TheRPGSite

 Wrote a small post about my OS/OSR likes and dislikes here. I'll paste the part that is relevant to the discussion below (or click the link to see other links and a bit about my own clone).

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/02/my-favorite-d-and-osr-likes-and.html

---

If I were to choose a "pound for pound champion" of D&D, it would be Moldvay's Basic* - the best ratio of great content per page. On the other hand, my "single book" champion would be the Rules Cyclopedia* - greatest amount of cool stuff in one single book.



Both books are remarkable because of that, IMO; other D&D books would get more extensive with time. Redundant stuff was added and some important content was nearly lost with time (reactions, morale, hirelings, etc.).



However, when I started writing my list of likes and dislikes I realized how extensive the latter is. And these are not details - they are fundamental things about my favorite games. I am still a bit unsure about how to explain this - maybe my "likes" have a bigger weight than my dislikes here. Or maybe "dislikes" are just easier to list - if I were to list my 5e dislikes, for examples, I'd include "too many skills, too many spells, too much repetition and redundancy", but when I write about old school positives I just say "simplicity".



The 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.

Anyway, here we go. I'll use B/X as an example because it is my favorite.

Likes:

- Simplicity, usability, conciseness, lack of clutter.

- Focus on reaction, morale, hirelings.

- Easy to house-rule.

- Monsters are easy to run.

Dislikes:

- Race-as-class.

- Different XP tables for each class (including different XP limits), which makes XP useless for some characters for  a big chunk of the game (unless multi-classing etc.)

- Byzantine XP math, including ability bonuses and dividing the XP by your level or something.

- Attacks and saving throws tables.

- Thief skills using d6 and d100 (also, d100 in increments of 5% instead of d20)

- Cleric weirdness.

Neutral:

- Domain building - I like it as long as you actually use it, which I haven't seem in my games.

- Descending AC.

- Vancian magic.

- Lack of "streamlined mechanics".

- Lack of generalized skills for non-thieves.

My preferences have not been changed even after playing multiple versions of D&D. I even wrote my own take on B/X, changing everything I dislike.



I do realize this is a matter of taste. However, most of the I've mentioned as "dislikes", I also find to be:

- Arbitrary (see the cleric post for an example).

- Justifiable if we don't use them ("sure, Halflings stop at 120,000 XP, but we never play high-level campaigns anyway") or use optional rules.

- Only make sense in the wargaming context (if you had a "XP budget" to build your troops, for example).

- Relics of Arneson/Gygax's original campaigns that do not make sense in 99% of our campaigns.

I am curious about your opinions about:

- What are your likes/dislikes and, if different from mine, why do you like/dislike this. For example, why is it useful to have a different XP table to the fighter instead of just making the fighter a bit stronger (say, attacks as monster of the same HD).

- Are there any important likes/dislikes that I'm missing, that might help explain why we still find these games superior to post-2000s D&D?

Add your list of neutrals to the negatives column except domain building along with "way too much dependence on randomness in character generation" and the mechanics not at-all lining up with how it was presented outside the game (i.e. you can emulate heroes from fantasy stories) while actually being more of a strategic resource game where acting like heroes from myth, legend and fantasy fiction would likely get you killed in short order... and you'd have my list.

The high point of D&D for me were the original Dragonlance modules which actually did deliver on letting you play as a fantasy hero (and did you look at those pre-gens' stats? No way those were randomly rolled) instead of going through a small village worth of dirt farmers until one gets lucky enough to not be in danger of immediate death from a stray rat.

So, yeah... I don't actually find old-school D&D even remotely enjoyable and haven't since 1e with orange spines were the current line. The closest thing to old-school D&D I get these days is Palladium Fantasy 1e which actually fixed just about all the problems (except the random stats) I had with AD&D.

I share most of your dislikes.  My reasons however are mostly related to the neutral "lack of streamlined mechanics".  The reason that later editions don't fix those for me is that they go too far the other way--streamlining for the sake of streamlining.  To give specific examples of what I mean, there's nothing wrong with having different mechanics for morale and surprise/perception because those don't really naturally fit well into the d20 mechanic that might work just fine for thief skills.  If widget A and widget B both have approximately the same kind of distribution in the model, then they should use the same mechanic, and it should be recognizable as the same mechanic.  If they don't, they shouldn't be forced into it.

I have a deep aversion to "roll under" and other such mechanics that are seemingly inverted from what most people would expect.  The aversion is somewhat arbitrary and unfair, and I'm aware of that.  In a game of, say, Runequest or Fantasy Hero, I can kind of ignore the roll under for attacks, roll high for damage part, because at least those are on totally separate rolls.  When it starts to multiply, I start to twitch a little.  Strangely enough, it bothers me far more as a GM than as a player, even in a given system.  I guess the more time I spend with the system the more it bothers me.

I get a similar twitch to descending AC now.  It didn't bother me when it was the natural outgrowth of a chart lookup, in a game where everyone I knew made a little personal chart for their character on their college ruled notebook paper character sheet.  I'm not that against chart lookups in a simple game.  The twitch is for how unnecessary it is removed from that context.

The thing is, all that can be "fixed" to some extent.  But it can only be fixed correctly in two situations:

A. The designer is preserving the game as much as possible and simply streamlining  the system within that larger preservation goal.
B. The designer recognizes that they are not preserving the game, and thus the streamlining as such is towards a different design with different goals (whatever those are).

Chesterton's fence all over again.  You can replace race as class or descending AC.  You can't do it correctly without first understanding why they are a thing.  Having thus understood them, you may or may not replace them.

Note also that many discussions of this get all tangled up in another hidden conceit.  Namely, that what some people want to do to "fix" D&D doesn't have anything to do with the above, but is really their idea of how to make the most popular game more like some other game they'd rather play instead.  Arguably, some of the flaws (but not all) of WotC editions stem from a similar dynamic. 

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 26, 2022, 01:41:51 PM

- What are your likes/dislikes and, if different from mine, why do you like/dislike this. For example, why is it useful to have a different XP table to the fighter instead of just making the fighter a bit stronger (say, attacks as monster of the same HD).

Do you have a reason why you dislike it? Because the different XP tables have real, concrete effects on gameplay and even on social cohesion. I'm curious if you've fully considered those consequences, or if it's just some vague undefined preference. The reason why I'm asking the question, and not providing my own analysis, is because I find a lot of people's preferences when it comes to game mechanics are unexamined. And while those preferences may be based on an intuitive understand of the real consequences, and the person just hasn't developed the tools to coherently express them; in most cases, they seem to be purely irrational.

Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 06:24:33 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 26, 2022, 01:41:51 PM

- What are your likes/dislikes and, if different from mine, why do you like/dislike this. For example, why is it useful to have a different XP table to the fighter instead of just making the fighter a bit stronger (say, attacks as monster of the same HD).

Do you have a reason why you dislike it? Because the different XP tables have real, concrete effects on gameplay and even on social cohesion. I'm curious if you've fully considered those consequences, or if it's just some vague undefined preference. The reason why I'm asking the question, and not providing my own analysis, is because I find a lot of people's preferences when it comes to game mechanics are unexamined. And while those preferences may be based on an intuitive understand of the real consequences, and the person just hasn't developed the tools to coherently express them; in most cases, they seem to be purely irrational.

It's mostly a matter of taste, but I'll try.

First, makes PCs harder to compare. "An adventure for 4-6 5th level PCs" barely makes sense in this context.

Second, it is not that hard to "fix" - for example, enhance the 11th level fighter so he looks more like a 12th level fighter (or even a 5 HD level monster, who has a better attack matrix than the fighter for some reason) and make this 12th level, with the 5th level MU, around 600,000 XP or whatever.

Also, I dislike the idea of "Halflings stop at 120,000 XP... and then what?". The goal of the game is to become a big hero (I do not have the exact Gygax quote), and you do this mostly through XP. So you've got a MU who has a long way to ultimate power and a halfling who either retires or becomes a sidekick.

I'm curious to hear your reasoning why this is a good idea, however - I've heard at least one good argument for that (it encourages rotating PCs).

EDIT: I might add that I dislike that game mechanics should have obscure reasons that are not obvious to players and DMs. If there is a secret reason why the cleric spell progression is completely bonkers and cure serious wounds is a 4th level spell, it should be clear to everyone.

Yeah; I'd probably concur with Moldvay B/X being my favorite iteration of D&D.  There's the nostalgia factor of course, that having been the version I started with, though we went into AD&D within a few months then switched back and forth thereafter through the 1980s.  I played tons of AD&D, but we never bothered to switch to 2e, just buying a few books and modules.  I pretty much loathe 3e and 5e, and never played any 4e, so that's not even a factor for me.  But now we play Castles & Crusades when we want the 1e experience.

But I still keep coming back to B/X or variations on it.  I love the streamlined simplicity, the short and simple character sheets, and the relatively easy to run monsters.  And, as I've gotten older and have less time to prep and play with less experienced players (mostly family members), it's just easier to run and easier for new people to learn.  Hell, I even like race as class so much that when we put together an OSE Advanced campaign, the players could only choose the new or old race classes or the regular human classes; so they could play gnomes, half-elves, etc., but no Half-elven rangers or whatever.

In terms of some of the other stuff, I like having uneven XP advancement.  Always used it and I think it's fine.  In fact, it's been fun in the aforementioned OSE Advanced campaign because it seems like we've got at least 1 PC leveling up after every adventure (not session) due to the uneven advancement.  That campaign will wrap up pretty soon as the PCs are all 8-10th level now. 

I used to absolutely hate ascending AC, but having played with newer players the past couple years, I can appreciate how it generally speeds up play for the newbies.  So I'm at least neutral about it.  I prefer the traditional saving throws to the modern ones (Reflex, Willpower, Fortitude), but I like the Swords & Wizardry single save even better.  I also really like morale and group initiative, as it's just easier to keep track of things for me.  And I've grown to appreciate the three axis alignment system too when I used to prefer the AD&D system.

All this being said, I've also really come to appreciate DCC and the little innovations they add to B/X.  We've been using their action dice and crit tables in our OSE game and after doing this for months now, we are going to just do a straight DCC campaign later this year.  I like how they do clerical healing and how they add flavor to the demi-human classes, not to mention thieves by giving them different skill advancement based on their alignment.  The magic system is a bit burdensome at times, but we're willing to roll with it.  In fact, I found character sheets for all of our original B/X characters from 1981-82 and converted them over to DCC for a high level campaign arc I have in mind.

So basically my overriding concern now is to maximize playing time & fun at the table and not have to mess around with tons of feats, spells, conditions, or even too many character classes & abilities.  There's no reason you can't make a B/X fighter feel like Aragorn, Conan, Lancelot, or Miyamoto Musashi.  Just use your imagination.  So B/X or DCC pretty much check the boxes I want and we can still mess around with C&C if we want that slightly crunchier experience.

Shadow of the Demon Lord is my favorite version of D&D because it gets rid of so much of what makes D&D shit.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 26, 2022, 07:58:16 PM
Shadow of the Demon Lord is my favorite version of D&D because it gets rid of so much of what ages D&D shit.

One of my favorites too - currently running a campaign. The way it deals with ability scores is superb, and it has some awesome features. The growing number of options is another great aspect of the game - starts simple, adds complexity as you go.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 26, 2022, 07:37:33 PM
Yeah; I'd probably concur with Moldvay B/X being my favorite iteration of D&D.  There's the nostalgia factor of course, that having been the version I started with, though we went into AD&D within a few months then switched back and forth thereafter through the 1980s.  I played tons of AD&D, but we never bothered to switch to 2e, just buying a few books and modules.  I pretty much loathe 3e and 5e, and never played any 4e, so that's not even a factor for me.  But now we play Castles & Crusades when we want the 1e experience.

But I still keep coming back to B/X or variations on it.  I love the streamlined simplicity, the short and simple character sheets, and the relatively easy to run monsters.  And, as I've gotten older and have less time to prep and play with less experienced players (mostly family members), it's just easier to run and easier for new people to learn.  Hell, I even like race as class so much that when we put together an OSE Advanced campaign, the players could only choose the new or old race classes or the regular human classes; so they could play gnomes, half-elves, etc., but no Half-elven rangers or whatever.

In terms of some of the other stuff, I like having uneven XP advancement.  Always used it and I think it's fine.  In fact, it's been fun in the aforementioned OSE Advanced campaign because it seems like we've got at least 1 PC leveling up after every adventure (not session) due to the uneven advancement.  That campaign will wrap up pretty soon as the PCs are all 8-10th level now. 

I used to absolutely hate ascending AC, but having played with newer players the past couple years, I can appreciate how it generally speeds up play for the newbies.  So I'm at least neutral about it.  I prefer the traditional saving throws to the modern ones (Reflex, Willpower, Fortitude), but I like the Swords & Wizardry single save even better.  I also really like morale and group initiative, as it's just easier to keep track of things for me.  And I've grown to appreciate the three axis alignment system too when I used to prefer the AD&D system.

All this being said, I've also really come to appreciate DCC and the little innovations they add to B/X.  We've been using their action dice and crit tables in our OSE game and after doing this for months now, we are going to just do a straight DCC campaign later this year.  I like how they do clerical healing and how they add flavor to the demi-human classes, not to mention thieves by giving them different skill advancement based on their alignment.  The magic system is a bit burdensome at times, but we're willing to roll with it.  In fact, I found character sheets for all of our original B/X characters from 1981-82 and converted them over to DCC for a high level campaign arc I have in mind.

So basically my overriding concern now is to maximize playing time & fun at the table and not have to mess around with tons of feats, spells, conditions, or even too many character classes & abilities.  There's no reason you can't make a B/X fighter feel like Aragorn, Conan, Lancelot, or Miyamoto Musashi.  Just use your imagination.  So B/X or DCC pretty much check the boxes I want and we can still mess around with C&C if we want that slightly crunchier experience.

Not much to add except I find myself agreeing with most of this. Race-as-class is good for beginners - or the first few levels - but the way that BFRPG, for example, deals with it feel a lot simpler and more flexible at the same time.

I love me some DCC too, although the tables are just to many for my tastes. So I like to mix and match.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 26, 2022, 08:22:59 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 26, 2022, 07:58:16 PM
Shadow of the Demon Lord is my favorite version of D&D because it gets rid of so much of what ages D&D shit.

One of my favorites too - currently running a campaign. The way it deals with ability scores is superb, and it has some awesome features. The growing number of options is another great aspect of the game - starts simple, adds complexity as you go.

Quote from: Persimmon on February 26, 2022, 07:37:33 PM
Yeah; I'd probably concur with Moldvay B/X being my favorite iteration of D&D.  There's the nostalgia factor of course, that having been the version I started with, though we went into AD&D within a few months then switched back and forth thereafter through the 1980s.  I played tons of AD&D, but we never bothered to switch to 2e, just buying a few books and modules.  I pretty much loathe 3e and 5e, and never played any 4e, so that's not even a factor for me.  But now we play Castles & Crusades when we want the 1e experience.

But I still keep coming back to B/X or variations on it.  I love the streamlined simplicity, the short and simple character sheets, and the relatively easy to run monsters.  And, as I've gotten older and have less time to prep and play with less experienced players (mostly family members), it's just easier to run and easier for new people to learn.  Hell, I even like race as class so much that when we put together an OSE Advanced campaign, the players could only choose the new or old race classes or the regular human classes; so they could play gnomes, half-elves, etc., but no Half-elven rangers or whatever.

In terms of some of the other stuff, I like having uneven XP advancement.  Always used it and I think it's fine.  In fact, it's been fun in the aforementioned OSE Advanced campaign because it seems like we've got at least 1 PC leveling up after every adventure (not session) due to the uneven advancement.  That campaign will wrap up pretty soon as the PCs are all 8-10th level now. 

I used to absolutely hate ascending AC, but having played with newer players the past couple years, I can appreciate how it generally speeds up play for the newbies.  So I'm at least neutral about it.  I prefer the traditional saving throws to the modern ones (Reflex, Willpower, Fortitude), but I like the Swords & Wizardry single save even better.  I also really like morale and group initiative, as it's just easier to keep track of things for me.  And I've grown to appreciate the three axis alignment system too when I used to prefer the AD&D system.

All this being said, I've also really come to appreciate DCC and the little innovations they add to B/X.  We've been using their action dice and crit tables in our OSE game and after doing this for months now, we are going to just do a straight DCC campaign later this year.  I like how they do clerical healing and how they add flavor to the demi-human classes, not to mention thieves by giving them different skill advancement based on their alignment.  The magic system is a bit burdensome at times, but we're willing to roll with it.  In fact, I found character sheets for all of our original B/X characters from 1981-82 and converted them over to DCC for a high level campaign arc I have in mind.

So basically my overriding concern now is to maximize playing time & fun at the table and not have to mess around with tons of feats, spells, conditions, or even too many character classes & abilities.  There's no reason you can't make a B/X fighter feel like Aragorn, Conan, Lancelot, or Miyamoto Musashi.  Just use your imagination.  So B/X or DCC pretty much check the boxes I want and we can still mess around with C&C if we want that slightly crunchier experience.

Not much to add except I find myself agreeing with most of this. Race-as-class is good for beginners - or the first few levels - but the way that BFRPG, for example, deals with it feel a lot simpler and more flexible at the same time.

I love me some DCC too, although the tables are just to many for my tastes. So I like to mix and match.

Yeah, BFRPG is fine I guess, but I just find it incredibly bland.  Somehow they've separated race and class and made it less interesting.  Probably my least favorite of the notable OSR/retroclones, though we are using some of the adventures for our OSE campaign.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 26, 2022, 06:59:30 PM
First, makes PCs harder to compare. "An adventure for 4-6 5th level PCs" barely makes sense in this context.

I think the comparison issue is true to a small degree, but mostly false. The underlying reason is that XP doubles every level up to name level. So while it's true not all characters will reach 4th level at the same XP total, in most cases there will never be more than a level difference. For instance, consider a thief who will advance to 2nd level at 1,250 XP, and to 3rd level at 2,500 XP, and to 4th level at 5,000 XP. Compare that to a magic-user who advances to 2nd level at 2,500, and 3rd level at 5,000 XP. Once the thief reaches 2nd level, the magic-user will be stuck exactly 1 level behind. And barring fringe cases (like multi-class characters or elves, or classes with weird progressions like 1e's bards or druids), that's typically the maximum difference.

Also, most parties will have a fairly standard range of characters, so their average level will average out. You're unlikely to have all thieves or all MUs, instead it'll be a mix. If the adventure is looking for characters in the range of 4-6th level, and you have a party with levels 3, 4, 5, 5, and 6, you're probably good. Thus, level assessments work fairly well as reasonable approximations.

Plus, if you want something more precise, just give an average XP instead of level ranges. "For characters of 10,000 XP, give or take a bunch." Or just use the fighter as a baseline, and say "characters with XP equivalent to a 4th to 6th level fighter." The latter has the advantage of being backward compatible.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 26, 2022, 06:59:30 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 06:24:33 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 26, 2022, 01:41:51 PM

- What are your likes/dislikes and, if different from mine, why do you like/dislike this. For example, why is it useful to have a different XP table to the fighter instead of just making the fighter a bit stronger (say, attacks as monster of the same HD).

Do you have a reason why you dislike it? Because the different XP tables have real, concrete effects on gameplay and even on social cohesion. I'm curious if you've fully considered those consequences, or if it's just some vague undefined preference. The reason why I'm asking the question, and not providing my own analysis, is because I find a lot of people's preferences when it comes to game mechanics are unexamined. And while those preferences may be based on an intuitive understand of the real consequences, and the person just hasn't developed the tools to coherently express them; in most cases, they seem to be purely irrational.

It's mostly a matter of taste, but I'll try.

First, makes PCs harder to compare. "An adventure for 4-6 5th level PCs" barely makes sense in this context.

Second, it is not that hard to "fix" - for example, enhance the 11th level fighter so he looks more like a 12th level fighter (or even a 5 HD level monster, who has a better attack matrix than the fighter for some reason) and make this 12th level, with the 5th level MU, around 600,000 XP or whatever.

Also, I dislike the idea of "Halflings stop at 120,000 XP... and then what?". The goal of the game is to become a big hero (I do not have the exact Gygax quote), and you do this mostly through XP. So you've got a MU who has a long way to ultimate power and a halfling who either retires or becomes a sidekick.

I'm curious to hear your reasoning why this is a good idea, however - I've heard at least one good argument for that (it encourages rotating PCs).

EDIT: I might add that I dislike that game mechanics should have obscure reasons that are not obvious to players and DMs. If there is a secret reason why the cleric spell progression is completely bonkers and cure serious wounds is a 4th level spell, it should be clear to everyone.

I think it goes beyond taste and has concrete impacts on gameplay.

The real consequence of having different XP progressions is that the PCs will level at different times. The thief will probably advance a few sessions before everyone else, then the cleric, then the fighter, with the magic-user lagging a few sessions behind. This gives everyone their moment to shine, because the thief with 2d4 or 2d6 hit dice is now just as tough as the fighter -- at least for a while.

Conversely, uniform XP progressions mean everyone advances in lockstep. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it creates a different experience. Advancing in level therefore becomes a shared experience, instead of an individual experience. Which can help create group cohesion and the sense that everyone is equal. But it's also much more demanding, when it comes to game balance. Because if everyone always moves in lockstep, then you have to be really careful to ensure that all characters are equal at all times. A game where XP progressions vary isn't so demanding, because there's a constant shift in relative power within the party, as different characters level while others have to wait. It's a contrast between being balanced over time, rather than being balanced all the time.

