The Classic Adventure Gaming Podcast

[EOTB]

(Shameless Advertising Blurb Ahead)

If you've wondered why the 1E core books seem to hold very different presumptions of the players and DM than later editions, and noticed they don't address aspects of play now considered critical to the RPG experience - the new Classic Adventure Gaming Podcast might be for you.

There are multiple styles of play in our hobby, and OSRIC/1E doesn't require the use of any particular style. Back when it was the biggest game in town everyone used it as best they could to produce the style of play they enjoyed the most. That still works today. Everyone can use the 1E rules as they wish.

But it was the last edition produced intending to create an experience distinct from that predominant in the hobby today: an Adventure Game, as opposed to the experience most people today would think of when they hear the term "Roleplaying Game". Many of the eternally-running arguments in the hobby today result from people using the single term "RPG" as shorthand for two distinctly different ways to play using the same books. And, while the majority of people in the hobby want the play experience current editions succeed at delivering, there is a minority looking for advice on how to make, run, and play what this podcast differentiates as an Adventure Game: player over character, skill over dialog, challenge over drama.

If you wish to learn more about this style of play we humbly suggest giving the podcast a listen; if you like what you hear, please share it to those you may know who're also looking for battle-tested advice that runs against the grain of most hobby conventional wisdom offered today where games are discussed. Episode #2 on dungeon design concepts is newly released, and more episodes will follow every few weeks on topics ranging from hex crawls, to running adventure games on VTT, looking for good fits at the table for this style of play, and more.

Enjoy!

 

[Beoric]

I have been listening to the podcast (I'm partway through the second episode.

I continue to disagree that the playstyle you want is difficult to achieve with the mechanics of later editions, any more than Trad play was difficult to achieve with OSRIC/1e. The advice in the 1e DMG supports a different game from the advice in later DMGs; but the mechanics are in my view pretty neutral. Where the mechanics differ, it is generally mechanics that have been omitted from later DMGs, and can readily be reintroduced.

 

[EOTB]

Thanks for listening, I hope you find some discussion you enjoy!

I have no issues if people want to apply what we're talking about to 4E games. When we're talking about later edition games, we talk about how most people run them. Most of our target audience are people who have experienced the typical style of play in the typical newer edition game, and find it isn't exactly what they want.

 

[Beoric]

Most of our target audience are people who have experienced the typical style of play in the typical newer edition game, and find it isn't exactly what they want.

Sure, but if your target audience is people who are most familiar with a newer system, is it the best advice to tell them, not only do you need to learn a new playstyle, but you must master a new system to do so? I think I am remembering correctly that somebody, maybe Prince, answered the question "how do I get started" with "learn Basic". Even if I am not, I think it was both implicitly and explicitly suggested in much of the commentary on the pod that classic D&D and later editions are inherently incompatible.

Why erect barriers to entry, if you really want to bring people into the fold? I mean, you in particular focussed on the importance of system mastery, would it not be easier for 5e players to continue using 5e?

I mean, I agree with you, many people are missing out by not having access to those games, and I really hope you are successful in reaching those people. I guess what I am suggesting is that if you really want to help people get into the playstyle, you should show them how to apply its techniques to the games they are already running.

The one thing that is unique to TTRPGs, and shared with no other type of organized media or game, is the fact that characters are free to attempt anything their players can imagine, as opposed to selecting from a limited menu. And this is true of every edition of D&D. Linear and plot based adventures squander this characteristic by removing the freedom of choice that is unique to RPGs; unless what you enjoy is participating in heavily constrained amateur improv, such games will always seem a bit flat, because there are other media that are better at delivering plots, or constrained adventures. Movies are better at being movies, novels are better at being novels, and video games are better at being video games, than any RPG ever will be.

What I think those potential classic players are missing, and they don't know they are missing, is agency. DMs need to feel empowered to make calls where there are no roles, or where the rules don't make sense; and to modify adventures to their liking (this last being difficult with new adventures because they are so overwritten, it is difficult to know when an adventure element is critical to completing the adventure; many modern adventures feel like they could break easily). Players need to feel empowered to attempt actions that seem logical to them, which means DMs need to learn to be flexible and creative about adjudicating those actions and their consequences. And you can grant DMs and players agency in any edition.

