Quote from: RPGPundit;1006004The reaction table doesn't enter into it in DFD.

Why, is it houseruled away for that adventure? I mean, how do you get the reaction table to not apply?

QuoteIf you're referring to the green devil face in Tomb of Horrors, that's a huge part of the problem. Tomb of Horrors was specifically created as a pc-killing dungeon for tournament play. It was never meant to be the gold-standard archetype for D&D adventures, and it never was that in the actual real old-school period.

That much I agree with:).

QuoteThe problem was a bunch of assholes who weren't actually there, some of whom spent decades shitting on D&D as white-wolf fans (or even writers), decided there was fame and money to be gained from hitching their wagon to the old-school movement, and created a Nostalgic Fantasy filled with an utterly FALSE narrative that the one true original old-school way that Everyone Played it Back In the Good Old Days was "fantasy fucking vietnam". The negadungeon evolved from that conceptual bullshit.

The "false" part is something I'm not sure about. Casting "Summon Gronan"!

We used to play it (in the early 80s, not the late 70s, I have to admit) with a boatload of retainers and what amounted to a DCC-type funnel where 90% of characters dies at 1st level, then 90% of the survivors died at 2nd level (or were knocked back down to 1st - damn you, level drain!). Only when people got to 3rd level did characters begin to show some staying power. Which is something Gygax was well aware of, and it's always been an issue with D&D throughout the editions. That's why 5E rushes you through the first 3 levels.

We didn't do the character death thing for fun, that's just how the rules worked out and we didn't have the internet to tell us there was anything wrong (or even clubs or magazines, at first, where I was). Nobody really got attached to characters until 3rd level.

Anyway, I've been trying to grasp how TheRPGPundit does play... and he's back to raving at abstractions again. I can only assume, from the way he's been talking, his evenings of adventure are filled with entering one room after another with a collection of goblins/orcs/whatever, along with a chest set against the north wall which contain a) a trap; b) some coins.

Meanwhile, everyone else here has been talking about the specifics of the LotFP products, and pointing out they are not the death traps the Punditwhaever says they are -- both from reading them and playing them.

He's just moving the goalposts... and still unable to articulate what a normal adventurer does in a game that is so at odds as to what adventurers might do in The God That Crawls or Death Frost Doom.

For anyone who cares, the Pundit is wrong. You might not enjoy the adventures (after all, there are million ways to play an RPG, a million kinds of tone and fun to be had) but they are not as Pundit describes.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006066Anyway, I've been trying to grasp how TheRPGPundit does play... and he's back to raving at abstractions again.

The few specifics in his post refer to James Mal's writings over on Grognardia. And Pundit's anger stems from Stuart Marshall getting into a dick measuring contest with him over OSRIC versus Forward the Adventure. Wrapped up in the idea that we are all clueless bits of clay waiting to be molded by whoever controls the medium.

For those of you who don't believe me here is where I document the exchange back in 2014.

It starts with Pundit wondering about the point of writing OSRIC and the other retro-clones.

Then Stuart chimes in with his gratuitous crack at the Pundit.

Now we have to endure 8 years of OSR Taliban and Grognardia posers rants because of it.

Too bad his old blog isn't found in the archive or I could show there isn't a single OSR Taliban post prior to January 30th 2009.

But eventually the Pundit did come around and participated in the OSR in a positive manner with Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, etc.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1006016What was it like then? If fantasy vietnam was fake news then I fell for it.

By the late 70s pretty much everything that people do with tabletop roleplaying today was being done by one segment of the hobby or another. From hard core simulationist, people trying to recreate their favorite novel, people who into roleplaying their character, people only interested in killing shit and taking the loot, power gamers, rules lawyers, etc, etc, etc.

The main difference was that back then everything was mixed up in relatively equal measure. Over time certain things became more popular but the alternatives never really went away. It only looks like that because pre-internet it wasn't easy to find the niche of the niche stuff. It was about who you knew and with whom you gamed with.

Prior to the late 70s, it was all about who you knew, and with whom you gamed with because RPGs (and wargaming) were a very small niche. Even during the genesis of D&D, how Dave ran Blackmoor was different than how Gary ran Greyhawk. You best bet is to ask the participate what those games and others were like.

My personal recommendation for gaming like how it was back in the day is to figure out what kind of campaign you want to play. And THEN come up with the rules to make it happen. That the one thing that consistent in all the different documented accounts and personal anecdotes. And why Gronan keeps saying "We made up shit we thought was fun."