Being balanced over time also synergizes well with certain other old school features, like multiple DMs in the same campaign, each player having multiple characters that are pulled out to fit the night's adventure, a high death rate, a rotating stable of players, retainers, serendipitous magic item finds, starting new characters from 1st level, and random ability score and hp generation. One of the consequences of all these features is that not all PCs are equal at all times. One game, you might roll 18/00. Another, you might have a fighter with S 12. You might roll a 1 for hp, or an 8. Your best character might be a 4th level dwarf, struggling to keep up with super-heroes. You might find a hammer of thunderbolts in one game, or be a lord or lady whose most powerful magic weapon is a +2 club. If your character dies, you might start at 1st level again, and then be incredibly fragile until you keep up -- which, given how XP doubles, will be when the party gains roughly 1 new level. The shared trait that all these different aspects of the game supports is the idea here is that each player will play many characters over a year, or several years. Some of the characters will be overpowered, some will struggle. But you'll get to experience it all.

Conversely, the balanced all the time style works better with point buy systems, a lot of dramatic immunity or other protections against character death, long term investment in a single PC, and requires a more rigorous focus on balance. Since all the character advance in lockstep, it becomes more important to ensure all the characters are able to contribute, in different but equally effective ways, at all time. That puts a lot more stress on balance.

I think that's one of the most important things about looking at these systems: The pieces don't exist in isolation. They all work together to create a certain experience. There's nothing wrong with preferring one experience over another, or just enjoying difference experiences at different times. But the mechanics should be considered by how they help or hinder the experience. If you just pic is based on some vague subjective preference, you may end up hurting the style of play you're trying to encourage. It's better to have an end goal, think about how that end goal can be reached, and deliberately choose subsystems that further that end, rather than to pick a bunch of individual systems without considering how they interact, and hope the end result is something you'll like.

This has gotten too long, so I'll skip the discussion of racial level caps or progressions past name level.

Id say the community is one of the biggest turn-offs for me. I feel I have seen more self-awareness with the W40K community then the OSR community.
If D&D came coated in anthrax, they would be insisting to this day that the best gaming groups would be found when your hospitalized, and its just not 'pure' without it. How maybe they could replicate it with malaria or ebola, but anthrax is too hard to get these days.

My biggest likes have been things built on its spirit, but refined and furthered, like Sine Nominee. But by itself or other clones of it (Like Pundits stuff) have completly unimpressed me because they insist on packaging the warts.

Its design is completly unintuitive, and I feel so much of its fans get a kick out of making it somekind of submission ritual where you must play it as is.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 12:06:58 AM
Id say the community is one of the biggest turn-offs for me. I feel I have seen more self-awareness with the W40K community then the OSR community.
If D&D came coated in anthrax, they would be insisting to this day that the best gaming groups would be found when your hospitalized, and its just not 'pure' without it. How maybe they could replicate it with malaria or ebola, but anthrax is too hard to get these days.

My biggest likes have been things built on its spirit, but refined and furthered, like Sine Nominee. But by itself or other clones of it (Like Pundits stuff) have completly unimpressed me because they insist on packaging the warts.

Its design is completly unintuitive, and I feel so much of its fans get a kick out of making it somekind of submission ritual where you must play it as is.

The anthrax example is perhaps too harsh, but I mostly agree. Every time I see an explanation from an OD&D fan about how race as class is better, or whatever, I come out feeling like it's an empty rationalization that doesn't tell me anything concrete and requires me to bend my brain like a pretzel to accept it. And most of the merits they taut about OD&D/OSR tend to be stuff that isn't necessarily exclusive to OD&D (ANY game can be pushed forward by falling back on GM rulings, it's not a feature, is a GM technique or workaround for stuff you don't recall or are not covered in the rules, and it applies EVETYWHERE with every game), or are a matter of give and take, where obviously if you add certain elements to the game (like skills) you're going to make it more complex, but there's NO WAY around that if you actually want those elements. So telling me that the game is better without them when I want them and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with them is not really telling me anything constructive, but rather insisting that a TTRPG should be build around what 0e was like. Or insisting that I should give it a chance when the reason I don't like it is because I DID give it a chance--Basic D&D was the first TTRPG I played and the reason I moved away from it is PRECISELY because I gave it a chance and didn't like it.

It's like watching someone reading tea leaves, then insisting that something is there, then when I look at the bottom of the cup, I just see random assortment of tea leaves. And stuff like this even predates the OSR, cuz I used to get into similar arguments back in the 90s when I was starting out, and it was always from people who were stuck playing "Basic" D&D and didn't seem to get any other rule system--even AD&D.

On the actual topic...

---

Stuff that I like about old D&D includes:

• Simplicity...at least, compared to other editions of D&D, and mostly in terms of class-structure (skill-based systems are often simpler in terms of core mechanics: Just roll Stat + Skill every time you try something). Later editions just got too cluttered with endless variations of Fighters, Thieves/Rogues and Mystics, and an ever expanding list of fiddly class features that add more to the game's complexity than being meaningful additions to the class's capabilities.


• Less HP bloat: Granted, HP progression still sucks (starts WAY too low, then escalates from that) and it's random (more tea leaves every time I read an explanation why that's better), but it doesn't make the worse of a bad situation, like later editions, by piling more HD perpetually, but just stops that nonsense on its tracks after a certain point.


• Less Bookkeeping: Related to Simplicity, above. Less endless stream of classes or fiddly class features means less crap to keep track of.

Dislikes:

• Class-based/Class Reliance: Don't like being strapped into a specific class or everything that a character can/can't do been locked into a specific class. And multi-classing is a poor substitute for versatility that requires me to jump hoops to get it.


• XP for Gold: ...like treasure isn't already its own reward. And the reliance of XP for gold to supplement combat XP is just as stupid. Just give XP for accomplishments and make every challenge the PCs face or objective they achieve an awardable thing. Paying for training to level as a work around is also silly, cuz then you're stuck relying on gold to level up, then paying for training as an excuse to get rid of excessive amounts of gold. Why not just get rid of the middleman and "DM Rule" XP for doing non-combat stuff and completing special challenges? And no, people don't need XP for Gold as an incentive to go into a cave, slaughter some creatures and take their stuff. They're gonna do that anyway. Treasure is its own incentive and has been throughout the entire span of human history without needing to tie skill progression to its acquisition.


• Race as Class: An elf is a race, a fighter is a profession. Those two things are NOT the same. And no, locking an elf into an "elf" class that's essentially a Fighter-Mage and has the same XP requirements as a Fighter + Mage is not some neat balancing trick that makes up for the fact that elves also get infravision or the ability to spot secret doors. And it doesn't make the game easier to learn either. We all know that an elf is a type of creature and that a fighter is a skill set. It's not a complex concept, and duplicating existing "human" classes and calling a them a "Dwarf" (really just a fighter with infravision) or an "Elf" (really just a Fighter-Mage) does not simplify things. It just adds bloat by replicating existing things and changing the nameplates.


• No Skills: Everything classes can do, skills can do better. No multiclassing, just pick a new skill! And no amount of DM ruling is gonna make my no-skill dwarf feel like a master craftsman.


• Vancian Spellcasting: Doesn't even exist in my game. I just "DM rule" spell memorization the fuck out of my game. Sorcerers were redundant by the time 3e came out. Still not a fan of spell slots, but I can live with them. Also don't like the artificial Arcane/Divine divide or arbitrary spell levels with inconsistent power levels or usefulness, but that's true for every edition.


• Inconsistent Mechanics: Every task involves a different mechanic. Roll-under Ability Score, 1 in 1d6, Thieves percentile skills, combat, etc.


• Thac0/Descending AC Silliness: It's not that my brain is incapable of processing the math, it's that it's stupid jump through hoops math that's completely unnecessary and arbitrary. WTF do I even need to know what my number is to hit an AC value that 90%+ of characters and monsters don't even have in order to know if I hit or not? It's absurd! The VAST majority of encounters don't even have AC 0. Knowing what I need to roll in a d20 to hit that AC specifically is moronic in ways I can't even begin to describe. I can't even fathom what would even compel someone to build an entire mechanic around a value almost NOBODY has that isn't even the base value (that would be 10) to begin with, or even the highest value (or lowest, technically), for that matter. And that's not even getting into how counter intuitive it is to say that "Lower is better", specially when the mechanic expects me to roll high.


• Roll Under: Don't like it aesthetically OR mechanically either. It makes you reliant on a widely variable score you (usually) determined randomly during character creation and are stuck with for the rest of their lives (unless you lose points from some monster's special attack). And if you got lucky and rolled an 18, it means you have 90% freaking percent to succeed at anything you try with that score out of the gate, with character experience having no impact on it, and task difficulty having no impact either, unless the DM decides to give you a penalty (which they're more incentivized to do if you have a high score than if you don't).


• Thief Skills: Weird percentile mechanic that's too low at low levels and doesn't take into account task difficulty or the target's ability to notice someone's hand in their pocket. It's all 100% on the thieves end and their luck with the dice.


• Random Ability Scores: Too much variability and potential to roll characters even more inept than most people IRL, or freaking gods with ridiculous scores if you get lucky. It can skew balance so much it makes me twitch. And once you roll something you're stuck with it for life, unless you lose points due to some mishap (monster special attack, being resurrected) or your DM gives you a magic tome (which I'm not a fan of either).


• Random HP: Too much variability in a game stat I don't consider to be some sort of defining trait that needs to be different for everyone, unless they have higher health-related attributes (Constitution) or special abilities to boost their health (represented by better HD in D&D)--in which case I would tend to think that everyone around the same level of physical fitness would have similar values. But D&D wants me to roll that shit for some reason.

Plus probably a bunch of stuff on their list I can't think of right now, but I've already taken way too long writing this post.  :P

There are tons of D&D retro-clones to pick from that fix a lot of what is wrong with D&D.  I refuse to even play D&D at all because I don't like advancing upwards in the form of more hit points, while your defense stat doesn't improve.  That's backwards to me.

In my case I suggest an old RPG game system.  Palladium Fantasy.  It's a skills based system that has players improve their strikes, parries, and dodge as they level up, but not a lot of hit points get added each level.  This also means a fight between two identical characters at level one is even odds, but a fight between those two at level-15 is actually still going to look about the same.  Sure, you will be hitting with 1d20+7 or something, but the other guy parries with 1d20+7, so it's a wash. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 12:06:58 AM
Id say the community is one of the biggest turn-offs for me. I feel I have seen more self-awareness with the W40K community then the OSR community.
If D&D came coated in anthrax, they would be insisting to this day that the best gaming groups would be found when your hospitalized, and its just not 'pure' without it. How maybe they could replicate it with malaria or ebola, but anthrax is too hard to get these days.

My biggest likes have been things built on its spirit, but refined and furthered, like Sine Nominee. But by itself or other clones of it (Like Pundits stuff) have completly unimpressed me because they insist on packaging the warts.

Its design is completly unintuitive, and I feel so much of its fans get a kick out of making it somekind of submission ritual where you must play it as is.

I 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.

I do agree that people cling to old methods (the afore mentioned cleric, AD&D byzantine initiative system and the weapon x armor table that contains math errors and not even Gygax used) after they've been made obsolete. But try telling 5e players they game can be improved and you'll see the difference (and I happen to LIKE 5e!).

EDIT: on a second thought, this might be unjust to 5e community. There are plenty of open-minded people, but most are not willing to discuss the fundamentals of the system. If I were to propose difference XP tracks or 2d6 skills, they'd think I'm crazy. OSR is more open to change in this regard, IMO.

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?

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 04:51:45 PM

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?

Okay nvm me then i get where you're coming from now. I didnt even know people got pissy about 0e. I generally say pre-WoTC myself and tbh im not really that deep into OSR circles outside this site and the fact i like to play a lot of those games. I even like 2e. Maybe i just never encountered people getting bent out of shape about it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 04:51:45 PM

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?

So you insist on using a completely different definition for terms with a very clear and well established meaning, and when other people get confused because you're trying to change the basic ground rules of a conversation, you accuse them of being "pissy".

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 08:30:53 PMSo you insist on using a completely different definition for terms with a very clear and well established meaning

This is more examples of this sort of shit. In no WAY have I seen everybody united in what Oldschool or 'classic' D&D is. No way is it well established. Its well established to mini-cliques within the clique and then they are bamboozled when somebody else doesn't guess what they had in mind. But other people making labels is just evil.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 08:40:00 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 08:30:53 PMSo you insist on using a completely different definition for terms with a very clear and well established meaning

This is more examples of this sort of shit. In no WAY have I seen everybody united in what Oldschool or 'classic' D&D is. No way is it well established. Its well established to mini-cliques within the clique and then they are bamboozled when somebody else doesn't guess what they had in mind. But other people making labels is just evil.

Point to one place in your friend-in-shitposting was whining about a general term like old school or classic D&D. Because only one of those terms was used, and it wasn't the thing being whined about, it was the definition of the thing being whined about. The term being whined about was "OD&D", which has a specific meaning that's accepted by almost everyone, and, no, it's not "old school" D&D. The "O" stands for "original, and that's how everyone else uses it. Deliberately using OD&D like that and then pretending to be offended about is a complete dick move.

So yes, you're another example of this sort of shit. If you dislike the OSR so much you have to lie about it, why not just find a game or playstyle you do like and stop randomly make these group accusations against people who have done absolutely nothing to earn your ire except like something you don't?

Pat, you are wasting your time with the screaming dead sidhe ghost.  He's so convinced that 3E is Dagda's gift to gaming that he can't even being to appreciate anything D&D before it on its own terms.  You can't reason someone out of a position that they were never reasoned into to begin with. 

If someone doubts my statement, find any post on these boards that contradicts it.  I double-dog dare ya.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 27, 2022, 11:01:42 PMHe's so convinced that 3E is Dagda's gift to gaming

Except I don't, and I would say its generally sloppy and full of problems, and its design leads to a very crunch oriented mentality and its unplayable at higher levels as written because of feature bloat. It can't be that Im critical of every edition of D&D, each with their pros and cons (this includes 'Old School' D&D). Edit: My most hated edition is actually probably 5e. Its pros are only good for very shallow experiences, and its cons are everything else.
No its that Im a fanatic for the 'Wrong' edition, that can be the ONLY reason Im critical of the things you like.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 09:32:59 PMIf you dislike the OSR so much you have to lie about it

And I have repeated multiple times: I like some of OSR. Im running a Stars Without Number campaign right now. And I have tried Godbound, and will try out WWN in the future.

And Im the liar.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 27, 2022, 04:57:56 PM
I thought we'd standardized on "classic D&D" for 0e, B/X, and BECMI/RC?

That's mostly a Dragonsfoot thing. Elsewhere, it can mean any older edition.

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 08:30:53 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 04:51:45 PM

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?

So you insist on using a completely different definition for terms with a very clear and well established meaning, and when other people get confused because you're trying to change the basic ground rules of a conversation, you accuse them of being "pissy".

Because you ARE being pissy. I went into great detail illustrating how a general term to refer to the whatever the fuck we're supposed to call "0e, B/X, BECMI, etc." or "those versions/editions of D&D that are neither AD&D or WotC era D&D" doesn't exist. How BOTH "OD&D" AND "0e" apparently mean "Original D&D", which in turn refers to the first printing specifically, not B/X, BECIMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc. Which means I can't use EITHER of them. And I can't use plain "D&D" either, cuz WotC got rid of the "Advanced/AD&D" label, so now ALL D&D is just "D&D".

And you STILL haven't corrected me or provided a fucking term you'd find suitable for me to use. Instead you come in here to whine at me, yet again. Without acknowledging any of that shit or CORRECTING me if I'm wrong somehow.

100% ALL that you're doing is getting pissy at me, and you STILL haven't told me what term you want me to use!!! HAHAHA!

The only one who has attempted to do such a thing so far has been Cat the Bounty Smuggler, but no one has yet to confirmed whether "Classic D&D" is the "correct" or acceptable term, either, or whether a such a thing even exists in the entirety of the OSR. You're just wasting time getting back at me instead of answering the fucking question or telling how I'm wrong or what I missed.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 11:24:15 PMAnd I have repeated multiple times: I like some of OSR. Im running a Stars Without Number campaign right now. And I have tried Godbound, and will try out WWN in the future.

I started skimming through the free version of WWN a couple days ago with an open mind and it looks pretty playable. Nice synthesis of modern mechanics and old school simplicity. Plenty of options and flexibility without the 3e+ bloat.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 04:55:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 08:30:53 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 04:51:45 PM

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?

So you insist on using a completely different definition for terms with a very clear and well established meaning, and when other people get confused because you're trying to change the basic ground rules of a conversation, you accuse them of being "pissy".

Because you ARE being pissy. I went into great detail illustrating how a general term to refer to the whatever the fuck we're supposed to call "0e, B/X, BECMI, etc." or "those versions/editions of D&D that are neither AD&D or WotC era D&D" doesn't exist. How BOTH "OD&D" AND "0e" apparently mean "Original D&D", which in turn refers to the first printing specifically, not B/X, BECIMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc. Which means I can't use EITHER of them. And I can't use plain "D&D" either, cuz WotC got rid of the "Advanced/AD&D" label, so now ALL D&D is just "D&D".

And you STILL haven't corrected me or provided a fucking term you'd find suitable for me to use. Instead you come in here to whine at me, yet again. Without acknowledging any of that shit or CORRECTING me if I'm wrong somehow.

100% ALL that you're doing is getting pissy at me, and you STILL haven't told me what term you want me to use!!! HAHAHA!

The only one who has attempted to do such a thing so far has been Cat the Bounty Smuggler, but no one has yet to confirmed whether "Classic D&D" is the "correct" or acceptable term, either, or whether a such a thing even exists in the entirety of the OSR. You're just wasting time getting back at me instead of answering the fucking question or telling how I'm wrong or what I missed.

Old or old school are all-encompassing terms, which can refer to anything up to roughly 2nd edition (there's some dispute about whether that edition is included, and a very few people argue it can include any out of print edition), as well as any modern stuff in the same spirit. OSR includes "renaissance" (or less commonly, "revival"), which inherently implies that it doesn't include the originals that inspired the renaissance or revival. Some people do use it more broadly as a synonym for old school, but that will cause some confusion and people will point out the inherent contradiction if you use it that way, so it's probably best to avoid.

OD&D means original D&D, or 0e. They're synonyms, and you made up the rest of the shit because nobody on the planet uses them to refer to specific printings. The printings are most commonly denoted by colors. White box gets a little confusing, because while it's used as a general term for the same edition, it's also technically incorrect because the first printing was a faux-wood grained brown box. LBBs (little brown booklets) is another way of saying the same thing (though the reprints are white). OCE is another slightly confusing term, because it was the name slapped on some very specific printings. None of them have ever included AD&D, and they also don't include Basic D&D (except maybe Holmes, but that's a very complex case, and rarely an issue).

Classic D&D is mostly a Dragonsfoot term, and there it means OD&D, as well as its Basic D&D descendants. Elsewhere, it's a much broader term, roughly synonymous to old school, except it probably doesn't include the newer stuff. So if you're using it in a specific way, it's probably useful to clarify. Basic D&D is the most common way to refer to the Holmes/BX/BECMI/RC/Classic/black box/etc lineage. None of which are "printings" of OD&D. That's just you not knowing what those editions include, or what "printing" means.

These are basic widely-accepted definitions, which you're refusing to use, and you've apparently developed a grudge against the people who pointed out you're confusing things by refusing to use commonly accepted definitions, and call them pissy. On top of that, you insist on jumping in threads like this and making them all about this pointless garbage grudge, and calling anyone who objects to your threadcrapping as pissy. Which if course makes you the uber-bitch of pissy whiners.

I think referring to the batch of games as 'early D&D' gets the job done. Classic can work as well.

You can call them all OD&D if you want, but you never going to stop having this conversation because there are people who play (and perhaps even more often study) the original edition. So when you lump in all early editions and then reference mechanics or aspects that were not there, such as initiative and race as class, you give them an excuse to pop an eyeball and pull on your short hairs.

On topic—for me LotFP does a great job capturing the simplicity of the early editions while mixing in (or creating) popular adaptations. The only con I have for it is audience dependent, and completely avoidable if you create your own campaigns and use the Art-free Rules version.

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 07:53:34 AMOld or old school are all-encompassing terms, which can refer to anything up to roughly 2nd edition.

I have seen many a people reject AD&D+ as 'Old School' so just because you said it, doesn't make it clear/ common. He has his own vague term for a period thats vagely defined and so do you.

Circling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 07:53:34 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 04:55:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 08:30:53 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 04:51:45 PM

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?

So you insist on using a completely different definition for terms with a very clear and well established meaning, and when other people get confused because you're trying to change the basic ground rules of a conversation, you accuse them of being "pissy".

Because you ARE being pissy. I went into great detail illustrating how a general term to refer to the whatever the fuck we're supposed to call "0e, B/X, BECMI, etc." or "those versions/editions of D&D that are neither AD&D or WotC era D&D" doesn't exist. How BOTH "OD&D" AND "0e" apparently mean "Original D&D", which in turn refers to the first printing specifically, not B/X, BECIMI, Rules Cyclopedia, etc. Which means I can't use EITHER of them. And I can't use plain "D&D" either, cuz WotC got rid of the "Advanced/AD&D" label, so now ALL D&D is just "D&D".

And you STILL haven't corrected me or provided a fucking term you'd find suitable for me to use. Instead you come in here to whine at me, yet again. Without acknowledging any of that shit or CORRECTING me if I'm wrong somehow.

100% ALL that you're doing is getting pissy at me, and you STILL haven't told me what term you want me to use!!! HAHAHA!

The only one who has attempted to do such a thing so far has been Cat the Bounty Smuggler, but no one has yet to confirmed whether "Classic D&D" is the "correct" or acceptable term, either, or whether a such a thing even exists in the entirety of the OSR. You're just wasting time getting back at me instead of answering the fucking question or telling how I'm wrong or what I missed.

Old or old school are all-encompassing terms, which can refer to anything up to roughly 2nd edition (there's some dispute about whether that edition is included, and a very few people argue it can include any out of print edition), as well as any modern stuff in the same spirit. OSR includes "renaissance" (or less commonly, "revival"), which inherently implies that it doesn't include the originals that inspired the renaissance or revival. Some people do use it more broadly as a synonym for old school, but that will cause some confusion and people will point out the inherent contradiction if you use it that way, so it's probably best to avoid.