Whoever said it on the podcast was right, dungeons are training environments for DMs and players to learn that they have agency, and how to use it. And those techniques can be applied to teach agency in any edition. Hexcrawl procedures can be used in any edition. Training rules can be used in any edition. GP=XP can be used in any edition (easier in 5e than 4e, but still doable in 4e). My request for future episodes: talk about how these procedures work, how they increase agency (generally by providing difficult choices), and how they can be implemented in the various editions - or at least in 5e, where most of your target audience likely lies.

 

[The1True]

I think I am remembering correctly that somebody, maybe Prince, answered the question "how do I get started" with "learn Basic".

Yeah, I really appreciate when the old guard come out to discuss the mechanics and spirit of the old school game! I think it keeps the hobby honest by giving new players a glimpse onto the original intent of its creators. As I've mentioned, I ran the nephew and niece through B5 this summer using BECMI rules. I intend to do it again when my own children are a little older. I left the nephew with a copy of the Red Box and a few DTRPG reprints of the original B adventures and he was pretty enthusiastic. It was an eye-opening trip through the wayback machine for sure and I'm glad we did it...

BUT, in the end, I realized I was doing my nephew a disservice leaving him with those artifacts of my generation. He wanted to play with the guys at school, so I advized his mother to go out and grab the 5e books for him. Now, he knows how to run a stripped-down, heavily interactive, tabletop tactics game, but he's doing it in a language that his piers understand.

I have to agree that it's unfair to insist that to understand earlier play-styles one must first achieve mastery of those versions of the game. Definitely, if you can get your hands on older rules sets without too much hassle and expense, it's worth it to give them a try. Especially the Basic game has a way of ripping away the bells and whistles and exposing the growling chassis, forcing the players (and DM) into a different mindset long enough to appreciate what the grognards have been banging their pots and pans about. But the insights achieved from a few short play sessions, or a deep dive down the OSR rabbit hole can be carried over to later editions. (which is what a couple of us have been banging our pots and pans about...)

 

[squeen]

Yeah! More edition wars!

Isn't it even conceivable that rules written for the play-style-of-the-moment would tend to buttress that mode of play easier? For me, the bells and whistles of that later editions seem, if not a barrier, then at least some side alleys that take the game into terra incognita.

I think I have learned from y'all that you do enjoy a different gaming experience, and that's totally fine. EOTB will argue even the OD&D/AD&D grogs play wildly different games---which is possible---but I have also really enjoyed observing folks like Prince start of in the B/X weeds and slowly find his way towards the classic mode. I have experienced my own game morph from OD&D to AD&D, all the while feeling more and more of a resonance hum with Gygax's writing in the DMG, as I used more and more of the seemly chaotic esotera of that tome.

Again, please entertain the possibility that a certain rule set aligns more with the dominate style being played when it was written. Making it work with other editions (written with a different dominate-style in mind) is Grad-school level stuff.

 

[Beoric]

Isn't it even conceivable that rules written for the play-style-of-the-moment would tend to buttress that mode of play easier? For me, the bells and whistles of that later editions seem, if not a barrier, then at least some side alleys that take the game into terra incognita.

The thing is, the core rules are basically the same in each edition. If a DM can't make a ruling by fiat based on the situation, then someone rolls a die, usually a d20, applies modifiers, and compares it to a target number. That generally results in either success or failure (unlike, say, Rolemaster which has degrees of success baked in). Isn't it conceivable that games that have the same agency at their heart and use the same mechanic might deliver very similar experiences?

I think I have learned from y'all that you do enjoy a different gaming experience, and that's totally fine.

How so? I recognize the game I play in Prince's work, and Melan's, and in EOTB's discussions of his approach. I use basically the same procedures for basically the same reasons to achieve basically the same results. What fundamental stylistic differences do you see?

 

[squeen]

In your case, Eberon strikes me as vastly altered setting that would require a paradigm shift (perhaps not). It breaks traditional campaign progression?

Also, generally, feats/abilities etc. greatly modify the play and move it towards character-build-isms, which is think is an anathema.

Love of "rolling die" (like skills), implies significant mechanization/standardization that also strikes me as driving towards a different style.

These are the ones that jump into my mind.

Again, what you are doing seems fine, just different.

 

[EOTB]

Sure, but if your target audience is people who are most familiar with a newer system, is it the best advice to tell them, not only do you need to learn a new playstyle, but you must master a new system to do so? I think I am remembering correctly that somebody, maybe Prince, answered the question "how do I get started" with "learn Basic". Even if I am not, I think it was both implicitly and explicitly suggested in much of the commentary on the pod that classic D&D and later editions are inherently incompatible.

