Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:22:26 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 12, 2023, 10:57:01 AM
Not everyone who is a fan of older systems likes them because they refuse to try anything new.

I've never claimed otherwise.

I have however had people try to explain how I just haven't tried 'proper' OSR play as if I'd never tried Basic or AD&D before.

Every single time without fail any topic involving criticism of old D&D (or praise of it that gets criticized by one of the four, maybe five people tops in these boards who're ever critical of it) at the bare minimum Steven Mitchell has to bring up Chesterton's Fence, like almost every single regular or semi-regular poster in this forum hasn't played older editions of D&D, if not B/X outright (the edition I was introduced into the hobby with), and is proposing changing things without knowing why they're there. Hell, I can't even think of anyone who's posted here recently who hasn't tried older editions of D&D, other than maybe Fheredin and (I think) weirdguy.

It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 02:29:59 PM

What do you see as the benefits of randomization?

I personally prefer randomization when I don't want to have a lot of control over my character. When I want a lot of control over my character, then I'll use non-random methods.

Not that I agree with him - but that's also Pundit's point in the video of the OP. He suggests that not having control over the character is vital to immersion. I just see random-roll as a flavor I sometimes prefer. I'm curious about Pundit's own Lords of Olympus, which is diceless not only for character creation but also for play.

For me, not having control over all aspects of the character creation is useful, but it's an 80/20 thing for me.  Give up 20% of the control, get 80% of the benefits.  Skip out on the last 20% of random side benefits, also gain most of the benefits of having some control (though not the full benefits of more wide spread control, obviously).

Immersion to me is not a big deal, either with or without control.  I see the benefits more in the lines of time, guiding players, exploring options, and general imagination.  Others may see a direct link for immersion and imagination, but they've always been separate for me.

To be more specific, I've run games with too many players that aren't all that good at manipulating a system to get the character they want, or even "settled on".  Many casual players need guard rails. If the system doesn't provide the rails, then someone else--the GM, a friendly other player in the group, etc---has to do it.  It's not the way I want to spend my time as a GM, and you can't always count on the friendly player being that interested in doing the job.  Even when you do have the GM and savvy players involved, even in a game of GURPS or Fantasy Hero or some other wide open setup--half the time the player has a difficult time deciding what they want or expressing it.  In general, players are good at saying what they do or don't like, but not good at explaining why or working out the details. 

Then when you do kind of get such players comfortable with the huge list of options, what they typically do is focus on a handful of things that they've liked in the past, and do those all the times.  I've explicitly heard many times, "I'd like to play a character that does, X, Y, Z, but I've never done one before, and it seems too complicated."  It's much more rare for a casual player to be up for something new all the time.  (Sometimes casuals get blamed for being in a rut because they don't want to do anything else, but my experience is that as often as not, it's that they are hesitant to make a leap into something new because of the perceived learning curve.)  I also have a few exceptions that prove the rule.  They make it rather stark in contrast.

There is very much a sense in which classes should be "what the players will play anyway".  Which is why it's not an accident that some people have gone through the trouble to build characters in Hero, then make the characters classes for a game.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM
It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

No, you just have shit taste.  Which is fine.  Lot's of people like Outback Steakhouse, and I'm happy for them, and I hope they enjoy every steak.  But if I want a good steak, I'm not going to them for advice on how to cook one.  Just like I'm not going to any fan of D&D 4e for advice on how to write an immersive TTRPG (how to write a tactical skirmish game might get them a little more of a hearing on my part, but I don't need one of those right now).

I'm just as entitled to my opinion that your taste in games is garbage as you are entitled your opinion that OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory.  Of course, we're both discussing this on an OSR-themed message board...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 04:05:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM
It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

No, you just have shit taste.  Which is fine.  Lot's of people like Outback Steakhouse, and I'm happy for them, and I hope they enjoy every steak.  But if I want a good steak, I'm not going to them for advice on how to cook one.  Just like I'm not going to any fan of D&D 4e for advice on how to write an immersive TTRPG (how to write a tactical skirmish game might get them a little more of a hearing on my part, but I don't need one of those right now).

I'm just as entitled to my opinion that your taste in games is garbage as you are entitled your opinion that OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory.  Of course, we're both discussing this on an OSR-themed message board...

