Quote from: SilverlionAt least they are adding to the hobby. I'm a bit annoyed by the way people react to someones creative efforts--after all they did this, most likely knowing how little money they would make, and in fact making it so OTHER people could even do some small things (and maybe make a fiver now and then.)

Tim, maybe you identify with the project because you have a one-man company. Perhaps not. I think I can see where you are coming from and I can respect that.

However, it's not like people are reacting that strongly. There are hundreds of RPG projects that are assessed all the time... why should this one be different? If I happen to think it is pointless, is it so bad? Grub thinks it rocks. People will have different opinions.

I'm on a forum talking about RPGs, so are you. Sometimes I express views about games and companies and initiatives. Those views are sometimes very positive, sometimes less so. It is that way for most people. If you never express anything but positive comments to someone's creative efforts, to use your words, I respect that. But that's not my thing. I speak of the good, the bad and the in-between as I see it.

In the case of LL, I think nothing particularly scathing was said, except perhaps a comment by myself that the thing is (visually) fucking repulsive to my tastes. The author came here and doesn't seem to mind the comments too much. Judging by the way he formulated his response, it looks like it's not the first time he's heard that. I'm not saying that makes me right and that makes LL wrong. I'm saying nothing expressed here was outrageous and no "hate" was spilled. I direct you to any number of threads concerning "swines" or "Bruce Baugh" or "Forgites" to get a real taste of hate.

I appreciate that you like this particular initiative and find it creative. I don't. It's great that we're both able to express such an opinion, and it makes your opinion matter even more to LL's designer. Because on this website, he'll know he gets brutally honest opinions of all kinds.

Quote from: Cab.,.. Of course, you know that Moldvay/Cook was never completed don't you? The whole reason it only goes to 14 is because that companion set never got published? ....

Yes, I know that the Cook Expert rules mention a single 'Companion' set that was to cover levels 15-36.  But it's my impression that the Companion set was meant to be a kind of optional 'addendum' to the rules for people who wanted to progress that far.  In contrast, BECMI treats levels 15-36 as part of the 'standard arc'.

Reading the Cook Expert rules one gets the impression that once PCs have set up dominions, etc., they're pretty much epic heroes and ready to retire.  In contrast, BECMI builds in the quest for level 36 and immortalhood as part of the standard game.  The CMI sets also coincide with changes in the tone and feel of the 'Known World' setting that I really dislike (e.g. Alphatia).

There's just a different 'feel' to the two sets of rules, IMO and IME.

Quote from: Haffrung... Personally, the fact that 37 people have paid $8 for a PDF in no way satisfies me that I'm likely to get a professional-quality product out of the deal. So I fail to see the difference between tiny-niche-market PDFs and free shit...

:rolleyes:

Well, I've seen some professional looking OSRIC print products (from ERP) in the main Toronto gamestore, so I think that your understanding of the market for such products (and the production quality of them) is somewhat incorrect.

Quote from: Akrasia:rolleyes:

Well, I've seen some professional looking OSRIC print products (from ERP) in the main Toronto gamestore, so I think that your understanding of the market for such products (and the production quality of them) is somewhat incorrect.

Hey...links?

The game that fueled my understanding and enjoyment of D&D is one of the biggest reasons that three core books of rules at $65 and the time to learn them is worth it to me.  It's heartening to hear of projects like this even if I'm not one of the people that's being marketed to.  This isn't that much different to me then what the Pundit himself was trying to accomplish with FtA!  To reach people that don't have the resources or experience to bother learning the games readily available to them on the shelves.

Quote from: grubmanHey...links?

Try here: http://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/page/page/2561954.htm

Quote from: Consonant DudeHowever, it's not like people are reacting that strongly. There are hundreds of RPG projects that are assessed all the time... why should this one be different? If I happen to think it is pointless, is it so bad? Grub thinks it rocks. People will have different opinions.

Right, so why take so much time and effort on one that didn't capture your imagination? I'm not annoyed at you specifically. It just seems that this time, might be better used on something you do like.


Or perhaps on writing a nice constructive criticism to the creator, saying what you liked, and what might be better. (Like your repulsion by the art.)

QuoteIf you never express anything but positive comments to someone's creative efforts, to use your words, I respect that. But that's not my thing. I speak of the good, the bad and the in-between as I see it.

