Quote from: wiseman207;281220It's a guy who only likes older editions of D&D.  The steriotype is he's been "playing D&D since 75", is old, fat, bearded, and "WotC ruined D&D, you can pry my AD&D DM's Guide from my cold dead hand".

The other day when we played my Gygax Memorial, one of the players had a pad of the original AD&D character sheets - you know, the different ones for each character class. Out of its little box he pulled an advertisement boasting about 2nd ed AD&D coming soon!

Of course we all said that 2nd ed would ruin the game, and not be the true game... and that we'd buy all the books anyway, just so we could see just how much they sucked.

Quote from: NicephorusEspecially for those players who started with 3rd edition.

I was actually surprised to find that a few of the players in the Gygax Memorial had rarely or never played D&D before, or only 3.5. I said, "that's like a kid who's never met their grandma. It's just wrong." With over 2,000 published rpgs out there, we can't possibly play even a tenth of them all. But I think there are a few everyone should try. D&D's one, since it helps you understand where we started.

Quote from: SpinachatFREE is a powerful word. If your primary goal is to reach the largest possible audience, $0.00 beats $5.00 any day of the week.

Yes and no. You get a lot of downloads of free stuff, but not much reading of it, and thus not much playing. Basically what you find is that you get something like,

• free pdf, 1,000 downloads, 1 or 2 emails or forum threads commenting on it, no evidence of play
  
• $5 pdf, 100 downloads, 10 to 20 emails or forum threads commenting on it, a few of which show some play happening
  

Free core rules + paid-for supplements/adventures may work differently and be a good combination, the splatbooks encouraging people to read their free pdfs, it's hard to say. But we definitely know from downloads and sales figures and the feedback we get that in general people don't read the free pdfs they download.

Quote from: Cole;281361As best I can tell, it is and remains a scam to get people to play early versions of D&D...  

WTF?  A scam?  :confused:

I assume that you're joking...

Quote from: Cole;281361I get Fight On! ... but for the most part it's  the world of free hobbyist stuff mostly for the existing early-D&D-DM.

Sounds awesome to me!  

This 'hobbyist' stuff is hit-and-miss, I admit, but when it 'hits' it can be amazing.  I'll gladly take Fight On!, Monsters of Myth, and Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom over the stuff being published by WotC these days.

Quote from: Cole;281372Sorry 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.

Ah, okay.  Yeah, that sounded pretty wild, to me.  

I started with the Holmes Basic set (I believe it was the 1979 version -- it had chits).  I used to prefer 3e, myself.  It took 3e giving me everything I ever wanted in D&D to realize that it wasn't what I wanted.  

In my case, "going back" to Gygax D&D was surprising because I had learned a lot about system design while playing WotC D&D (those "behind the curtain" sidebars and such), and I applied that "why is this set up like this" attitude towards the older rules (something I had never really done, back in the day).  To my surprise, I found that things I thought were silly or stupid made a lot of sense if they were viewed with the original design assumptions in mind.  I touched on this a little bit in my "considering OD&D" musing, but I think Robert Fisher does a better job illustrating what I mean in his "I Used to Think..." article.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.

To people who already have and play the originals, they aren't of much direct value. However, they do serve a number of purposes:

1) They are valuable player recruiting tools. There are a large number of players out there who refuse to play "out-of-print" games, especially long out-of-print games. It is easier to get such a player to try Labyrinth Lord than the B/X D&D it's based on.

2) They allow the professional publication of new adventures. This isn't very important now because most of the people running older versions of D&D or retroclones have more adventures than they need and are used to creating their own adventures anyway. However, the goal is to expand the player base for old-school games and newer players who decide to run their own games tend to expect a constant stream of third party material for their games.

3) The games themselves are nice to have at the game table instead of one's irreplaceable (at a reasonable cost) originals.  Also, the pdfs are generally designed to be printed -- without all the ink-eating borders and large pictures in some of the later originals.  The rules differences are so minor that most long time players of the originals have no trouble ignoring changes they don't like.

4) Free PDFs mean all players at the table can have a copy. No one just trying the game has to buy anything or go without.

Retroclones are also seen as one way to return control of the game to hobbyists (instead controlled by the needs of a large company for constant cash flow and profits).

QuoteIf, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you?

That's not what a lot of old-school D&D players want. They want their favorite version of D&D, not some new game that claims to be "old school" as these gamers have been disappointed by such claims too many times in the past.  Even my Microlite74 gets some of this type of reaction.

QuoteWhy not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel without having to just be a cheapass ripoff of an actual old-school game, and presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility....

