possible (even outside of gaming) and see this opportunity as a strength of RPG. Reducing an important element of the game, such as creative thinking, to a series of connected dice rolls seems a loss of that opportunity to me.

On the other hand, a series of dice rolls may make sense in order to successfully navigate a number of difficult challenges as player characters strive for a successful conclusion to a complicated situation where coordination of effort and teamwork is necessary. The concept of the skill challenge is not inherently bad, but it can be poorly used, in my opinion.

The design idea behind the 4e skill challenge seems to have been to spread the opportunities for significant action during the game across all the players at the table rather than to facilitate one character who excels at one skill to dominate a given type of game situation. The idea of character "skills" harkens back to earlier editions (perhaps even borrowed from other games) and is probably here to stay for any future editions, but the idea is not among my favorite innovations.

In Summary

By picking and choosing from the available tools presented in the 4e books, I find the game can be very enjoyable. I don't worry much about errata and I frequently make referee rulings as I see the need for them - feeling no guilt in doing so. Is what I am DM-ing "by the book" 4th Edition, no, but I think it does provide some fantastic fun. The tactical miniatures game inherent in the 4e rule system is robust and it rewards clever play. In my experience combat generally runs along smoothly when players are cooperative and it really doesn't require very many referee judgement calls.

Each referee can decide how much game time they wish to devote to combat and by contrast to devote to other game related activities. Investigation, negotiation, exploration, even down-time can be as involved and time consuming as the players at the table prefer. Simply jumping from one combat encounter to the next can be a group's preferred style of play regardless of which edition they are playing, but so can playing a game emphasizing investigation or any other aspects of play.    

Bannerless Knight

An unfortunate aspect of my having an interest in playing several FRP systems, both old and new, is that I never have enough players who share in ALL of my varied game system passions. Fortunately I do have a number of friends who enjoy gaming and therefore I am able to play frequently - generally face-to-face again these days. The FRP game of choice (decided by consensus) is currently the most modern take on the world's most popular role-playing game. I do occasionally persuade a sub-set of my friends to indulge my interests in a less popular game title, but even so, there are a few on my list of favorites that seldom get any takers. 

The role-playing game King Arthur Pendragon (or simply called Pendragon) is one such system. Written by the late Greg Stafford using a variation on the Basic Role-Playing house engine, and first published by Chaosium, Pendragon is back in the hands of Chaosium where it is currently undergoing preparation for release of its 6th edition. Not surprisingly, each of the published editions seems to have its relative advantages and disadvantages and adherents who claim their favorite. I like them all, but seem to find myself drawn back again and again to the first edition.

Over a recent weekend I sat down with the first edition Pendragon rules and a kernel of an idea for a solo adventure, rolled some dice, consulted various useful tomes, and applied ample doses of imagination - making some notes along the way. What follows is my recollection of that solo foray into the days of King Arthur.

A Tale of King Arthur's Camelot

An austere youth of Saxon decent and a ward of King Arthur's court, Cenwulf (known as "the Cold") is often seen as somewhat distant and aloof except while in the company of a certain visiting Danish Prince.

As our story begins, a new priest appears in the capitol - one spreading the Christian gospel and saving souls. For a time he is the talk of Camelot. Money goes missing at the church and our young Saxon knight, Cenwulf, is suspected. Avoiding the accusing stares that seem to follow him both at court and in places of lower social status, and hoping to gain some needed glory to his credit, when word comes to court of bandit troubles, Cenwulf volunteers to assist the distressed village. 

Traveling henceforth from Camelot, he encounters a damsel - haughty and obviously in need of rescue. It occurs to Cenwulf that there is a shared attraction between himself and the fair maiden. A brief fight follows wherein the ribald band are thrashed and take flight. Cenwulf offers to escort the damsel to said village where she is to meet-up with her relatives. She speaks against Arthur, but Cenwulf finds her attractive and makes a display of his best courtesy.