Why erect barriers to entry, if you really want to bring people into the fold? I mean, you in particular focussed on the importance of system mastery, would it not be easier for 5e players to continue using 5e?

I mean, I agree with you, many people are missing out by not having access to those games, and I really hope you are successful in reaching those people. I guess what I am suggesting is that if you really want to help people get into the playstyle, you should show them how to apply its techniques to the games they are already running.

The one thing that is unique to TTRPGs, and shared with no other type of organized media or game, is the fact that characters are free to attempt anything their players can imagine, as opposed to selecting from a limited menu. And this is true of every edition of D&D. Linear and plot based adventures squander this characteristic by removing the freedom of choice that is unique to RPGs; unless what you enjoy is participating in heavily constrained amateur improv, such games will always seem a bit flat, because there are other media that are better at delivering plots, or constrained adventures. Movies are better at being movies, novels are better at being novels, and video games are better at being video games, than any RPG ever will be.

What I think those potential classic players are missing, and they don't know they are missing, is agency. DMs need to feel empowered to make calls where there are no roles, or where the rules don't make sense; and to modify adventures to their liking (this last being difficult with new adventures because they are so overwritten, it is difficult to know when an adventure element is critical to completing the adventure; many modern adventures feel like they could break easily). Players need to feel empowered to attempt actions that seem logical to them, which means DMs need to learn to be flexible and creative about adjudicating those actions and their consequences. And you can grant DMs and players agency in any edition.

Whoever said it on the podcast was right, dungeons are training environments for DMs and players to learn that they have agency, and how to use it. And those techniques can be applied to teach agency in any edition. Hexcrawl procedures can be used in any edition. Training rules can be used in any edition. GP=XP can be used in any edition (easier in 5e than 4e, but still doable in 4e). My request for future episodes: talk about how these procedures work, how they increase agency (generally by providing difficult choices), and how they can be implemented in the various editions - or at least in 5e, where most of your target audience likely lies.

The simple fact is that none of us have any practical experience in WOTC editions. So we can't advise people on how to make WOTC editions run differently than their current predominant culture, that would require knowing those editions very well.

Then there is the reality that we're fans of older editions, and of course are going to encourage people to play them.

Although the request about how those procedures increase agency through difficult choices is a good one, thank you for suggesting it!

 

[Beoric]

In your case, Eberon strikes me as vastly altered setting that would require a paradigm shift (perhaps not). It breaks traditional campaign progression?

I don't see how. Assuming the campaign progression is nearby, low level dungeons >> wilderness trek to higher level dungeon >> domain game, Eberron is totally set up for that kind of play.

To start, Eberron is teeming with dungeons. Nearby, you have underground ruins from the Dhakanni Empire, the Age of Demons, and the daelkyr invasion; many cities are built upon Dhakanni ruins, and have dungeons in their foundations. There are also wildlands bordering the (mostly) human lands, full of monsters and raiding humanoids. So, borderlands. With keeps. Also, plenty of cults. With evil temples. Near pastoral villages. Sound familiar.

Go a little deeper, and the whole of the world beneath the crust is one big dungeon, an actively hostile environment said to be the living body of a great infernal dragon, filled with demons and aberrations and demiplanes, where the normal rules of reality do not apply. So, stuck doors that open freely for monsters, tricks and traps for no reason other than to tempt, confound and destroy, and assorted weirdness. Check this out for a dungeon entrance, from the novel, Voyage of the Morning Dawn:

She heard the pit before she ever saw it, and eerie harmony of inhuman shrieks echoing from the depths. A tremendous wound split the surface between the jagged Blackcap Mountains and the lush forests to the east. The earth within the pit was a disturbing red, like fresh blood. The surrounding land was black and dead. From above, Seren could see veins of dead soil twisting from the pit into the woodlands. It was as if Khyber [the underworld] were reaching out with long fingers, slowly drawing the life of the forest into itself.

Of course, you might not go there until you are a bit higher level. Most of the higher level dungeons are accessed through the wilderness, in the Demon Wastes, or the twisted and barren Mournland, the jungles of Q'barra, or the far continent of Xen'drik. So, hexcrawl time! X1 would fit right in.

