Quote from: StormBringer;281250Fairly weak, really.  I mean, the so-called 'bile' is entirely forced, there is no real controversy here to get worked up over, hence, the entire essay is just an affectation.

It's got a good beat, but I can't dance to it.

The end-times are coming, Stormbringer and I agree about something.

The old-school renaissance is just fine, and the free clones online make older styles of D&D more accessible and interesting to a generation raised on 3.x and 4e.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;281319The old-school renaissance is just fine, and the free clones online make older styles of D&D more accessible and interesting to a generation raised on 3.x and 4e.

4E hasn't been out long enough to have a generation...

Quote from: jeff37923;2813204E hasn't been out long enough to have a generation...

4e has brought new gamers into the fold. It's a generation of recent origin that will be continuing to develop and grow for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;2813324e has brought new gamers into the fold.

Debateable, but I won't argue it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;281332It's a generation of recent origin that will be continuing to develop and grow for the foreseeable future.

And this is unprovable because only time will tell if it is true or not.

Quote from: jeff37923;281340Debateable, but I won't argue it.

The opposite of what I said would be that no one at all has ever played 4e, nor will ever play 4e, without having played an RPG before. That's simply a ludicruous position. You might quibble over how many people it will bring it, but that has nothing to do with the point I originally made.

QuoteAnd this is unprovable because only time will tell if it is true or not.

That's a non-sequitur. If it's unprovable, then it can't be proven.

If you don't think the generation of people who play 4e will continue to grow, you're deluding yourself (something you do fairly often, if memory serves). Unless the game stops being sold tomorrow, more people will continue to buy it and play it. Once again, you might quibble over what those numbers will be, but that has nothing to do with anything I've said or any point I've made.

Are you done trying to ineptly pick fights over 4e in a thread about old-school games?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;281343Are you done trying to ineptly pick fights over 4e in a thread about old-school games?

Nah, just wanted to see if you were worth taking off the IL yet.

Quote from: jeff37923;281345Nah, just wanted to see if you were worth taking off the IL yet.

That's pretty meaningless when you're going to read and respond to my posts anyway.

Quote from: vomitbrown;281261I'm just curious as to how good can an old school system handle investigation scenarios or horror scenarios.

Compared to what? I'd expect that D&D 3 and up aren't particularly better suited to those scenarios than OD&D/Basic/AD&D 1e. As you may know, the first game to tackle both those scenarios head-on was Call of Cthulhu (at least that I've heard of) but there's a good argument to be made that it wasn't old school even though it was first published in 1981.

What early D&D and other games of the period do well is primarily a mix of exploration, problem-solving, and combat, whether done in a dungeon or out of doors. IMO characterization was also a natural inclusion. I often refer people to the story of Robert the Bald (scroll down) which shows that outdoors adventures consisting of travel and exploration were a part of the game before publication.

However horror, investigation, and intrigue are things that could be included, but only by virtue of a lot of description. In short you could easily construct a scenario in D&D that involves a mystery. It probably wouldn't use many of the rules outside of some divination and tracking. In a way that is in the old school spirit, to wander freely away from the rules and just play pretend as needed. But when you talk about "handling" those types of scenarios, no, there's nothing special in the rules to do that, other than that they provide a framework for (a) roleplaying and (b) distinguishing character (PC) and world (GM) roles. At the time, this was quite a powerful innovation, but nowadays a lot of people want explicit, mechanical "system support".

As best I can tell, it is and remains a scam to get people to play early versions of D&D. I can't speak to the potential for success here, except that none of the people I play 3.X D&D with, almost all of whom started with the retro-cloned versions of the games, react to the idea with anything but "yeah, I really want to die 15 minutes into the game, sure."

I agree with Haffrung here that the broad commercial potential of this stuff is probably pretty vaporous. Maybe if Paizo were publishing Labyrith Lord or Osric with art in line with popular contemporary styles, and pushing it as the go-to adjunct for Legacy pdfs, they might start getting somewhere. Moving this stuff on the Lulu old-school shop is more or less parallel with selling things among the forge as best I can tell.

I get Fight On!, and I like some of the old-school stuff out there, like Bowman's (free!) Dismal Depths, but for the most part it's  the world of free hobbyist stuff mostly for the existing early-D&D-DM.

QuoteIf you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with [a retro-clone]?

My advice is to use the original rules.  I do.

That said, I think the retro-clones have some value.  They're a tool for publishing material for the older editions; use of the OGL eliminates a lot of concern over copyright infringement.  They're freely available, which means you can start a game and point your players to the free PDF of the rules, which can grease the skids.  Some gamers find the rules presentation in the retro-clones to be clearer than the originals, or to be in a style that's similar to modern presentations (and thus more accessible).  They provide an argument against the "it's not in print/unsupported system" attitude (which I always found ridiculous, anyway, but that's beside the point).  You can take them and edit them to taste, and avoid wear-and-tear on your out of print books.  Because they're new, they get talked about (i.e. exposure).

