Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 26, 2022, 01:41:51 PMThe funny thing is that all my "dislikes" have been fixed in 3e, 4e, and 5e, but I still find that B/X and the RC are better (although early 5e is almost there IMO). Maybe it is just because I find adding half a dozen things to a game is easier than subtracting dozens of things between hundreds.

There's a simple explanation. It's features vs benefits. Your lists are of features, not benefits. A lot of people confuse them. RPGers are especially bad at this. You need to be asking yourself why these things even matter to you. All I can do is give some examples of what benefits a feature might be to me.

Let's take Race-as-Class, for example. Why do we even bother having races and classes at all? For me, the benefit is to provide options for different play experiences. An extreme example would be magic-users vs fighters. Magic-users or weak both offensively and defensively. Until they drop the bomb. Their spells are very powerful, but in very limited number. The fighter is more of a steady Eddy. There is no fixed limit to their sword swings. They are strong both offensively and defensively. Playing one versus the other lends itself to experiencing the game VERY differently.

Later editions diminish the differences. Magic-users are given a bit more hit points. Even slightly better at weapon attacks. Their spells aren't quite as strong, but they can use more of them. On the flip side, fighters are given special widgets so that they can drop a bomb here and there. The difference in play experience is not as dramatic in later editions.

Now I come from a 1E perspective. We pick class and race separately. However, there are a LOT of restrictions on what class you can be (and what level you can attain) based on choice of race. This means choosing to play an Elf or a Dwarf rather than a Human is a pretty big choice. In later editions, these restrictions are lifted, and the only differences between the races are some token attribute adjustments and minor special abilities.

So from that view, it's easy to see that, yes, I'd rather race and class be separate things, but if given the choice between how it's done in 3E and beyond versus race-as-class, I would rather go with an edition that did race-as-class. It seems to me like that would provide more diversity in play experience.


Most of the things you list are beyond me why they even matter. Again, this is only for you to answer anyway, but I can't even give an example for most of them.

Like "byzantine" XP? First, I can't help but think "byzantine" ain't what it used to be if we're calling basic arithmetic byzantine. But what exactly would be the benefit to doing it differently? My edition of choice is 1E. In 1E I'm never asked to divide XP by level. It's not part of the system at all. But you know what? I do have to divide XP by the number of party members. So if the hope is to avoid division, you're shit out of luck. Even if I were to somehow retool the XP system to where I didn't even have to divide XP by number of party members, there'd still be the matter of dividing up gold.


So my advice is go through your list again asking what the benefit is. And try to avoid just saying "simplicity." Tic-Tac-Toe is a simple game. Moldvay is a brain aneurysm by comparison. And you are completely free at any time to slam the book shut and just flip a coin anytime you're not sure what would or should happen next. But would that be a satisfying way to play? For me, no. I suspect the answer is no for almost every gamer. By virtue of picking up an RPG book, every last one of us has proven that "simplicity" is pretty far down our list of priorities. No matter how much a gamer insists they like simple, they are made liars by their own demonstrated preferences. So always dig a little deeper on that one.

An interesting spin on race-as-class I saw was in Adventurer, Conqueror, King.

In addition to fighter, cleric, mage, thief, there are demi-human racial classes like elven spellsword (fighter/mage) and nightblade (mage/thief) and dwarven vaultguard and craftpriest. It reflects (realistically, to me) that different cultures (as demihumans wind up being) would have different classes serving the same roles, just as a samurai, a medieval knight, and Arabic ghazi would use different weapons and armor and have different abilities.

The Players Companion even has rules for making your own classes and defining XP for them, which is neat.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 27, 2022, 08:53:34 AMI dunno man. I have seen a positive OSR community on Reddit, G+ and here. This very thread - we have some people agreeing, some people disagreeing, but nobody calling heresy on my points.

Its less hot this thread, but more times then less I have just had OSR fans rag on everything and anything in OD&D while ignoring all things they dislike as just the equivalent of 'non-cannon'.
So far no heresies, but I have few people impressing me with their reasoning.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 11:29:37 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 27, 2022, 08:53:34 AMI dunno man. I have seen a positive OSR community on Reddit, G+ and here. This very thread - we have some people agreeing, some people disagreeing, but nobody calling heresy on my points.

Its less hot this thread, but more times then less I have just had OSR fans rag on everything and anything in OD&D while ignoring all things they dislike as just the equivalent of 'non-cannon'.
So far no heresies, but I have few people impressing me with their reasoning.

Im not sure about this, especially because 95% of OSR games arr based on B/X not OD&D also i dont think it was you who said it, but OD&D didnt use race as class.

Quote from: Null42 on February 27, 2022, 11:09:26 AM
An interesting spin on race-as-class I saw was in Adventurer, Conqueror, King.

In addition to fighter, cleric, mage, thief, there are demi-human racial classes like elven spellsword (fighter/mage) and nightblade (mage/thief) and dwarven vaultguard and craftpriest. It reflects (realistically, to me) that different cultures (as demihumans wind up being) would have different classes serving the same roles, just as a samurai, a medieval knight, and Arabic ghazi would use different weapons and armor and have different abilities.