The domain game is a bit less supported, unless you are playing in Q'barra, or Lhazaar, or Xen'drik, or you are limiting areas for territorial expansion to grants from the sovereign (as opposed to AD&D where you don't have to check with anyone before carving out a stronghold). But let's be honest, how many people play the domain game, anyway? High level play is supported in other ways, with extremely high level and hostile areas (Argonessen is an entire continent dominated by dragons) and well developed planes.

So I'm really not seeing where the paradigm shift lies. Right now I'm running B1, B2 and T1-4 in Eberron. I have plans for A1-4, the G series and the D series. All of it is easy to integrate. So where does the difference lie?

Also, generally, feats/abilities etc. greatly modify the play and move it towards character-build-isms, which is think is an anathema.

Not seeing how having choices re: class features really changes the basics of how the game is played. You have resources, you try to figure out how best to use those resources. You may as well criticize a module because it uses different magic items from the DMG.

Love of "rolling die" (like skills), implies significant mechanization/standardization that also strikes me as driving towards a different style.

Not sure where you got the idea I love rolling dice so much. Dice are a tool, as with any edition, you roll dice when you want something to be determined randomly, which is not always the case. And skill/ability check systems have been around as long as "roll under ability score" mechanics have existed, this is nothing new.

You keep talking about features of a system and inferring how I use them, generally incorrectly. But you are entirely missing any reference to how I actually approach the game. Like, take my comments in Malrex' Poisons thread. How are they fundamentally different from anything anyone playing the older editions would do?

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

Yeah, I don't see any particular reason you couldn't do this type of campaign in Eberron. Hell, I'm running this type of campaign right now in Bushido.

The Appendix N stuff is flavor. What matters is player agency, interesting challenges, and fair refereeing.

I enjoyed the episode I just listened to, regardless. I'll follow this podcast and see where it goes.

 

[Malrex]

Hoping to get some moments to listen. I'm interested in how you interpret this and hope its covered on the podcast: "player over character, skill over dialog, challenge over drama."
I get our challenge taste by not being able to be strategic as a player with the other players. Example: you cast fireball, you use your wand to paralyze the spellcaster, then we all rush in...--we rarely get the luxury of planning that out, unless we wish to take our round of action to do so, which makes it more of a challenge for us. We have played this way since Basic to 2e.

Anyways...happy to see you come out of the shadows EOTB and work on a new project!

 

[EOTB]

Anyways...happy to see you come out of the shadows EOTB and work on a new project!

Maaannn...so many projects going right now

"player over character, skill over dialog, challenge over drama."

Ep 1 probably has more of this

 

[squeen]

I don't see how. Assuming the campaign progression is nearby, low level dungeons >> wilderness trek to higher level dungeon >> domain game, Eberron is totally set up for that kind of play.

It was my impression from reading the 5e version. Mainly the tech. You know it better, so I won't argue.

Not seeing how having choices re: class features really changes the basics of how the game is played. You have resources, you try to figure out how best to use those resources. You may as well criticize a module because it uses different magic items from the DMG.

It's the old character skill vs. player skill thing. With too much detailed mechanization, and the less abstracted that things (like combat, diplomacy, and problem solving) become, it inclines a player to look on their character sheet for solutions. We all know this line of reasoning.

Not sure where you got the idea I love rolling dice so much. Dice are a tool, as with any edition, you roll dice when you want something to be determined randomly, which is not always the case. And skill/ability check systems have been around as long as "roll under ability score" mechanics have existed, this is nothing new.

That's @The1True, not you. His crew likes a wild ride that I am pretty sure is not my cup 'o tea (magic crafting en masse, head shot to Orcus, killing gods, etc.). We always suffered a lot and played the perpetual underdogs. For me at least, that's quintessential to the game -- you start out as a low-life, weakling nobody, not a superhero. Magic-users get a single spell. Thieves' skills suck. Cleric don't have offensive spells. Candy classes are almost impossible to roll-up. The list goes on. That mindset to struggle is baked in.

The later editions (5e in particular) have almost completely removed "difficult choices & compromises" from the menu. Everyone gets to be awesome. All the races/classes can do anything. It's slow-pitch softball catering to a new generation of coddled youth with trigger warnings, OPCs, cosplay, 100% improv, etc.---it's no use lying about it, we all know it's true. The nerdy, hard core war gamers aren't invited to the party anymore. While it's fine if the cool kids these days want to play something else/better/evolved/whatever...it's just not the classic experience. Simple as that.

You keep talking about features of a system and inferring how I use them, generally incorrectly. But you are entirely missing any reference to how I actually approach the game. Like, take my comments in Malrex' Poisons thread. How are they fundamentally different from anything anyone playing the older editions would do?