As far as I know, the original motivation of the first retro-clones was to provide a publishing tool.  The intent was not to provide a system that people played (i.e. no one envisioned legions "playing OSRIC").  I think that's still the primary purpose.  However, after the advent of the retro-clones, it became apparent that there was a demand for more than just a publishing tool/reference document, but also a "playable" rule-set.  I personally don't need this kind of thing, but apparently some people do.  And demands tend to get filled.

QuoteSee, if that was their motive, then why add bullshit "extra rules" or change fundamental rules in certain areas, why not just be a copyright-free reprint?

In a true retro-clone (i.e. one that intends to duplicate the rules of the source material as closely as possible), rule changes are introduced only where necessary to avoid copyright infringement.  For example, you can't copyright a mathematical algorithm, but not everything in the old rules follows a nice, neat algorithm.  Sometimes, the numbers in a given table might represent a unique "artistic presentation" that would be subject to copyright.  In cases like that, changes are introduced to avoid the problem.  

Other cases are places where the original rules are ambiguous or have more than one interpretation.  Writers of retro-clones have to make some judgment calls in places like that.

QuoteHey, do you "old-timers" have a bone to pick with Troll Lords Castles and Crusades? I've heard that it has very straightforward rules and a whole lot of the old school feeling.

After I abandoned 3e, I played C&C for a while.  I loved it at first, but eventually I started running into thing that didn't work like I wanted them to, and I came to the conclusion that I'd be happier playing traditional D&D with the original rules.  C&C is not really a retro-clone.  It's more of a "middle path" between traditional D&D and WotC D&D, and it borrows from both ends of the spectrum.  Some people love it for precisely this reason.  On the other hand, if you really like traditional D&D, you tend to find too much WotC D&D in C&C.  And if you really like WotC D&D, you tend to find too much TSR D&D in C&C.

QuoteI don't see the point in the rules themseles, but they've inspired good products like Carcosa (the non-baby-raping version)...

Carcosa isn't a retro-clone product.  I don't even think it's an OGL product, actually.

QuoteAs best I can tell, it [i.e. the retro-clone concept] is and remains a scam to get people to play early versions of D&D.

A scam?  Huh?

QuoteI can't speak to the potential for success here, except that none of the people I play 3.X D&D with, almost all of whom started with the retro-cloned versions of the games...

Really?  That's surprising (i.e. that they started with retro-clones).  Kind encouraging, too.  I don't expect the older systems to be to everyone's taste, so it's okay if someone tries it and prefers WotC D&D -- tastes differ.  But it's good to know that people are trying them (especially as a 'starting system' -- that's what really surprises me).

QuoteI agree with Haffrung here that the broad commercial potential of this stuff is probably pretty vaporous...Moving this stuff on the Lulu old-school shop is more or less parallel with selling things among the forge as best I can tell...

I think it's safe to say that dreams of broad commercial success isn't the motivation behind the retro-clones.  It would be welcomed, of course, but I doubt that anyone writing or publishing retro-clones is in it for the great business opportunities.  This stuff is getting written and published for love of the material and the hobby.

Quote...for the most part it's the world of free hobbyist stuff mostly for the existing early-D&D-DM.

Hell, that sounds pretty damn good, to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281194I've never found any of their tweaks to be an "improvement" or to make for a "better game" than the original. In fact, it tends to create a game with Personality Disorder. The game doesn't know what its supposed to be, whether its supposed to be made with modern design principles, or to be "Just like" some old game.

RPGPundit

They're made by ganers. It's hard to resist tinkering when they're making their free labor of love. None of the tweaks are big enough to cause a personality disorder here, and i see a certain lack of modern design principles in a change to the ability score bonus tables or renaming a monster or two.

Swords & Wizardry whitebox is the interesting one to me here. Rules are basically OD&D supplement free, but the modern design principles are basically : presentation, some thoughts about the implications of the rules, and a built in argument  "why play this game now that it's not the only one."
The "why this game" puts this one close philosophically to some aspects of the indie camp, in a way that LL or OSRIC aren't.

The retro-clones themselves are free, well executed given what they are and good fun to read (and replicate games that are good fun to play). It's just that certain views about the scope of the "Renaissance" are greatly quixotic.