The difference being, I'm saying that the OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory FOR ME. I am not calling your opinions objectively wrong for disagreeing with me. You are, and that's some weak sauce SJW reasoning there; "Eating bugs is objectively the best. If you don't like eating bugs you have shit taste and your opinions about food are invalid."

If your opinion was anything more than personal preference you wouldn't need to resort to name-calling and trying to declare opposing opinions illegitimate; you'd be arguing the merits of your position.

For example, I can argue that in addition to Array and Point Buy options, 4E also included the option to roll your stats just like every other edition of D&D and there's nothing stopping you from using them in the order rolled and picking a race and class based off the results. The only thing keeping that from being the way a given table plays is that table's preferences.

Similarly, I've played it as Theatre-of-the-Mind since practically the beginning and it runs just as well as any version of D&D in theatre of the mind does in my experience. Once you internalize that a "square" is just "5 feet" its as easy to do as any WotC editions increments of 5' distances and OSR's measurements in inches (AoEs are just as much judgement calls too... Blast 3 (a 15' long by 15' wide spray out out from the caster) is just a 15' cone from other editions and just as easy to ajudicate.

"But there's no roleplaying"? I thought Rulings not Rules was a good thing? How many pages of rules does OD&D devote to social interactions again? 4E's skill system is every bit as developed as TSRs, has frameworks and advice (i.e. how to make rulings) for resolving non-combat elements and has transparent math so its easy for the DM to figure out how difficult the encounter they're creating will be for their party (if you want a TPK, you can certainly place a TPK... you just can't pretend it wasn't deliberate in 4E).

They get too many hit points? They start higher sure, but 4E has the lowest hit point totals of any WotC edition and, with the way they adjusted damage modifiers back in 3e, some extra starting hit points were needed just to achieve parity in survivability with the TSR editions... I won't bore you with the math, but a starting 4E PC facing off against Kobolds and Dire Rats will go down in about the same number of hits as their TSR equivalent... and the 4E PCs advance in hit points more slowly (they don't get 100% of their starting hit points every level, they get about +20% of their staring hit points with every additional level) while monster damage escalates more quickly than in the TSR editions.

"Their encounter powers only being useable once per fight and fighters with daily powers makes no sense?" Then only allowing the Essentials martial classes (Knight, Slayer, Thief, Scout, Hunter and Executioner) is easy enough for a GM to declare and resolves that matter entirely.

"There are too many feats/classes/etc." Core only (though Essentials only would give you a much more AD&D-like feel) is a thing ANY DM can do and Essentials pared the Feat list down to a very manageable number (if you used only Essentials "Heroes of Fallen Kingdom" you'd have only simple Fighters and Thieves, plus spellcasting Clerics and Wizards for classes, and only Humans, Dwarves, Elves and Halflings for races... sounds like exactly the sort of limits the OSR loves).

The main reason I prefer 4E though is that it doesn't require any house-ruling at all to run a no-magic setting (I mean you can kinda run it with prior editions, but without magical healing you're going to be facing a lot of downtime to regain hit points... which are supposed to be mostly skill, stamina and luck past the first hit die or so worth of hit points.

It is also super-easy for the GM to set limits on specific races and classes without needing to worry about all the unintended consequences of removing core classes like the cleric and wizard (4E Dark Sun worked amazingly well with no magic items and no Divine classes needed, again because of its solid design work).

You also don't have every fighter in the party trying to get into plate mail at the earliest opportunity and setting where medieval plate armor just isn't available aren't going to skew the game math such that a GM needs to pay more attention what they're putting the PCs up against.

In other words, I've found it to be a far better system for low-to-no magic (for the PCs anyway) swords & sorcery (or sandals) type campaigns in my experience... particularly if you plan around only running until about level or so and allow the simple Essentials classes for those who do only want to "hit it with their sword."

I mean, if you want to do something like Conan (i.e. all the PCs are non-spellcaster warrior types) in the OSR you're basically running Fighters and Thieves, maybe Rangers, Assassins and Monks if you're doing AD&D. 4E has Fighters, Knights, Slayers, Rangers, Scouts, Hunters, Rogues, Thieves, Warlords, Executioners, Berserkers and some Skald builds as class options, so everyone can be mechanically distinct as well as distinct in their backstories and personalities.