You're the black unicorn, right? One of the few playing 4e like it's AD&D. We are not talking about you (or anyone here), but what's easiest for a novice. Old school rule-sets are the simplest, most natural, direct path to old-school play style. That's my entire thesis.

EOTB hates this kinds of pointless blather...don't ya? He's a man of action, recruiting from the ranks of the next generation players to help keep the original game alive. Perhaps he's right, but I am not entirely sure. If everyone just bunkers down and stops talking to each other...???

 

[Malrex]

EOTB hates this kinds of pointless blather...don't ya? He's a man of action, recruiting from the ranks of the next generation players to help keep the original game alive. Perhaps he's right, but I am not entirely sure. If everyone just bunkers down and stops talking to each other...???

I don't necessarily think the blather is pointless. I find it one of the last places in this new world where people can disagree, discuss, and debate....and still show up for the most part or get along. From what I noticed people may disagree with Squeen---but they still dig his art....they might like 1True's crazy ideas and admire his creativity--but still disagree etc. Things can get heated, but we are forged with a unbreakable bond of passion for the game--yes, I know that was corny, was going for that....lol.

And I don't think it can be summed up to just player vs character skill...I know my table mixes that up quite a bit (i.e. try to roleplay situations instead of rolling a dice to see if its successful). I think there is a beautiful mix. My DM is famous at our table for always saying "You can try...".

 

[EOTB]

EOTB hates this kinds of pointless blather...don't ya?

Communicating is excellent. Communicating well is essential the Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing process.

Where there is no performing end point and it's just never-ending debating for entertainment value with people who like where they're at but enjoy arguing with people who believe strongly otherwise - I find that to be the male equivalent of taking selfies every day and posting it on social media. Not interested. I have things to do.

 

[Beoric]

And I don't think it can be summed up to just player vs character skill...I know my table mixes that up quite a bit (i.e. try to roleplay situations instead of rolling a dice to see if its successful). I think there is a beautiful mix. My DM is famous at our table for always saying "You can try...".

I would suggest that assessing numerical odds is player skill. Like, is it worth it to check for a trap here if (a) I might not succeed, (b) nothing telegraphs a trap, and (c) it means another wandering monster check?

The problem with "modern" adventure design is it rarely builds in a downside to making a skill check. Get rid of wandering monsters, and there is never any reason not to pixel bitch in the dungeon.

Even look at something like diplomacy/persuasion, there can and should be a downside to making the attempt, particularly if you fail. Say you go to the king to try to convince him that the orc horde is a threat. The players state the approach they are taking to persuade the king, maybe convince him with logic (diplomacy/persuasion), or alarm him with a discussion of the horde's size (possibly intimidate). Maybe the thespian in the group makes an actual speech. The thespian, however, is playing a half-orc thief who dumped charisma, so you roll to see just how well the speech came out. It didn't, so now the king thinks you have wasted his time, and is maybe pissed off if you tried to frighten him, or because he got visibly frightened in front of his court and is embarrassed. So at best, the king is no longer inclined to grant you audiences, and he may even be a bit petty and vindictive toward you.

In the meantime you had to wait 4 hours to get your audience with the king, so even if you are successful you have lost valuable time to make whatever preparations you want to make to meet the approaching horde - or to get out of the area before it arrives.

 

[Malrex]

I would suggest that assessing numerical odds is player skill. Like, is it worth it to check for a trap here if (a) I might not succeed, (b) nothing telegraphs a trap, and (c) it means another wandering monster check?

Ohhh....I totally agree with that! Player skill can be 'reading the room' and assessing numerical odds, BUT I'd also argue that 'player skill' can also reflect the actions of their character's roleplay. For example, good character roleplay and doing things they wouldn't do as a player could reflect that the player is a good player at some tables. At other tables, it can be viewed as poor play....hoo boy, not trying to open up a can of worms here...

This, I think.....is the key difference...between some gameplay. Someone roleplaying their alignment and intelligence/wisdom/charisma score would be....and correct me if I'm wrong as I don't want to speak for anyone...would be frowned upon by Basic/1e/OSRIC folks because it could potentially bring down the team's performance. The dumb barbarian syndrome.. "That's what my character would do!" Perhaps that's a different discussion as I believe there NEEDS to be a line drawn on some of that behavior so it's not disruptive. There is a difference between being disruptive and roleplaying....other people roleplaying to deal with that situation can also be viewed as great players...at some tables. I'm definitely not a champion for disruptive play, but I play in stride when it happens as sometimes it's a roleplay challenge which can be fun in its own way.