No I speak the bad sometimes too. (Mostly out of some frustration with  stated intent, and actual product: Re: Gamma World d20, and Blue Rose)

Part of the frustration I have is a certain annoyance with  "anti-gamer/gamer things", that certain posters (mostly on Big Purple), take.

If one doesn't like something, that's cool, but what outcome are they wishing to effect? In making that opinion known? That's where a greater issue sits to me--if one genuinely means to aim for seeing improved products that is one thing. But to me constructive feedback is far better, than just complaints.

Of course a lot of things depend on the person, subjective things (art for example) are personal. I know for example I LOATHED Tribe 8's art, LOATHED it, but I've heard people rave about.

There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion, until of course one has spent, message after message after message arguing a course no one but that poster wants to here, and  something that poster wasn't even interested in the first place.

As a game writer, I've discovered a few things. One--some people give feedback you don't want to hear, but is good.

Then some people are just whining, because they have a voice, with nothing useful, or beneficial to be gained from their opinion, by anyone.

I find the first one invaluable, I find the second one--a waste of time and resources and worthy of ignoring, (and if I were the type ridicule.)


I discovered this in playtesting ages ago. At the time I had a contract to publish  a fantasy RPG I'd written with a company (rather than doing it myself)
That company use its choice of playtesters whose advice varied from completely, fucking, worthless--to very useful, good, solid ideas on improving things.

I've not always been in the latter camp, to my shame. Yet I've discovered it works a lot better to get game products I do want, do like, and appreciate by aiming at that style and focus.  

So honestly what is the point in expressing a negative opinion, on something you weren't interested in to begin with, and why should the creator/creators--care?

(This isn't rhetorical, but at the same time, its not just aimed at you specifically CD, but on the general style of input of that sort.)

Quote from: HaffrungFrankly, I haven't seen any evidence that the commercial adventures published using these OGL-compliant systems are any better than the dreck that you can find for free anywhere on the net. And if OSRIC and LL don't facilitate the publication of adventures that are more professionally written and designed than the free stuff you can find on DF, then what's the point?

Now, now, why I don't believe OSRIC et al are required to publish old school modules, I have been very happy with the products of Expeditious Retreat Press: Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom, in particular, is the best new adventure I have seen since Necromancer's Tomb of Abysthor (and that was back in 2001). Likewise, Monsters of Myth, although not an adventure, is a very good tome of original creatures... I was impressed despite the fact that I usually don't find new monster books useful. Other products didn't live up to the quality of these offerings. I didn't like the modules Ronin Arts did, and reports indicate other publishers are also responsible for lackluster content. Still, the potential is there, and if these games result in something good, I'm all for them.

Quote from: HaffrungFirst off, there's no creativity involved. By your own admission, these aren't new systems. I just question whether the tiny size of the potential market justifies the labour that went into OSRIC, BFRPG, and LL. And if the authors realize the market is tiny, why make a tool for commercial adventures in the first place? Personally, the fact that 37 people have paid $8 for a PDF in no way satisfies me that I'm likely to get a professional-quality product out of the deal. So I fail to see the difference between tiny-niche-market PDFs and free shit.

Once you have tiny markets, along with a culture of support-group solidarity in the subculture (as we see in old-school D&D online community), creative enterprises lose the whole market winner/loser dynamic that many of us rely on to aid us in our purchasing decisions.

Sometimes I encounter a statement that I disagree with in so many ways, its hard to work out where to start. The above comment is one of those statements

Of course there is creativity involved, just less than if coming up with an entirely new system and setting.

You can question whether the labour involved was worth it all you like, but as it wasn't your labour that decision has nothing to do with you anyway.
Ditto making a tool for commercial adventures.

The whole market winner/loser thing... What are you, man or sheep? Why are you even into RPGs if you care about what the 'market' says you should like? You're in a minority hobby, and it is one more riddled with disagreements on whats the best way of tying shoelaces than you'll never find. So what it isn't the big selling game, that doesn't tell you which is the best product anyway.

Hi, Gob. Gam. thanks for stopping in! For what its worth, I think you've done a good job with LL. I was skeptical to begin with, but I'm won over. A couple of your points there are worth commenting on though:

Quote from: Goblinoid Games2. If I wanted to play classic I'd go buy the books from ebay. Why should I play Labyrinth Lord?

