Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 03:51:23 PM
If gives you a good idea of the typical marxist thinking.  Never take their studies as fact, always counter them with other studies proving them wrong.  James Lindsey got a leftist science magazine to review Mein Kamf where they replaced the Jews with men, and they didn't realize it was literally Hitler's writing.  After you watch something like that, it gives you an idea of the work that needs to be done to save society.

It sounds to me like you watched someone make this claim on Youtube, but you probably haven't actually read any of the material in question.

First of all, "Affilia: Feminist Inquiry in Social Work" is not in any sense a science magazine. None of Lindsay's submitted papers were accepted by actual sociology journals, but some were accepted by niche journals like "Fat Studies" and "Sexuality & Culture" - hence the hoaxes being called the "Grievance Studies Affair".

Second, the paper in question is not literally Hitler's words. You can read the actual article here:

http://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf

or with reviewer commentary:

https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/

There are references to Hitler's book in it, but it is nowhere close to Hitler's writing. I would agree that the paper is crap that shouldn't be published, but the main thing that I take away is that political zealots will readily pass on claims without critical thinking. The feminist journal "Affilia" readily published the article despite negative reviews, but equally, other gullible souls readily passed on false claims about the article - like it being literally Hitler's writing or "Affilia" being a science journal.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 03:51:23 PM
If gives you a good idea of the typical marxist thinking.  Never take their studies as fact, always counter them with other studies proving them wrong.  James Lindsey got a leftist science magazine to review Mein Kamf where they replaced the Jews with men, and they didn't realize it was literally Hitler's writing.  After you watch something like that, it gives you an idea of the work that needs to be done to save society.

It sounds to me like you watched someone make this claim on Youtube, but you probably haven't actually read any of the material in question.

First of all, "Affilia: Feminist Inquiry in Social Work" is not in any sense a science magazine. None of Lindsay's submitted papers were accepted by actual sociology journals, but some were accepted by niche journals like "Fat Studies" and "Sexuality & Culture" - hence the hoaxes being called the "Grievance Studies Affair".

Second, the paper in question is not literally Hitler's words. You can read the actual article here:

http://norskk.is/bytta/menn/our_struggle_is_my_struggle.pdf

or with reviewer commentary:

https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/

There are references to Hitler's book in it, but it is nowhere close to Hitler's writing. I would agree that the paper is crap that shouldn't be published, but the main thing that I take away is that political zealots will readily pass on claims without critical thinking. The feminist journal "Affilia" readily published the article despite negative reviews, but equally, other gullible souls readily passed on false claims about the article - like it being literally Hitler's writing or "Affilia" being a science journal.

I apologize to you, I touched a nerve in you.  I read the book, fairly good.  They were intersectional journals and they went after them to prove a point that said journals are not following the scientific method and that intersectional papers should be treated highly sceptical and as opinion not fact.  IOW, intersectional "science" is more crap than fact.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
First of all, "Affilia: Feminist Inquiry in Social Work" is not in any sense a science magazine. None of Lindsay's submitted papers were accepted by actual sociology journals, but some were accepted by niche journals like "Fat Studies" and "Sexuality & Culture" - hence the hoaxes being called the "Grievance Studies Affair".

That seems cleverly worded to sound as though no science magazines accepted these articles, without actually stating it. There were four articles published under the Grievance Studies Affair:

1. "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". This was published by Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. Geography is indeed a science.
2. "Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding". This was published by Fat Studies. I'm not sure why you think that Fat Studies isn't part of the social sciences.
3. "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use". This was published by Sexuality & Culture. Not a science magazine.
4. "An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant". This was published by the science magazine Sex Roles.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
Second, the paper in question is not literally Hitler's words.

Correct. Switching to German and talking about the struggles of the Aryans against the Jews would, hopefully, have been enough of a red flag to tip the reviewers off.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
There are references to Hitler's book in it

Are there? Could you paste them, because I can't find any mention of "Hilter" or "Kampf".

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
it is nowhere close to Hitler's writing.

To quote https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/:

Quote
The last two thirds of this paper is based upon​ a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original. This chapter is the one in which Hitler lays out in a multi-point plan which we partially reproduced why the Nazi Party is needed and what it requires of its members. The first one third of the paper is our own theoretical framing to make this attempt possible.

