Quote from: Larsdangly;788821It isn't worth getting into the more tangled elements of this hoary, ancient debate. But, I do agree that 'rule 0' is one of the most over used old saws in our hobby. It is hard to think of anyone who hasn't abused it in one of our nerd-rage debates. Though, the most grognardy OSR enthusiasts seem to be the guiltiest.

The version of this that drives me ape shit is when it is pulled out to rationalize the fact that OD&D is almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics. I've always wished someone would make a version of D&D that is even shorter and more to the point than the original, but founded on a page or two of rules that make some sort of sense. Wouldn't it have been amazing if our hobby was founded on a set of rules that had the creativity of the original, but expressed through the sort of rational approach you'd see in the best contemporaneous board games? Like, picture D&D as written by the people who made Panzerblitz. Pretty much everyone would still be playing with the same core rules.

You appear to be confused. If what you really wanted was a cleaned up version of D&D, it's been done: Moldvay, Cook and Marsh, TSR Hobbies, 1981.

That can have that (or Tractics). You can have 4e (or Panzerblitz). You can have 3e (or Advanced Squad Leader). You can have the Dungeon! board game.

But those are very different things.

Quote from: Phillip;788907You appear to be confused. If what you really wanted was a cleaned up version of D&D, it's been done: Moldvay, Cook and Marsh, TSR Hobbies, 1981.

That can have that (or Tractics). You can have 4e (or Panzerblitz). You can have 3e (or Advanced Squad Leader). You can have the Dungeon! board game.

But those are very different things.

If I had a penny for every time some useless bore graced me with a condescending explanation of how confused I am about a 64 page book I've owned for 100 years and read a trillion times. And 4e is so non panzerblitz it is not worth explaining. I'll give you the 3e ASL analogy if you will promise to not say anything more on the subject.

The broader point that underlies what I wrote is that the whole thing — in whichever of its more or less equivalent forms (OD&D, BD&D, 1E, 2E) could have been so much clearer, coherent and more concise. There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes). There are several outstanding OSR games that have original, well engineered rules. But I don't think I've ever seen something that really cuts right to the point in this way. That is what I was thinking when I made the panzerblitz analogy. The rules for PB are fully contained on one fold out pamphlet sized document. And they are essentially compete and satisfying as is nearly 50 years after their original publication. That's what the core 'engine' of rules in D&D should look like.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788925If I had a penny for every time some useless bore graced me with a condescending explanation of how confused I am about a 64 page book I've owned for 100 years and read a trillion times. And 4e is so non panzerblitz it is not worth explaining. I'll give you the 3e ASL analogy if you will promise to not say anything more on the subject.

The broader point that underlies what I wrote is that the whole thing — in whichever of its more or less equivalent forms (OD&D, BD&D, 1E, 2E) could have been so much clearer, coherent and more concise. There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes). There are several outstanding OSR games that have original, well engineered rules. But I don't think I've ever seen something that really cuts right to the point in this way. That is what I was thinking when I made the panzerblitz analogy. The rules for PB are fully contained on one fold out pamphlet sized document. And they are essentially compete and satisfying as is nearly 50 years after their original publication. That's what the core 'engine' of rules in D&D should look like.

Well, obviously you live in a TARDIS; which might explain a historically eccentric notion of what "all the essential bases" or "the point" of D&D is. TSR got it wrong, and hundreds of thousands of players got it wrong?

And you really are after Panzerblitz, not Squad Leader. To what extent, I wonder? How much scenario flexibility are you really willing to sacrifice to get rule completeness? D&D is not a mere tactical board game, limited to a narrowly stereotyped set of possibilities.

You're going to cover "comprehensively" in just 5 pages enough to justify your claim that the original is "almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics" and BX is likewise inadequate - but your game is not like that? And it's somehow still going to be D&D?

If you're not confused, perhaps you can clear up my own confusion. What was missing that you would add? How are your elaborations privileged over those favored by fans of other editions?

Quote from: Larsdangly;788925There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes).[...] But I don't think I've ever seen something that really cuts right to the point in this way.

Indeed? (Well, as Phillip points out, for a sufficiently liberal value of "comprehensive". It does require a bit of know-how.)

Microlite was actually my game of choice for quite some time (and is still what I go back to when I feel like experimenting.)

Quote from: LibraryLass;788883The core assumptions of 5e include that many of what would otherwise be core assumptions should be adjustable options. If some of the suggested adjustments correspond to the assumptions of the OSR re: those things, then it is OSR.