Upon their arrival, the farmers of the village greet Cenwulf and his charge with hospitality. Trouble points to a dark place in the wood where Cenwulf finds a "hungry man". The wild man tells a tale of an old "tunnel", a sleeping dragon within, and of a brass key.

Overcoming his dread, and with the wild man as witness, Cenwulf seeks glory entering the tunnel where he soon discovers a dark cavern. A lit flame reveals it is empty except for some old bones and a small box of coins among which he finds an untarnished triple ring (that grants the wearer "witch sight").

Exiting the cave, Cenwulf wonders about the absence of any "dragon". 

Returning to the village, Wulf is confronted by the damsel's kin. A brief "disagreement" leads to a tense exchange of words. After proving himself by noble Word and Deed, the kin-folk offer Cenwulf their assistance. Searching together for the troublesome "bandits", they find their lair and defeat them.

In thanks the village priest gifts Cenwulf with a small rusty blade that he says once drew the blood of a saint. He adds, "It may have a healing power - if you believe." Cenwulf accepts the gift with the unstated intention of presenting the relic to the church at Camelot upon his return.

During the return journey, Cenwulf  meets an impoverished traveler on the road - one under a vow of vengeance. 

What lock - if any - does the key of brass open? What is the origin of the triple ring? Who is the poor traveler and is their cause just? What further adventure awaits the two as they enter Camelot?

Pendragon works quite well as a vehicle for solo RPG adventure. The game's personality traits and passions - both aspects of character development - allow for my rolling for Cenwulf's reaction rather than just deciding how I think he would act and the uncertainty in outcome adds to my sense of discovery during play. The two "useful tomes" that I consulted were Table Fables and Table Fables II both by Madeline Hale.

Zero Hit Points

Mostly Dead!

I usually start my hobby related discussions by referencing the original three little brown books, tomes which I, like many, started my journey into fantasy role-playing with. I find that the genesis of so many topics can be found in a careful reading of those texts. Volume I Men & Magic has the following to say about creating the character's hit points:

Dice for Accumulative Hits (Hit Dice): This indicates the number of dice which

are rolled in order to determine how many hit points a character can take. Pluses are

merely the number of pips to add to the total of all dice rolled not to each die. Thus

a Superhero gets 8 dice + 2; they are rolled and score 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6/totals

26 + 2 = 28, 28 being the number of points of damage the character could sustain

before death. Whether sustaining accumulative hits will otherwise affect a character

is left to the discretion of the referee.

In brief, hit points are therefore referred to as "how many hit points a character can take" - being a total of finite number that is reduced by randomly determining how much damage is inflicted by a successful attack. Also as "being the number of points of damage the character could sustain before death". This statement implies that being brought to "zero" hit points equals death for the character - a position many subsequent versions of the game (but important to note that not all of them) have taken.

Parsing out the meaning or intent from these words has been a subject of debate for at least four decades. Part of the difficulty may rest with the author's use of inexact terms - for example "points of damage" - which is perhaps intentional. Abstraction is rampant in the original game's mechanics and serves a useful purpose in allowing each player to fill-in all missing detail by applying our imagination while at the same time keeping the game action flowing. 

The last sentence in the above quote from Volume I about referee discretion is important and serves as a good summary of the old school philosophy in FRP gaming. The phrase "is left to the discretion of the referee" invites each player acting in this capacity to modify the game to suit their particular tastes. Doing so is an important building block in the popularity of the hobby - I would argue.

Digging into the nature of original edition hit points a little deeper Volume III The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures says that healing or regaining of hit points associated with common wounds "can take a long time".

HEALING WOUNDS:

As noted previously, energy levels can only be regained by fresh experience, but

common wounds can be healed with the passage of time (or the use of magics

already explained). On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained,

but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is

completely healed. This can take a long time.