First, I've never seen a copy of Forward... to Adventure! reviewed or discussed much on any "old school" board or blog. While I could have missed such, it just doesn't look like many Old school gamers know enough about the game to decide if it is "old school" enough for them. I suspect most do not even know it exists. (In other words, if you are trying to reach Old School gamers with Forward... to Adventure!, it doesn't look to me as if you being very successful at reaching them.)

Second, "modern rules-design sensibility" often doesn't go over well with those who like TSR versions of D&D.  Even something simple like having higher numbered armor classes being better is enough to turn off some.   Modern ideas like character skill rolls that substitute for player skill (in finding traps and the like) are even less popular. Most seem to be interested in playing their favorite version of D&D (or something very close to it).

Quote from: Cole;281363...
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.
...

I don't think that anyone actively involved in the "Old School Renaissance" is deluded about its scope.

Apparently Fight On! has sold in the triple-digits.  That means that there are hundreds of people out there so enthusiastic about old school gaming as to purchase FO!  That's not bad IMO.  However, nobody thinks that WotC is shaking in its boots.

I'm thrilled that there are so many people out there who enjoy the same kinds of games that I do.  And I take comfort in the knowledge that for every gamer active on the internet (posting at forums, commenting on blogs, etc.), there probably are 2-8 more people in that gamer's 'old school' group.

Long live the Old School Renaissance!  :shakespeare:

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281380...
I started with the Holmes Basic set (I believe it was the 1979 version -- it had chits).  I used to prefer 3e, myself.  It took 3e giving me everything I ever wanted in D&D to realize that it wasn't what I wanted. ...

:ditto:

Quote from: RPGPundit;281177... I think retro-clone games suck ass ...
...
If, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you? Why not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel ...

Hmmm ... I can't help but suspect that you are so bitter towards retro-clones because you think that they are adversely affecting the popularity of FtA!  That is, were it not for free retro-clones like OSRIC, LL, and S&W, the grognards would be discovering and loving your 'new old school' game.

I own and quite like FtA!  But it's just not 'old school D&D'.

[/QUOTE]

 Originally Posted by Philotomy Jurament  View Post
...
I started with the Holmes Basic set (I believe it was the 1979 version -- it had chits). I used to prefer 3e, myself. It took 3e giving me everything I ever wanted in D&D to realize that it wasn't what I wanted. ...
[/QUOTE]

Quote from: Akrasia;281384:ditto:

I feel you guys. I enjoy playing later versions, but years of DMing 3.X have highlighted advantages of older styles I didn't see in the first couple years of the 2000's. My fellow players don't seem to have developed this opinion, though.

Quote from: Akrasia;281385Hmmm ... I can't help but suspect that you are so bitter towards retro-clones because you think that they are adversely affecting the popularity of FtA!  That is, were it not for free retro-clones like OSRIC, LL, and S&W, the grognards would be discovering and loving your 'new old school' game.

I own and quite like FtA!  But it's just not 'old school D&D'.

Do you have a review of FtA online anywhere?

Quote from: RandallS;281382...Retroclones are also seen as one way to return control of the game to hobbyists....

This is one of the things that I really love about the Old School Renaissance.  The contributors to Fight On! have ideas that seem more interesting and original than what is coming out of WotC these days (IMO).  The hobbyist can be true to his vision and preferences, a luxury typically not available to a designer for WotC (or any other game company).

Quote from: Cole;281388Do you have a review of FtA online anywhere?

I haven't written a review myself, but I believe that there are a couple over at RPGnet.  Just go to the review section.

Funny, even though they no longer post on the same site Pundy and Settembrini still think in sync.

S. had an anti-old-school rant the other day in which he opined that up to 70% of the Old School Renaissance cohorts are probably either Swine or Swine manque'. Who am I to disagree, much less disprove?

As for me, I'm slightly puzzled by the fact that the enthusiasm for the clones almost overshadows the enthusiasm for the originals. IMO the clones are uniformly sterile and mere means to an end.

That said, unlike the earlier Grimoire Games reprint the new Arduin apparently has a legible font. So this particular clone serves a practical purpose, and I applaud that.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;281380Ah, okay.  Yeah, that sounded pretty wild, to me.

By the way, nice icon. I just got that version of Face in the Abyss a couple weeks back.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;281391S. had an anti-old-school rant the other day in which he opined that up to 70% of the Old School Renaissance cohorts are probably either Swine or Swine manque'. Who am I to disagree, much less disprove?

Have a link? I love reading rants.

Quote from: Akrasia;281383Apparently Fight On! has sold in the triple-digits.  

I can't give exact numbers but that is the ballpark for Points of Light as well.