Ok, but for that reasoning to be valid re:5e, then 5e must include options other then "take that out and replace it with nothing" or "rewrite that yourself".  At the present time, with regards to just two elements, healing and magic, 5e does not.  I know, I know, the DMG will be filled with options for everything (or so we are told), but as the rules stand now, they do not meet your definition of "OSR available modules make it OSR".

Quote from: Phillip;788930Well, obviously you live in a TARDIS; which might explain a historically eccentric notion of what "all the essential bases" or "the point" of D&D is. TSR got it wrong, and hundreds of thousands of players got it wrong?

And you really are after Panzerblitz, not Squad Leader. To what extent, I wonder? How much scenario flexibility are you really willing to sacrifice to get rule completeness? D&D is not a mere tactical board game, limited to a narrowly stereotyped set of possibilities.

You're going to cover "comprehensively" in just 5 pages enough to justify your claim that the original is "almost unplayable unless you make up most of the mechanics" and BX is likewise inadequate - but your game is not like that? And it's somehow still going to be D&D?

If you're not confused, perhaps you can clear up my own confusion. What was missing that you would add? How are your elaborations privileged over those favored by fans of other editions?

Somewhere in this a-grammatical babbling is a common argument: if original D&D has such sucky writing and rules structure then why is it such an awesome game? One of our hobby's deep mysteries.

My point is simpler and narrower than you might be imagining. The problem is not really additions or subtractions or the validity of standard D&D-isms like armor class or hit points or whatever. I'm fine with all that stuff. The main problem is that the rules themselves are a turgid glop of unrelated things.

Ask yourself: how do I hit something? how do I tell if I fall when I climb something steep and dangerous? how do I decide whether or not I'm strong enough to break something? If I wrestle someone, who wins? If I'm hiding, does someone notice me? If someone or something is hiding, do I notice them? And so forth. There are answers to most of these things, but they are all idiosyncratic, unrelated rules; some refer to your stats, while other similar seeming things don't; some have over-elaborate mechanics with tables and so forth; other similar things are basically DM fiat.

The details are an unbelievable mess. But we, including myself, put up with it because the underlying ideas and the basic structure of the human interaction that happens at the table are amazing. This is the unresolvable paradox of OD&D. One solution to the paradox is to declare quasi-religious undying fealty to every little booger stain on your 1974 boxed set. Another is to throw it all in the shit can and play a glossy, carefully structured, but bloated and soul-less re-hash of the game. I think the best outcome would be to have some world-striding genius re-write the original with a technical skill that matches the creativity and a total page count of something like a 64 page staple bound book. Futura 10 point, obviously.

Quote from: Larsdangly;788925The broader point that underlies what I wrote is that the whole thing — in whichever of its more or less equivalent forms (OD&D, BD&D, 1E, 2E) could have been so much clearer, coherent and more concise. There is nothing to prevent writing a D&D-like game that covers all the essential bases comprehensively in ~5 pages of rules (plus all the various spells and monsters everyone likes)..

Microlite74 3.0 Basic might come somewhat close. Microlite74 1.1 is even smaller.

Quote from: RandallS;788952Microlite74 3.0 Basic might come somewhat close. Microlite74 1.1 is even smaller.

That's certainly in the spirit of what I mean. I suppose the next trick would be to work a bit more on the creative spirit side of things and brighten it up with a bit of artwork so it feels good to take off the shelf and read.

Quote from: CRKrueger;788944Ok, but for that reasoning to be valid re:5e, then 5e must include options other then "take that out and replace it with nothing" or "rewrite that yourself".  At the present time, with regards to just two elements, healing and magic, 5e does not.  I know, I know, the DMG will be filled with options for everything (or so we are told), but as the rules stand now, they do not meet your definition of "OSR available modules make it OSR".

Okay. Conceded, at least for the next two months.

Quote from: Premier;788873While not entirely germane to the topic at large, I feel I need to pick at this. You seem to postulate that the "OSR", whatever it is, was FIRST about playing the actual old games via strict retroclones, and then LATER evolved into games which are not clones but rather properly new products with old-school sensibilities.

Lots of self-professed OSR fans seem to perpetuate that notion, but it just ain't true. The first strict retroclone was OSRIC, and it was preceded by both Encounter Critical and Mazes & Minotaurs, both of which fall firmly in the "not a clone, but with old-school sensibilities" category, and any definition of "the OSR" that excludes them would be an asinine one. The strict retroclone idea did not start the OSR, it was just one of two completely parallel motions.

Funny thing is, the Pundit has just wrote a blog post about this the other day.

Another game that wanted to bring earlier playstyles back into published work is BFRPG; it was published prior to OSRIC.