Applying logic (always a dangerous sport) I am confronted by a need to define the terms "damage" and "wound" while keeping in mind that ultimately this rests upon "the discretion of the referee". Many sources will separate damage and hit points as being somewhat separate from wounds. In other words they are not all the same thing. Hit points can be thought of as "one's ability to avoid the killing blow" - at least one prominent celebrity from the early days of TSR explains it just so and this is consistent with reading remarks made in the Dungeon Masters Guide to the Advanced game. Damage therefore reduces hit points bringing one closer to "the death blow". A wound would seem to imply some significant injury to the body and may be considered separate from what is meant by the term "damage". The taking of a "wound" requires either magical healing (which is relatively rare in the early edition) or considerable time to heal. So I am left to ponder - when does one suffer an actual "wound"?

Going outside the text - using the referee discretion clause - I like to "play around with" the idea that wounds happen when one reaches zero hit points. Some wounds are fatal and the character dies on the field of battle. Some may not result in death, but will require a long time to heal sans magic. Borrowing an idea, suppose the referee rules that upon reaching zero hit pints the character is down and out of the combat. Once the fight is over a comrade may "roll the body over" and discover the character's fate by applying a random result. I suggest a die roll on the following table:

1 - Dead

2 - Gaping wound - staunch flow or soon die

3 - Broken bone - limb useless until healed

4 - Unconscious - serious bump on head

Just how we choose to address the details implicit in such a table is entirely left open to the referee's preference just as it should be - although relying on common sense, fairness and consistency will obviously go a long way towards keeping one's players happy and content!

With its roots in wargaming where figures are generally either alive and functioning combatants or have become casualties and are essentially dead (for the purposes of the game), the original edition of the game treats character hit points as a resource that is whittled down on the way to becoming dead. The character (or creature) is fully functional (and is not impaired by the loss of hit points) right up to and until the magic number of zero is reached, at which point the unfortunate fellow becomes "dead". While this seemed intuitive to its audience of the day (1970s wargamers), the modern gamer often comes into the hobby with somewhat different prior experiences (including video games) hence we may have different expectations than those circa 1974. Adjusting the game to suit one's tastes is in keeping with the spirit of old school game philosophy and just how we address hit point loss and wounding in play at our table can reflect those preferences. 

"Avoid taking damage!" is the basic advice I like to offer players who express some concern over their character having a modest number of hit points. There seems a bit of "realism" to being concerned that a single violent blow may result in serious injury or death. This makes the game relatable - and believable! Yes, there are monsters and magic treasures, but the game having familiar reference points such as - "avoid taking damage or you could die" - are a great aspect of that style of play. It can be great fun to play while thinking about "life with one hit point". Players will often think more creatively about using different approaches to solving problems and conflicts when character life is more fragile.

Adventure Games

Our World, Only Skewed.

How do we do "Fantasy" fiction? There are of course many approaches that can be taken to address this question and one need not look too far to see the outcome of our many diverse takes on what Fantasy as a setting can be. Consult just a few novels or short stories selected from those labeled  the "fantasy genre" and a wide and diverse variety can readily be discovered - everything from the near historical Song of Fire and Ice written by George R.R. Martin, or J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth tales, to the other extreme to be found in the futuristic stories about Zothique written by Clark Ashton Smith and The Dying Earth tales by Jack Vance and we can see that any comparison between fantasy worlds can vary considerably. 

The authors of the FRP game Dragon Warriors describe their default setting as "our world only skewed" which for them is "what fantasy ought to be". A more magical version of our world, familiar to us through our shared personal experience as earthlings and through acquired knowledge of our cultural histories (DW borrows tropes from British history), provides us, as "adventure gamers" with a contextual foundation upon which to build our fantasies. Most things in the game's setting will work as they do on Earth and many elements will be as we perceive them to have been historically. The points where the fiction varies from reality is where the magic exists.  

Dragon Warriors is not alone in leveraging the familiar to anchor a magical setting for use in gaming. Columbia Games uses their setting of Harn which shares many aspects with medieval England and the Fighting Fantasy books and games are set in the world of Titan which contains many familiar tropes. 