OD&D means original D&D, or 0e. They're synonyms, and you made up the rest of the shit because nobody on the planet uses them to refer to specific printings. The printings are most commonly denoted by colors. White box gets a little confusing, because while it's used as a general term for the same edition, it's also technically incorrect because the first printing was a faux-wood grained brown box. LBBs (little brown booklets) is another way of saying the same thing (though the reprints are white). OCE is another slightly confusing term, because it was the name slapped on some very specific printings. None of them have ever included AD&D, and they also don't include Basic D&D (except maybe Holmes, but that's a very complex case, and rarely an issue).

Classic D&D is mostly a Dragonsfoot term, and there it means OD&D, as well as its Basic D&D descendants. Elsewhere, it's a much broader term, roughly synonymous to old school, except it probably doesn't include the newer stuff. So if you're using it in a specific way, it's probably useful to clarify. Basic D&D is the most common way to refer to the Holmes/BX/BECMI/RC/Classic/black box/etc lineage. None of which are "printings" of OD&D. That's just you not knowing what those editions include, or what "printing" means.

These are basic widely-accepted definitions, which you're refusing to use, and you've apparently developed a grudge against the people who pointed out you're confusing things by refusing to use commonly accepted definitions, and call them pissy. On top of that, you insist on jumping in threads like this and making them all about this pointless garbage grudge, and calling anyone who objects to your threadcrapping as pissy. Which if course makes you the uber-bitch of pissy whiners.

Whatever, dude.

I love how you accuse me of making up shit (which I didn't, but OK*) even as you make up shit of your own with additional accusations, like claiming that I've been "refusing" to use terms when I've been like three posts now asking WTF those terms are. And you still can't give me a definitive answer, given that you just said that "Classic D&D", for example, is a term used in a specific forum that can mean different stuff elsewhere (so much for "widely-accepted"). Which basically means that if I use any of these terms I'm almost guaranteed to step on a pissy OSR landmine about not using one of their dozens of sacred terms to refer to "Classic/Basic/Whatever D&D" correctly. But somehow this has been me "refusing" to do shit.

*and no, failing to use a term like "printing" correctly is not "making shit up". That's an error at best, or you being pedantic (more likely) at worst.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 04:51:45 PM
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?

While jargon they do have meaningful impact creatively resulting in product with different feels despite being related mechanically.

• OD&D 3 LBB
• OD&D 3 LBB + Supplements
• B/X D&D
• AD&D 1e

And there are subvariants such as BECMI versus B/X and AD&D 1e with Unearthed Arcana or not. With the Survival Guides or not. But the four above have been found in practice to have their own feel in actual play due to how the numbers and mechanics interplay with each other.  The difference is most obvious at the extremes with OD&D 3 LBB only versus AD&D 1e + Unearthed Arcana.

OD&D + Greyhawk supplement is the first version that most would recognize as classic D&D. OD&D 3 LBB only feels like it own thing.

OD&D + supplement versus B/X. B/X is more organized and straightforward but has less options along with race as class compared to OD&D + supplement.

OD&D + supplements  versus AD&D 1e, is that AD&D 1e feels more organized, more polished, with a bunch of new material all in one place. While OD&D + supplements feels like you can experiment more and add and subtract what you like.

It like chocolate ice cream. To somebody who likes vanilla, chocolate ice cream is chocolate ice cream. But in practice chocolate ice cream has many variants depending on the type of chocolate used to make the ice cream. Which means at times it is important to make a distinction.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 10:00:07 AMCircling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

Nah, this whole exchange didn't prove that at all. You're just making shit up.  >:(

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 10:00:07 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 07:53:34 AMOld or old school are all-encompassing terms, which can refer to anything up to roughly 2nd edition.

I have seen many a people reject AD&D+ as 'Old School' so just because you said it, doesn't make it clear/ common. He has his own vague term for a period thats vagely defined and so do you.

Circling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

That has little to do with the definition of old school. There is a valid distinction to make between different generations of games, and different generations of gamers. There was a remarkable tone and rules shift between the OD&D, and AD&D. There was also a big shift in who played the game. And there was a huge shift in the supplements. It went from freeform and wild, to more by the book and commercial. You can also make an argument there was another shift 1985 or so, with Dragonlance and metaplot/stories. But if someone wants to make that point, they're probably going to make it clear they're using a different definition.

Circling back: Do I think you and VisionStorm are applying unreasonable standards by expecting jargon to always have one simplistic meaning, and are displaying a colossal lack of self-awareness by applying that standard to one group and not to any others? Yes.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 10:05:52 AMIt like chocolate ice cream. To somebody who likes vanilla, chocolate ice cream is chocolate ice cream. But in practice chocolate ice cream has many variants depending on the type of chocolate used to make the ice cream. Which means at times it is important to make a distinction.

But I still can fall back to "chocolate ice cream" if I don't know that it's Rocky Road specifically, or chocolate fudge, chocolate mousse, etc. And nobody will question WTF I'm referring to. The same cannot be said about talking about Classic/Basic/Whatever the OSR draws from D&D. Hence, this whole exchange.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 27, 2022, 11:01:42 PM
Pat, you are wasting your time with the screaming dead sidhe ghost.  He's so convinced that 3E is Dagda's gift to gaming that he can't even being to appreciate anything D&D before it on its own terms.  You can't reason someone out of a position that they were never reasoned into to begin with. 

If someone doubts my statement, find any post on these boards that contradicts it.  I double-dog dare ya.

As someone who games with Shrieking Banshee I can assure you he has no love for 3e and hates 5e with a passion.

But you are doing a wonderful job of proving his point that the OSR community is toxic. According to you it's impossible for anyone to rationally try pre-WotC D&D and decide it's not for them... no they must be some sort of irrational brainwashed dimwit to not like.

But that's not toxic in your mind. Neither is Pat labeling people wanting to get clear terms related to the OSR jargon defined so they can more succinctly discuss it as "shit-posting."

And before you accuse me of it too; I don't like WotC-era D&D either.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 10:00:07 AMCircling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

Nah, this whole exchange didn't prove that at all. You're just making shit up.  >:(

Well speaking as someone who has been writing about the OSR and publishing OSR material myself. Along with dealing with the wider gaming community for over 15 years on explaining what it is I write about. I would say that Pat is pretty much in the ballpark. You trying to debate his points is not uncommon either. Not sure why it important to you and others not to acknowledge the distinctions between the different classic editions based on the experiences of those who actually played them.

And it doesn't help that the distinctions don't impact the usability of material between the editions. Tomb of Horrors will play somewhate differently if you ran it with OD&D 3 LBB only compared to AD&D 1e, but it not like trying to take a GURPS Dungeon Fantasy adventure, Ars Magica adventure or a Runequest Adventure and trying to run it one of the classic D&D editions. All things I have done.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:03:37 AM
I love how you accuse me of making up shit (which I didn't, but OK*) even as you make up shit of your own with additional accusations, like claiming that I've been "refusing" to use terms when I've been like three posts now asking WTF those terms are. And you still can't give me a definitive answer, given that you just said that "Classic D&D", for example, is a term used in a specific forum that can mean different stuff elsewhere (so much for "widely-accepted"). Which basically means that if I use any of these terms I'm almost guaranteed to step on a pissy OSR landmine about not using one of their dozens of sacred terms to refer to "Classic/Basic/Whatever D&D" correctly. But somehow this has been me "refusing" to do shit.

*and no, failing to use a term like "printing" correctly is not "making shit up". That's an error at best, or you being pedantic (more likely) at worst.

You've been hostile, petty, and nasty from your very first post, before I said a word on the subject. You don't get to play the aggrieved moderate.

You've lied, and you're lying again because I didn't say you were refusing to use terms. I said you're refusing to use the commonly accepted definitions of those terms. Which you are, because you said you were using OD&D to refer to B/X. That's now how the term is used.

And now you're demanding that people provide you with a single term to refer to both OD&D and Basic D&D. Which is ridiculous on the face of it, because nobody owes you a word with a certain definition. That's not how languages work. Words evolve because many people find them useful. Words don't appear just because you and you alone want them to. Though as I explained, Dragonsfoot has a term for that, but it's not universally accepted. You could stop being a colossal ass about everything possible, and use that term, and explain that's how you're using it when you bring it up the first time. Or you could just use two terms, like OD&D + Basic D&D. Either way works, and neither is particularly onerous. That's how normal people deal with ambiguity.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 10:00:07 AMCircling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

Nah, this whole exchange didn't prove that at all. You're just making shit up.  >:(

Considering that you two brought the negativity,  that's a bold statement.   When one person treats you poorly, you've probably met an asshole.   When everyone treats you poorly, you're probably the asshole...

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:11:36 AM
But I still can fall back to "chocolate ice cream" if I don't know that it's Rocky Road specifically, or chocolate fudge, chocolate mousse, etc. And nobody will question WTF I'm referring to. The same cannot be said about talking about Classic/Basic/Whatever the OSR draws from D&D. Hence, this whole exchange.

Except OD&D isn't the "chocolate" in this. What Pat, myself, and other are pointing out that you are using "Rocky Road" to refer to "chocolate" ice cream.

To whit

Quote from: VisionStorm
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?).

My answer to your question is that you call it classic D&D. That is any edition prior to D&D 3.0. If you are talking about pre-AD&D then you need to distinguish as there isn't a one size fits all term. Holmes D&D. OD&D 3 LBB only, OD&D + Supplements are all distinct versions each with their own quirks.

This can be seen in the fact that nobody in the OSR produces material for pre-AD&D editions as a whole. Instead they produce material for 3 LBB only OD&D, or Holmes D&D, or OD&D + supplement. Of the three OD&D + supplements, of which my Majestic Fantasy/Wilderlands material is part of, is the most supported and most diverse.

But OD&D + supplements is overshadowed by the support given to B/X D&D and AD&D 1e.  B/X fans produce a lot of rules supplements but adventures dominate. While adventures almost completely dominate the output of AD&D 1e fans.

BECMI doesn't get a lot of specific support as a lot of what make it distinct can't be replicated with open content. And AD&D 2e doesn't get a lot of support either again it distinct features can't be replicated with open content. Plus both suffer from the fact that they are not much different than predecessor in their core mechanics. (B/X and AD&D 1e).

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 28, 2022, 10:13:33 AM
But that's not toxic in your mind. Neither is Pat labeling people wanting to get clear terms related to the OSR jargon defined so they can more succinctly discuss it as "shit-posting."

They're shitposting because they've been relentless hostile. If they just had some questions or found some terms confusing, I would have been happy to explain. (And I did explain, despite the relentless shitposting.) They're the toxic shitbags, and so are you for defending them. Congrats.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 10:05:52 AM

• OD&D 3 LBB + Supplements

...
OD&D + Greyhawk supplement is the first version that most would recognize as classic D&D. OD&D 3 LBB only feels like it own thing.

That's an important distinction. Greyhawk is the start of what most people would recognize as D&D. The 3 LBBs alone is a very different game. The break between OD&D and OD&D + Greyhawk is the biggest gap between all the old school versions of D&D.

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 10:49:37 AMThey're shitposting because they've been relentless hostile.

Well if you wanna play at 'not-official definitions', then shitposting is making posts in bad faith that exist to only get a rise out of people. Like if I said OSR folks are just virgins or loosers. I see myself as speaking bluntly and unflatteringly, but not hostile. I am not shitposting. You have called me a liar (for things I didn't say) and a shitposter. I have called you nothing.
The first time definitions became a point of contention, It became about because I said 'OD&D' which wasn't even important to the point I was making.

To continue: Another thing I dislike about 'Old School D&D' is all the of the unstated rules and assumptions. I can read ACKs and understand what the general idea of the game is, and what Im heading for. I can read WWN and understand what it posits as dangers and how to aproach problems and the rules it suggests if I dislike the way its doing certain things.

But 'OsD&D' I have been told has all these things that need to exist in the world for the experience to be smooth (and thats depending on the micro-edition and points of contention). The game doesn't make it known what sort of tone your going for and what is the internal logic of the world. When I have been informed by the community, it comes off videogamey and artificial to such a degree I can just play actual videogames.

....Anywho...

I still to this day do not think I understand what people mean when they say OSR. I haven't ever heard a cohesive definition. When I use the term, I tend to mean the older edition D&D clones which went in the flexible and stripped down direction rather than the rules-bloat/ nostalgia factory direction WotC took the product in the official products in, which gives OSR products superior power-to-weight over the official D&D materials, but can require more experienced roleplayers.

To that kind of game, I can only say it isn't to my tastes. I think RPGs tend to be long on the RP and the G element comes somewhere between underwhelming and outright bad. Mainstream D&D continues on in the "make bad gaming" direction, while OSR tends to minimize its role in the game. Neither are ideal; I like well-balanced RPGs, but I admit that the Game element tends to be poorly executed regardless of what section of the industry you look in.

I understand OSR is quite popular here, so perhaps someone can correct me.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 28, 2022, 12:29:18 PM
I still to this day do not think I understand what people mean when they say OSR. I haven't ever heard a cohesive definition.

Because there isn't one, it was coined and adopted as a result of discussion about older editions of D&D and spread from there. A key boost in it's popularity as a category term is when there was briefly a OSR Store front on Lulu. Plus people like like the play off of TSR and OSR and make up stuff like logos and the like. It was never a mark of any of the companies that published OSR material. In fact most of us, myself included, avoided it use in marketing due to its lack of clarity. But used it all the time in our posts  and forums discussions as a shorthand for either everything being done with older edition D&D or everything being done with older RPGs and older editions.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 28, 2022, 12:29:18 PM
When I use the term, I tend to mean the older edition D&D clones which went in the flexible and stripped down direction rather than the rules-bloat/ nostalgia factory direction WotC took the product in the official products in, which gives OSR products superior power-to-weight over the official D&D materials, but can require more experienced roleplayers.

To that kind of game, I can only say it isn't to my tastes.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 12:07:52 PM
But 'OsD&D' I have been told has all these things that need to exist in the world for the experience to be smooth (and thats depending on the micro-edition and points of contention). The game doesn't make it known what sort of tone your going for and what is the internal logic of the world. When I have been informed by the community, it comes off videogamey and artificial to such a degree I can just play actual videogames.

So here is the secret to the Old School Renaissiance.

You take this the d20 System Reference Document
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

Strip out all the newer mechanics. What left is a hop and a skip from any older edition of D&D. The remaining work isn't trivial but it is straightforward. You can share or sell the result as long as you adhere to the open game license.

Note there nothing in the above about HOW you use the result. Nothing about how to play, what to say and what not to say. Sure there is a culture of play to found but it always centered on a specific group of individuals who are fans of a edition. And all the different editions have multiple groups with their own take on how to use their favorite edition.

This bleeds into what is published resulting the diversity of material you see today.

There is no right or wrong way of doing this. The closest situation to right or wrong is if somebody makes a claim about it replicates X whether it a specific edition or how somebody played back in the day particularly Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson. In which case like any such claim, either the evidence backs their assertion, it doesn't back their assertion, or the evidence is too thin to support any claim.

The OSR is a tabula rosa because of its use of open content. The most one can say that certain play styles are published for, promoted more, and played more like the dungeon crawl. But they don't encompass all of what the OSR means. And because of digital technology and the use of open content, the different things people do with the materials constantly grows. And has grown to the point that the best one can do, including myself, is every see a thin slice of what everybody is doing with the OSR and its ideas.

Some including a certain owner of the site, contends that it is a traditional movement. A point I strongly disagree with it. There is no central point of control one can leverage to change what it is about. Not a forum, facebook group, or storefront*. Nobody has the power to set or change standards. If you published and never frequent this forum, it is highly likely you will never see the debates, issues, concerns, or good points being raised here. The same with Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, RPG.net, Enworld, and so on. I personally don't know any of the shit that goes down on Twitter that forms a big part of the Pundit's youtube posts.

What keeps the OSR centered is the fact the core of it is a group of hobbyists who are fans out of out of print D&D editions. If somebody makes a popular variant that uses say 3d6 instead of 1d20 that takes the current OSR by storm. The OSR isn't going to die. Certainly the people will change because most of them have gone off to play that new 3d6 variant.

Those edition will remain, the open content created based on the d20 SRD and those edition will remain, and anybody anywhere can pick that material and use it to realize their vision. Whether it is to play, promote, or publish. Thus a new group of hobbyist will emerge and the OSR will chug along like it always has.

Today OSR has grown so large, that it is pretty stable at this point. You have a slow and constant churn of people using the original 'as is', close variants, more radical variants, adjacent systems, and systems that focus on some of the themes but in a completely different way. For example my own work is divided into supporting a variant, my Majestic Fantasy RPG, that remains compatible with Swords & Wizardry. And a system neutral theme, the hexcrawl formatted setting and sandbox campaigns.

The OSR is what you put into it and make with it, nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 01:25:51 PMThe OSR is a tabula rosa because of its use of open content.

But the discussion was of 'Old School D&D'. I mean I even stated that OSR materials I liked (and play) where more refined in conveying tone and intention, while 'OSD&D' has unspoken rules.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 01:35:36 PM
But the discussion was of 'Old School D&D'. I mean I even stated that OSR materials I liked (and play) where more refined in conveying tone and intention, while 'OSD&D' has unspoken rules.

Even back in the day, people marched to the tune of their own drummer and used the D&D rules 'as is' for campaigns with a different focus. I was one of them with my focus on letting players trash my setting.

The unspoken rules that are often bandied about are often just the preferences and prejudices of a particular group of hobbyists. Come at it with a different viewpoint then a different style of campaign emerges even when using the printed rules 'as is'. So if anybody trying to claim the banner of Old School then they are full of bullshit. The best one can say, is that this is how I played back in the day and why.

This also included one's preference for spelling things out ahead of time. Because I was deaf, I like to use as much of the system 'as is' because that made communication easier and more reliable. As I started out wargaming before I heard of RPGs, RPGs were simple compared to dealing with Panzerblitz, The Third Reich, or SPI's The Great War.

If there was a gap I plugged it. If the fix was detailed enough, I would type it out and paid .25 cent a page to copy handouts. I mostly played AD&D and the problem area were mostly in the initiative and what you can do in a round of combat. After failing to run things 'as is'. I jettisoned it in favor of you can do a half-move and a attack. With you being able to sub in other things for the half-move or the attack. (Like a full move for both).

This was all circa 1978 to 1985 when I ditched AD&D in favor of Fantasy Hero. I was not alone in my hometown in doing this. Everybody had their quirks in running D&D. Some were better at communicating this than others.

So there nothing to apologize for if you like a version that has things spelled out. While there is a lot of judgement calls to be had in my Majestic Fantasy RPG Basic Rules I covered every common thing that came up in my campaigns using those rules. In the volumes I am currently working, I am peppering the text with observations and comment with Rob's Notes on various rules and items. I don't people should have to guess at where I am coming from. I do think that most will chop up my work to use bits and pieces with other things so I try to make that process easy.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 02:26:00 PMSo there nothing to apologize for if you like a version that has things spelled out.

Well I think thats the most unflattering way of putting it I suppose.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 02:26:00 PMSo there nothing to apologize for if you like a version that has things spelled out.

Well I think thats the most unflattering way of putting it I suppose.

Nothing flattering or unflattering about it. I played and refereed for GURPS for 20 years as my main system. In GURPS if you have all the books just about anything you do as a character is spelled out if you know where to look ;D Likewise my Majestic Fantasy RPG has things spelled out far more than the Swords & Wizardry system I based it on.

Level of detail and presentation are valid preferences. The dirty secret of 3 LBB only OD&D and other classic editions is that if one runs it long enough the result is as detailed of a system as most. The difference is that the added detail is the result of all the rulings one made over the years. Hopefully the referee is a good coach or teacher or has written it down. Otherwise the result will be off-putting to most players as they feel that there are gotchas all over the place as the referee doesn't explain important stuff.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 03:29:25 PMThe dirty secret of 3 LBB only OD&D and other classic editions.

Whats self evident isn't a secret or a trait in any way unique to itself. And this isn't meant to be snippy. Its just not really a selling point or a point of debate.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 03:45:25 PM

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 03:29:25 PMThe dirty secret of 3 LBB only OD&D and other classic editions.

Whats self evident isn't a secret or a trait in any way unique to itself. And this isn't meant to be snippy. Its just not really a selling point or a point of debate.

OD&D is operating this way by design.

It was written for an audience who were used to thinking up ideas for scenarios and campaigns and THEN assembling the rules to run them. Not by using a published system but doing the research themselves incorporating mechanics and ideas that were used in other scenarios and campaigns. OD&D 'as is' saved time and effort for this audience. The stuff that were not covered were things that were well known in the wargaming community. Like initiative and so on.

But D&D didn't stay within the wargaming community. So as a result this became a problem not a feature.

But starting in 2000s thanks to the research being done, people became aware of went on and found inspiration in that. So had fun using OD&D as an aide to run the campaign they wanted. Coming up with the rules to handle anything it didn't cover in the way they wanted to run thing. Thus using OD&D as designed.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 04:29:41 PMOD&D is operating this way by design.

Its design for this, is then weak, possibly one of the worst. 3e is critiqued as 3e. 4e as 4e. Even 5e as 5e. But OD&D (or whatever it is), is brilliant because it ships broken.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 04:35:03 PM

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 04:29:41 PMOD&D is operating this way by design.

Its design for this, is then weak, possibly one of the worst. 3e is critiqued as 3e. 4e as 4e. Even 5e as 5e. But OD&D (or whatever it is), is brilliant because it ships broken.

but lack of features is feature!

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 28, 2022, 10:13:33 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 27, 2022, 11:01:42 PM
Pat, you are wasting your time with the screaming dead sidhe ghost.  He's so convinced that 3E is Dagda's gift to gaming that he can't even being to appreciate anything D&D before it on its own terms.  You can't reason someone out of a position that they were never reasoned into to begin with. 

If someone doubts my statement, find any post on these boards that contradicts it.  I double-dog dare ya.

As someone who games with Shrieking Banshee I can assure you he has no love for 3e and hates 5e with a passion.