Quote from: estar;1006068The few specifics in his post refer to James Mal's writings over on Grognardia. And Pundit's anger stems from Stuart Marshall getting into a dick measuring contest with him over OSRIC versus Forward the Adventure. Wrapped up in the idea that we are all clueless bits of clay waiting to be molded by whoever controls the medium.

For those of you who don't believe me here is where I document the exchange back in 2014.

It starts with Pundit wondering about the point of writing OSRIC and the other retro-clones.

Then Stuart chimes in with his gratuitous crack at the Pundit.

Now we have to endure 8 years of OSR Taliban and Grognardia posers rants because of it.

Too bad his old blog isn't found in the archive or I could show there isn't a single OSR Taliban post prior to January 30th 2009.

But eventually the Pundit did come around and participated in the OSR in a positive manner with Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, etc.

OK, that does explain a lot:).

Quote from: estar;1006077By the late 70s pretty much everything that people do with tabletop roleplaying today was being done by one segment of the hobby or another. From hard core simulationist, people trying to recreate their favorite novel, people who into roleplaying their character, people only interested in killing shit and taking the loot, power gamers, rules lawyers, etc, etc, etc.

The main difference was that back then everything was mixed up in relatively equal measure. Over time certain things became more popular but the alternatives never really went away. It only looks like that because pre-internet it wasn't easy to find the niche of the niche stuff. It was about who you knew and with whom you gamed with.

That was my nagging suspicion to begin with. But I'm glad you confirm;).

QuoteMy personal recommendation for gaming like how it was back in the day is to figure out what kind of campaign you want to play. And THEN come up with the rules to make it happen. That the one thing that consistent in all the different documented accounts and personal anecdotes. And why Gronan keeps saying "We made up shit we thought was fun."

I've been doing that for over a decade now, since I stopped using GURPS for everything;).
But I always thought this is "new school" approach:D!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1006016What was it like then? If fantasy vietnam was fake news then I fell for it.

In the first place, there was not a single playstyle. Even in the earliest period (before my time) you had radically different styles of playing in the old-school era, ranging from play that was like running a roguelike (which didn't exist yet) where the PCs were little more than playing pieces, to games that were very focused on characters and setting; games where the PCs were just extensions of the player's personality, to games where the PCs had their own very defined characters.

By the AD&D 1e period (when I got into RPGs), the way most people were playing was a lot like people played in the periods after that, but this also ranged as much as play styles do now. You had RP-heavy campaigns, campaigns which were really tough, "monty haul games" where the PCs were ridiculously overpowered, etc.

It's the notion that there was just ONE way to play Old School "Right" that is wrong at the most fundamental level.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006066Anyway, I've been trying to grasp how TheRPGPundit does play... and he's back to raving at abstractions again. I can only assume, from the way he's been talking, his evenings of adventure are filled with entering one room after another with a collection of goblins/orcs/whatever, along with a chest set against the north wall which contain a) a trap; b) some coins.

No, you're thinking of JMal and his "epic old school dungeon he'd been playing for years (but ended up actually failing to invent when caught in his lie)" version of Dwimmermount, with its giant rants and exactly 2000cp.

You know, one of the chief promoters of the Lie about "Fantasy Fucking Vietnam".

Quote from: estar;1006068But eventually the Pundit did come around and participated in the OSR in a positive manner with Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, etc.

I didn't change. The OSR did. It came around to ME. And has been way better ever since.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1006708I didn't change. The OSR did. It came around to ME. And has been way better ever since.

The OSR did not change it grew. Your err.. punditry and more importantly your works helped grow the part that does the stuff you like.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1006707No, you're thinking of JMal and his "epic old school dungeon he'd been playing for years (but ended up actually failing to invent when caught in his lie)" version of Dwimmermount, with its giant rants and exactly 2000cp.

Actually , no I'm not. I've been following his Tékumel campaign and it isn't anything like that. So... no.

What I was thinking of was deducing from the few scraps you have offered what you games are like.

Strangely (but not unexpectedly) you are in another spiral of lashing out and telling other people they are wrong. What you are not doing, and have failed to do for two full weeks now, is offer any sort of description of "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons."

Your failure to offer any sort of description of this, while providing only the "negative space" of what you think is wrong, led me to draw my best shot at a conclusion.