Pundit : How do you feel about where, say "Castles and Crusades" falls? I don't happen to own the book (it's not free!) but the presentation in Castle Zagyg definitely seems to speak to more of a personality disorder than a clone proper. It seems to push to and away from AD&D at erratic speeds from page to page.

I can't speak for FtA!, largely since it's not free either. It seems to be a close relative of Tunnels and Trolls, maybe about C&C or Basic Fantasy close. How far off's that assessment?

Quote from: RPGPundit;281194I've never found any of their tweaks to be an "improvement" or to make for a "better game" than the original.

That's fair enough, but is also a matter of personal taste, you must admit.

And again, there's the issue of streamlining of things. That is, arranging the rules in a consistent, clear and straightforward way - the originals often didn't do that. Gygax seems to have rolled dice to see what to put where in the AD&D books, some rules contradict each-other or are unclear, Traveller's character generation system was different across the original LBB leading to vast differences in character abilities, and so on. Many of the retro-clones improve on that.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn fact, it tends to create a game with Personality Disorder. The game doesn't know what its supposed to be, whether its supposed to be made with modern design principles, or to be "Just like" some old game.

I'm not sure what "modern design principles" are. Could you tell us more?

The only thing that comes to mind is the benefit of years of playtesting and use of the old books in play. In a recent review, Rob Lang wrote of a game,
   "The book is really the result of someone trying to get the rules out of their head and onto paper; rather than a long-playtested game where you've had to explain things 200 times and so the best way to do so comes more naturally."
 Many original old school books are very much like that, the rules crammed into the authour's head like too many cheetos in a bowl on the game table, spilling out onto the page. But with twenty or thirty years of their being played by people, with all the discussion of them in magazines, game stores, at the game table and nowadays online, we can use that playtesting and hindsight to tidy them up a lot.

Yesterday, I just got my brand new Arduin trilogy hardback. It takes the original books, more-or-less reorders the pages so they fall together by topic a little better, and puts them back out in a shiny new durable book, a little larger and more readable than the old ones. Now--I'm not a collector, and books were meant to be played--but those first Arduin books are otherwise out of print, and I wouldn't necessarily want to goober them up at the flgs, regardless of how eager I might be to reference them at home. So I take it to the flgs and we read through it a litle, prompting comments like: "Oh, hey--that's John Carter." Or "Oh, hey--Deodanths in space sound like the Dark Eldar." Or "Oh wow--this is Houses of the Malazan--Power draws power--Erikson must've played this."

Well. I don't know about any of that, but it was a long, cool conversation that drew two or three players to my campaign. And that's very cool. It seems to happen more with products that are ostensibly new, rather than tattered old copies of things everyone has seen. A new iteration helps people look at it with fresh eyes.

Quote from: estar;281238...
... The pre AD&D version or Versions of D&D was released piecemeal. The older rules lacked in teaching somebody to play. Many retro-clones distill the original rules into a consistent vision that is better organized.
...

This is why I like using Swords & Wizardry for my current '0e' campaign.  It's a much clearer, better organized version of OD&D (1974 edition + bits from later supplements).

Also, I like the 'tweaks' it does introduce, namely, the optional ascending AC system, the single saving throw, and the treatment of dwarves and elves (instead of hard 'level limits', S&W increases the experience point requirements above a certain level).

Another thing: I am trying to keep my OD&D box set in good condition (and the OD&D pdfs are kind of crappy).  However, I have no hesitation about bringing my S&W books to the game, since I know that if I spill beer over one I can always just order another copy from Lulu!

One last thing: the cover art for S&W rocks.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362A scam?  Huh?

I mean scam in the most loving possible way. Let's try "A fresh new reason to play pre-1985 D&D!"

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362Really?  That's surprising (i.e. that they started with retro-clones).  Kind encouraging, too.  I don't expect the older systems to be to everyone's taste, so it's okay if someone tries it and prefers WotC D&D -- tastes differ.  But it's good to know that people are trying them (especially as a 'starting system' -- that's what really surprises me).

Sorry to get your hopes up there...I mean the games being cloned, no the clones. I mean that most of my players started with Red Box or AD&D. But they all greatly prefer the WOTC versions.

 One of my players took a quick look at a page from "Dismal Depths" from "Sham's Grog and Blog" and said "Oh man! I want to play that! You're gonna update it to 3rd edition, right?"

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362I think it's safe to say that dreams of broad commercial success isn't the motivation behind the retro-clones.  It would be welcomed, of course, but I doubt that anyone writing or publishing retro-clones is in it for the great business opportunities.  This stuff is getting written and published for love of the material and the hobby.

I do think that some of the people writing and publishing envision thousands of players tossing off the shackles of 21st century style rules, though.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281362Hell, that sounds pretty damn good, to me.

Sounds good to me too.