Quote
Purpose​: That we could find​ ​Theory​ to make anything (in this case, part of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf​ with buzzwords switched in) acceptable to journals if we put it in terms of politically fashionable arguments and existing scholarship. Of note, while the original language and intent of ​Mein Kampf​ has been significantly changed to make this paper publishable and about feminism, the reliance upon the politics of grievance remains clear, helping to justify our use of the term "grievance studies" for these fields.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
the main thing that I take away is that political zealots will readily pass on claims without critical thinking. The feminist journal "Affilia" readily published the article despite negative reviews, but equally, other gullible souls readily passed on false claims about the article - like it being literally Hitler's writing or "Affilia" being a science journal.

Affilia did accept something based upon Hilter's writings. Science journals did publish equally dubious articles. Honeydipperdavid may have got some details wrong in what he has remembered, but it seems to me that the gist of what he remembered is correct. And to me, the main takeaway is that political zealots defended the publications, rather than questioning the processes by which academic journals, including science journals, allowed these articles to be published.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 05:05:00 PM
I apologize to you, I touched a nerve in you.  I read the book, fairly good.  They were intersectional journals and they went after them to prove a point that said journals are not following the scientific method and that intersectional papers should be treated highly sceptical and as opinion not fact.  IOW, intersectional "science" is more crap than fact.

You're right, that did touch a nerve. I agree that intersectional studies are generally crap. My beef is that something like lumping stuff like intersectional studies is not a general critique of science.

What book are you referring to have read? I've read some papers and articles about the Grievance Studies Affair, but not a book.

I'm coming from the background as a physicist. I'm fine bashing modern grievance studies as appropriate, but I don't like calling it science. Subjects like Women's Studies or Fat Studies are a modern outgrowth of cultural studies, literary interpretation, and art theory.

Reading your post, it seemed unbelievable to me, so I did a quick search, and the journal was clearly not a science magazine, and then looked up the paper in question, which is quite obviously not the literal words of Hitler as claimed.

-----

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM
That seems cleverly worded to sound as though no science magazines accepted these articles, without actually stating it. There were four articles published under the Grievance Studies Affair:

1. "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". This was published by Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. Geography is indeed a science.
2. "Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding". This was published by Fat Studies. I'm not sure why you think that Fat Studies isn't part of the social sciences.
3. "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use". This was published by Sexuality & Culture. Not a science magazine.
4. "An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant". This was published by the science magazine Sex Roles.

I don't want to get too much into semantics here. If you want to argue that "Fat Studies" is technically science, fine. But just about anyone can see an obvious difference between Fat Studies and a more typical discipline like Sociology.

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
it is nowhere close to Hitler's writing.

To quote https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/:

QuoteThe last two thirds of this paper is based upon​ a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original.

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM
Affilia did accept something based upon Hilter's writings. Science journals did publish equally dubious articles. Honeydipperdavid may have got some details wrong in what he has remembered, but it seems to me that the gist of what he remembered is correct.

I don't agree that this is a minor detail. Again, honeydipperdavid's claim was "James Lindsey got a leftist science magazine to review Mein Kamf where they replaced the Jews with men, and they didn't realize it was literally Hitler's writing."

In the claim you quote, part of the paper took one-quarter of one chapter of the book, that was completely rewritten, and self-admittedly diverged significantly from the original.

That is not a minor misremembered detail, and it shows nothing. One can trivially take a 3600 word snippet of Mein Kampf in which Jews aren't even mentioned. Within Vol 1 Ch 12, points #6 through #12 have no mention of Jews, and that is 4034 words. I could trivially take ideas from Hitler's anti-union arguments, for example, and get modern anti-union people to agree with them.

Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2023, 12:31:31 AM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 05:05:00 PM
I apologize to you, I touched a nerve in you.  I read the book, fairly good.  They were intersectional journals and they went after them to prove a point that said journals are not following the scientific method and that intersectional papers should be treated highly sceptical and as opinion not fact.  IOW, intersectional "science" is more crap than fact.

You're right, that did touch a nerve. I agree that intersectional studies are generally crap. My beef is that something like lumping stuff like intersectional studies is not a general critique of science.

What book are you referring to have read? I've read some papers and articles about the Grievance Studies Affair, but not a book.

I'm coming from the background as a physicist. I'm fine bashing modern grievance studies as appropriate, but I don't like calling it science. Subjects like Women's Studies or Fat Studies are a modern outgrowth of cultural studies, literary interpretation, and art theory.

Reading your post, it seemed unbelievable to me, so I did a quick search, and the journal was clearly not a science magazine, and then looked up the paper in question, which is quite obviously not the literal words of Hitler as claimed.