And again, 4E is not perfect by any stretch, but its done the best job delivering what I'm looking for in a tabletop fantasy RPG of any of the editions of D&D out there.

I don't expect this to change the minds of anyone; you have your preferences just as I have mine. I just felt like highlighting how "your taste is shit" is just an opinion with no evidence provided to support it that is being paraded as objective fact whereas I can speak at length of actual reasons why, in my opinion, 4E offers aspects I find far more enjoyable.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:19:57 PM
The difference being, I'm saying that the OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory FOR ME. I am not calling your opinions objectively wrong for disagreeing with me. You are, and that's some weak sauce SJW reasoning there; "Eating bugs is objectively the best. If you don't like eating bugs you have shit taste and your opinions about food are invalid."

Obviously, your shit taste is only your second biggest issue, since your reading comprehension is definitely your biggest.  I said nothing like what you are arguing against.  I never used the word "objectively" once.  In fact, your entire rant is nothing but straw men.  Now, if you'd like to discuss all the reasons I think 4e fails as a good TTRPG, start a thread (since this isn't the topic of this one) and I'll be happy to oblige.  But, considering your bias against D&D (from your DM "trauma "... Lol), I'm thinking it will serve very little purpose, since you either can't read what I wrote, or only intend to argue with the voices in your head ('cause it sure as heck wasn't my words you were arguing against).

Oh, and pro tip:  if you have to argue that the game doesn't have an issue because the DM can "fix" it by the way they run, as opposed to the rules of the game, you've already conceded the point...

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 09, 2023, 11:40:59 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 09, 2023, 09:32:13 PM
Randomization adds an outside factor. It is God playing dice with the universe.

"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein

Not everyone is looking to be "liberated" from their preferences, particularly when they've lived long enough to figure out what their preferences are by doing enough of everything to figure out what you do and don't like.

Because I've tried all the RNG I've cared to over four decades and found little to no enjoyment in any variety. I've looked at what you consider enjoyable and would honestly prefer sitting alone at home watching reruns to your "liberation."

My experience tells me RNGs don't encourage creative anything... players just pick whichever class best fits the results and if they really can't stand the PC they suicide them at the earliest opportunity for another spin on the RNG lotto machine... which just wastes everyone's precious time when you've only got a few hours a week to actually run or play something because of everyone's real lives.

There's nothing creative in "my Intelligence is my highest score, I guess I have to play a wizard again." Having a PC you don't have any investment in because you had no real decisions to make in creating them isn't going magically make people invest themselves further into a game.

It works for you, and I'm happy it works for you, but its not for me. Not everyone likes the same things. There is no one size fits all method of gaming that will appeal to everyone.

I've got four decades of gaming under my belt so don't bother with any sort of appeal to my inexperience... "real socialismRNG character generation hasn't been tried yet." Uh huh, sure.

The OSR playstyle is not for me. It wasn't 35 years ago and it certainly isn't now. There's only one edition of D&D that ever truly spoke to me (martial heroes in light armor with codified mechanics for doing more than "I hit it with my sword"? Spellcasters whose magic works like it does in most fantasy stories? Yes please) and its the one I know you most hate.

That alone should be proof enough that people are so different that your claim to having so

Yeah, that's proof enough that you don't understand D&D, and therefore RPGs. "Lived long enough to know the preference of what you like and don't" just means that you haven't learned much about life, and have no idea what your own limitations are. Instead, you've glorified them.

Quote from: jhkim on June 12, 2023, 02:29:59 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 12, 2023, 11:33:08 AM

Quote from: Omega on June 12, 2023, 10:04:38 AM
I have tried alot of methods and I still like O and BX's system of shuffling points around after rolling.

Of the existing D&D editions, that's my favorite method.  The only thing I didn't completely like about it was that isn't something that necessarily translates well to another edition, with the assumptions it makes about the scale of the attributes. 

When I did my own game, I used something similar for awhile.  Then I discovered I could get 90% of what I really liked about it by allowing the player to swap any two scores after rolling.  It's not perfect, and it leaves some nuance out--but it is so easy to explain to new players, I'm wiling to make that trade.

In the larger subject about choices, this is another thing that matters to me.  I like simple choices with big implications.  It's a lot of control over the kind of character you are going to play while still getting most of the benefits of randomized character ability scores.