But I'm not talking about first to publish, I was more thinking about how there was a traction, an excitement, that new material could be published for expressly TSR-style games again that seemed to really take off around 2006-07 with the publishing of OSRIC.

This excitement was the first thing to really latch onto a self-label of "OSR".  But I agree with Pundit that it is really irrelevant, outside of a historical footnote.  And I don't see that footnote as diminishing all the promotion of earlier play that went before, that didn't go as far in faithful reproduction.

But I think that an examination of any depth will reveal that the intent always was, and continues to be (at least from OSRIC's perspective), that the cloned rules serve as a safe harbor for new supporting materials to be published for 1E.  Not to replace it.  Hell, I don't even think it was printed in full "game" form until after things had well and truly exploded.  There is no lack of posts by the editors in various forums recommending that people who wanted to "play OSRIC" should buy the original rules instead and use them, as they aren't expensive.

I don't understand the hostility or sneering condescension in that blog post towards creating a safe harbor for publishing new support materials expressly for 1E (or any other TSR-era game).  Sure, people did so before OSRIC, and also afterwards, but is there any real doubt that for a large number of possible authors, the threat of asserting fair use of the original trademark for compatibility purposes was a risk they didn't want to deal with?  Why is creating an alternative mark that many 1E-lovers would understand, to encourage publishing new support materials, a bad idea?

If enthusiastic people who came after that point, that established separate communities, in some way slighted Pundit or were disinterested in his efforts and credentials, does not excuse the inaccuracies he continues to promulgate about the intent of the close clones.  

What the OSR is will always be different things to different people, but I never thought that attacking people who want to support the originally published games would ever be part of it.

Is 5e osr? I dunno, probably not, but probably closer to osr than 3e/4e. It certainly has the AD&D feel, wich 3e/4e lacks.

It does follow the 3e/4e idea of having lots of options. Wich is the good thing about WotC D&D, so I'm not complaining. It doesn't seem more complicated than AD&D.

Edit to add:
1) Not sure 5e and OSR Are friends. After all Being pretty much a modernized take on classic D&D, 5e will attract gamers that wouldn't touch earlier WotC editions, meaning it will grab osr gamers and thus kinda hurt the OSR. OTOH OSR was started to give folks Pre-WotC D&D gaming and given that 5e is close enough, I'm not sure this is bad really.

2) Tired of the "anime" bullshit!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;788889I haven't played 5E yet but reading the PHB it honestly looks like it has a little bit of everything in it. Parts of the game remind me of 2E and older editions, parts resemble 3E and 4E. I think they were doing what they said and trying to get everyone, so that means it isn't going to be purely old or new school. I could definitely play 5E. But there are a couple of bits I don't care for.

If I may echo this...

I feel the same way. And though I really do very much like older editions, I'm wondering if I should have just gone with the basic 5E rules for our current group. Some of the things they want, things we have modified out BFRPG campaign to reflect, are already in 5E. For example:

1)Backgrounds
2) Specialties
3) Combat Options (with some weapon specialization)
4) Making PCs slightly harder to off (we went with MaxHP at every level, at 0, you're dead [no "death save]).
5) More spells desired by players with casters.

Most of this is handled via 5E already. In retrospect, feel like we might should have just used the Basic packet. It's not entirely the same thing as BFRPG, but I feel like my players might have preferred it in the long run. We'll see. We've only run 3 sessions, so we'll see how it goes when they hit 3rd, where the Specialties kick in and they get some of their first options.

I tried to reply to this great post earlier but this week was kinda crazy.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655I definitely agree here.

I'm in a kind of weird position when it comes to the OSR because although I've written a couple of retro-clones that other people have referred to as being part of the OSR, I don't consider myself part of that movement.

If writing a retro-clone doiesn't qualify as "being part of the OSR" I don't know what does.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655To use Armchair Gamer's excellent categorisation, most of the OSR prefers to play Knaves & Kobolds (and can often get quite One-True-Way about it) whereas my favoured play style is Galactic Dragons and Godwars.

Blimey, that's an awesome breakdown. Awesome enough that I'm spinning this off into a thread of its own.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655Consequently, although I prefer the older TSR editions to the WotC ones (until recently my favourite edition was BECMI), I don't feel that the OSR represents me and my taste in games.

I don't think so, unless I've woefully misunderstood just what "Galactic Dragons & God Wars" means, in which case I'll be only to happy to be corrected. Blair's Planet Algol and Aos' Metal Earth; Anomalous Subsurface Environment; DCC, AS&SH and their respective modules; Fantastic Heroes & Witchery; nearly everything Jeff Rients has ever blogged about; hell, even Dwimmermount has its moments. There's more gonzo, pulpy, science fantasy D&D goodness out there than you can shake one of Jack Kirby's cigars at.