But you are doing a wonderful job of proving his point that the OSR community is toxic. According to you it's impossible for anyone to rationally try pre-WotC D&D and decide it's not for them... no they must be some sort of irrational brainwashed dimwit to not like.

But that's not toxic in your mind. Neither is Pat labeling people wanting to get clear terms related to the OSR jargon defined so they can more succinctly discuss it as "shit-posting."

And before you accuse me of it too; I don't like WotC-era D&D either.

I'm not part of the OSR community.  Only an interested bystander from a design perspective.  Also tired of the Banshee shitting on everything and pretending he his being constructive.  Your posts generally are constructive even when you are criticizing it.  With him, I don't see why he even bothers to be here. 

Re your second paragraph, no, that is not anywhere in what I said.  I even specifically said that there were taste reasons not to like it, and a perfect out for someone who doesn't like it.  Again,

1. To constructively make a good game does not require understanding OSR jargon.  The goals/tastes/etc. could be totally different, thus making OSR irrelvant, at best.
2. However, there is no way to make constructive criticisms of the OSR in regards to "fixing" early D&D as early D&D without some understanding and even sympathy for its goals, design intents, etc.  It is important for that person to understand the distinctions being made with the jargon.

It's possible for anyone to rationally dislike OSR.  All the evidence suggests that for Banshee, it is impossible for him to say anything remotely useful as to why he dislikes it. 

I'd go act like him and piss on a thread about a game he likes and I don't fully understand as an example of what I don't generally do, but I can't think off-hand of any topic where he does like a game.  Oh well, guess I want be tempted to do that then.

Personally, I have never seen any gaming community as toxic as the D&D 3E to 4E transition, where the toxic ran in vast waves.  It makes the worst actors in the OSR look like wannabees in comparison.

I have repeated 3 times OSR systems I like.

Old D&D fans have no problems just making threads calling those that like character optimization "psychotic" so you can give it and can't take it.

Also whataboutism on other editions.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 27, 2022, 05:48:21 AM
The anthrax example is perhaps too harsh, but I mostly agree. Every time I see an explanation from an OD&D fan about how race as class is better, or whatever, I come out feeling like it's an empty rationalization that doesn't tell me anything concrete and requires me to bend my brain like a pretzel to accept it.

And most of the merits they taut about OD&D/OSR tend to be stuff that isn't necessarily exclusive to OD&D (ANY game can be pushed forward by falling back on GM rulings, it's not a feature, is a GM technique or workaround for stuff you don't recall or are not covered in the rules, and it applies EVETYWHERE with every game), or are a matter of give and take, where obviously if you add certain elements to the game (like skills) you're going to make it more complex, but there's NO WAY around that if you actually want those elements.

So telling me that the game is better without them when I want them and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with them is not really telling me anything constructive, but rather insisting that a TTRPG should be build around what 0e was like. Or insisting that I should give it a chance when the reason I don't like it is because I DID give it a chance--Basic D&D was the first TTRPG I played and the reason I moved away from it is PRECISELY because I gave it a chance and didn't like it.

1: This is part of my contempt for lOSeR... heh. They tout things as if they were holy writ sometimes or puch this or that form of one-true-way that is an intense turn off for me.

BX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

2: This is true of all RPGs. They are always going to have elements missing for GM A, but GM B never needed or wanted. This is the incessant bitching of some here and on BGG that say AD&D's DMG is mostly "fluff" because they will never need all those rules. Or "its too much rules waaaaaaah!"

BX is so popular because it hits that sweet spot for so many between being too simple or too complex. Aided by the fact that you are eased into new rules with X that are pretty easy to use and fairly functional. Or are just adding more to what was there before.

Yes its missing skills. Guess what? Alot of us could care less and lack of the Great God Skill System others so worship is a boon, not a bane. Whereas with other games like say Star Frontiers its the backbone of a character and what helps define them. Without it the game would be not as great. And then there are other games where there are way way way too many fucking skills. Do we really need a skill for "pick up stuff off the ground"? Someone out there thought so!

3: As said. The OSR is its own worst enemy sometimes.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 12:07:52 PM
I see myself as speaking bluntly and unflatteringly, but not hostile. I am not shitposting. You have called me a liar (for things I didn't say) and a shitposter. I have called you nothing.

Ah yes, you're just speaking the Truth. That excuses your miserable behavior!

Why am I having flashbacks to TPB? Oh, right. They use exactly the same justification.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 12:07:52 PM
To continue: Another thing I dislike about 'Old School D&D' is all the of the unstated rules and assumptions. I can read ACKs and understand what the general idea of the game is, and what Im heading for. I can read WWN and understand what it posits as dangers and how to aproach problems and the rules it suggests if I dislike the way its doing certain things.

But 'OsD&D' I have been told has all these things that need to exist in the world for the experience to be smooth (and thats depending on the micro-edition and points of contention). The game doesn't make it known what sort of tone your going for and what is the internal logic of the world. When I have been informed by the community, it comes off videogamey and artificial to such a degree I can just play actual videogames.

On the other hand, this is a lot more valid. Old school D&D was absolutely terrible at explaining how the game was supposed to work. This started in OD&D, and was also true in AD&D. While all the rules needed to play are in the book, massive parts of the context are missing. How they're supposed to go together is part of the equation, but a much bigger part is all the unspoken table rules and expectations that were never put down on paper. The only real way to pick that up was to play with people who already played that way, which broke down quickly as the circle of players expanded beyond Lake Geneva and the Twin Cities, and copy errors cropped up or players learned how to play just from reading the books.

A big part of the early OSR was uncovering all these forgotten assumptions, and sharing them. That's the focus behind things like Finch's Primer, or Philotomy's Musings. (The newer games you think are clearer owe a lot to the earlier OSR work.) The problem is, a lot of the assumptions that went into the design of the game are alien to many modern players. To give one simple example, Gygax's weekly games looked nothing like the typical game of today. How many people today play multiple times a week late into the night, with multiple DMs, dozens of players who rotate in and out each week, and each player has a sheaf of character sheets, from which they can pull out the PC most suited to the night's adventure? Almost no one, I imagine. And that affects the game. Because if you have that many rotating characters, then a single character dying doesn't matter that much. And randomly rolling new characters is fine, because even if you roll awful, you'll have other characters where you rolled well. These rules work very in that context, but don't work nearly as well if you start from the assumption that the character you roll today is the same character you'll play in every session for the next two years. Rolling badly will stick with you seemingly forever, instead of being a temporary diversion.

No edition of old school D&D ever explained this. And even today, it can be really hard to explain that, because our basic assumptions about how to play seem to be fairly hard wired, almost a part of our identity. It's hard to relearn or retrain those assumptions, or even to simply recognize them. That's why talking about this can feel like banging your head against a wall.

The videogamey part is nonsense, tho.

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 08:47:55 PMAh yes, you're just speaking the Truth. That excuses your miserable behavior!

I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

I said I disliked the community. I defended its right to be itself and gatekeep its preferences (in this thread even). But I also said that its fans put the game on a pedestal and are immensly rejective of any sort of critique (in a way full of rationalized double standards), while absolutely caustic to things they dislike.

I also think the core system is unintuitive and full of mechanical warts that are only intuitive to the people that grew up with the game.

The game is an absolute rorschach test. And what bothers me is that its defenders can say completly contridictory information in its defense but not engage in argumentation over said defense as long as its in praise of the game.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

QuoteI said I disliked the community. I defended its right to be itself and gatekeep its preferences (in this thread even). But I also said that its fans put the game on a pedestal

Which fans? All of them? Or just the worst? It's easier to do something badly than it is to do something well. So you can always find some asshole to complain about. It's a cheap shot not indicative of anything of substance. A straw man is still a straw man even if you can point to a living Avatar if that Avatar is not really representative of the broader whole.

Quoteand are immensly rejective of any sort of critique (in a way full of rationalized double standards), while absolutely caustic to things they dislike.

In all things, I am welcoming of constructive criticism. The thing is, I have to trust the source. I have to believe your critique is in good faith. I have to believe that you actually understand my perspective. I have to find your discourse honest. And I have to feel like you actually know what you're talking about. If you miss on even one of those things, you don't have my trust, and your criticism will be rejected for cause. That is not the same thing as rejecting criticism as such.

So I have to ask, how do you know people who reject your critiques are actually rejecting criticism itself? Are you sure you haven't given them a reason not to trust you? Do you have any objective measure for knowing when your own criticisms are off?

QuoteI also think the core system is unintuitive and full of mechanical warts that are only intuitive to the people that grew up with the game.

If I read something and it makes no sense to me, it could be one of two things. Either it doesn't make any sense at all. Or maybe it's just that I am incapable of making sense of it. What test do you have for distinguishing the two?

It's especially awkward when it comes to a very popular game like D&D. You are far from alone in calling the core system unintuitive. But there are far, far more people who seem to have no trouble at all playing it just fine and having fun. At what point do we say the children aren't wrong, you're just out of touch?

QuoteThe game is an absolute rorschach test. And what bothers me is that its defenders can say completly contridictory information in its defense but not engage in argumentation over said defense as long as its in praise of the game.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

The quote is from Ayn Rand, who I do not credit as an authority, but rather because I like how she worded it.

I have a math degree. The majority of my course work involved doing mathematical proofs. Probably the most common technique I used is "proof by contradiction." This is where I use as an assumed premise the negation of that which I'm trying to prove, and follow it to its logical fruition looking for a contradiction. When I find it, it proves that my assumed premise was wrong, and therefore what I actually wanted to prove is correct.

So let me say with authority, if you think you've found something that is contradictory, check your premises.

The D&D I love supports many different play styles and approaches to the game. It does not surprise me that two different people would muster two different defenses of the system because they're doing two different things with it. That a single game allows me to move smoothly from one play style to another is a big reason of why I like the game.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 08:47:55 PMAh yes, you're just speaking the Truth. That excuses your miserable behavior!

I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

I said I disliked the community. I defended its right to be itself and gatekeep its preferences (in this thread even). But I also said that its fans put the game on a pedestal and are immensly rejective of any sort of critique (in a way full of rationalized double standards), while absolutely caustic to things they dislike.

I also think the core system is unintuitive and full of mechanical warts that are only intuitive to the people that grew up with the game.

The game is an absolute rorschach test. And what bothers me is that its defenders can say completly contridictory information in its defense but not engage in argumentation over said defense as long as its in praise of the game.

Tough. I never initiate anything, but I do respond in kind. And I do people the courtesy of attacking them directly, instead of playing these "I'm not touching you" games. For instance, your current post is a list of all kinds of accusations against me, but not a single specific detail. There's no way to for me refute your bullshit, because you're not pointing out where I did any of those things. Which is despicable.

You're pulling the same kind of toxic shit with your attacks against broad groups of people. I'm not a member of the OSR, but I like a lot of what of they've produced, so I guess you could call me a fan. So guess what? When you say a groups I belong to puts a game on a pedestal, that they can't handle critique, while throwing around words with nasty implications like caustic or double standards, you're accusing me of all those things. Those patently false accusations are personal attacks, but you're trying to dodge it by pretending you're just talking about a general group.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:56:30 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 08:47:55 PMAh yes, you're just speaking the Truth. That excuses your miserable behavior!

I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

I said I disliked the community. I defended its right to be itself and gatekeep its preferences (in this thread even). But I also said that its fans put the game on a pedestal and are immensly rejective of any sort of critique (in a way full of rationalized double standards), while absolutely caustic to things they dislike.

I also think the core system is unintuitive and full of mechanical warts that are only intuitive to the people that grew up with the game.

The game is an absolute rorschach test. And what bothers me is that its defenders can say completly contridictory information in its defense but not engage in argumentation over said defense as long as its in praise of the game.

Tough. I never initiate anything, but I do respond in kind.

Dude, you get bitchy and jump at people for perceived slights all the time, often accusing them of shit they didn't do, while getting bent out of shape if they even phrase something in such a way that may potentially (but not even necessarily), from some twisted point of view, appear to mischaracterize or deviate in phrasing (but not in essence) from something that you said, even as you mischaracterize and level mostly or entirely unfounded accusations at them. Often even adding things/interpretations that aren't even there (then it goes on, and on, and on for a bunch of pages, like this discussion has gone so far).

Case in point...

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

Where did Lunamancer mention you, or anyone else for that matter--or even imply that people who fit what Shrieking Banshee was saying actually did exist? As opposed to simply stating that didn't apply to him personally and asking Banshee to "put that aside" as a rhetorical device to try to reason with him?

But instead you have to get pissy and see personal attacks that aren't there, then attack Lunamancer for tossing imaginary dust your way.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

No, you never "start" anything... you just seem to consistently read everyone else's comments in the worst possible light so you can justify going on offense against some imagined insult the one who "started it" probably never even intended.

You also seem to go right to insults when you feel you've been slighted, which just shuts down communication, instead of trying to get confirmation of whether what they said should really have been taken that way or not. So, basically, you always escalate what may have been a misunderstanding into a fight.

The above is a prime example, Lunamancer didn't even mention you, but you assume he's implying you're being obnoxious by his silence and then insult him for an insult he probably didn't even intend to make towards you.

Because Lunamancer "started it."

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 07:46:01 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:56:30 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 08:47:55 PMAh yes, you're just speaking the Truth. That excuses your miserable behavior!

I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

I said I disliked the community. I defended its right to be itself and gatekeep its preferences (in this thread even). But I also said that its fans put the game on a pedestal and are immensly rejective of any sort of critique (in a way full of rationalized double standards), while absolutely caustic to things they dislike.

I also think the core system is unintuitive and full of mechanical warts that are only intuitive to the people that grew up with the game.

The game is an absolute rorschach test. And what bothers me is that its defenders can say completly contridictory information in its defense but not engage in argumentation over said defense as long as its in praise of the game.

Tough. I never initiate anything, but I do respond in kind.

Dude, you get bitchy and jump at people for perceived slights all the time, often accusing them of shit they didn't do, while getting bent out of shape if they even phrase something in such a way that may potentially (but not even necessarily), from some twisted point of view, appear to mischaracterize or deviate in phrasing (but not in essence) from something that you said, even as you mischaracterize and level mostly or entirely unfounded accusations at them. Often even adding things/interpretations that aren't even there (then it goes on, and on, and on for a bunch of pages, like this discussion has gone so far).

Case in point...

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

Where did Lunamancer mention you, or anyone else for that matter--or even imply that people who fit what Shrieking Banshee was saying actually did exist? As opposed to simply stating that didn't apply to him personally and asking Banshee to "put that aside" as a rhetorical device to try to reason with him?

But instead you have to get pissy and see personal attacks that aren't there, then attack Lunamancer for tossing imaginary dust your way.

Did you miss the "I haven't participated in that"? Lunamancer went out the way to quote the section where SB made a series of completely unfounded personal attacks against me, just to say they weren't like that (me). Now unlike you or SB, I'm pretty sure that Lunamancer didn't intend it that way. But it was still a shitty thing to do.

And hey, more general and completely unfounded attacks from you. Hey, keep on being a dishonest pissy bitch. It's your trademark.

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMYes its missing skills. Guess what? Alot of us could care less and lack of the Great God Skill System others so worship is a boon, not a bane. Whereas with other games like say Star Frontiers its the backbone of a character and what helps define them. Without it the game would be not as great. And then there are other games where there are way way way too many fucking skills. Do we really need a skill for "pick up stuff off the ground"? Someone out there thought so!

I worship at the altar of Skillz, but this is a common issue with many skill-based systems, where they go to ridiculous depths outlining overly long and specific skill lists that often deal with tiny variations or specializations of essentially the same type of activity, such as fighting, social interaction, book-knowledge, etc. Which then tends to create a bunch of issues both, from a mechanical point of view (many skills do essentially the same thing, but if you don't have the exact skill you're as bad as someone who doesn't even have related talents; among other issues) as well as character creation/progression PoV (players get stuck in analysis paralysis trying to pick from huge lists or figuring out how to budget their limited points across different, but sometimes similar skills, etc.).

I've often said that skill-based games should focus on general/broad skills, and handle specifics as specializations that grant an extra bonus on top, or unlock extra capabilities tied to a core skill (like for example, adding new languages on top of a universal "Linguistics" skills used for language-related rolls, or specific type of tech you can use or build tied to a universal "Technology" skill, etc.).

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2022, 07:54:47 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:41:29 PM
I also think your behaviour is also abnoxious. Making things personal, engaging in whataboutism, making comparative appeals to communities I don't even know exist, and calling me a liar even though I listed OSR materials I liked over and over and over.

Speaking for myself, I haven't participated in any of that, so put that all aside for the moment if you can, and let's see if I can't address a few points from my perspective.

Neither have I. But fuck you, and specifically you, Lunamancer, for implying I did.

No, you never "start" anything... you just seem to consistently read everyone else's comments in the worst possible light so you can justify going on offense against some imagined insult the one who "started it" probably never even intended.

You also seem to go right to insults when you feel you've been slighted, which just shuts down communication, instead of trying to get confirmation of whether what they said should really have been taken that way or not. So, basically, you always escalate what may have been a misunderstanding into a fight.

The above is a prime example, Lunamancer didn't even mention you, but you assume he's implying you're being obnoxious by his silence and then insult him for an insult he probably didn't even intend to make towards you.

Because Lunamancer "started it."

Lunamancer quoted a piece where SB made a series of nasty attacks against me, just to say they weren't a part of that. They could have said they had no opinion on the topic, or said they disagree with the nasty shit being slung around by your buddy, but they didn't. At the very least, that's a tacit reaffirmation. Like I said before, I don't think it was intentional. But doesn't change the clear reading.

I've stopped trying to be nice all the time. This isn't the board for it, it simply doesn't work. Because I used to extend every possible courtesy, and never responded with attacks even after I had been attacked constantly for dozens of pages. And all that happened was I got attacked relentlessly for it. But you'll notice I always respond proportionally. I never attack or insult someone, unless they attack or insult me first. If they stop attacking or insulting me, I immediately stop it as well. And unless they start randomly attacking me in unrelated threads, I'll keep the conflict in the original thread, and won't carry it over to other unrelated threads. It's also almost impossible to get me to carry a grudge. If I respond to them in another thread, I'll do so civilly. If they're the one who responds civilly in another thread, I'll respond civilly as well. And I always give thought out answers, even in response to attacks. And yet you're pretending that makes this my fault? For that, you deserve a fuck you. Because guess what? Blaming someone for being attacked is an attack.

And you'll notice I make direct attacks. You know why? Because I believe in treating people, even people who have behaved abominably, with a basic modicum of respect. I will not play these passive aggressive games. I don't make vague insinuations, I won't make group attacks and then try to pretend I wasn't attacking all the members of the group, and I won't make a list of claims about specific traits without specific quotes or reference. Instead, I'll use general insults, or I'll specifically point out where someone (for instance) was dishonest. Because I believe, very strongly, that you should be upfront and straight with someone, when you disagree or have a problem with them. It's these "I'm not touching you" insults that SB and VS have been engaged in that are truly toxic.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

But you know that, you're just being a pissy bitch again.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

I'm curious, how would you adapt that to B/X?

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

Yeah, a lot of the "subraces" and related stuff, like Auspices for Werewolf and such are kinda like race-specific classes now that you mention it. So there is an element of that. Though, it's somewhat mitigated by the fact that a lot of the action is handled by skills. But it is a special case, since each book is heavily focused on each "race" as a separate game. So it goes into great depths with them.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

In the name of de-escalation il admit to being wrong by coming into the thread with hyperbole and a lack of more specific arguments. It was inflammatory.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 09:13:30 AM
In the name of de-escalation il admit to being wrong by coming into the thread with hyperbole and a lack of more specific arguments. It was inflammatory.

I respect any attempt at deescalation.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:58:07 AM

Quote from: Omega on March 01, 2022, 08:54:35 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:08:27 AM

Quote from: Omega on February 28, 2022, 06:53:46 PMBX works with race as class for the style of play it is setting fourth. Its in the end no different from how say Changeling or any White Wolf game treats race as class and probably set the stage for WOD as their games are, aside from like Mage, Hunter and Aberrant/Aeon, all race-as-class RPGs. These work within the context of the system and the setting. But are not the only way. As AD&D and other games amply show.

I'm not sure WoD quite applies as "race as class", since it's a mostly classless, skill-based system and every "game" (at least in the older books, haven't read any recent stuff) allows you to play only one "race", though, it goes into great depths about various "subraces" (so to speak) within that core "race" and special powers and abilities tied to those races or subraces. It's a different style of how D&D handles "race as class", and pretty much all "races" in WoD have access to the same skill sets. Everyone can be a "fighter", for example, if they focus on combat skills, or a "rogue" if they focus on sneaky stuff, etc. The main distinction is magic and special powers, which tends to be "race" specific, or based on the human "classes", like Mages, being an Aberrant super and stuff.

Right. But every "class" in like 75% of WOD products is some race or quite often a sub-race as it were with a particular set of skills and powers they can and can not access. Just like BX, only magnified massively. And done quite well too. I may have a very big axe to grind with WW. But I do like the overall system. Especially when used well like with Aberrant which was the first WW game that I actually really grasped and that helped better grasp their other games.

I'm curious, how would you adapt that to B/X?

I'd probably just use Changeling rather than try to shoehorn parts of the system into BX. Changeling, when you use just the fae lands, seems to be the best basis for doing a straight up fantasy setting. Take that and use BX's Karameikos and Known World, (not Mystara, or at least not the overcrowded mess Mystara became) as the setting and it would probably work fairly well.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 09:13:30 AM
In the name of de-escalation il admit to being wrong by coming into the thread with hyperbole and a lack of more specific arguments. It was inflammatory.

In the name of de-escalation, I admit that I tend to speak dismissively and derisively of the OSR/Old/Basic, etc. D&D in general. And that that doesn't help the tone of the discussion.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:36:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Those are just personal attacks combined with internet telepathy.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:44:28 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:36:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Those are just personal attacks combined with internet telepathy.