What do you see as the benefits of randomization?

I personally prefer randomization when I don't want to have a lot of control over my character. When I want a lot of control over my character, then I'll use non-random methods.

Not that I agree with him - but that's also Pundit's point in the video of the OP. He suggests that not having control over the character is vital to immersion. I just see random-roll as a flavor I sometimes prefer. I'm curious about Pundit's own Lords of Olympus, which is diceless not only for character creation but also for play.

Lords of Olympus was inspired by Amber diceless, and in both those games character creation is one that randomizes character creation, only in a different way. You have to bet against the other players for the rankings of the attributes; this means that you can have a plan of what type of character you want to have, but that plan will never go exactly as you desired (with one exception: you could just refuse to bid and then buy-up, but that GUARANTEES that your character will not be the best at absolutely anything, which specifically thwarts the type of CharOp Powergaming bullshit that most people who hate randomization are actually obsessed with). In point-buy games or certain shit editions of D&D, the charop guy will always be able to make the best character (and in essence force everyone else to either make the best character or put up with the other guy breaking the immersion for the meta purpose of 'being the best'), but in LoO trying to control against random elements means that if you take this path and there are 5 players you're likely to end up having 4 other players who can kick your ass at something.

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:22:26 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 12, 2023, 10:57:01 AM
Not everyone who is a fan of older systems likes them because they refuse to try anything new.

I've never claimed otherwise.

I have however had people try to explain how I just haven't tried 'proper' OSR play as if I'd never tried Basic or AD&D before.

Every single time without fail any topic involving criticism of old D&D (or praise of it that gets criticized by one of the four, maybe five people tops in these boards who're ever critical of it) at the bare minimum Steven Mitchell has to bring up Chesterton's Fence, like almost every single regular or semi-regular poster in this forum hasn't played older editions of D&D, if not B/X outright (the edition I was introduced into the hobby with), and is proposing changing things without knowing why they're there. Hell, I can't even think of anyone who's posted here recently who hasn't tried older editions of D&D, other than maybe Fheredin and (I think) weirdguy.

It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

OK, I'll bite. Explain the argument for why D&D is doing what it's doing and why it's so good at what it does. Otherwise, you're actually just the guy who hates the fence, and wants to tear it down because you think it's only there to oppress you. You're exactly the reason why Chesterton's Fence was thought up.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:19:57 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 12, 2023, 04:05:45 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 12, 2023, 03:09:44 PM
It can't possibly be that we tried old ed D&D and it just didn't do what we wanted from it. Or that we want things from RPGs that are antithetical to what old ed D&D have to offer. We must be ignorant fuck wits who haven't drowned enough in lack of options and historically revisionist OSR notions of old ed D&D, like pure forcible randomness that never truly existed.

No, you just have shit taste.  Which is fine.  Lot's of people like Outback Steakhouse, and I'm happy for them, and I hope they enjoy every steak.  But if I want a good steak, I'm not going to them for advice on how to cook one.  Just like I'm not going to any fan of D&D 4e for advice on how to write an immersive TTRPG (how to write a tactical skirmish game might get them a little more of a hearing on my part, but I don't need one of those right now).

I'm just as entitled to my opinion that your taste in games is garbage as you are entitled your opinion that OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory.  Of course, we're both discussing this on an OSR-themed message board...

The difference being, I'm saying that the OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory FOR ME. I am not calling your opinions objectively wrong for disagreeing with me. You are, and that's some weak sauce SJW reasoning there; "Eating bugs is objectively the best. If you don't like eating bugs you have shit taste and your opinions about food are invalid."

If your opinion was anything more than personal preference you wouldn't need to resort to name-calling and trying to declare opposing opinions illegitimate; you'd be arguing the merits of your position.

Except his opinion on the value of real D&D vs 4e is objectively proven by the relative catastrophic failure that 4e was compared to LITERALLY EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D. You clearly like the shit game that everyone else thought was garbage, because you are in some way defective as a human being. Given what I know about most other people who loved that edition, and how much that correlated with their hatred of D&D specifically but also the hobby in general, I can guess at  the rest. People who like 4e and hate the OSR are objectively bad humans.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 13, 2023, 12:27:09 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 12, 2023, 11:19:57 PM
The difference being, I'm saying that the OSR and OD&D is unsatisfactory FOR ME. I am not calling your opinions objectively wrong for disagreeing with me. You are, and that's some weak sauce SJW reasoning there; "Eating bugs is objectively the best. If you don't like eating bugs you have shit taste and your opinions about food are invalid."

