Quote from: yosemitemike on May 30, 2024, 06:15:03 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 29, 2024, 03:09:21 PMBecause we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent.

What does it mean, in concrete terms, when you say that a system cleaves to the spirit of B/X or that it has old-school DNA?  You do some criteria but they are extremely broad.  Almost anything that is not explicitly a story game could fall under that category.  Vampire:the Masquerade and Requiem could arguably fall under that category.  It has stats.  There are no explicit narrative mechanics despite pretensions to being a storygame.  The default campaign style is a city sized sandbox.  Is such a broad category meaningful or useful?     

That you take the system (originally the whole game) and build upon it. Is the game you mention in any way shape or form based on the same system?

For starters it's more a LARPing game than an RPG, then it doesn't use the same underlaying game engine. If you can find a way to:

Avoid any lawsuit from the owners of VtM
Make it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

Then it would be OSR, if not then it's not.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThat you take the system (originally the whole game) and build upon it. Is the game you mention in any way shape or form based on the same system?

In any way, shape or form?  That's broad enough that it could mean just about anything.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMFor starters it's more a LARPing game than an RPG, then it doesn't use the same underlaying game engine. If you can find a way to:

I don't know where you got LARP from.  Both of the games I listed are pen and paper games.  By the vague criteria listed earlier (has stats, not a storygame, sandbox play) they could both be classified as OSR games.  Most games published games ever published could be classified as OSR games using such vague criteria.   

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMMake it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

In concrete terms.  What does that mean in concrete terms?  What does it mean for something to play close to Classic D&Dish?  Is Dungeon World an OSR game based on this?  If not, why not?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThen it would be OSR, if not then it's not.

That doesn't actually tell me much of anything/

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 31, 2024, 02:54:42 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThat you take the system (originally the whole game) and build upon it. Is the game you mention in any way shape or form based on the same system?

In any way, shape or form?  That's broad enough that it could mean just about anything.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMFor starters it's more a LARPing game than an RPG, then it doesn't use the same underlaying game engine. If you can find a way to:

I don't know where you got LARP from.  Both of the games I listed are pen and paper games.  By the vague criteria listed earlier (has stats, not a storygame, sandbox play) they could both be classified as OSR games.  Most games published games ever published could be classified as OSR games using such vague criteria.   

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMMake it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

In concrete terms.  What does that mean in concrete terms?  What does it mean for something to play close to Classic D&Dish?  Is Dungeon World an OSR game based on this?  If not, why not?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThen it would be OSR, if not then it's not.

That doesn't actually tell me much of anything/

The engine, is the underlaying engine the same?

No, none of the games you mention are OSR because they don't use the same engine.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 31, 2024, 03:05:58 AMThe engine, is the underlaying engine the same?

No, none of the games you mention are OSR because they don't use the same engine.

What engine, exactly?

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 31, 2024, 02:54:42 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMMake it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

In concrete terms.  What does that mean in concrete terms?  What does it mean for something to play close to Classic D&Dish?

It is not complicated. We have a bunch of out-of-print classic D&D modules that represent the expectation of how classic D&D plays.

If you need a refresher as to what that list is.
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modcode.html

We have a bunch of out of print editions that represent the expectation of classic D&D mechanics.
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/rulebooks.html

We have two "hacks" that illustrate how one can take the d20 SRD or the 5e SRD and strip out the newer mechanics, leaving a set of rules that is a hop and a skip from a particular classic edition.

https://www.knights-n-knaves.com/
https://www.basicfantasy.org/

Both hacks relied on open content under open licenses, meaning that anybody with an idea has the same access to the IP as anybody already publishing or sharing material based on this body of work.

Moreso, thanks to publishers like the one below, people have good examples of how to play with the themes of the above body of work using different mechanics. Or use the mechanics of the above body of work to handle different themes.

https://sine-nomine-publishing.myshopify.com/
https://goodman-games.com/dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg/
https://freeleaguepublishing.com/shop/mork-borg/
https://dungeon-world.com/

Now is any of this unclear? Too complicated to understand? Hard to follow?

What this does mean that it is work. You will have to do some reading on various items from the above body of works to understand what classic D&Dish means. Understand a bit of how it was developed to see where various authors are coming from, particularly folks like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax. It is not hard, but it is work, not something that boils down to a snappy quip, a catchy marketing blurb or even a bullet list.

𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

Quote from: estar on May 31, 2024, 09:12:08 AMNow is any of this unclear? Too complicated to understand? Hard to follow?

I didn't say anything about it being too complicated but nice attempt to dismiss what I am saying by insinuating that I just too dumb to get it. 

I said that it's too vague and ill-defined to have any value as a category of product. 

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

Why would anyone take the work required to do that? I mean converting everything to D100 since it's going to work just like D20 and if I wanted to use an already published module then I need to ALSO do the conversion?

Why would ANYONE buy such a game? I fail to see the appeal.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 31, 2024, 07:54:05 PMI said that it's too vague and ill-defined to have any value as a category of product. 

And I just outlined what a person has to do to understand what the category is about. Read up on a corpus of out of print book and its history then work with either the themes and/or mechanics found therein.

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

While its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2024, 11:08:58 AM

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

While its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Because while it can start with multiples of 5, it doesn't have to stay there, especially if you are only converting one-way (and not back to d20). Your d% game can have a 90% (18) or even a 92% (also 18 if you choose to convert back).

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 01, 2024, 02:03:05 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2024, 11:08:58 AM

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

While its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Because while it can start with multiples of 5, it doesn't have to stay there, especially if you are only converting one-way (and not back to d20). Your d% game can have a 90% (18) or even a 92% (also 18 if you choose to convert back).

So now it's NOT the same game but a D% game, what is YOURS offering that makes it better than all the other D% games out there?

Since you're converting only one way stuff made for it it's not as direct to import into any OSR game as "converting" from OSE to White Box FMAG for example.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2024, 11:08:58 AMWhile its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Using OSR systems and modules based on white box to BX to 1E, I need do conversions on stat blocks between descending and ascending AC and also between tables, THAC0 and level bonuses.  Yes this is pretty trivial to do.  The point is we can change the dice mechanic in an OSR system and we'd still have OSR compatibility with a trivial conversion (x5). 

I think that sometimes several small changes do more to take away the feeling of being compatible than one big change.  Slap on Arms Law critical hits tables to D&D (how they started), then its "D&D with specific weapon, crazy critical hits."  The very height of the difference of that one things emphasizes that nothing else has changed. 

Of course, exactly what that feel is can move too.  D&D 3.5 is a slew of nothing but small, pervasive changes.  Most people felt like it was 3E+, but for me it was so many hodge-podge changes that it was even less "D&D as Hero System" that was the 3E goal, already somewhat away from the game in certain ways, but also less authentic than the original 3E try.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 01, 2024, 11:36:00 PMI think that sometimes several small changes do more to take away the feeling of being compatible than one big change.  Slap on Arms Law critical hits tables to D&D (how they started), then its "D&D with specific weapon, crazy critical hits."  The very height of the difference of that one things emphasizes that nothing else has changed. 

That is exactly how our group moved from 1E to Rolemaster.  We started using Arms Law with 1E and eventually went all the way to RM.  We stopped playing 1E in the 80's and I just picked it up again and have been running a campaign for 18 months or so.