-----

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM
That seems cleverly worded to sound as though no science magazines accepted these articles, without actually stating it. There were four articles published under the Grievance Studies Affair:

1. "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". This was published by Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. Geography is indeed a science.
2. "Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding". This was published by Fat Studies. I'm not sure why you think that Fat Studies isn't part of the social sciences.
3. "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use". This was published by Sexuality & Culture. Not a science magazine.
4. "An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant". This was published by the science magazine Sex Roles.

I don't want to get too much into semantics here. If you want to argue that "Fat Studies" is technically science, fine. But just about anyone can see an obvious difference between Fat Studies and a more typical discipline like Sociology.

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
it is nowhere close to Hitler's writing.

To quote https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/:

QuoteThe last two thirds of this paper is based upon​ a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original.

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM
Affilia did accept something based upon Hilter's writings. Science journals did publish equally dubious articles. Honeydipperdavid may have got some details wrong in what he has remembered, but it seems to me that the gist of what he remembered is correct.

I don't agree that this is a minor detail. Again, honeydipperdavid's claim was "James Lindsey got a leftist science magazine to review Mein Kamf where they replaced the Jews with men, and they didn't realize it was literally Hitler's writing."

In the claim you quote, part of the paper took one-quarter of one chapter of the book, that was completely rewritten, and self-admittedly diverged significantly from the original.

That is not a minor misremembered detail, and it shows nothing. One can trivially take a 3600 word snippet of Mein Kampf in which Jews aren't even mentioned. Within Vol 1 Ch 12, points #6 through #12 have no mention of Jews, and that is 4034 words. I could trivially take ideas from Hitler's anti-union arguments, for example, and get modern anti-union people to agree with them.

So social sciences aren't science?

Sorry but (although I do agree) that's not what academia claims.

Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2023, 12:31:31 AM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 05:05:00 PM
I apologize to you, I touched a nerve in you.  I read the book, fairly good.  They were intersectional journals and they went after them to prove a point that said journals are not following the scientific method and that intersectional papers should be treated highly sceptical and as opinion not fact.  IOW, intersectional "science" is more crap than fact.

You're right, that did touch a nerve. I agree that intersectional studies are generally crap. My beef is that something like lumping stuff like intersectional studies is not a general critique of science.

What book are you referring to have read? I've read some papers and articles about the Grievance Studies Affair, but not a book.

I'm coming from the background as a physicist. I'm fine bashing modern grievance studies as appropriate, but I don't like calling it science. Subjects like Women's Studies or Fat Studies are a modern outgrowth of cultural studies, literary interpretation, and art theory.

Reading your post, it seemed unbelievable to me, so I did a quick search, and the journal was clearly not a science magazine, and then looked up the paper in question, which is quite obviously not the literal words of Hitler as claimed.

-----

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM
That seems cleverly worded to sound as though no science magazines accepted these articles, without actually stating it. There were four articles published under the Grievance Studies Affair:

1. "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". This was published by Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography. Geography is indeed a science.
2. "Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding". This was published by Fat Studies. I'm not sure why you think that Fat Studies isn't part of the social sciences.
3. "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use". This was published by Sexuality & Culture. Not a science magazine.
4. "An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant". This was published by the science magazine Sex Roles.

I don't want to get too much into semantics here. If you want to argue that "Fat Studies" is technically science, fine. But just about anyone can see an obvious difference between Fat Studies and a more typical discipline like Sociology.

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 04:56:56 PM
it is nowhere close to Hitler's writing.

To quote https://newdiscourses.com/feminist-mein-kampf/:

QuoteThe last two thirds of this paper is based upon​ a rewriting of roughly 3600 words of Chapter 12 of Volume 1 of Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, though it diverges significantly from the original.

Quote from: Krazz on October 30, 2023, 06:37:22 PM
Affilia did accept something based upon Hilter's writings. Science journals did publish equally dubious articles. Honeydipperdavid may have got some details wrong in what he has remembered, but it seems to me that the gist of what he remembered is correct.

I don't agree that this is a minor detail. Again, honeydipperdavid's claim was "James Lindsey got a leftist science magazine to review Mein Kamf where they replaced the Jews with men, and they didn't realize it was literally Hitler's writing."

In the claim you quote, part of the paper took one-quarter of one chapter of the book, that was completely rewritten, and self-admittedly diverged significantly from the original.