Yes, that's what I'm saying about your posts.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:12 AMI respect any attempt at deescalation.

So my complaints towards you in a laid out fashion:
You said Im a shit-poster. Being overtly negative, even hyperbolic, is not being a shit-poster. I didn't come here to just get a rise out of OSR fans. A shit-poster ultimately doesn't care about the conversation as long as it gets a rise.
You compared me TPB (whatever that is) because when I defended myself against accusations of shit-posting, you said that I was saying that I was hiding behind 'the truth' as an excuse to be mean.
You said Im a liar because I must HATE OSR....When I had mentioned systems I liked in the OSR and that I liked the OSR spirit. My beef mechanically is with 'OSD&D' and with the community it has around it in terms of support.

For all your talks about disliking assumptions about yourself, and how clear everybody else must be, you sure liked putting words in my mouth.

Talks about definitions happened because I brought up defensiveness, and instead of engaging with my point (which would have still been accurate if OD&D stood for Original), it was nitpicking about terminology, to which I still aquiesed too. And then agreed to the community having the right to have its own nomenclature. But I disagreed it was easy to follow because things get lumped together. And you did lump my dislike of 'OSD&D' with dislike of OSR so I feel justified in some of that.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 01, 2022, 01:30:01 AMWhich fans? All of them? Or just the worst? It's easier to do something badly than it is to do something well. So you can always find some asshole to complain about. It's a cheap shot not indicative of anything of substance. A straw man is still a straw man even if you can point to a living Avatar if that Avatar is not really representative of the broader whole.

The fans I have interacted with. Thats all I can speak from personal experience. Also in terms of fallacy its cherry-picking, not strawmanning.

QuoteThe thing is, I have to trust the source. I have to believe your critique is in good faith. I have to believe that you actually understand my perspective. I have to find your discourse honest.

Fair enough, that is reasonable.

QuoteSo I have to ask, how do you know people who reject your critiques are actually rejecting criticism itself? Are you sure you haven't given them a reason not to trust you? Do you have any objective measure for knowing when your own criticisms are off?

But this isn't. We are not conducting a scientific examination of a proposed foriegn chemical companies tire replacement here. We are having a discussion of a thing for fun. I don't have to prove myself to an informal communit to have the right to dicuss things about it.

QuoteEither it doesn't make any sense at all. Or maybe it's just that I am incapable of making sense of it. What test do you have for distinguishing the two?

QuoteIt's especially awkward when it comes to a very popular game like D&D. You are far from alone in calling the core system unintuitive. But there are far, far more people who seem to have no trouble at all playing it just fine and having fun. At what point do we say the children aren't wrong, you're just out of touch?

OK now this is turning into an appeal to a majority and snide remarks towards me.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 10:02:55 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:44:28 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:36:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:17:42 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:09:36 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 09:02:13 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:59:48 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:24:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 08:19:04 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMDid you miss the "I haven't participated in that"?

No, I simply realize that someone claiming that they didn't participate in something without explicitly rejecting the notion anyone else did either doesn't necessarily imply that therefore they agree that someone did. They simply don't want to get into that argument and open up a 10+ paragraph can of worms trying to debunk such a notion just for your benefit, so you don't get pissed that they didn't take your side in a post where they were trying to reason with someone else. Nor do I assume they have the obligation to do it or believe that it is a reasonable expectation or even an effective argumentation strategy.

They could have simply not quoted it.

You could simply had not inserted additional meaning to someone simply quoting something someone said, as a starting point for a reply to it.

Or you could tell Lunamancer not to quote an attack against me, and say they're not like that.

But that would require you to extend good faith to me, instead of using Lunamancer as a proxy to attack me, wouldn't it?

People are under NO obligation to anticipate your assumptions about their intentions or any special issues or offense you might take to a bit of text they quoted, and adjust their posts accordingly.

The expectation that people have to be subject to your future whims on how they construct their posts, or are somehow responsible for your willful ASSUMPTIONS, is absurd.

Offense is always taken, never given. And your taking it HARD.

Honestly, this doesn't even make sense.

It does. You just lack the self-reflection to realize how ego-centric it is to hold someone responsible for your interpretations of the deeper meanings or implications of them simply quoting a text you took offense to.

Those are just personal attacks combined with internet telepathy.

Yes, that's what I'm saying about your posts.

Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 10:04:11 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 09:39:14 AMIn the name of de-escalation, I admit that I tend to speak dismissively and derisively of the OSR/Old/Basic, etc. D&D in general. And that that doesn't help the tone of the discussion.

So my complaints towards you in a laid out fashion:
You said Im a shit-poster. Being overtly negative, even hyperbolic, is not being a shit-poster. I didn't come here to just get a rise out of OSR fans. A shit-poster ultimately doesn't care about the conversation as long as it gets a rise.
You compared me TPB (whatever that is) because when I defended myself against accusations of shit-posting, you said that I was saying that I was hiding behind 'the truth' as an excuse to be mean.
You said Im a liar because I must HATE OSR....When I had mentioned systems I liked in the OSR and that I liked the OSR spirit. My beef mechanically is with 'OSD&D' and with the community it has around it in terms of support.

For all your talks about disliking assumptions about yourself, and how clear everybody else must be, you sure liked putting words in my mouth.

Talks about definitions happened because I brought up defensiveness, and instead of engaging with my point (which would have still been accurate if OD&D stood for Original), it was nitpicking about terminology, to which I still aquiesed too. And then agreed to the community having the right to have its own nomenclature. But I disagreed it was easy to follow because things get lumped together. And you did lump my dislike of 'OSD&D' with dislike of OSR so I feel justified in some of that.

Is this addressed at me? The mangled quote makes it hard to reply to any specific claims, because they're unsourced.

A few general statements:

VisionStorm was the primary one at fault. You mostly just echoed a few things.

I have no problem with negativity. Say you don't like old school D&D? Fine. Criticize it? I'll probably jump in, I've got a long list. Post something that shows you don't know what you're talking about? (This isn't referring to anything you said, but it is why I clarified terminology VS was misuing.) Then I'll explain what you're missing. Make a statement about how the people involved with the OSR as a whole, or fans of the games, have this list of negative traits? That's a problem, because that's a group attack. Which is just a nice way of saying it's a personal attack on everyone who's a member of that group, and on anyone who might think you might think they're a member of the group.

I stand by the shitposter comment, because jumping into a thread just to say that, or supporting someone who says that, is shitposting. If you think I mistakenly ascribed something to you that VS said, feel free to provide a link. I'm not going to go back and double-check everything, because I have no interest in re-reading this whole thread.

Similarly, if you think I'm putting words in your mouth, provide a link. It's possible I made a mistake, but I'm usually pretty careful to avoid that, because it's one of the things I detest.

TBP is The Big Purple. They have a d20 forum, which was very pro-4e. If anyone criticized 4e, even in the mildest possible way, they were dogpiled, and mod action soon followed. This even happened to people who asked innocent questions. So anything negative about 4e was incredibly rare. You could go 100s of pages without seeing anything. Conversely, maybe 1 in 50 threads was about old school games. But in nearly every old school thread, 4e fans jumped in to attack the old school games. They made all sorts of generalizations, including insinuations about the people involved. But they always portrayed themselves as the victims. According to them, it was the mean OSR people who were attacking them. The only person ever sanctions for this did it relentlessly, for years, and even then was allowed back and continued the same pattern, except slightly more disguised. And they defended their criticisms as "just telling the truth", while any criticism of their favorite game was trolling and hate. That's the reference I was making.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:40:58 AM
Is this addressed at me? The mangled quote makes it hard to reply to any specific claims, because they're unsourced.

Im sorry I did misqoute, but boy howdy I think its pretty entitled to insult me without direct qoutes, and then demand direct qoutes to apologize.

I find it annoying that you demand for specific verbiage to be followed when its convenient for you, but when you insult people, it means what you want it to mean. I posted BEFORE Visionstorm. The only time I agreed with him directly, is that your OSR verbiage is unclear.

And I don't care that 10+ years ago 4e people where nasty, because OSR people are happy to be nasty right back 10+ years later at neutral discussions of the topic.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 03:29:25 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 02:59:41 PM

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 02:26:00 PMSo there nothing to apologize for if you like a version that has things spelled out.

Well I think thats the most unflattering way of putting it I suppose.

Nothing flattering or unflattering about it. I played and refereed for GURPS for 20 years as my main system. In GURPS if you have all the books just about anything you do as a character is spelled out if you know where to look ;D Likewise my Majestic Fantasy RPG has things spelled out far more than the Swords & Wizardry system I based it on.

Level of detail and presentation are valid preferences. The dirty secret of 3 LBB only OD&D and other classic editions is that if one runs it long enough the result is as detailed of a system as most. The difference is that the added detail is the result of all the rulings one made over the years. Hopefully the referee is a good coach or teacher or has written it down. Otherwise the result will be off-putting to most players as they feel that there are gotchas all over the place as the referee doesn't explain important stuff.

  Is GURPS considered OSR?  The rules came out mid 80's, and IME can replicate running some of those 80's modules very well (and I liked several of those a lot, since they left a good deal of room for the DM to adjust and ad lib where needed, modern modules/adventures almost seem like a train on a track).  I always liked OSR feel and ambiance, but for me, the rules and their variations from D&D just do not do it for me, at least as a GM, I can play any system, but if I run it I like GURPS the most by a long ways.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 10:50:03 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:40:58 AM
Is this addressed at me? The mangled quote makes it hard to reply to any specific claims, because they're unsourced.

Im sorry I did misqoute, but boy howdy I think its pretty entitled to insult me without direct qoutes, and then demand direct qoutes to apologize.

I find it annoying that you demand for specific verbiage to be followed when its convenient for you, but when you insult people, it means what you want it to mean. I posted BEFORE Visionstorm. The only time I agreed with him directly, is that your OSR verbiage is unclear.

And I don't care that 10+ years ago 4e people where nasty, because OSR people are happy to be nasty right back 10+ years later at neutral discussions of the topic.

I respond to your statements once. If you think there was a problem, then it is your responsibility to at least point to what you're talking about. I have no interest in re-reading the entire thread, and then guessing which part you have a problem with.

And if you want to have a civil discussion, drop the entitled shit or this bullshit about insults. Because the post you just responded to was completely without a single insult directed your way. And no, the part where I talked about the misquote wasn't an insult. I just wanted to make sure you were addressing me, and to point out that it made it impossible for me  to address specific claims. And I did so in a neutral and nonjudgmental way.

TBP was just a comparison.

Quote from: oggsmash on March 01, 2022, 11:11:12 AMIs GURPS considered OSR? The rules came out mid 80's, and IME can replicate running some of those 80's modules very well (and I liked several of those a lot, since they left a good deal of room for the DM to adjust and ad lib where needed, modern modules/adventures almost seem like a train on a track).  I always liked OSR feel and ambiance, but for me, the rules and their variations from D&D just do not do it for me, at least as a GM, I can play any system, but if I run it I like GURPS the most by a long ways.

Not really, no. There are some really broad definitions that include other games, but 99.99% of the time when people say OSR they mean old school D&D and its derivatives. Also, GURPS is actively supported and published, which makes the R in OSR less applicable.

But it is kin in spirit, and a lot of people in the OSR wish there was more focus on other games, so you'll generally find a receptive audience.

I'd be interested in a discussion of running GURPS with old school D&D modules. The gritty and realistic feel of GURPS could work well with a lot of the dungeons, especially the more artificial or tournament style modules like Inverness. Plus the first edition of GURPS Fantasy was clearly inspired by, while also being a reaction against, the D&D magic system. Which might lead to interesting consequences. Spell points instead of Vancian slots, fireballs are much smaller, powerstones instead of scrolls, and so on.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:11:13 AM
Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

No, that's me pointing out your complete lack of self awareness.

Me admitting my demonstrable flaws does not equal me submitting to your absurd expectations on how other people communicate* or your willfully wrongheaded interpretations of things that other people often didn't even say, but are merely your assumptions about their intent or deeper implications of what they said or didn't say, or who they quoted, etc. It just means that unlike you, I am capable of recognizing my flaws.

*Expectations that as Banshee points out you consistently fail to apply to yourself (because they're unachievable and absurd).

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 11:42:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:11:13 AM
Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

No, that's me pointing out your complete lack of self awareness.

Me admitting my demonstrable flaws does not equal me submitting to your absurd expectations on how other people communicate* or your willfully wrongheaded interpretations of things that other people often didn't even say, but are merely your assumptions about their intent or deeper implications of what they said or didn't say, or who they quoted, etc. It just means that unlike you, I am capable of recognizing my flaws.

*Expectations that as Banshee points out you consistently fail to apply to yourself (because they're unachievable and absurd).

I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

You're a despicable human being.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 11:44:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 11:42:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:11:13 AM
Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

No, that's me pointing out your complete lack of self awareness.

Me admitting my demonstrable flaws does not equal me submitting to your absurd expectations on how other people communicate* or your willfully wrongheaded interpretations of things that other people often didn't even say, but are merely your assumptions about their intent or deeper implications of what they said or didn't say, or who they quoted, etc. It just means that unlike you, I am capable of recognizing my flaws.

*Expectations that as Banshee points out you consistently fail to apply to yourself (because they're unachievable and absurd).

I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

You're a despicable human being.

No, you're just the one who loses their shit cuz somebody quoted somebody else that happened to have responded to you in other to make some other point. Then spend two pages trying to justify attacking them for implied attacks that weren't even expressed in their post. And are such a narcissistic un self-aware idiot that you refuse to recognize that even as you demand everyone else recognize their flaws, both real and imaginary that you projected onto them.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 11:44:02 AM
I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

Visionstorm may be the biggestasshole in the multiverse, but his accusations at you are true. You demand telepathy and accuse it of others.

Im done on this thread.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 11:52:13 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 11:44:02 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 01, 2022, 11:42:12 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 10:11:13 AM
Is this you "de-escalating"?

You're a miserable human being.

No, that's me pointing out your complete lack of self awareness.

Me admitting my demonstrable flaws does not equal me submitting to your absurd expectations on how other people communicate* or your willfully wrongheaded interpretations of things that other people often didn't even say, but are merely your assumptions about their intent or deeper implications of what they said or didn't say, or who they quoted, etc. It just means that unlike you, I am capable of recognizing my flaws.

*Expectations that as Banshee points out you consistently fail to apply to yourself (because they're unachievable and absurd).

I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

You're a despicable human being.

No, you're just the one who loses their shit cuz somebody quoted somebody else that happened to have responded to you in other to make some other point. Then spend two pages trying to justify attacking them for implied attacks that weren't even expressed in their post. And are such a narcissistic un self-aware idiot that you refuse to recognize that even as you demand everyone else recognize their flaws, both real and imaginary that you projected onto them.

You're the one who started with the insults, I'm just respond in kind. Though I've been showing you the courtesy of making direct insults, instead of telling you what you think or what you feel. Which is the modus operandi of miserable assholes like you.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 12:03:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 11:44:02 AM
I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

Visionstorm may be the biggestasshole in the multiverse, but his accusations at you are true. You demand telepathy and accuse it of others.

Im done on this thread.

Fuck you. I attack people based on the content of their posts, VisionStorm attacks me based on imagined telepathic messages.

And yet another thread derailed by "who threw the poo first."

Last one out shut out the lights and lock the door.

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 05:37:25 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 12:03:12 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 11:44:02 AM
I'm not the one who engages in internet telepathy, VisionStorm.

Visionstorm may be the biggestasshole in the multiverse, but his accusations at you are true. You demand telepathy and accuse it of others.

Im done on this thread.

Fuck you. I attack people based on the content of their posts, VisionStorm attacks me based on imagined telepathic messages.

Whatever, dude. You're a delusional narcissist attacking people for imaginary slights requiring multiple degrees of motivated reasoning to even see them in their posts, cuz they aren't expressed anywhere in them, but merely your twisted, biased and uncharitable interpretation of them. And going like three+ pages strong trying to justify them cuz you can't see your own hand in any demonstrably imaginary shit you accuse others of. And you're still going and going, cuz everyone else is responsible for shit you adamantly and aggressively choose to see in their posts.

I'm out!  :-*

OP: Hey guys, I love OSR games but there are some things I think could be better. What do you like and dislike about your favorite OSR games?

Several pages later:

I remember as a teenager I was talking to some fellow air cadets and discovered Dungeons & Dragons. I got involved in a local wargames club as a result. 1979. A long time ago. There was nothing sophisticated about FRPG back then. No sourcebooks, nothing but the bare rules, small ranges of inexpensive white metal figures, and a few modules to go with. Perhaps I'm being a little nostalgic but things were better then. No-one worried about 'streamlined rules' or for that matter rules to cover the slightest decision a player could possibly make. We had to wing a lot of it back then and I would still do so to this day.

It just seems to me that modern games are too heavy on rules anyway, never mind the endless full colour presentation that whilst making for a higher quality product, do absolutely nothing for the game itself. Pages upon pages of backstory and colour art. Is that what I'm paying for? I'm unashamedly old school I guess. I want accessible rules that can withstand extrapolation on the fly.

I also dislike intensely the sort of control that some RPG publishers seem to extend over their customers. RPG's are supposed to be about imagination. Adult versions of stories around the camp fire, myths, legends, and done in a social, interactive way. Yet a number of publishers sell products with a customer dependency built in, offering depth but quietly ignoring, or worse supressing, anything that conflicts with the company line. I never cease to be amazed at how dependent some people appear to be, and for that matter, I really do dislike the fashion and factions thing that I have to wade through every time I resume my interest in the genre.

D&D? For all its faults, a source of social interaction and many, many hours of great fun. Isn't that supposed to be why we play?

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 07:10:47 PM
OP: Hey guys, I love OSR games but there are some things I think could be better. What do you like and dislike about your favorite OSR games?

Several pages later:

I replied somewhere in the massive argument going on. G'luck finding it now!  :'(

I dont play "OSR" games.

I play BX and AD&D.

I dont need some made up "movement" comprised of like 50% design theft to do that or to tell me what to play or how to play. They give people trying to make legitimate tries a very bad rep.

For me BX gets the job done about as smoothly as possible, even with the quirks like level caps. It also meshes very well with r/2e Gamma World if have the conversion notes from AD&D.

"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it. 

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

No, its not harsh at all. Its what several deserve to be called. The OGL was for 3e D&D. It was not carte blanche permission to copy-paste BX or AD&D rules often whole cloth.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

The retro-clones aren't the heart of the OSR. They're just the framework, that allows it to exist. The skin, the meat, and the pumping blood of the OSR are zines and magazines like Fight On! or Wizards Mutants Laser Pistols, adventures like Death Frost Doom or Deep Carbon Observatory, bestiaries like Varlets & Vermin or Teratic Tome, megadungeons like Stonehell or Anomalous Subsurface Environment, settings like Yoon-Suin or Qelong, and strange crowd-sourced compilations like Santicore or Petty Gods, and on and on.

Quote from: Omega on March 02, 2022, 12:50:41 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

No, its not harsh at all. Its what several deserve to be called. The OGL was for 3e D&D. It was not carte blanche permission to copy-paste BX or AD&D rules often whole cloth.

Nobody has used the OGL to cut & paste B/X or AD&D. That's false. They had to use the text of the SRD, or write the rules in their own words. And they didn't even need the OGL to do the latter. You can't copyright a rule. (Though it did provide some legal cover / reduce the chance of nuisance lawsuits.)

And the OGL is a carefully crafted legal document. It's absurd to claim that it does not grant permission to do what it explicitly grants permission to do. It would be really hard to argue it's against some nebulous intent, as well, because Dancy and the other people behind the OGL were very clear that what they were trying to do was replicate the open source movement in software. They designed it to be free and wild and out of their control.

It's true that some later Wizards staff expressed discontent with the OGL. Tough. There wasn't a takesies-backsies clause. The creators of the OGL deliberately made it irrevocable.

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2022, 04:05:40 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 02, 2022, 12:50:41 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

No, its not harsh at all. Its what several deserve to be called. The OGL was for 3e D&D. It was not carte blanche permission to copy-paste BX or AD&D rules often whole cloth.

Nobody has used the OGL to cut & paste B/X or AD&D. That's false. They had to use the text of the SRD, or write the rules in their own words. And they didn't even need the OGL to do the latter. You can't copyright a rule. (Though it did provide some legal cover / reduce the chance of nuisance lawsuits.)

And the OGL is a carefully crafted legal document. It's absurd to claim that it does not grant permission to do what it explicitly grants permission to do. It would be really hard to argue isn't against some nebulous intent, as well, because Dancy and the other people behind the OGL were very clear that what they were trying to do was replicate the open source movement in software. They designed it to be free and wild and out of their control.

It's true that some later Wizards staff expressed discontent with the OGL. Tough. There wasn't a takesies-backsies clause. The creators of the OGL deliberately made it irrevocable.

It's amazing to me, but some people get it in their heads that anything anybody does that resembles something someone else has already done is stealing from them, sometimes even if the "owner" of the original doesn't see the problem. Like the white people who scold other white people for "cultural appropriation" even when actual members of the culture being appropriated from don't give a shit.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 02, 2022, 04:25:44 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2022, 04:05:40 PM

Quote from: Omega on March 02, 2022, 12:50:41 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

No, its not harsh at all. Its what several deserve to be called. The OGL was for 3e D&D. It was not carte blanche permission to copy-paste BX or AD&D rules often whole cloth.

Nobody has used the OGL to cut & paste B/X or AD&D. That's false. They had to use the text of the SRD, or write the rules in their own words. And they didn't even need the OGL to do the latter. You can't copyright a rule. (Though it did provide some legal cover / reduce the chance of nuisance lawsuits.)

And the OGL is a carefully crafted legal document. It's absurd to claim that it does not grant permission to do what it explicitly grants permission to do. It would be really hard to argue isn't against some nebulous intent, as well, because Dancy and the other people behind the OGL were very clear that what they were trying to do was replicate the open source movement in software. They designed it to be free and wild and out of their control.