Answer: I've found that many people who say this are not really interested in playing classic anyway, but let's assume you are. I recommend going to eBay and buying the classic books. Later, if you hear of material published for LL that interests you, consider buying it for your classic game.

I'm not sure about that claim; I've heard people saying 'I could get the PDF or hard copy of Mentzer basic, or the RC, why would I get LL?' too, and for the most part they've been people well into classic. The other part of your point I think is the key; if LL brings us good material that is classic compatible you've got a winner, I'll buy it.

Quote3. I want to play classic, but my group won't play a "dead" game. What can Labyrinth Lord do for me?

Answer: I'm glad you asked. I hear this a lot. The #1 goal of Labyrinth Lord is to provide an avenue of product support for people playing classic. The next important goal for LL is relevant to this question. I want LL to help expand the audience for classic, for people who may have never played, people who used to play, or people who still play but are trying to recruite new blood. Labyrinth Lord is in print, and due to the ever greater ease and quality of print on demand, Labyrinth Lord will be in print forever. Yes, that's right, forever. Or until WWIII and we nuke ourselves into some post-apocalyptic jelly. It doesn't matter to me if it makes money, because that is not why I went to this effort, so it's availability does not hinge on whether it is profitable. You can take LL to your group and say, "Look, here is a 'living game' we can play." Now, if you can later talk your group into playing the "real thing," great! ]

In practical terms though, the distinction between 'in print' and 'out of print' is getting more and more narrow. You can pick up a PDF for a couple of quid and get it printed and bound cheaply; how long before theres an online service where you send your PDF, you pay, a book comes through your letterbox? Actuallty, isn't there one already? So... I get what you're saying, but I think that you're making too much of it.

And I've never had trouble persuading people to play classic D&D. You can struggle with both editions of TSR AD&D, but classic is the original (near as dammit) and that baits people in.

Quote from: AkrasiaYes, I know that the Cook Expert rules mention a single 'Companion' set that was to cover levels 15-36.  But it's my impression that the Companion set was meant to be a kind of optional 'addendum' to the rules for people who wanted to progress that far.  In contrast, BECMI treats levels 15-36 as part of the 'standard arc'.

Hard to say, as it was never published. We know that the companion to Moldvay/Cook would have had more thief abilities, spells of higher levels, cool stuff for clerics and fighters... In essence, a lot of what we got in the companion set.

I tend to view the Mentzer Companion as being very similar; Masters really only gave us a few extra details, its Companion that expanded the scope of the game in a way that can't have been far different to what Moldvay/Cook would have given us.

QuoteReading the Cook Expert rules one gets the impression that once PCs have set up dominions, etc., they're pretty much epic heroes and ready to retire.  In contrast, BECMI builds in the quest for level 36 and immortalhood as part of the standard game.  The CMI sets also coincide with changes in the tone and feel of the 'Known World' setting that I really dislike (e.g. Alphatia).

There's just a different 'feel' to the two sets of rules, IMO and IME.

Alphatia? As envisaged in the CM level modules its an almost mythic place; its Atlantis, you never go there, its over the sea and almost mythical, and more 'classic' in that respect would be hard to imagine. That changed much later with the GAZ product line.

As for whether up to 36 is standard... Well, hardly. You still gain a 'name' for yourself at level 9, name level is still the divide. High level and very high level games still remain optional.

Nothing wrong with Moldvay/Cook in my opinion. I think that it is clear that Mentzer basic was designed to bring people into the game, its a simple introduction and it was fabulously successful in its goal. By the time the Companion set came along it was clear that the design constraints laid down in earleir editions (and which Frank Mentzer was required to design to) would be hard to make it work well up to level 36. Which of the versions you prefer the feel of (thats up to you; the material differences are slight, its only really a mood thing), BECM is a playable, well balanced and useable game from level 1 to 36, in a way that other versions of D&D have failed to come close to.

Quote from: SilverlionSo honestly what is the point in expressing a negative opinion, on something you weren't interested in to begin with, and why should the creator/creators--care?

(This isn't rhetorical, but at the same time, its not just aimed at you specifically CD, but on the general style of input of that sort.)