That is not a minor misremembered detail, and it shows nothing. One can trivially take a 3600 word snippet of Mein Kampf in which Jews aren't even mentioned. Within Vol 1 Ch 12, points #6 through #12 have no mention of Jews, and that is 4034 words. I could trivially take ideas from Hitler's anti-union arguments, for example, and get modern anti-union people to agree with them.

They released it on google docs a long time ago as a free book mind you have to do some reading to make sense of it, but its good. A fair bit of those journals do consider themselves scientific, however they are not, and they do not follow the scientific method.

You can read it here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18

Kwan's assessment was pathetic.
As was already said, he barely made a critique of the actual game book itself. He was more crying because of the word 'Oriental', and the main beef seemed to be that one group of playable characters had -1 intelligence. Therefore calling one group 'inferior'. Boo Hoo! Waaaacist'.

Of course, bear in mind that D&D was not a nuanced character simulator, and giving a race or people a -1 intelligence was more about access to education & one's background/culture. I don't remember Orc University.

And what the two dweebs totally skirted around was the fact that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the book (I'm paraphrasing here) that the creators apologize for melding cultures, and it was never meant to be accurate as they were just trying to make a playable game from the love of the east asian culture.

Kwan is a talentless hack, IMO and his efforts to enter the hobby have been 'meh' to be polite about it.

Funny thing is. Gits like this love to do cultural criticism but coincidentally then offer "paid" cultural consultant services a bit like Liam Stevenson. A mere coincidence I ask? 

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 31, 2023, 07:57:15 AM
Kwan's assessment was pathetic.
As was already said, he barely made a critique of the actual game book itself. He was more crying because of the word 'Oriental', and the main beef seemed to be that one group of playable characters had -1 intelligence. Therefore calling one group 'inferior'. Boo Hoo! Waaaacist'.

Of course, bear in mind that D&D was not a nuanced character simulator, and giving a race or people a -1 intelligence was more about access to education & one's background/culture. I don't remember Orc University.

And what the two dweebs totally skirted around was the fact that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the book (I'm paraphrasing here) that the creators apologize for melding cultures, and it was never meant to be accurate as they were just trying to make a playable game from the love of the east asian culture.

Kwan is a talentless hack, IMO and his efforts to enter the hobby have been 'meh' to be polite about it.

Funny thing is. Gits like this love to do cultural criticism but coincidentally then offer "paid" cultural consultant services a bit like Liam Stevenson. A mere coincidence I ask? 

Whenever you hear someone stating D&D is racist for having racial stats, now you can have some fun with them and force cognitive dissonance on them.

1st) Ask them to describe Neanderthals to them, everything they know
-Remind them Neanderthals frames were massive compared to homo sapiens.  They had a higher concentration of fast twitch muscle fiber.  Their brains were smaller comapred to homo sapiens.  They existed at the same time as homo sapiens

2nd) Ask them what would happen in a room if you had two rocks each weight 300 lbs and a neanderthal and a homo sapien, the neanderthal could lift it but the human could not, why is that?
Neanderthal Str +2  Human Str 0

3rd) In the same room, you put flint.  You ask both the neanderthal and homo sapien to make an arrowhead.  Who makes the best arrowhead for killing?  The homo sapien makes the arrow head faster and its more lethal than the neanderthal, why is that?
Neanderthal Int -2, Dex -1  Human Int +2, Dex +1

4th) Ask them are neanderthal and homo sapien the same race, you do understand race is an unofficial subset of species.

5th) Ask them now that you have stated there are physical and mental differences between two species, why are you having issues with Elves who lives for thousands of years having different stats from humans who live for 80 years?  They are different species with about as much in common as neanderthals and homo sapiens?  You follow the science don't you?

Just drop science in at the end, its a gut punch, covid drilled that idiocy into their heads.

I want to play a Samurai in my game.  My brother has already played a ninja in a superhero game. 

We're not allowed to do that according to these woke control freaks?

Yeah, no.  Get bent.  We will play anyway we want.  The rest of you get no say in it. 

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 31, 2023, 10:37:41 AM
I want to play a Samurai in my game.  My brother has already played a ninja in a superhero game. 

We're not allowed to do that according to these woke control freaks?

Yeah, no.  Get bent.  We will play anyway we want.  The rest of you get no say in it.