It's true that some later Wizards staff expressed discontent with the OGL. Tough. There wasn't a takesies-backsies clause. The creators of the OGL deliberately made it irrevocable.

It's amazing to me, but some people get it in their heads that anything anybody does that resembles something someone else has already done is stealing from them, sometimes even if the "owner" of the original doesn't see the problem. Like the white people who scold other white people for "cultural appropriation" even when actual members of the culture being appropriated from don't give a shit.

   Well, I think you should think of it as I heard a once famous pro wrestling personality say it (no idea if he originated it), "Steal from one person its plagarism, steal from everyone its research.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 01, 2022, 10:04:11 AMOK now this is turning into an appeal to a majority and snide remarks towards me.

No. It's neither.

I'm not claiming that a large number of people have a favorable opinion of something, therefore it is good. You claimed the basic system is unintuitive. And that is refuted by the fact that a large number of people actually have learned and understood the basic game--clearly so, by virtue of the fact that they are playing the game. That's an appeal to evidence. Appeal to a majority is not applicable because what I'm saying is not dependent upon the opinions of the majority.

Children being wrong vs being out of touch is a reference the Principal Skinner from the Simpsons. The reference widely known and understood in pop culture. And there is absolutely nothing snide about it. Even if you want to take it at face value, it's still not snide. It's a perfectly legitimate question that goes straight to the heart of the matter. You didn't simply say that *you* find the game unintuitive. You said that it was unintuitive for all (other than those who grew up with the game). Why should we assume as the default position that you get to speak for all those gamers? Why shouldn't we be able to question whether or not you're out of touch with these people?

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMLunamancer went out the way to quote the section where SB made a series of completely unfounded personal attacks against me, just to say they weren't like that (me). Now unlike you or SB, I'm pretty sure that Lunamancer didn't intend it that way. But it was still a shitty thing to do.

Go back to my post and compare it to post I was quoting. I quoted every single word of SB's post. I didn't omit any part. And I didn't go out of my way to quote any section of it. You are correct in that there was no intended offense. I stand 100% by my post, however. There was no shitty thing done, and I'm never going to agree with you on that.

Your reaction here at first gave me a face-palm moment. Here I am trying to unravel these charges that we're anti-social assholes and you go and do that. But then I thought about it more deeply. And I realized that your taking offense here is evidence that within this group the demand to be offended exceeds the quantity of offensiveness produced. I consider it resolved, then, that if collectively we have any flaw here, it's not in being too offensive but in being too offended.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 02, 2022, 09:30:27 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 08:01:30 AMLunamancer went out the way to quote the section where SB made a series of completely unfounded personal attacks against me, just to say they weren't like that (me). Now unlike you or SB, I'm pretty sure that Lunamancer didn't intend it that way. But it was still a shitty thing to do.

Go back to my post and compare it to post I was quoting. I quoted every single word of SB's post. I didn't omit any part. And I didn't go out of my way to quote any section of it. You are correct in that there was no intended offense. I stand 100% by my post, however. There was no shitty thing done, and I'm never going to agree with you on that.

Your reaction here at first gave me a face-palm moment. Here I am trying to unravel these charges that we're anti-social assholes and you go and do that. But then I thought about it more deeply. And I realized that your taking offense here is evidence that within this group the demand to be offended exceeds the quantity of offensiveness produced. I consider it resolved, then, that if collectively we have any flaw here, it's not in being too offensive but in being too offended.

I'm not part of the OSR, never have been. And have you paid the slightest bit of attention to the posts in this thread? I went out of my way to be helpful, and try to explain things. Doesn't work.

I spent several years here being nice, and ignoring insults, and trying to engage with people. It just got me dogpiled and attacked, with vicious claims about my mental state, my personality, my nature. Just like that piece of shit VisionStorm has been doing for the last few pages. Tolerating someone like that will get you nowhere.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 02, 2022, 09:30:27 PMI'm not claiming that a large number of people have a favorable opinion of something, therefore it is good. You claimed the basic system is unintuitive. And that is refuted by the fact that a large number of people actually have learned and understood the basic game.

Plenty of people do [insert many things here] even though its unituitive. There are plenty of games with unintuitive elements that are played in spite of them. If I say a walnut has a hard shell, its not refuted by saying plenty of people eat their innards.

Anyway, before was my last post to pat, this is the last post to you.

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2022, 03:51:47 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

The retro-clones aren't the heart of the OSR. They're just the framework, that allows it to exist. The skin, the meat, and the pumping blood of the OSR are zines and magazines like Fight On! or Wizards Mutants Laser Pistols, adventures like Death Frost Doom or Deep Carbon Observatory, bestiaries like Varlets & Vermin or Teratic Tome, megadungeons like Stonehell or Anomalous Subsurface Environment, settings like Yoon-Suin or Qelong, and strange crowd-sourced compilations like Santicore or Petty Gods, and on and on.

What you describe as "the pumping blood" is a bunch of stuff that most gamers I know have never even heard of much less actually read or played. Even if those are good, how much exposure do they really get? Can any of them be bought at the 'typical' FLGS or are they only available by direct order from (fairly obscure) websites?

Quote from: HappyDaze on March 03, 2022, 12:24:19 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2022, 03:51:47 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

The retro-clones aren't the heart of the OSR. They're just the framework, that allows it to exist. The skin, the meat, and the pumping blood of the OSR are zines and magazines like Fight On! or Wizards Mutants Laser Pistols, adventures like Death Frost Doom or Deep Carbon Observatory, bestiaries like Varlets & Vermin or Teratic Tome, megadungeons like Stonehell or Anomalous Subsurface Environment, settings like Yoon-Suin or Qelong, and strange crowd-sourced compilations like Santicore or Petty Gods, and on and on.

What you describe as "the pumping blood" is a bunch of stuff that most gamers I know have never even heard of much less actually read or played. Even if those are good, how much exposure do they really get? Can any of them be bought at the 'typical' FLGS or are they only available by direct order from (fairly obscure) websites?

What do you and most gamers you know consider to be the pumping blood of the OSR?

And to be clear, you believe significant contributions to the OSR is measured by shelf space in FLGS?

I cannot believe you and all of these gamers you know, who understand OSR contributions, wouldn't know titles like Deep Carbon Observatory, Stonehell, ASE, Yoon-Suin, DFD, etc. I would like to also know what OSR products you and these players you know are buying in FLGS.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 03, 2022, 04:56:02 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on March 03, 2022, 12:24:19 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 02, 2022, 03:51:47 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 02, 2022, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on March 02, 2022, 09:58:21 AM
"Design theft"?
Rather a harsh word for it.

I agree its harsh. The OGL/SRD combo does give them permission to use it.

On the other hand, if many of them were turned in as a homework assignment they'd quite likely be rejected for plagiarism.

The retro-clones aren't the heart of the OSR. They're just the framework, that allows it to exist. The skin, the meat, and the pumping blood of the OSR are zines and magazines like Fight On! or Wizards Mutants Laser Pistols, adventures like Death Frost Doom or Deep Carbon Observatory, bestiaries like Varlets & Vermin or Teratic Tome, megadungeons like Stonehell or Anomalous Subsurface Environment, settings like Yoon-Suin or Qelong, and strange crowd-sourced compilations like Santicore or Petty Gods, and on and on.

What you describe as "the pumping blood" is a bunch of stuff that most gamers I know have never even heard of much less actually read or played. Even if those are good, how much exposure do they really get? Can any of them be bought at the 'typical' FLGS or are they only available by direct order from (fairly obscure) websites?

What do you and most gamers you know consider to be the pumping blood of the OSR?

And to be clear, you believe significant contributions to the OSR is measured by shelf space in FLGS?

I cannot believe you and all of these gamers you know, who understand OSR contributions, wouldn't know titles like Deep Carbon Observatory, Stonehell, ASE, Yoon-Suin, DFD, etc. I would like to also know what OSR products you and these players you know are buying in FLGS.

Damn it, man!  Why are you going to apply logic to his perfectly good appeal to popularity?  I mean, if it isn't in Target, it doesn't exist, right?

Quote from: FingerRod on March 03, 2022, 04:56:02 AM
I cannot believe you and all of these gamers you know, who understand OSR contributions, wouldn't know titles like Deep Carbon Observatory, Stonehell, ASE, Yoon-Suin, DFD, etc. I would like to also know what OSR products you and these players you know are buying in FLGS.

The what now?

In my experience the only bits of the OSR that actually manage to poke their noses above the surface of general internet static are actual game systems.

Quote from: HappyDaze on March 03, 2022, 12:24:19 AM
What you describe as "the pumping blood" is a bunch of stuff that most gamers I know have never even heard of much less actually read or played. Even if those are good, how much exposure do they really get? Can any of them be bought at the 'typical' FLGS or are they only available by direct order from (fairly obscure) websites?

Exposure enough to earn one OSR publisher over a half a million dollars and climbing. Some OSR publishers pursue FLGS distribution some don't. Ultimately it doesn't matter as digital technology like the Internet allows small niches of a niche to have thriving communities and a vibrant but small industry.  I personally cleared profits in the low thousands starting with the Majestic Wilderlands in 2009. I am not unique in this.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 03, 2022, 06:51:31 AM
In my experience the only bits of the OSR that actually manage to poke their noses above the surface of general internet static are actual game systems.

Luckily OSR publisher (or any other publisher of niche RPGs for that matter) doesn't need to rise above general internet static. The only one that managed to do that is D&D and Wizards of the Coast.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 03, 2022, 06:51:31 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 03, 2022, 04:56:02 AM
I cannot believe you and all of these gamers you know, who understand OSR contributions, wouldn't know titles like Deep Carbon Observatory, Stonehell, ASE, Yoon-Suin, DFD, etc. I would like to also know what OSR products you and these players you know are buying in FLGS.

The what now?

In my experience the only bits of the OSR that actually manage to poke their noses above the surface of general internet static are actual game systems.

Well I'm not sure any part of the OSR rises above general internet static these days. I mean how could it compete with feather challenges and make your own deodorant in 30 seconds on the Tok?

Seriously though I do not know what to tell you. Remastered Deep Carbon put another 50k in Patrick Stuart's pocket just two years ago. And that was just the Kickstarter. The original is Platinum on DriveThru. So is Yoon-Suin.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 02, 2022, 09:30:27 PMYour reaction here at first gave me a face-palm moment. Here I am trying to unravel these charges that we're anti-social assholes and you go and do that. But then I thought about it more deeply. And I realized that your taking offense here is evidence that within this group the demand to be offended exceeds the quantity of offensiveness produced. I consider it resolved, then, that if collectively we have any flaw here, it's not in being too offensive but in being too offended.

In fairness to the OSR, the behavior of one rabid member of these boards is not necessarily indicative of the behavior or mindset of the whole, though, there are certainly people like that in every community, particular online tied to various fandoms (with some perhaps more rabid than others). But there are plenty of people who are not like that as well (some in these boards, and some I've encountered elsewhere). And there were elements of this exchange that transcend the flaws of any single community and were more personal in nature, and tied to a certain individual's lack of humility and self-reflection.

So perhaps the whole community should not be held responsible for that, even though it is possible we may sometimes encounter similar (if perhaps not as heated) exchanges elsewhere. To some extend some communities may cultivate such tendencies or behaviors, but to another it is simply the nature of the internet and interpersonal communication, or even an individual's personal and unrecognized failings.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 03, 2022, 08:04:37 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 02, 2022, 09:30:27 PMYour reaction here at first gave me a face-palm moment. Here I am trying to unravel these charges that we're anti-social assholes and you go and do that. But then I thought about it more deeply. And I realized that your taking offense here is evidence that within this group the demand to be offended exceeds the quantity of offensiveness produced. I consider it resolved, then, that if collectively we have any flaw here, it's not in being too offensive but in being too offended.

In fairness to the OSR, the behavior of one rabid member of these boards is not necessarily indicative of the behavior or mindset of the whole, though, there are certainly people like that in every community, particular online tied to various fandoms (with some perhaps more rabid than others). But there are plenty of people who are not like that as well (some in these boards, and some I've encountered elsewhere). And there were elements of this exchange that transcend the flaws of any single community and were more personal in nature, and tied to a certain individual's lack of humility and self-reflection.

So perhaps the whole community should not be held responsible for that, even though it is possible we may sometimes encounter similar (if perhaps not as heated) exchanges elsewhere. To some extend some communities may cultivate such tendencies or behaviors, but to another it is simply the nature of the internet and interpersonal communication, or even an individual's personal and unrecognized failings.

Talking about yourself again? At least you're showing a degree of self-reflection.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 03, 2022, 07:46:00 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 03, 2022, 06:51:31 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 03, 2022, 04:56:02 AM
I cannot believe you and all of these gamers you know, who understand OSR contributions, wouldn't know titles like Deep Carbon Observatory, Stonehell, ASE, Yoon-Suin, DFD, etc. I would like to also know what OSR products you and these players you know are buying in FLGS.

The what now?

In my experience the only bits of the OSR that actually manage to poke their noses above the surface of general internet static are actual game systems.

Well I'm not sure any part of the OSR rises above general internet static these days. I mean how could it compete with feather challenges and make your own deodorant in 30 seconds on the Tok?

Seriously though I do not know what to tell you. Remastered Deep Carbon put another 50k in Patrick Stuart's pocket just two years ago. And that was just the Kickstarter. The original is Platinum on DriveThru. So is Yoon-Suin.

I think the heart of the OSR is self-publication. From a bunch of fans who created an entire game just because they wanted a legal way to publish modules for an out of print edition of a game owned by a big publisher, to the explosion of discussion on the blogosphere, to attempting re-create and publicize old ways of playing that were mostly lost, to the huge number of fan-produced modules, zines, games, and weird brick-a-brac.

Some have achieved critical success, and some have achieved commercial success and become small press operations in themselves, but it all started with a community of creative fans, and it was their work that created the buzz that helped propel the concept of the OSR into the mainstream.

Getting into the distribution network (Labyrinth Lord was an early example), and getting on the shelves of FLGS (very spotty) was never a priority for most of the community. As a result, it's just a few random things protruding from the tip of an iceberg.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 09:38:02 AM
I think the heart of the OSR is self-publication. From a bunch of fans who created an entire game just because they wanted a legal way to publish modules for an out of print edition of a game owned by a big publisher, to the explosion of discussion on the blogosphere, to attempting re-create and publicize old ways of playing that were mostly lost, to the huge number of fan-produced modules, zines, games, and weird brick-a-brac.

Some have achieved critical success, and some have achieved commercial success and become small press operations in themselves, but it all started with a community of creative fans, and it was their work that created the buzz that helped propel the concept of the OSR into the mainstream.

Getting into the distribution network (Labyrinth Lord was an early example), and getting on the shelves of FLGS (very spotty) was never a priority for most of the community. As a result, it's just a few random things protruding from the tip of an iceberg.

For people who are interested in sharing or publishing stuff that works with classic editions of D&D the above is very accurate.

Regardless of the label there is a large group of hobbyists who publish/share for, promote, and play classic editions of D&D. Even folks who proudly say that they are not "OSR" or that they don't play OSR games but rather play B/X or AD&D are part of this group.

Regards of label, this group is taking full advantage of digital technology for creation and distribution (PoD and PDFs) and open content (d20 SRD) to breath new life into set of out of print RPGs.

I personally use the label OSR to refer to this group as that how I started using the term back in 2008. And it is easier to use than typing out those who play, promote, or publish for classic editions of D&D.

Other don't like the OSR because "they" (rarely specified) had committed one or more hobby or industry sin and thus it fake, bunk, etc., etc. The Pundit is notorious for using "they" without naming specifically who they are talking about. This thread has numerous examples of this usage.

My personal experience is that the only thing that the OSR is about is whatever is done is related to one of the classic editions of D&D. From OD&D 3 LBBs to AD&D 2e these out of print RPGs are the center of gravity of what OSR is.  Whether involves using them 'as is' or adapting their themes and ideas to one's own ideas.

A crucial enabling element is the use of digital technology and the internet to revitalize a community that in 1995 pretty much consisted of scattered groups of fans who mostly never stopped playing an edition older than AD&D 2e (the current edition of that time). After the d20 boom, AD&D 2e was thrown in the same boat as the rest of the classic editions. In the late 90s and the early 2000s, the internet allowed these people to find one another.

Within the larger d20 Boom there was a group of companies who made d20 product that harked back to how older edition played. Companies like Necromancer Games, Troll Lord Games, and Goodman Games were noted for this.

The final crucial enabling element is the use of the d20 SRD to recreate much of the classic edition. This was critical not because it allowed for clones and near clone. But enable for nearly the full range of support for the classic edition moving many projects out of the realm of "wink wink nudge nudge, I hope Wizards legal doesn't notice this." land.

Despite the attention and sales the clones get they are dwarfed creatively by supplemental products like adventures, settings, and rule supplements. Any list of "OSR" product whether it is modest or more expansive rulesets are swamped by the rest. For example the Hoards and Hordes list.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit

The OSR is everything that can be done with a classic edition of D&D happening everywhere all at once. If one think the OSR is about something more than the fact it is tied in some way to a classic editions of D&D then they are mistaken. If a person thinks that part of the OSR is about something then likely they are correct.

And that applies to what I quoted from your post. There is a visible and active group of folks who sometimes label themselves part of the OSR and sometime not who are very much into self-publishing and were able to realize their projects in the form they wanted it to be in. Including myself. But me and the rest of this group are no more or no less the OSR than the group of old-time fans who play AD&D every week. Or the people who post commentary and advice through podcast or youtube video. Or the companies who support the classic edition but have a more traditional author-publisher-distributor-store setup. Or the folks who adapted things like dungeon crawls or hexcrawl setting to other system which can be very different from classic D&D.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 11:24:04 AM
Regardless of the label there is a large group of hobbyists who publish/share for, promote, and play classic editions of D&D. Even folks who proudly say that they are not "OSR" or that they don't play OSR games but rather play B/X or AD&D are part of this group.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 11:24:04 AM
And that applies to what I quoted from your post. There is a visible and active group of folks who sometimes label themselves part of the OSR and sometime not who are very much into self-publishing and were able to realize their projects in the form they wanted it to be in. Including myself. But me and the rest of this group are no more or no less the OSR than the group of old-time fans who play AD&D every week. Or the people who post commentary and advice through podcast or youtube video. Or the companies who support the classic edition but have a more traditional author-publisher-distributor-store setup. Or the folks who adapted things like dungeon crawls or hexcrawl setting to other system which can be very different from classic D&D.

I agree with much of what you said, but I'd make a few additional distinctions, and I think we disagree about the ultimate definition of the OSR.

There are still a lot of people who starting playing old games back when they were the current edition, and haven't stopped. Though back in the early aughts they were largely invisible to the internet, because they didn't have much of a presence on the web. One of the few places where they gathered was Dragonsfoot, but that was just a small part of a much larger community.

They predate the OSR, and don't necessarily know about the OSR. So I'd never call them OSR. They're just old school gamers.

The OSR was started by players of D&D third edition, who got tired of the current edition, and wanted to revert back to the fun they had with previous editions. The first thing they rallied around was Castles & Crusades, which is basically AD&D with the core mechanics stripped out and replaced by third edition-style mechanics. But there were some personality differences, and the ones who were to found the OSR split with C&C and went off to create OSRIC. But those players are distinct from the ones who never stopped playing the older editions. Instead, the OSR was founded by people had made the jump to third edition, and then went back. Many also had some experience with other experimental games from the 90s and early 00s.

The OSR grew out of OSRIC, and along the way changed pretty dramatically. One thing it did was fold in a lot of older players, especially luminaries from back in the day, which resulted in some of the original group of gamers who never stopped playing the older editions publishing newer things. This brought some of the formerly web-invisible players into visibility, and helped encourage them to publish, or at least to publish more polished materials for a wider audience. The OSR became a thing to rally around and identify with, and a place to share and promote. So there are original old school gamers who fall under the general rubric of the OSR.

But there are still significant numbers of old school players who aren't part of the OSR, in any real way. They may not even be familiar with the term, if their gaming circle is small.

I have been eyeing Old School Essentials and I gotta say, that book looks pretty appealing. 5e is fine for my games, and it's fine to introduce my daughter to D&D to a certain extent, but I cut my teeth on Holmes Basic and it seems to me at least possible my daughter would do better with fewer rules and more room to figure things out on her own that Old School Essentials might bring.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PM
I agree with much of what you said, but I'd make a few additional distinctions, and I think we disagree about the ultimate definition of the OSR.

There are still a lot of people who starting playing old games back when they were the current edition, and haven't stopped. Though back in the early aughts they were largely invisible to the internet, because they didn't have much of a presence on the web. One of the few places where they gathered was Dragonsfoot, but that was just a small part of a much larger community.

They predate the OSR, and don't necessarily know about the OSR. So I'd never call them OSR. They're just old school gamers.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PM
The OSR was started by players of D&D third edition, who got tired of the current edition, and wanted to revert back to the fun they had with previous editions. The first thing they rallied around was Castles & Crusades, which is basically AD&D with the core mechanics stripped out and replaced by third edition-style mechanics. But there were some personality differences, and the ones who were to found the OSR split with C&C and went off to create OSRIC. But those players are distinct from the ones who never stopped playing the older editions. Instead, the OSR was founded by people had made the jump to third edition, and then went back. Many also had some experience with other experimental games from the 90s and early 00s.

I was there involved with many of the group you mentioned. Mostly to talk about and promote my hexcrawl stuff like Points of Light and Sandbox campaigns. The only specific names were things like Castles and Crusades, OSRIC, Basic Fantasy. Specific places where people met like Dragonsfoot, Knights and Knaves and so on.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PMThe OSR grew out of OSRIC, and along the way changed pretty dramatically. One thing it did was fold in a lot of older players, especially luminaries from back in the day, which resulted in some of the original group of gamers who never stopped playing the older editions publishing newer things. This brought some of the formerly web-invisible players into visibility, and helped encourage them to publish, or at least to publish more polished materials for a wider audience. The OSR became a thing to rally around and identify with, and a place to share and promote. So there are original old school gamers who fall under the general rubric of the OSR.