Familiarity gives us the freedom to imagine, to create, to add twists in the fabric of reality that make sense because it is all grounded in the familiar. This is why writers of the supernatural will spend time on the mundane details that are so familiar to us (comfortably familiar in many cases) accessing mental images of various mundane things we know are real, only to set us up for the eventual shock of encountering the nearly unbelievable. It is this juxtaposition of the known and the unknown that causes a mental tension which we enjoy while reading (or gaming) comfortably seated in a familiar chair. 

The familiar, yet magically different setting called Lands of Legend, which is built into the game Dragon Warriors, facilitates a comfortable fantasy game experience in a way very similar to the fiction of Prof. Tolkien - familiar, yet slightly different in that magical way. I find that the familiarity of setting and tropes gives me more freedom to imagine , to create, and to add twists in reality that actually make sense (and is therefore more easily engaged with) because it is all quite grounded in the familiar. It also aids in conjuring up a dark and spooky flavor much like dimmed lighting can do in a familiar room. By building the setting into the rules (and vice versa) the "stage" and "cast of actors" fit nicely together, thus facilitating the sort of adventure stories one might want to explore together with one's friends while playing Dragon Warriors. Experience a comfortable (and safe) adventure while making some nice gaming memories in a familiar yet magical land.

The MELEE Action Economy

Tactical Combat played in a Logical Manner

Metagaming's MicroGame 3 - The Fantasy Trip MELEE is is described by its author Steve Jackson (also founder of Steve Jackson Games) as an arena game that "can also be used as a tactical aid to the various fantasy role-playing games...allowing tactical combat to be worked out in a logical manner." Much of what Mr. Jackson calls  'a logical manner" can be found in MELEE's turn sequence, and movement and engagement rules.

MELEE uses a hex-based tactical display and counters to represent the area where action takes place and the position of combatants. There is no simultaneous movement and players take their turn based on a die roll, high score makes their move first, then low score. Attacks are resolved in sequence starting with the figure with the highest adjusted Dex value.

The MELEE system identifies each figure as being in one of three states - Engaged, Non-engaged, or in Hand-to-hand (HtH).

Non-Engaged "figures" - those who are are NOT in a space adjacent to another figure - have the following Action options:

• Move up to their full move allowance - based on armor worn
• Charge Attack including up to 1/2 move
• Dodge - including 1/2 move
• Drop Prone - up to 1/2 move
• Ready Weapon - may move 1 or 2 spaces (hexes)
• Missile Attack - may move 1 hex/space
• Stand Up

Engaged "figures" are those who are in a space/hex that is adjacent to another figure and have the following Action options:

• shift one hex while staying engaged/adjacent and Attack
• one last shot Missile Attack
• Change Weapon - may shift one hex
• Disengage - move one hex away and no Attack
• Stand up
• Pick up dropped weapon or object
• attempt to move into occupied hex and HtH 

Figures that are in Hand-to-Hand (HtH) have the following Action options:

• Draw a dagger and make a HtH Attack
• Attack HtH
• Disengage

Note: Some Action attempts require a successful die roll to succeed (move into or out of HtH)

The modular nature of many FRP games allow for the substitution of one combat system for another. In my experience, the MELEE system works quite well with the original little brown books if one makes allowance for the manner in which the two games generate Strength and Dexterity ability scores.

Old-School Fantasy Rules

A Circular Journey or "There and Back Again"!

As I continue to play role-playing games of all sorts, both old and new, including the "improved" versions of older systems, retro-clones and newer editions of older favorites, and others that are completely new, I find myself returning time and again to the original game I started with. I have often heard others say, "You will always favor the very first game system that you play." I am not so sure that is a true statement for many, but it has mostly been true for me and my FRP game preference.