Has anyone actually played that OA Ninja in the last decade?  That is one weird class.
If your game is AD&D and Oriental Adventures is on the table, there's so much cool shit in there that blows past their really strange ninja implementation.  Oriental Barbarians are cool as shit, and Kensai are also badass.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2023, 02:56:02 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2023, 01:21:09 PM

Quote from: WERDNA on October 30, 2023, 01:05:55 PM
I remember at the beginning they blame some stuff on Gary Gygax (who was barely involved in the book despite having his name on it) and bemoan the lack of sensitivity readers/Asian involvement. This despite the fact there were Japanese playtesters because TSR actually was concerned about authenticity. These people are credited in the book.

Am I crazy and misremembering?

It forced WotC to hire one of the retards to write a throwaway adventure.  I don't remember if it was Radiant Asshole or Strixhaven: Pooter now in D&D w/o license fee, but those books didn't do well.  The more the WotC can be forced to pander, the harder and faster the management team running D&D gets the boot.  Winninger is gone, we'll see Brink next.

Regarding Oriental Adventures... Yes, there are a credited set of Japanese playtesters for Oriental Adventures. Particularly as a Korean, though, I hate how it uses only Japanese playtesters and primarily Japanese sources, yet often claims to describe the whole of the Orient. Noble warriors are samurai, sneaky rogues are ninja, etc. The "Daily Life" section also has a lot of generalities about the Orient.

To honeydipperdavid - I think you're thinking of "The Book of Inner Alchemy" in the Candlekeep Mysteries anthology, authored by Daniel Kwan. It seems to be common practice for WotC that if someone has a widely-read criticism of them, then they invite the author to write. For example, RPGPundit was particularly critical of 4th ed, and was invited to consult on 5th edition.

In general, WotC is facing a common RPG problem right now - the edition treadmill. Even the most popular editions always suffer a drop in sales after many years out. There are so many books available, that the buyers for any new book are decreasing, and it's hard to get a new "must buy" book. The only reliable solution is to release a new edition, and ten years is a relatively long time for an edition to last for most RPGs. WotC has been trying to come up with a fix for the edition treadmill by emphasizing subscriptions, but it's unclear how successful that will be or whether it will be any good.

I despise the edition treadmill because it just pointlessly repackages old books and forces you to buy the same thing again with minor changes. We live in the age of wikis now. It's absolutely idiotic to keep designing books the way they were designed in the 80s.

Speaking of alchemy, my favorite ttrpg alchemy rules are the ones from Chaosium's Enlighted Magic book. They're the best alchemy rules ever written, hands down. Fight me.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on October 31, 2023, 11:44:11 AM
I despise the edition treadmill because it just pointlessly repackages old books and forces you to buy the same thing again with minor changes. We live in the age of wikis now. It's absolutely idiotic to keep designing books the way they were designed in the 80s.

I mean if you make a change like 3.0 was to prior games, you need to rewrite everything.  Similar with 4e and 5e.  Each edition is made with the goal of doing this, of course, because that's how they make money.  A hypothetical 6e will probably be launched with a huge push to attack all competitors- 5e has forumites complaining about martial / caster imbalance and all players complaining about not providing enough guidance for a DM, so promising to fix that could be an attack on 5e, but they would probably also attack other groups- OSR, of course, could be attacked politically. I actually suspect that was an idea taken seriously as recently as a year ago over at Hasbro, based on the strange lefty crap they were doing at the time.

But yes, in general, there's no need to continue recreating base handbooks- but I think we'll see no end of that.  After all, if YOU wanted to make your OWN project based in OSR stuff, a core rulebook would be your FIRST priority, right?  You wouldn't want, say, Stars Without Number, which in its first edition was B/X compatible pretty strictly (and remains so with some basic conversions), to be printed as a series of diffs, right?

QuoteSpeaking of alchemy, my favorite ttrpg alchemy rules are the ones from Chaosium's Enlighted Magic book. They're the best alchemy rules ever written, hands down. Fight me.

Maybe but I'm not giving money to them.  Redlist and all.

Quote from: Venka on October 31, 2023, 12:08:10 PM
Maybe but I'm not giving money to them.  Redlist and all.

  It's OOP and not for sale in PDF, so you're not giving money to them even if you do find it.

EDIT: Looks like I was wrong and it is still available in PDF. I wouldn't recommend it, but I found it didn't grab me when I tried to read it, I'm highly dubious of things that try to gamify real-world occultism, and I don't much care for John Snead or current Chaosium management.

A fast search shows it's up on their website for sale as a PDF, but again, I'm not gonna bother.

If you want a playable 1e/2e ninja, grab the Griftmaster's Guide to Life's Wildest Dreams for Hackmaster 4e, which has a bunch of thief subclasses, including the yakuza.