Where one of my arguments always leads--- to what's the point of stats that hint at Roleplay if you just want to be the player who is controlling 'yourself' in a fantasy environment? Dare I bring up the paladin and the HUGE restriction that their alignment and Charisma can bring to that character?--Nay, Ill let that dog rest. But again, could just be a game piece with physical stats so you find out if you open a door or bend a bar--- your charm, intelligence, and leadership can be judged by a DM.

I want to add, that while I'm used to and enjoy playing the roleplaying aspect and following abilities, alignment, etc. when playing---TEAM CHARACTER, I also find the TEAM PLAYER of using your knowledge of the game to overcome obstacles and excelling at the game sounds interesting to me as well and not really taking a stance on either way of playing. I would think TEAM PLAYER adds a bunch of challenge for a DM. And that is where some confusion forms---as both TEAM PLAYER and TEAM CHARACTER can fully enjoy the SAME adventures from the Old School ages (and arguably future editions). I think my stance that I support both ways are apparent with the adventures I create--it could be played with either gameplay of choice and still be fun.

AND THAT FRIENDS....IS A STANCE WE SHOULD EMBRACE---THE IMPORTANCE OF ADVENTURE DESIGN TO BE USABLE FOR BOTH STYLES OF PLAY.

 

[Beoric]

This, I think.....is the key difference...between some gameplay. Someone roleplaying their alignment and intelligence/wisdom/charisma score would be....and correct me if I'm wrong as I don't want to speak for anyone...would be frowned upon by Basic/1e/OSRIC folks because it could potentially bring down the team's performance.

I don't know what the current consensus is with that community, but it is clear to me that Gygax expected players to adhere to their class and alignment archetypes, as well as being team players. IIRC, drifting in alignment meant Gygax might just change the character's alignment someday, with corresponding consequences for clerics, paladins and rangers. Same for the various cursed items that changed alignment, once your alignment changed, you were expected to play that way - and to resist attempts by your compatriots to change it back.

And there were real mechanical consequences for everybody, not just the divine types. Consider the training rules at 1e DMG p. 86:

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:

E — Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S — Superior, deviations minimal but noted = 2
F — Fair performance, more norm than deviations = 3
P — Poor showing with aberrant behavior = 4

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, “cautious” characters who do not pull their own weight — these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.

The number assigned rated to the time and cost of training, so a character that was played "poorly" could spend four times as much to train as a character that was played in an excellent fashion.

Note also that the thief was expected to steal from the party from time to time, but also that all characters are expected to pull their own weight, so there was mechanical incentive to play cooperatively.

AND THAT FRIENDS....IS A STANCE WE SHOULD EMBRACE---THE IMPORTANCE OF ADVENTURE DESIGN TO BE USABLE FOR BOTH STYLES OF PLAY.

Hard agree!

 

[The1True]

The simple fact is that none of us have any practical experience in WOTC editions. So we can't advise people on how to make WOTC editions run differently than their current predominant culture, that would require knowing those editions very well.

Then there is the reality that we're fans of older editions, and of course are going to encourage people to play them.

Although the request about how those procedures increase agency through difficult choices is a good one, thank you for suggesting it!

Agreed. I'm really glad I took a trip back to BECMI this summer. I know that's not the favourite of the OS rulesets out there, but it's got the barebones. I definitely think younger generations should give older systems a try if they get the opportunity. The playstyle is definitely baked into the earlier rules. And whereas I would argue, they're still there in later editions, one could definitely argue that they get lost amid all the newer inovations that some might consider fluff.

Unfortunately, it's increasingly hard to get one's hands on older editions of the game without a deepdive through our tiny subculture guiding one to one of the dizzying multitude of clones. And then there's the matter of finding someone in your age-group to play this niche retroclone with.
So podcasts and approachable blogs (although, does anyone under 40 still read blogs?) are fantastic because they deliver these important lessons about playstyle to fresh generations. And I genuinely think they (still) do. It's just a matter of not scaring the kids off the lawn when they come over to see what it's all about!

To sum up, playing older editions should be encouraged! The original AD&D books are literary and historical gold. Playing to those rules was wild and weird. Discouraging the subsequent playing of newer editions though is booooo.