I'm more than willing to believe I drew the wrong conclusion. But still. I'm curious, could you offer what you think "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006782Actually , no I'm not. I've been following his Tékumel campaign and it isn't anything like that. So... no.

The first few levels of Dwimmermount are pretty uninspired and some of it comes close to the giant rats/kobolds/copper coins model. The lower levels with the sf fantasy stuff is better though.

Quote from: Voros;1006946The first few levels of Dwimmermount are pretty uninspired and some of it comes close to the giant rats/kobolds/copper coins model. The lower levels with the sf fantasy stuff is better though.

That may well be. That still has nothing to do with the Punditwhatever sputtering his complaints but never being able to define what he considers the right way to play. (Let us all pause and consider that he just claimed that there are many ways of playing -- but is making it plain that in his head there is, in fact, a right way to play... because the LotFP adventures are, in some yet-to-be-defined contradiction from the things Players are "SUPPOSED" to do when playing D&D properly).

The fact that on Grognardia James never mentions the phrase "Fantasy Vietnam" and, in fact, makes it clear he's not a particularly lethal Referee in his posts is neither here nor there.

I am simply trying to understand what the Pundit is talking about. He claims there are things "PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons" and I have yet to see the list and, ideally, see how that list is contradicted by modules such as The God That Crawls, Death Frost Doom, and most of the LotFP products.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006974The fact that on Grognardia James never mentions the phrase "Fantasy Vietnam" and, in fact, makes it clear he's not a particularly lethal Referee in his posts is neither here nor there.

This is his only post with the word Vietnam in it.

As for your complaint about the Pundit evading the question, it is either out is that it is designed to promote himself and what he write.

Or is that he such a committed believer of Marshall McLuhan (the Medium is the Message guy) and figure that by repeating the same thing over and over again that somehow he will convince the rest of the hobby that his opinions are true.

Either one explains why these arguments persists for years, repetition after repetition. That when put to the test we get dead air in most (not all) cases.  But he does actually produce material and did a good turn with the 5e consulting job and so he like the rest of humanity a mix of the awesome, the OK, and not so great.

But on this he deserves to be held to the fire and produce an answers. Personally there are a lot in the OSR that isn't my cup of tea when it comes to running campaign. I don't care for gonzo that Jeff Rients and Jason Sholtis likes. The weird horror of Raggi, and the general weirdness of Zak S stuff. likewise are not my thing either.

Yet I can see that Rients, Sholtis, Raggi, and Zak do amazing work. Some of which really pushes the envelope of the OSR in a good way. And there are idea in their stuff (and others) that enhances the styles I do like.  I can appreciate what other people do without feeling like I must play the way they play. When they promote or strongly advocate what they (and others) like, I don't feel like they are telling me that I have to play the way they play.

My vision is of the OSR is simple. Promote open content and teach people about the use of digital technology to allow anybody to do realize whatever project they have in their mind with classic D&D.

If you want to make a version of D&D that uses narrative mechnic. Have at it. I f you think the hobby best days ended with everything after AD&D 1st, fine whatever, but here what you need to produce the best AD&D 1st you can.

Open content in conjunction with digital technology put up a hard wall against any form of gatekeeping. It doesn't matter what labels mean if open content is available along with an inexpensive way to create and distribute professional level content.

Half of what we have today in Western Civilization, is because of technological progress. The increase of productivity and material diversity gave the common man a voice that was not present when 95% of one time had to be spent creating the basics of survival like in the Middle Ages.

But in all fairness to the Pundit it did need the philosophical underpinning to get to where we are today. But without the advance of technology it would have been just pretty words on paper.

And the Pundit doesn't get a major way that Open content is not a technology but also a philosophy. As much of a dickwad I think Richard Stallman his creation and advocacy of open content both as a means and philosophy was invaluable.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1006782I'm more than willing to believe I drew the wrong conclusion. But still. I'm curious, could you offer what you think "the very things that PCs are SUPPOSED to do in standard D&D dungeons"?

I already answered this. Negadungeons work by presuming that player characters doing things that are standard to do, and that would be good practice in most dungeons, will screw them in ways that (in most negadungeons) they can't even get a hint of. There's no clue that destroying the plant-thing in DFD will unleash 10000 zombies on them. It's set up as a pure fucking over of the PCs. And don't get me wrong, at least DFD was doing something relatively original at the time. Everything that came after it was the same but without even the cleverness of novelty.