The Players Companion even has rules for making your own classes and defining XP for them, which is neat.

Yes; good point.  The diverse racial classes is my favorite aspect of ACKS.  Now if they'd just put out one book with all the classes in it instead of spreading out across like 6 books....

Quote from: Slambo on February 27, 2022, 12:01:24 PMIm not sure about this, especially because 95% of OSR games arr based on B/X not OD&D also i dont think it was you who said it, but OD&D didnt use race as class.

Fine B/X.

Quote from: Slambo on February 27, 2022, 12:01:24 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 11:29:37 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 27, 2022, 08:53:34 AMI dunno man. I have seen a positive OSR community on Reddit, G+ and here. This very thread - we have some people agreeing, some people disagreeing, but nobody calling heresy on my points.

Its less hot this thread, but more times then less I have just had OSR fans rag on everything and anything in OD&D while ignoring all things they dislike as just the equivalent of 'non-cannon'.
So far no heresies, but I have few people impressing me with their reasoning.

Im not sure about this, especially because 95% of OSR games arr based on B/X not OD&D also i dont think it was you who said it, but OD&D didnt use race as class.

I always use the acronym "OD&D" to refer to "Old/Old School" D&D (as in "anything before WotC took over, sometimes to pre-AD&D specifically), cuz TBH I don't have the faintest clue WTF to call pre-WotC era or "pre-AD&D D&D" when referring to it "in general" (and I've asked, or at least mentioned this before, and nobody addressed it: WTF do I call pre-AD&D D&D without the OSR getting nitpicky about terms?).

This strange adherence to jargon absolutely no one outside of hardcore OSR (not even the noobs) is likely to know is one of the ways I find the OSR to lack self-awareness--because it's not a reasonable expectation to expect anyone who isn't deep into the OSR to know what these separate, yet deeply related terms (ALL of which refer to anything D&D before AD&D or 3e+), even mean. Or to know the fine distinction between 0e, B/X, Moldvay, BECMI, or whatever, or how any of these books which are essentially pre-AD&D D&D differ from each other. And the OSR is pretty much the only "community" I've run into where this is the case, cuz for almost every other game people just use #+e (2e, 3e, etc.) when they refer to a specific edition (the main exception being games with a d20 System version), which is orders of magnitude easier to understand or recall than a bunch of acronyms with extremely subtle differences that refer to essentially tiny variations of the same game. It's only in pre-AD&D (at term which I'm sure will piss off the OSR as well) that we get into this stuff about a half a dozen or more acronyms we all need to use carefully.

And all of this is made even worse when people tend to lump AD&D 1e into the OSR as well, which is why I sometimes even use "OD&D" to refer to anything pre-3e (or even pre-2e sometimes, cuz the OSR hates 2e for some unfathomable reason, despite it being extremely similar to 1e). So I have no clue what to use to refer to whatever the OSR considers the holy writ canon of "true D&D" (i.e. 1e or earlier).

Well, some of that version confusion is unavoidable, considering that B/X was running concurrently with AD&D for much of its life.  Moreover, some of the B/X precedes the launch of AD&D and some of it comes after, famously, the Rules Cyclopedia, which is itself a consolidation of earlier materials, though much of it is word for word lift.

Probably the best non-D&D analog is the RQ stuff, with Mongoose having a go, then the "Legend" spin off due to licensing.  Which is MRQ I and II are a thing separate from RQ, and "Legend" is closer to MRQ II than anything else.  (Close enough that I never got it because someone recommended that I not since I already had MRQ II.)  Then you've got whatever is in Lyonesse which looks pretty close, never mind all the later stuff that a direct spin off from RQ. 

People now may not care about the differences, and that's fine.  It's not really relevant if 3E, 4E, or 5E is your main thing.  Not caring about it because it doesn't matter to you doesn't make the difference go away in other contexts, though.

Why do OSR threads always attract people who feel the need to flounce in, announce the OSR is terrible, and then post a list of negative qualities they associate with everyone in the OSR?

Asking for a friend, because it certainly wouldn't happen in this thread.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 01:25:09 PM

Quote from: Slambo on February 27, 2022, 12:01:24 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 11:29:37 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 27, 2022, 08:53:34 AMI dunno man. I have seen a positive OSR community on Reddit, G+ and here. This very thread - we have some people agreeing, some people disagreeing, but nobody calling heresy on my points.

Its less hot this thread, but more times then less I have just had OSR fans rag on everything and anything in OD&D while ignoring all things they dislike as just the equivalent of 'non-cannon'.
So far no heresies, but I have few people impressing me with their reasoning.

Im not sure about this, especially because 95% of OSR games arr based on B/X not OD&D also i dont think it was you who said it, but OD&D didnt use race as class.

I always use the acronym "OD&D" to refer to "Old/Old School" D&D (as in "anything before WotC took over, sometimes to pre-AD&D specifically), cuz TBH I don't have the faintest clue WTF to call pre-WotC era or "pre-AD&D D&D" when referring to it "in general" (and I've asked, or at least mentioned this before, and nobody addressed it: WTF do I call pre-AD&D D&D without the OSR getting nitpicky about terms?).