One reason I like to dispute the "your first game is always your favorite" theory, however, is that it doesn't hold true for me in any other area of gaming. Let me start by saying that I love games of all sorts. Even sports. My tastes have evolved over the half-century-plus of playing all kinds of games, and continues to do so today. 

Like many, I started playing kiddie games - I won't bother to mention more on this subject. With respect to the various games in the genre of "adult" gaming, I have left behind many - probably most - of the games that I started out with and several of the more recently acquired new ones as well. Of all the earliest "wargames" which  served as my gateway to other strategy and adventure games, I have little interest in returning to any of those very  early systems. Computer games of every ilk have all gotten better since I purchased "Bard's Tale" for the Commodore 64 and revisiting an early CRPG, or flight simulator, can have little appeal for me except as a brief bout of nostalgia.     

So what is it about the old-school fantasy game that appeals to me so? The following list includes the reasons I have been able to think of. 

• Character knowledge and player knowledge are aligned in old-school play. 
• There is an emphasis on referee rulings which are based on common sense and the natural laws of what is possible in "the real world".
• A class based character system that reflects classic archetypes.
• Game mechanics that are easily committed to memory, require little thought during play and readily recede into the background allowing the game's fiction to be foremost in my mind.
• It serves as a do-it-yourself outlet for creativity.

Role-play isn't "acting" for me. The RPG is a game we play and knowledge of the game should be useful - at least that's what I think. One of the reasons I tend to shy away from skill-based systems is that they separate what the character knows and is good at, from what the player knows. I find rolling dice to convince the guard to let you pass is less interesting than "role-playing" how your character goes about the "convincing". In a similar way, I also find rolling to search and rolling to detect whether an NPC is lying to be interior practices to the old-school alternative of "tell me how you search" and the referee giving "obvious" hints about how truthful the NPC is being - "wink, wink!"

No rule system can cover every conceivable action a player can imaginatively ask to try - nor should it. Such a tome would be immense and likely require constant consultation during play. Part of the art of running a game is to use one's creativity - making good on-the-spot rulings is exercising that creative muscle. Common sense and knowledge of the real world should guide such rulings unless there is something "magical" or supernatural at play. The magic is that much more powerful when most things follow the familiar way of the real world.

Classic archetypes have their antecedents in the subconscious mind. Also, they have many reflections that can readily be found throughout literature. Leveraging the power of the familiar aids in the believability of the fiction. By contrast, the bizarre is simply that, and usually produces little more than confusion.

For most, learning a new game can be fun, but it takes effort. Sports require training our bodies and tabletop games require training our minds. We learn the relationship of the parts, the procedures and hopefully commit them to memory lest the game be constantly interrupted by consulting the book. I find that it is only after the game is largely committed to memory does it function well as an "adventure" experience where-in one may temporarily suspend disbelief and imagine the shared fiction as if it were unfolding before you. Under these conditions, the "adventure game" or "RPG" can become much more than a game of "Monopoly" or "Life" played with fantasy "trolls and wizards".

Many games, including most boardgames, card games and sports, require a strict adherence to the "rules as written" to ensure "fairness". I see role-playing as a departure from this concept. The nature of those little brown books was "rules are to be added to". This was a common approach seen in many miniature wargames of the day (and so it continues to the present) and I - like many who played such games - assumed that it was/is expected that I use my own creativity to enhance the fun and realism for those who play when I act as referee. It is expected that the referee should draw-up maps - both dungeon and wilderness - and populate said dungeon and wilderness with fantastic creatures. Once the game evolved to the point where we sought to include life among the "civilized" towns and cities, various aspects of the imagined culture and society becomes important and the original rules-as-written (intentionally) say very little about that. Thus we referees are invited to become "world builders". 

This formula works well for me and has proved a good "fit" lending itself to over four decades of awesome gaming. I continue to consume many new publications each year and enthusiastically "borrow" from them all their new ideas and creative mechanical systems that seem likely to fit with and perhaps improve on those found in the original little brown books.