Nobody started the OSR. You are choosing to use the label in a specific way to highlight the work of a group of specific. Many other including myself adopted the term as a shorthand for those who play, promote, and publish (or share) for classic editions of D&D. It got a major boost when it was adopted as a name for a Lule storefront that aggregated (with author's permission) a bunch of classic D&D related material including my own Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PM
But there are still significant numbers of old school players who aren't part of the OSR, in any real way. They may not even be familiar with the term, if their gaming circle is small.

Except that I don't use OSR to describe those who publish or share classic D&D material.  The fact that people like yourself think that it is a description of a movement are frankly igorant of its genesis.

Several things started to happen when it;s use started spreading between 2008 and 2010. First many took umbrage at the use of Old School in the term. Accusing folks of using of think that the only "Old School" RPG were classic D&D edition. Second, people became confused over the fact there were dozens of people actively involved in just publishing (and even more playing or promoting). Nobody was the face of the OSR in the way Paizo is the face of Pathfinder. Pinnacle is the face of Savage World and so on.

So they kept trying to pin it down and saying the OSR is about this or that when it was really what they were seeing was the collective effort of dozens working independently of each other. Many of my earliest blogs post were about this misconception due to the fact my focus was different with my work with the Majestic Wilderlands, and sandbox campaign.

The closest was OSRIC but you have to understand OSRIC was meant to preserve AD&D 1e 'as is'. Thus many of us working with the classic editions including myself didn't find it particularly useful for our efforts. Instead people gravitated to more open systems like Swords & Wizardry and Labyrinth Lord. 
And other thing about OSRIC that it was known due to the fact it took the brunt of the early criticism of it being an illegal ripoff. Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games was particularly critical of it.

The OSR didn't start with OSRIC it started when people opted not to play the latest edition. It didn't a need a label of any type until people realized that

1) There a lot more people still playing the classic editions then they thought. This occurred circa 2000
2) We can do a lot more than we thought we could with the d20 SRD as open content and this occurred around 2006 .

Once that happened OSR happened to be the term adopted and it was in widespread use by 2010.

My choice when I adopted it back in the day was to consistently to refer to the entire hobby who did something with one of the classic editions of D&D. I don't limit to hobbyist who kept playing, or those who took up playing later. Or to those who self-publish, or even those who create and promote open content.  If you do something that can be tied to one of the classic editions of D&D congrats you are part of the mess called the OSR in my view.

Quote from: Mistwell on March 03, 2022, 12:09:42 PM
I have been eyeing Old School Essentials and I gotta say, that book looks pretty appealing. 5e is fine for my games, and it's fine to introduce my daughter to D&D to a certain extent, but I cut my teeth on Holmes Basic and it seems to me at least possible my daughter would do better with fewer rules and more room to figure things out on her own that Old School Essentials might bring.

You should check out some of the Dolmenwood stuff, not sure how old your daughter is but the setting is a whimsical and sometimes dark enchanted forest.

Quote from: Slambo on March 03, 2022, 01:06:51 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on March 03, 2022, 12:09:42 PM
I have been eyeing Old School Essentials and I gotta say, that book looks pretty appealing. 5e is fine for my games, and it's fine to introduce my daughter to D&D to a certain extent, but I cut my teeth on Holmes Basic and it seems to me at least possible my daughter would do better with fewer rules and more room to figure things out on her own that Old School Essentials might bring.

You should check out some of the Dolmenwood stuff, not sure how old your daughter is but the setting is a whimsical and sometimes dark enchanted forest.

Thanks. I'd never heard of Dolmenwood but it does look very much in the pocket of stuff I think she'd like.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 11:24:04 AMOther don't like the OSR because "they" (rarely specified) had committed one or more hobby or industry sin and thus it fake, bunk, etc., etc. The Pundit is notorious for using "they" without naming specifically who they are talking about. This thread has numerous examples of this usage.

Unfortunately "they" is a term that often comes up in online and even face to face conversation that's sometimes difficult to avoid. The problem with the usage of "they/them" is that, while not helpful, it's often the only reference that we can realistically fallback on, since the stuff we might be referring to may have happened a long time ago (sometimes decades), or involve numerous people we might not remember, including random communications with anonymous people scattered online or people that might not even be relevant to the discussion or known by anyone else involved (such as people we know IRL).

Even when it involves conversations online a Google search might not provide anything relevant as examples of what we mean, since there might be hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of articles, forum threads and/or social media posts discussing topics related to any keyword we might possibly use. So it becomes difficult or perhaps impossible to provide anything other than vague allusions to they/them when discussion those subjects.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 12:56:16 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PM
I agree with much of what you said, but I'd make a few additional distinctions, and I think we disagree about the ultimate definition of the OSR.

There are still a lot of people who starting playing old games back when they were the current edition, and haven't stopped. Though back in the early aughts they were largely invisible to the internet, because they didn't have much of a presence on the web. One of the few places where they gathered was Dragonsfoot, but that was just a small part of a much larger community.

They predate the OSR, and don't necessarily know about the OSR. So I'd never call them OSR. They're just old school gamers.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PM
The OSR was started by players of D&D third edition, who got tired of the current edition, and wanted to revert back to the fun they had with previous editions. The first thing they rallied around was Castles & Crusades, which is basically AD&D with the core mechanics stripped out and replaced by third edition-style mechanics. But there were some personality differences, and the ones who were to found the OSR split with C&C and went off to create OSRIC. But those players are distinct from the ones who never stopped playing the older editions. Instead, the OSR was founded by people had made the jump to third edition, and then went back. Many also had some experience with other experimental games from the 90s and early 00s.

I was there involved with many of the group you mentioned. Mostly to talk about and promote my hexcrawl stuff like Points of Light and Sandbox campaigns. The only specific names were things like Castles and Crusades, OSRIC, Basic Fantasy. Specific places where people met like Dragonsfoot, Knights and Knaves and so on.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PMThe OSR grew out of OSRIC, and along the way changed pretty dramatically. One thing it did was fold in a lot of older players, especially luminaries from back in the day, which resulted in some of the original group of gamers who never stopped playing the older editions publishing newer things. This brought some of the formerly web-invisible players into visibility, and helped encourage them to publish, or at least to publish more polished materials for a wider audience. The OSR became a thing to rally around and identify with, and a place to share and promote. So there are original old school gamers who fall under the general rubric of the OSR.

Nobody started the OSR. You are choosing to use the label in a specific way to highlight the work of a group of specific. Many other including myself adopted the term as a shorthand for those who play, promote, and publish (or share) for classic editions of D&D. It got a major boost when it was adopted as a name for a Lule storefront that aggregated (with author's permission) a bunch of classic D&D related material including my own Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 12:02:32 PM
But there are still significant numbers of old school players who aren't part of the OSR, in any real way. They may not even be familiar with the term, if their gaming circle is small.

Except that I don't use OSR to describe those who publish or share classic D&D material.  The fact that people like yourself think that it is a description of a movement are frankly igorant of its genesis.

Several things started to happen when it;s use started spreading between 2008 and 2010. First many took umbrage at the use of Old School in the term. Accusing folks of using of think that the only "Old School" RPG were classic D&D edition. Second, people became confused over the fact there were dozens of people actively involved in just publishing (and even more playing or promoting). Nobody was the face of the OSR in the way Paizo is the face of Pathfinder. Pinnacle is the face of Savage World and so on.

So they kept trying to pin it down and saying the OSR is about this or that when it was really what they were seeing was the collective effort of dozens working independently of each other. Many of my earliest blogs post were about this misconception due to the fact my focus was different with my work with the Majestic Wilderlands, and sandbox campaign.

The closest was OSRIC but you have to understand OSRIC was meant to preserve AD&D 1e 'as is'. Thus many of us working with the classic editions including myself didn't find it particularly useful for our efforts. Instead people gravitated to more open systems like Swords & Wizardry and Labyrinth Lord. 
And other thing about OSRIC that it was known due to the fact it took the brunt of the early criticism of it being an illegal ripoff. Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games was particularly critical of it.

The OSR didn't start with OSRIC it started when people opted not to play the latest edition. It didn't a need a label of any type until people realized that

1) There a lot more people still playing the classic editions then they thought. This occurred circa 2000
2) We can do a lot more than we thought we could with the d20 SRD as open content and this occurred around 2006 .

Once that happened OSR happened to be the term adopted and it was in widespread use by 2010.

My choice when I adopted it back in the day was to consistently to refer to the entire hobby who did something with one of the classic editions of D&D. I don't limit to hobbyist who kept playing, or those who took up playing later. Or to those who self-publish, or even those who create and promote open content.  If you do something that can be tied to one of the classic editions of D&D congrats you are part of the mess called the OSR in my view.

At this point, I think we strongly disagree, and I'm going to throw the ignorant slur right back at you, because you seem to have a myopic view.

The OSR refers to a specific movement, that started in a particular time and among a particular group of people, and which has spread and grown over the years. While the term took a while to settle, and has become more encompassing than it was in the past, treating it as a generic term that applies whenever people think of older editions, makes it so general it becomes almost worthless as a descriptor. There were certainly multiple disparate threads that coalesced into the movement, OSRIC was a focal point, and I'm not sure how you can dispute it. It had a greater influence than C&C, Project 74/Basic Fantasy, DF, and other earlier examples. It was the precedent that other retro-clones followed, and established the basic principles that they either adopted or flouted. This is what allowed the publication of third party materials, and the topics they discussed inspire the growth of the blogosphere. S&W was the result of one of the authors of OSRIC taking some of the lessons from OSRIC, but doing something rather different, by exploring 0e and the lost Gygaxian playstyle propagandized in the Primer, with a particular interest in the imaginative style of play. That focus on 0e became the focus of much of the activity of the OSR, before attention shifted toward B/X. The Lulu storefront was, at best, a very minor event, and quite late in the timeline.

In fact, you seem to be admitting much of this in your 2 points. Who used the OGL to do something with the SRD? While rules can't be copyrighted, so a rewritten version of older games would have always been legal, nobody did anything (at least since the Mayfair/etc. lawsuits in the 1980s). Partly this was because fans were more interested in making fan material than commercializing it, but much of it was worry about the compliance requirements and the threat of nuisance lawsuits. Nobody wanted to be the guinea pig. But the OGL gave a bit of a shield, and the d20 boom, especially as they transitioned from d20 branded games to games that just used the OGL, provided both precedents and a large body of practical experience in compliance. Marshall, Finch, and the other knights n knaves behind OSRIC took that, hammered out the legalities with lawyers and jurisdictions and worrying about the legal status of numbers in a table. That's what gave later clone authors like Proctor the courage to follow in their steps. 2006 was a turning point, and that was because of OSRIC.

The earlier 1999/2000 turning point where old school fans start to organize and people started to turn away from current editions was Dragonsfoot, and the reaction to third edition, as I mentioned. But those were pre-OSR. C&C was another interim step, in between those two. So were some of the other Troll Lord publications, or Necromancer's, which were an attempt to adapt old school sensibilities to d20, rather than abandoning third edition entirely.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 03, 2022, 02:18:17 PM
Unfortunately "they" is a term that often comes up in online and even face to face conversation that's sometimes difficult to avoid. The problem with the usage of "they/them" is that, while not helpful, it's often the only reference that we can realistically fallback on, since the stuff we might be referring to may have happened a long time ago (sometimes decades), or involve numerous people we might not remember, including random communications with anonymous people scattered online or people that might not even be relevant to the discussion or known by anyone else involved (such as people we know IRL).

I think it fine to use they in regards to a specific group or company like Wizards or Pinnacle. But with the OSR I find it more problematic is it now hundreds of individuals making decisions for whatever reasons they see fit. I am that category as well. I have worked with folks on projects but mostly I do my own thing in the matter I best see fit.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
At this point, I think we strongly disagree, and I'm going to throw the ignorant slur right back at you, because you seem to have a myopic view.

Interesting, considering my history blogging and publishing.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
The OSR refers to a specific movement, that started in a particular time and among a particular group of people, and which has spread and grown over the years.

You are welcomed to try to define the OSR that way. But like so many before you will find it just one definition among many others. My definition also is just one among a sea of definition.

Another issue with your definition is that while PDF, Blog, Forums predated 2006, the use of PDFs and especially print on demand didn't hit it stride until the mid 2000s. Without Basic Fantasy and OSRIC, I still think we would have seen growing tide of supplemental material for older editions like adventure and setting. Like I did with Points of Light, one can use minimal stats that has no where near the risk that Basic Fantasy and OSRIC assumed when they were published. This was already happening prior to 2006.

But the release of Basic Fantasy and OSRIC in 2006, accelerated what would been a far slower process. And classic D&D had a large enough fanbase to provide a critical mass of people willing to devote a considerable amount of their hobby time to self-publishing, or promotion. And there were more than enough people for folks to find and play with. Especially for things like conventions.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
While the term took a while to settle, and has become more encompassing than it was in the past, treating it as a generic term that applies whenever people think of older editions, makes it so general it becomes almost worthless as a descriptor.

It always been worthless as a descriptor. There are two things that my Bat in the Attic line up share in common with James Raggi's Lamentation of the Flame Princess lineup. We both base our mechanics off an adapted edition of classic D&D. We both are self-publishers taking advantage of print-on-demand and PDF distribution over the internet. Except our path diverge quality with LoftFP quickly moving into print runs and traditional distribution. While I did not. Creatively our work have little in common with each other.

You don't have to believe me just look here and see how many use OSR as a mark. Aside from the fact we all opted to be included DriveThruRPG's OSR Category, very few works use OSR or a OSR Logo as part their marketing.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45582_0_0_0_0&src=fid45582

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
There were certainly multiple disparate threads that coalesced into the movement, OSRIC was a focal point, and I'm not sure how you can dispute it.

I didn't dispute it. I said previously and in other places that OSRIC and Basic Fantasy were critical to showing fans of the classic edition that they could provide 95% of the support a traditional publisher could for a system. However it largest impact was to amplify existing trends. It wasn't until 2010 that the publishing of clones and near clones took off.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
It had a greater influence than C&C, Project 74/Basic Fantasy, DF, and other earlier examples.

Basic Fantasy by Chris Gonnerman was equally critical. What it lacked was the notiority that OSRIC gained when it was attacked by people in the industry like Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
The Lulu storefront was, at best, a very minor event, and quite late in the timeline.

You missed the part where I said the storefront was crucial in popularizing the term. Of course stuff was already happening by then. That why folks were coming up with umbrella terms of which OSR was just one candidate.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
2006 was a turning point, and that was because of OSRIC.

and Basic Fantasy.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
or Necromancer's, which were an attempt to adapt old school sensibilities to d20, rather than abandoning third edition entirely.

Which I was also involved with.

Look, I been writing about this for a long time. And it still out there for anybody to read.

I am the guy who document the first recorded use of Old School Renaissance in 2009.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-hell-old-school-renaissance-come.html

Explained to people how the OSR works and it still relevant today in 2009.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/those-who-do-and-old-school-renaissance.html

I still get people who tell me that this helps them understand the possibilities of work with the classic editions.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/07/old-school-renaissance.html

I been pretty consistent over the year with my whole More the merrier attitude as to what people should be doing in the OSR.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-osr-ought-be-doing.html

A short history I wrote in 2013.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-short-history-of-old-school.html

The one time I tried to predict what was going to happen in the OSR (I was wrong and never bothered with doing this again).
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/12/trends-in-old-school-renaissance.html

And the OSR is a mess (and that is a good thing) from 2010.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/07/old-school-renaissance-is-mess.html

I could go diving into my Enworld and Necromancer Games forums posts that predate my blog. But I think I made my point.

The OSR isn't a movement, it isn't a thing. It is a mess resulting from the decisions of hundreds on what to do with the material. There are some critical points (C&C, OSRIC, BASIC Fantasy) and larger societal development (like the Internet) that played a crucial role in opening people's eyes to the possibilities. But then we got the same thing that happened after the Tower of Babel, a everybody went off in their own direction, some in groups, some by themselves. United only by the fact that their subsequent work can be traced back something found in one of the classic editions of D&D.

Other RPGs, other older RPG had their own trajectory. Largely because there was a single dominant company who still published something close to the original. The closest thing is Traveller and Cepheus. That resulted from Mongoose bungling their 3rd party licensing for Mongoose Traveller 2e. Now without a dominant publisher, Cepheus is charting it own course.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 03:19:20 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 03, 2022, 02:18:17 PM
Unfortunately "they" is a term that often comes up in online and even face to face conversation that's sometimes difficult to avoid. The problem with the usage of "they/them" is that, while not helpful, it's often the only reference that we can realistically fallback on, since the stuff we might be referring to may have happened a long time ago (sometimes decades), or involve numerous people we might not remember, including random communications with anonymous people scattered online or people that might not even be relevant to the discussion or known by anyone else involved (such as people we know IRL).

I think it fine to use they in regards to a specific group or company like Wizards or Pinnacle. But with the OSR I find it more problematic is it now hundreds of individuals making decisions for whatever reasons they see fit. I am that category as well. I have worked with folks on projects but mostly I do my own thing in the matter I best see fit.

Yeah, I'm starting to see how difficult it can be to generalize about the OSR given how broad, disparate and poorly defined it is. And how little consensus there seems to be about whether it's even a "movement" or not.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 04:30:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
At this point, I think we strongly disagree, and I'm going to throw the ignorant slur right back at you, because you seem to have a myopic view.

Interesting, considering my history blogging and publishing.

Interesting, that you think that makes you an unbiased observer.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 04:30:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
The OSR refers to a specific movement, that started in a particular time and among a particular group of people, and which has spread and grown over the years.

You are welcomed to try to define the OSR that way. But like so many before you will find it just one definition among many others. My definition also is just one among a sea of definition.

Another issue with your definition is that while PDF, Blog, Forums predated 2006, the use of PDFs and especially print on demand didn't hit it stride until the mid 2000s. Without Basic Fantasy and OSRIC, I still think we would have seen growing tide of supplemental material for older editions like adventure and setting. Like I did with Points of Light, one can use minimal stats that has no where near the risk that Basic Fantasy and OSRIC assumed when they were published. This was already happening prior to 2006.

But the release of Basic Fantasy and OSRIC in 2006, accelerated what would been a far slower process. And classic D&D had a large enough fanbase to provide a critical mass of people willing to devote a considerable amount of their hobby time to self-publishing, or promotion. And there were more than enough people for folks to find and play with. Especially for things like conventions.

It's not "my" definition, in any real sense. I'm describing the way I've seen it used and seen it evolve, over the years. I don't think it's possible or desirable to narrow it down too much, but we can observe trends. Your definition seems to be an outlier, mostly popping up in very casual use. And I'm also arguing that your definition is less useful. It's so broad it's basically synonymous with old school, which makes the term redundant, and doesn't help distinguish what makes it unique.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 04:30:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
While the term took a while to settle, and has become more encompassing than it was in the past, treating it as a generic term that applies whenever people think of older editions, makes it so general it becomes almost worthless as a descriptor.

It always been worthless as a descriptor. There are two things that my Bat in the Attic line up share in common with James Raggi's Lamentation of the Flame Princess lineup. We both base our mechanics off an adapted edition of classic D&D. We both are self-publishers taking advantage of print-on-demand and PDF distribution over the internet. Except our path diverge quality with LoftFP quickly moving into print runs and traditional distribution. While I did not. Creatively our work have little in common with each other.

You don't have to believe me just look here and see how many use OSR as a mark. Aside from the fact we all opted to be included DriveThruRPG's OSR Category, very few works use OSR or a OSR Logo as part their marketing.

How is any of that relevant? The OSR has always been about people doing what they want to do. Pointing out that there is a great deal of diversity and a rejection of conformity is the point of the OSR.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 04:30:10 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 02:20:20 PM
There were certainly multiple disparate threads that coalesced into the movement, OSRIC was a focal point, and I'm not sure how you can dispute it.

I didn't dispute it. I said previously and in other places that OSRIC and Basic Fantasy were critical to showing fans of the classic edition that they could provide 95% of the support a traditional publisher could for a system. However it largest impact was to amplify existing trends. It wasn't until 2010 that the publishing of clones and near clones took off.

I don't think providing support was an important factor. In fact, OSRIC had basically no direct support. There was no marketing budget, no supplement treadmill, nothing like that. What it did was provide an example of what could be done, and enunciate a very clear set of guiding principles. It created the template for the later retro-clones. I do think it's interesting that most of the guiding principles have since been thoroughly ignored by the wider OSR, but they were very influential at the time.

If you're talking about a critical mass of third party publishers, I think that's your bias seeping in again. That took a while to emerge, and wasn't a big factor at this point. It wasn't what made OSRIC important. In fact, OSRIC was quickly eclipsed by other games, like Labyrinth Lord, once the third party supplements started to be produced in large numbers. Partly, this because they were resolutely non-commercial and didn't try to get into distribution, like LL. Partly, it was their insistence on fidelity to the source material, which meant they weren't constantly publishing new material. And finally, there was a shift toward Basic games.

I also don't agree that Basic Fantasy was anywhere near as influential. It was the pseudo-clone the least people were talking about, in the early years. It was even derided by may for not being faithful enough. It wasn't until sentiment changed in favor of personal tweaks, and attention shifted toward B/X, that it became more popular. I think it's more an example of the little engine that could, because while it's never been a headliner, more and more people have come to appreciate its simplicity, its author's dedication, and the community that grew up around it. Castles & Crusades was far more influential.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 04:30:10 PM
Look, I been writing about this for a long time. And it still out there for anybody to read

[snip]

I could go diving into my Enworld and Necromancer Games forums posts that predate my blog. But I think I made my point.

I've been following the OSR for at least as long.

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 04:30:10 PM
The OSR isn't a movement, it isn't a thing. It is a mess resulting from the decisions of hundreds on what to do with the material. There are some critical points (C&C, OSRIC, BASIC Fantasy) and larger societal development (like the Internet) that played a crucial role in opening people's eyes to the possibilities. But then we got the same thing that happened after the Tower of Babel, a everybody went off in their own direction, some in groups, some by themselves. United only by the fact that their subsequent work can be traced back something found in one of the classic editions of D&D.