This strange adherence to jargon absolutely no one outside of hardcore OSR (not even the noobs) is likely to know is one of the ways I find the OSR to lack self-awareness--because it's not a reasonable expectation to expect anyone who isn't deep into the OSR to know what these separate, yet deeply related terms (ALL of which refer to anything D&D before AD&D or 3e+), even mean. Or to know the fine distinction between 0e, B/X, Moldvay, BECMI, or whatever, or how any of these books which are essentially pre-AD&D D&D differ from each other. And the OSR is pretty much the only "community" I've run into where this is the case, cuz for almost every other game people just use #+e (2e, 3e, etc.) when they refer to a specific edition (the main exception being games with a d20 System version), which is orders of magnitude easier to understand or recall than a bunch of acronyms with extremely subtle differences that refer to essentially tiny variations of the same game. It's only in pre-AD&D (at term which I'm sure will piss off the OSR as well) that we get into this stuff about a half a dozen or more acronyms we all need to use carefully.

And all of this is made even worse when people tend to lump AD&D 1e into the OSR as well, which is why I sometimes even use "OD&D" to refer to anything pre-3e (or even pre-2e sometimes, cuz the OSR hates 2e for some unfathomable reason, despite it being extremely similar to 1e). So I have no clue what to use to refer to whatever the OSR considers the holy writ canon of "true D&D" (i.e. 1e or earlier).

Im pretty sure the whole OSR thing started with OSRIC which is 1e so i dont get why you think it shouldnt be included. Also AD&D was concurrent with many of the other systems. So pre-AD&D doesnt really work either.

This sounds like someone being mad people refer to the different versions of Street Fighter 2 as different versions because they've only played Street Fighter 4 then saying that they use SFII to refer to every street fighter game before 4 and thinking it doesnt make sense when people get confused. People also get confused about the difference between World Warrior, Turbo, Hyper Fighting, and Super Street Fighter 2 but ive never seen anyone get so pissy about it.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 03:28:36 PMAsking for a friend, because it certainly wouldn't happen in this thread.

Because they don't hold their preferences as preferences with elements others find as flaws. To which they immediatly turn to defensive plays on the level of 'You just don't get it'.

Quote from: Slambo on February 27, 2022, 03:53:42 PMthey've only played Street Fighter 4

Thats always the deal. It must be newbies that dislike the gargon word terminology. People who are tagalongs or 'Not real fans'. It can never be that people played their favorite game and found it lacking. Only the true megabrains know the #trueway.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 04:01:17 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 03:28:36 PMAsking for a friend, because it certainly wouldn't happen in this thread.

Because they don't hold their preferences as preferences with elements others find as flaws. To which they immediatly turn to defensive plays on the level of 'You just don't get it'.

Quote from: Slambo on February 27, 2022, 03:53:42 PMthey've only played Street Fighter 4

Thats always the deal. It must be newbies that dislike the gargon word terminology. People who are tagalongs or 'Not real fans'. It can never be that people played their favorite game and found it lacking. Only the true megabrains know the #trueway.

I maybe phrased it wrong but i dont mean to point it at newbies its more, why get mad people using acronyms other people understand. For example on the context of this board most people understand what those acronyms mean why go on trying to tell people not to use them then use an acronym no one uses in that way using the same letters as another acronym and expect people to understand.

So i guess to rephrase, its like people getting mad that the DP acronym refers to a Dragon Punch when they go on a street fighter form when they use DP to mean Dynamic Punch cause they like pokemon.

Quote from: Slambo on February 27, 2022, 04:12:55 PMI maybe phrased it wrong but i dont mean to point it at newbies its more, why get mad people using acronyms other people understand.

Its the nitpickyness of it. Im all for a community having its own rules and such and having its own be its own. Fuck dumbing it down for masses. Gatekeeping = good.

But its the equivalent of policing grammar when its done like this. Its technically correct but its also really annoying and doesn't really engage with the point.

Quote from: Slambo on February 27, 2022, 03:53:42 PMIm pretty sure the whole OSR thing started with OSRIC which is 1e so i dont get why you think it shouldnt be included.

I never said that it shouldn't be included. I said that I normally use the term "OD&D" to refer to older editions or "old school" D&D in general, and I also mentioned that when I do this I'm sometimes referring to pre- or "not" AD&D specifically (0e, B/X, BECMI, etc), but I sometimes use it to refer to AD&D 1e as well, because ALL of those game books are what the OSR draws from. But I can't refer to them as "OSR" cuz they're merely the inspiration for it, not "OSR" games per se. But if I use "OD&D" the OSR gets pissy, because apparently we can't use "Old" to refer to not-AD&D in general. If I use 0e the OSR also gets pissy, cuz apparently that also refers to the very first print specifically, so I can't just refer to them by number like I can with EVERY SINGLE OTHER EDITION of D&D from 1e. So WTF do I call them when referring to them "in general"--not a specific variant of what's essentially the same game--but that long line of variants of one game that the OSR draws inspiration from? And how do we refer to AD&D 1e when speaking about it as part of the entire catalog of D&D variants the OSR draws from?

I thought we'd standardized on "classic D&D" for 0e, B/X, and BECMI/RC?