In fact, next time I run D&D, this is what I want to tackle.

In any case, since you've already shown willingness to put your money where your mouth is in the recent past (love DD and Masks is my favorite FASERIP retro-clone, BTW), have you ever considered writing some OSR-friendly GD&GW modules, or even a setting?

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;788655Having said that, I'm currently loving 5e. I'm DMing two campaigns currently - one using a series of BECMI adventures in Mystara and the other using a series of AD&D adventures in Greyhawk - and I'm finding that although the presentation is very "new school", the feel of the game is close to classic BECMI.

In fact at the moment, 5e has overtaken even my own Dark Dungeons as my favourite edition!

Here I become intrigued, because 5e comes across as a fairly different game from BECMI/RC.

(1) In which way(s) do you feel 5e "feels close" to BECMI/RC? I have yet to play it but my reading impression was "3e lite" and/or C&C.

(2) What advantages do you feel 5e offers over BECMI/RC?

Quote from: Larsdangly;788947Somewhere in this a-grammatical babbling is a common argument:

Somewhere in your contumely, between the contemptuous "useless" and the absurd "a-grammatical," is an abandonment of any just expectation of being taken seriously.

Quoteif4 original D&D has such sucky writing and rules structure then why is it such an awesome game? One of our hobby's deep mysteries.

Only if one grants both predicate premises.

QuoteMy point is simpler and narrower than you might be imagining. The problem is not really additions or subtractions or the validity of standard D&D-isms like armor class or hit points or whatever. I'm fine with all that stuff. The main problem is that the rules themselves are a turgid glop of unrelated things.

Ask yourself: how do I hit something?

The referee has Men Attacking and Monsters Attacking matrices. They fit on a letter-size page along with Saving Throws and Clerics vs. Undead. Another page can hold the Reaction table and other commonly used data. Such notes see less reference as the material becomes familiar through use.
 

Quotehow do I tell if I fall when I climb something steep and dangerous? how do I decide whether or not I'm strong enough to break something? If I wrestle someone, who wins? If I'm hiding, does someone notice me? If someone or something is hiding, do I notice them? And so forth.

"And so forth " proceeds not only from 56 pages to 360, but to infinity. That's the first part of the paradox that makes you seem confused. The implication, if you're not going to be subject to the same complaint about "needing to make up most of the rules," is heading down the road that leads through AD&D, RuneQuest and Champions to 3/4/5e D&D.

The other roads lead either to the board-game neighborhood of Panzerblitz (rules comprehensive because whatever does not fit is simply excluded), or the Forgista expressway (rules comprehensive because the game is reduced to pure mathematical abstractions).

Either way, we're talking about a different game.

OD&D provides stereotyped formalisms for key things, by design leaving countless others up to referee judgement. This reflects the priority of the "role-playing" game over the abstract game. If you have different priorities, there are many different games on the market!

QuoteThere are answers to most of these things, but they are all idiosyncratic, unrelated rules; some refer to your stats, while other similar seeming things don't; some have over-elaborate mechanics with tables and so forth; other similar things are basically DM fiat.

The details are an unbelievable mess.

Opinions are like navels; everybody has one. I say the 1981 edition is quite orderly, and very easy to play precisely because it so elegantly addresses the essentials without a clutter of needless rules.

QuoteBut we, including myself, put up with it because the underlying ideas and the basic structure of the human interaction that happens at the table are amazing. This is the unresolvable paradox of OD&D. One solution to the paradox is to declare quasi-religious undying fealty to every little booger stain on your 1974 boxed set. Another is to throw it all in the shit can and play a glossy, carefully structured, but bloated and soul-less re-hash of the game.

Another is just to play the game actually intended. If you're spiteful toward that, then go do whatever rocks your boat and cut the crap.

Trouble with you crusaders is, everybody's got a different One True Way. All you're ever going to accomplish is pissing off one majority after another.

Give it a rest. Accept that diversity delivers more happiness. Let each game be itself, and be a player instead of a put-downer.

QuoteI think the best outcome would be to have some world-striding genius re-write the original with a technical skill that matches the creativity and a total page count of something like a 64 page staple bound book. Futura 10 point, obviously.

Who could be the Moses to lead us to the Promised Land after 40 years of wandering in the desert? See ya when you're done writing it, oh world-striding genius.

Quote from: Phillip;789032Somewhere in your contumely, ...

You are acting like a fucking dick. And, unlike TBP, this is a place where I can just tell you that without having to join your douche bag debating club.