I'll try to respond honestly.

Part of it, of course, is just talking aloud. "Hey, that rocks", "that stinks". Someone shares  something, you talk about it.

The second part you might or might not agree but IMO, it goes far beyond the creator. That's where I think you may be viewing this a little too much as a guy who owns a small company and puts a lot of heart in products. It's not just about Dan. A community speaks its mind. Like right now, on this thread, some people are really enthusiastic about this project. They're saying options are good, the more the better. Others are saying there are already too many of those type of games. Others are saying this is very specific in its intent and thus valuable.

This is valuable for the next guy who might be thinking of doing that. He miight surf various message boards and sample opinions and come to the conclusion that there's still room for yet another one, or not. Maybe this thread will even motivate someone who had no intention to do one to try his hand! Who knows?

Maybe someones will read Grubman and jrients' responses to me focusing specifically on open gaming and how valuable this is and get the idea to do another game! Like Star Frontiers with the serial numbers filed off. A chaotic discussion with disagreements still allows you to have the finger on the pulse of a small segment.

Now, there are limits. You won't see me start threads after threads and give a new spin on "retro-swines" or whatever term I could come up with. Or begin a campaign against Dan and LL. Or anything like that.

As an example, a lot of people found D20 complicated when it first came out. And expressed it, some more strongly than others. What came out of that? To fans of D20, this was perceived as an attack. "Why don't you let me enjoy my game?" But what happened next? Some people worked on various "D20-lite" variants, allowing the conversion of D20 settings to lighter variants if one is inclined.

Anyway, I hope that clears things up that I don't want to start a crusade against LL or anything.

Quote from: MelanOther products didn't live up to the quality of these offerings. I didn't like the modules Ronin Arts did, and reports indicate other publishers are also responsible for lackluster content.

Now I haven't seen these products, so I'm only speaking in general.  I think one of the problems is that a lot of people have a goofy preconceived notion that "old school" means dumb hack and slash modules with no depth.  I'm not sure where this notion came from (although DCC and Hackmaster seem to have had a lot to do with it).  Sure, some old TSR modules were like this...but many of those were also designed for tournament play, not regular session play.

I think publishers who realize that games like OSRIC and LL aren't provided as an excuse to put out sub-standard adventures and label them as "old school" to make up for their shortcomings will have a lot of success.

Quote from: AkrasiaYes, I know that the Cook Expert rules mention a single 'Companion' set that was to cover levels 15-36.  But it's my impression that the Companion set was meant to be a kind of optional 'addendum' to the rules for people who wanted to progress that far.  In contrast, BECMI treats levels 15-36 as part of the 'standard arc'.

Just for the record, that was the impression I always got too.  When companion came out I was already playing AD&D hardcore for a number of years, but I did still pick it up...very diapointing, and obviously not what was eluded to in the previous editions.

Even by the the name "compainion" one can assume it (the original conception anyway) is something that is meant as something that goes along with the rule, not just an extension of the rules.

Thanks for the mini-review Grubman. I enjoyed reading it.

On the one hand, projects like this always strike me as cool and I enjoy seeing remnants of older games and systems still around (mostly for nostalgia purposes). Every once in a while I'm tempted to play the old games or their modern clones.

I'm surprised that there would be much interest in something like this for purposes other than nostalgia. I never really understood why people were crazy about the Rules Cyclopedia when it was put out. I had all the BECMI sets when I was younger, but they garnered little use. The basic set was used a decent amount until I learned the game, and then we all switched over to AD&D. A lot of us still bought the other boxed sets, but more for the sake of collecting than actually playing. I've read on these boards several posters talking about how they mostly used the basic rules and just added parts of AD&D in as needed, but that wasn't my experience. All of my friends and fellow gamers played AD&D and kept the basic rules in their boxes on a shelf.

I've got nothing against someone putting out an RPG product regardless of how much it actually appeals to me. Still, every so often I start thinking that perhaps there are too many games out there and that the hobby doesn't need another fantasy game, or another retro clone. (Not referring to LL specifically, but just games in general). My reasoning for this is that as time goes on, it gets harder and harder to find players for games. More and more I find people that only want to play certain games and will not try others. I start wondering if too many options are fragmenting an already small, niche hobby.