Obviously, your shit taste is only your second biggest issue, since your reading comprehension is definitely your biggest.  I said nothing like what you are arguing against.  I never used the word "objectively" once....

[/quote]
Except his opinion on the value of real D&D vs 4e is objectively proven by the relative catastrophic failure that 4e was compared to LITERALLY EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D. You clearly like the shit game that everyone else thought was garbage, because you are in some way defective as a human being. Given what I know about most other people who loved that edition, and how much that correlated with their hatred of D&D specifically but also the hobby in general, I can guess at  the rest. People who like 4e and hate the OSR are objectively bad humans.
[/quote]

While I wouldn't go that far, I do think that 4E does much better at being a tactical small scale wargame than being D&D. In fact any edition which doesn't feature treasure as the main objective has gotten away from the intent of the original game. It doesn't mean that these games are not fun for those that enjoy them, it simply means that these systems somewhat resemble D&D as opposed to being the genuine game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 13, 2023, 06:58:51 AM

While I wouldn't go that far, I do think that 4E does much better at being a tactical small scale wargame than being D&D. In fact any edition which doesn't feature treasure as the main objective has gotten away from the intent of the original game. It doesn't mean that these games are not fun for those that enjoy them, it simply means that these systems somewhat resemble D&D as opposed to being the genuine game.

4E has some good design elements and some good developed parts--marred by the schizophrenic design direction, some development fails, and bad advice.  In short, it doesn't know what it wants to be, and that gets in the way of what it does well, and could have done better under more lucid direction.  Of course, I could say that generically to some extent about 3E, 3.5, and 5E too--if not in the same parts.  It's just not quite so stark.  No doubt the leaders of 6E will manage to make some of the same mistakes in their own ways.

The one thing that really stands out about the process of 4E being made was that the vision had some courage--and then when it came time to follow through, their nerve failed them.  Thus the page after page of the same powers developed on a narrow slice of approved symmetry and the bravado of the marketing plan.  They knew they'd jumped off the high dive and chickened out halfway down.  I'll still give them credit for actually jumping.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 13, 2023, 06:58:51 AM
While I wouldn't go that far, I do think that 4E does much better at being a tactical small scale wargame than being D&D. In fact any edition which doesn't feature treasure as the main objective has gotten away from the intent of the original game. It doesn't mean that these games are not fun for those that enjoy them, it simply means that these systems somewhat resemble D&D as opposed to being the genuine game.

  I think even those who appreciate 4E will admit that it's not very good at 'being D&D' in the OSR sense, although I would make the counterargument that it's closer in some ways to the way the game was marketed from 1983 to 1996. But as an "objectively bad human," what is my input worth? 

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 13, 2023, 08:07:36 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 13, 2023, 06:58:51 AM
While I wouldn't go that far, I do think that 4E does much better at being a tactical small scale wargame than being D&D. In fact any edition which doesn't feature treasure as the main objective has gotten away from the intent of the original game. It doesn't mean that these games are not fun for those that enjoy them, it simply means that these systems somewhat resemble D&D as opposed to being the genuine game.

  I think even those who appreciate 4E will admit that it's not very good at 'being D&D' in the OSR sense, although I would make the counterargument that it's closer in some ways to the way the game was marketed from 1983 to 1996. But as an "objectively bad human," what is my input worth? 

4E is at once an example of less choices make an RPG play better and also an example of less choices make people not want to play it.  Very focused design can really work well. It won't appeal to people outside the focus.   It's arguable that 4E with even less choices would have been a better game.  I'd certainly say it would have been a better base on which to expand with some different choices.

I've been beating this drum for years. The more choices player's get, the worse the characters come out and the harder it is for the GM to make a decent game that's fun for everyone.

There are always exceptions, sure there is the rare individual who is really good at making compelling characters, but most of the time systems like GURPS or Hero result in awful characters.

Fully fleshed out characters are best built from the adventures and experiences of the campaign.