Other RPGs, other older RPG had their own trajectory. Largely because there was a single dominant company who still published something close to the original. The closest thing is Traveller and Cepheus. That resulted from Mongoose bungling their 3rd party licensing for Mongoose Traveller 2e. Now without a dominant publisher, Cepheus is charting it own course.

The OSR is a movement that's made from the mess of decisions made by hundreds and thousands of people making their own riffs on material, sharing what they like, researching, supporting each other, passionately defending various things, and creating an eclectic synergistic mass that's part community, part artform, part promotional platform, and part a bunch of other things.

That's what movements are. Or if you don't like the word movement because you think it necessarily implies some degree of unified organization, feel free to use another. But that's not how I've been using it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 03, 2022, 05:17:34 PM
Yeah, I'm starting to see how difficult it can be to generalize about the OSR given how broad, disparate and poorly defined it is. And how little consensus there seems to be about whether it's even a "movement" or not.

The good news is that the foundational materials is open to those with the time and interest to with as they see fit. And with digital technology being what it is, a great deal can be done within the time one has for a hobby.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 06:11:55 PM
Interesting, that you think that makes you an unbiased observer.

I have stated my opinions of course I have bias. But more importantly I outlined why I hold these opinion leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions as to the accuracy of my opinions.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 06:11:55 PM
It's not "my" definition, in any real sense. I'm describing the way I've seen it used and seen it evolve, over the years. I don't think it's possible or desirable to narrow it down too much, but we can observe trends. Your definition seems to be an outlier, mostly popping up in very casual use.

I agree my opinion is an outlier. In the 15 years since the OSR has popped up on people's radar the vast majority of folks keep trying to read something more into what going on. That it can't just be a random chaotic jumble born of the fact that unlike most of what available out there that the material to support classic D&D is there free to use without any gatekeeper or preconceptions as to how it may be used. That it is free to use in the creative sense as well as the financial sense.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 06:11:55 PM
And I'm also arguing that your definition is less useful. It's so broad it's basically synonymous with old school, which makes the term redundant, and doesn't help distinguish what makes it unique.

I have stated several time what make the situation unique. The fact there are no dominant individual or company couple with the ability to use the foundational material in the manner the individual see fit in the form they want. That the reason that it doesn't just fly apart in a million directions is because is centered on a series of out of print editions of D&D that are readily available in PDF form.  The boundary being whether it is useful somebody running a campaign using one of those editions.

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 06:11:55 PM
That's what movements are. Or if you don't like the word movement because you think it necessarily implies some degree of unified organization, feel free to use another. But that's not how I've been using it.

A movement implies something in common. If isn't organization, then it is a philosophy or a theme.  Again my point has been quite consistently that the OSR is nothing more or less than what people can do with one of the classic editions of D&D. There is no common philosophy or theme. Just a starting point that begins with a classic edition. Some are only related thematically like Dungeon World. Others are closer but different in important ways in terms of the mechanics like Castles & Crusades, Blood & Treasure. Others are closer still to the point where they are directly compatible but still pretty much their own thing like Ruins & Ronin or my own Majestic Fantasy. Then there are the clones and the near-clones which hew closely to one of the classic editions.

Anything that can be done with the classic editions mechanics or themes is or has been done somewhere in the OSR. Which is why it is ludicrous to think of it as a movement. Instead it what happen people have true creative freedom to what they want with a popular and beloved system and the hobby isn't dominated socially or creatively by a single entity. Which is the issue with D&D 3.X because of Paizo and Pathfinder.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 03, 2022, 08:04:37 AM
In fairness to the OSR, the behavior of one rabid member of these boards is not necessarily indicative of the behavior or mindset of the whole,

That's not at all what I was saying, though.

Here's an analogy. Suppose I'm reviewing my budget and looking at how much money I earned last month and how much I spent. If I zeroed in on a single line item, like how much I spent on RPGs, and used that to conclude, "Ah! I'm spending way too much money!" then I would indeed be making the error you cite. After all, I could be under-spending in other areas. Maybe I'm not spending enough money on health club memberships, hygiene products, rent (since I'm living in my mom's basement), and so on. My RPG expenditure line item is not representative of the whole. You are correct.

However, if after adding it all up it turns out my total spending exceeds my total earnings, then I am certainly spending too much overall. And there are no two ways about that. Moreover, if it turns out that my total excess spending is exactly equal to my RPG over-spending, I'm going to be highly suspicious that's the culprit. But that still wouldn't make my RPG spending representative of my spending overall.

And that's more like what I was saying. The insults we as a group deliver, at least in this thread, is insufficient to meet the demand to be insulted, as evidenced by the fact that you actually can point to examples of people feeling sleighted even as they admit the person probably didn't mean it. It's possible (though not conclusively evident) that we may be too easily offended. I'd be willing to entertain arguments for and against that proposition. But on the evidence, I'm ruling out that we, as a whole, are overly offensive (again, at least as it pertains to this thread).

Pros:

- in OSR assumption of sandboxey simulation
- randomized characters
- ability to shuffle subsystems around

Cons:

- less than any skill system
- player skill over character skill which for me change certain elements more in puzzle game than RPG
- class abilities dominating overall character mechanics
- generally classess and levels are kinda meh
- not enough basic attributes

Quote from: estar on March 03, 2022, 10:18:57 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 03, 2022, 06:11:55 PM
Interesting, that you think that makes you an unbiased observer.

I have stated my opinions of course I have bias. But more importantly I outlined why I hold these opinion leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions as to the accuracy of my opinions.

I missed this at the start of the month, so I won't resurrect the whole argument. But while I disagree with you on many of the points, I think your positions in this last post sound very reasonable, and many of our differences seem almost (but not fully) definitional. For instance, while I do think the OSR is a movement, and I do think there are shared threads and themes, I don't any have problem with saying it's scattered, or that the main glue keeping it from fragmenting entirely is the old school D&D ruleset, or that it lacks any central organization or leadership.

Quote from: Pat on March 28, 2022, 06:06:02 PM
I missed this at the start of the month, so I won't resurrect the whole argument. But while I disagree with you on many of the points, I think your positions in this last post sound very reasonable, and many of our differences seem almost (but not fully) definitional. For instance, while I do think the OSR is a movement, and I do think there are shared threads and themes, I don't any have problem with saying it's scattered, or that the main glue keeping it from fragmenting entirely is the old school D&D ruleset, or that it lacks any central organization or leadership.

Sounds good to me. The only thing I will add is that the wealth of open content means anybody can consider what the OSR means for them and implement their idea in the manner they see fit especially when it comes to sharing or publishing material. This is in addition to the usual things one can do with any RPG system regardless of whether it open or not.

So riffing on a name of a recent movie, the result is everything everywhere all at once

As a person who significantly contributed to popularizing the term "Old School Renaissance" - I think I came up with it for Fight On! riffing on a post from Jeff's Gameblog, but who knows for sure now - I can tell you what I thought it meant at the time, which was that there was a renaissance of people returning to the games and playstyles that were popular in the seventies and early eighties. A renaissance is not a centrally planned event, although it is one which can be encouraged and supported.  It's not a term that to my mind it makes much sense arguing about who's in and who's out. If you like seventies and early eighties style rpgs and still play them today then in some sense you've 'participated' in the OSR in the sense I wanted to use the term.

I suppose if there are groups that have been playing since the seventies and early eighties who have had no contact with the RPG world outside their group they would not be part of a renaissance, although we love to hear from them when they discover us, just as I'm sure the Renaissance humanists were delighted to occasionally make contact with the few surviving direct heirs to the classical tradition who escaped the fall of Constantinople.

Quote from: Calithena on March 30, 2022, 12:35:44 AM
As a person who may have invented the term "Old School Renaissance" - I think I came up with it for Fight On! riffing on a post from Jeff's Gameblog, but who knows for sure now - I can tell you what I thought it meant at the time, which was that there was a renaissance of people returning to the games and playstyles that were popular in the seventies and early eighties. A renaissance is not a centrally planned event, although it is one which can be encouraged and supported.  It's not a term that to my mind it makes much sense arguing about who's in and who's out. If you like seventies and early eighties style rpgs and still play them today then in some sense you've 'participated' in the OSR in the sense I wanted to use the term.

It first use was in a anonymous post on Dragonsfoot. However when I trace it usage there was a considerable uptick in it's usage as a result of your work with Fight On! And for the brief time the OSR storefront on Luke also helped to cement the term in folks minds. It really started to snowball in 2008.

Note Dan Proctor's (Dan of Earth) comment on the post below.

https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-hell-old-school-renaissance-come.html

I agree with what Dan Proctor wrote there 100%. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had said those words in a coffee shop sometime in the late 1990's under the weight of all those late 2e splatbooks, for that matter - it's not a deeply complicated set of words to put together.

Quote from: Calithena on March 30, 2022, 12:35:44 AM
... Fight On! ...

I think Fight On! embodies the spirit of the OSR more than anything else I can think of.

Quote from: Pat on March 30, 2022, 07:21:13 AM

Quote from: Calithena on March 30, 2022, 12:35:44 AM
... Fight On! ...

I think Fight On! embodies the spirit of the OSR more than anything else I can think of.

I really wish Fight On! was continued to be published and pushed all back issues on PDF as it was fantastic to read.

I've been wondering about the definition of old school.

People usually refer to Finch's Primer but that would maybe exclude AD&D ("rulings not rules", "hero not super hero", etc.)

I really like the Primer but some of the examples seem to even contradict thief skills (find traps, secret doors, etc.)

Of course, Finch uses 0e as an example, which is fair enough.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 30, 2022, 12:36:01 PM
I've been wondering about the definition of old school.

In the context of the OSR old school means whatever you want to mean. The fact that Old School is part of Old School Renaissance/Revival/etc. is mainly because OSR is a fun reflection of TSR. But people started complaining and talking shit about it from day one.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 30, 2022, 12:36:01 PM
People usually refer to Finch's Primer but that would maybe exclude AD&D ("rulings not rules", "hero not super hero", etc.)

Matt Finch's Primer is not meant to be used as a way of defining stuff like the OSR. Nor it is a reflection of how things were handled back in the day. It is rather a practical how-to on how to use the bare-bone mechanics of classic D&D for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. Like much of the OSR it is a mashup of several things floating around at the time. Some are rooted in how things were originally handled, and more than a few on thing that were learned along the way.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 30, 2022, 12:36:01 PM
I really like the Primer but some of the examples seem to even contradict thief skills (find traps, secret doors, etc.)

The original thief class was a hack adopted and reworked by Gygax. Like with much of OD&D he didn't bother explaining many of his assumptions. Since most people consider the rules of a game to be sacrosanct or you are cheating, most hobbyists of the time took the write-up literally. That only thieves can use those skills and yes they suck at most of them at low levels.
 
Once I learned of the origins of thief class, I jettisoned it in favor of my Burglar class and made my skill mechanic (abilities) reflect how OD&D worked prior to the thief. Outside of spellcasting and combat, players were free to attempt anything as their characters. My ability system allows players to be better at things outside of combat and spellcasting.  And any character can use any ability (Mages can stealth, cleric can pick lock, etc.) and still have a decent chance of success (around 30%, 1d20 + attribute bonus >= 15).

Other OSR author has their own solution to the issue. Some embrace it 'as is'. There is no real right answer beyond explaining things well and why it works the way the author thinks it ought to work. Solutions that still keep the overall system compatible tend to be used widely in the OSR.  But there are dozens floating around each with their own merits, including mine.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 30, 2022, 12:36:01 PM
I've been wondering about the definition of old school.

People usually refer to Finch's Primer but that would maybe exclude AD&D ("rulings not rules", "hero not super hero", etc.)

I really like the Primer but some of the examples seem to even contradict thief skills (find traps, secret doors, etc.)

Of course, Finch uses 0e as an example, which is fair enough.

The Primer is from the era of the OSR where they were trying to rediscover and promote the original playstyle of the game. Not the way it was played by the kids in the 1980s, not the way it was played by all the wargamers in the 1970s, bu how it was played in the Greyhawk and to a lesser degree the Blackmoor campaigns. it's that specific, and that's also why it's heavily focused on 0e. There are a lot of assumptions about how the game should be played that were never explained in the text of any of the versions of old school D&D, and which went against how later generations tried to play. To give one example, a lot of the kids in the 1980s grew up on heroic fiction, and expected to play heroes with continuity and plot immunity. But the game is too random and deadly to really support that kind of play, leading to all kinds of houserules, frustration, and stalking away to so-called "better" games that really just fit the players' pre-existing expectations better. Games played in the way promoted by the Primer work a lot better with the rules as written, and can be really fun, but require unlearning a lot of basic assumptions.

The thief as a class is basically broken. If you look at a lot of the advice on how to handle thieves, almost all of it involves ignoring the rules and basically treating thief skills as a narrative back and forth between the player and DM. Which is fine, and works, (and is a bit storygame), but there's an inherent contradiction when they say the class is fine and then avoid the class entirely in practice.

Quote from: Pat on March 30, 2022, 04:44:54 PM
The thief as a class is basically broken. If you look at a lot of the advice on how to handle thieves, almost all of it involves ignoring the rules and basically treating thief skills as a narrative back and forth between the player and DM. Which is fine, and works, (and is a bit storygame), but there's an inherent contradiction when they say the class is fine and then avoid the class entirely in practice.

I'm not famililar with 0e. Do you have any details on why the Thief class was considered broken?

Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 30, 2022, 11:11:16 AM

Quote from: Pat on March 30, 2022, 07:21:13 AM

Quote from: Calithena on March 30, 2022, 12:35:44 AM
... Fight On! ...

I think Fight On! embodies the spirit of the OSR more than anything else I can think of.

I really wish Fight On! was continued to be published and pushed all back issues on PDF as it was fantastic to read.

Your wish is granted! We are working on issue 15 now, and all back issues are currently available in print and PDF!

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 30, 2022, 05:15:38 PM

Quote from: Pat on March 30, 2022, 04:44:54 PM
The thief as a class is basically broken. If you look at a lot of the advice on how to handle thieves, almost all of it involves ignoring the rules and basically treating thief skills as a narrative back and forth between the player and DM. Which is fine, and works, (and is a bit storygame), but there's an inherent contradiction when they say the class is fine and then avoid the class entirely in practice.

I'm not famililar with 0e. Do you have any details on why the Thief class was considered broken?

All the other class abilities tend to be things the character can do in relative safety alone, or that allow them to contribute in some way to a group activity, often combat. The thief skills on the other hand tend to be solitary but high risk -- potentially leading to setting off a trap, getting caught picking a pocket, getting caught alone while scouting (never separate the party), falling from a height, etc. That effectively turns the thief into a class that has to make a series of save or dies that nobody else has to do.

The solution is to never roll.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 30, 2022, 05:15:38 PM
I'm not famililar with 0e. Do you have any details on why the Thief class was considered broken?

From Greyhawk Supplement I

Thieves
Apprentice     0 Sharper          20,000
Footpad    1,200 Pilferer         40,000
Robber     2,400 Master Pilferer  60,000
Burglar    4,800 Thief            90,000
Cutpurse   9,600 Master Thief    125,000
(+ 125,000 additional points for each level above Master Thief)


Thief Type of Hit Dice: 4-sided Maximum Number: 10 Additional Points per Level Thereafter: +½

Thieves
Apprentice                  1     Man           NIL
Footpad                     2     Man + 1       NIL
Robber                      3     2 Men         NIL
Burglar                     4     2 Men + 1     NIL
Cutpurse                    5     3 Men         NIL
Sharper                     6     3 Men + 1     NIL
Pilferer                    7     Hero – 1      NIL
Master Pilferer             8     Hero          NIL
Thief                       9     Hero + 1      NIL
Master Thief               10     Superhero – 1 NIL
Master Thief, 11th Level   10     Superhero – 1 NIL
Master Thief, 12th Level   10 + 1 Superhero – 1 NIL
Master Thief, 13th Level   10 + 1 Superhero     NIL
Master Thief, 14th Level   10 + 2 Superhero     NIL

Thief
                          Pickpocket* or
                          Open Locks*/  Move Silently*/
                          Remove Traps* Hide in Shadows* Hear Noise
Apprentice                15%/10%       20%/10%          1–2
Footpad                   20%/15%       25%/15%          1–2
Robber**                  25%/20%       30%/20%          1–3
Burglar                   35%/30%       35%/25%          1–3
Cutpurse                  40%/35%       45%/35%          1–3
Sharper                   45%/40%       55%/45%          1–3
Pilferer                  55%/50%       60%/50%          1–4
Master Pilferer           65%/60%       65%/55%          1–4
Thief***                  75%/70%       75%/65%          1–4
Master Thief              85%/80%       85%/75%          1–4
Master Thief, 11th Level  95%/90%       95%/85%          1–5
Master Thief, 12th Level 100%/95%      100%/90%          1–5
Master Thief, 13th Level 100%/100%     100%/95%          1–6
Master Thief, 14th Level 100%/100%     100%/100%         1–6


Bonuses to Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings as Thieves:

       Open  Remove Pick-  Move     Hide in Hear
       Locks  Traps Pocket Silently Shadows Noise
Dwarf     5%    15%     -         5%     5%     -
Elf       -      -      5%       10%    15%     -
Halfling 10%     5%     5%       10%    10%    +1

*A score above the indicated percentage means failure, and no further attempts may be made. Also, there is a chance that the one who is being pickpocketed may detect the thief. To determine this, for each level above 5th, the victim has a + 5% chance of detecting the "lift," so a 10th level, for example, would reduce the possibility of a successful attempt by 25%, i.e. if a base 100% it reduces to 75%.
** Level at which languages can be read by the thief.
***Level at which magical spells can be read from scrolls by the thief.

There is no further explanation of the thief in Greyhawk. The names of the various abilities were considered enough by Gygax for people to figure out what thieves can do.  There was also no explanation of how to integrate these new abilities with how things were handled with the 3 LBBS. And this is on top of the fact that the 3 LBBs didn't explain this stuff well either.

Also, the odds of success were extremely low compared to what the other classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User) can do.  Along with the punative notes saying you get one roll per attempt and that is it.

Quote from: estar on March 30, 2022, 12:55:36 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 30, 2022, 12:36:01 PM
I've been wondering about the definition of old school.

In the context of the OSR old school means whatever you want to mean. The fact that Old School is part of Old School Renaissance/Revival/etc. is mainly because OSR is a fun reflection of TSR. But people started complaining and talking shit about it from day one.

Fair enough, and I agree with most of your points.

However, "old school means whatever you want to mean" is not a great definition... We old school enthusiasts should e able to come up with a definition most of us would agree, and maybe aswer simples questions such as "does this include AD&D? traveller?" etc.

but maybe OS and OSR are separate things indeed.

EDIT: I do agree about the thief. OTOH the lower XP requirements make him a decent fighter. Probably a discussion for other thread...

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 31, 2022, 10:40:51 AM
Fair enough, and I agree with most of your points.

However, "old school means whatever you want to mean" is not a great definition... We old school enthusiasts should e able to come up with a definition most of us would agree, with and maybe answer simples questions such as "does this include AD&D? traveller?" etc.

My opinion it has been long settled. There is a Old School Renaissance focused on the classic editions of dungeons and dragons, that is part of a larger old school renaissance focusing on all older RPGs. Both are fueled by the availability of inexpensive PDFs of older products and in some cases (D&D, Traveller, Runequest) the availability of open content to allow a full range of activities (publishing, playing, promoting) to occur to support these older products 'as is'.

It has gone long enough that there are now distinct communities of hobbyist that support these older games.

Runequest has three groups (Chaosium hobbyists, Mythras Hobbyist, and a smaller group leveraging the Legends RPG like Openquest).
Traveller has Cepheus
Classic D&D has the OSR and its wealth of retro-clones.

It is rare for anybody involved to be a one-note wonder. Often there is something else involved that they will also support as well whether it sharing, promoting, playing, or publishing.

Definition are of little use. You can't make reliable generalizations about the entire group of hobbyists involved in any of these groups beyond a focus on a family of related RPGs. However, there are subgroups that you can make generalizations about. Although in recent years this has degraded as well as individual hobbyists have matured and diversified what they share or talk about. Along with new ones entering the scene.

So I am pretty skeptical of anybody trying to generalize what going on with any segment of the hobby. This includes other communities like Savage Worlds, Fate and other newer RPGs.  You are best off pointing out specific individuals doing specific things.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 31, 2022, 10:40:51 AM
but maybe OS and OSR are separate things indeed.

They are. The OSR can be thought of classic D&D along with anything else that interests the participants but which "other thing" varies on the idividual. For example, I talk a lot about GURPS and Harn, Dan Proctor did some work with Call of Cthulu, and so on.

EDIT: I do agree about the thief. OTOH the lower XP requirements make him a decent fighter. Probably a discussion for other thread...
[/quote]

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 31, 2022, 10:40:51 AM
However, "old school means whatever you want to mean" is not a great definition... We old school enthusiasts should e able to come up with a definition most of us would agree, and maybe aswer simples questions such as "does this include AD&D? traveller?" etc.

The idea that words mean what you want them to mean is postmodern garbage. It's a living word so there will always be ambiguity, but OSR typically refers to the movement started when a bunch of gamers got frustrated with third edition and started to create stuff for older games. In a narrow sense, this covers games based on an older version of D&D, usually defined as 2e or earlier. In a looser sense, it can include other older games like Traveller. It doesn't need to be one and not the other. As with most words, the meaning should be clear from context. But in general, the first usage is a lot more common.

Your post is also a good way of describing the situation.

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 12:14:33 PM
In a looser sense, it can include other older games like Traveller. It doesn't need to be one and not the other. As with most words, the meaning should be clear from context.

And to riff again off a recent movie, The OSR is Everything, Everywhere, All at once. Especially now that we are over 15 years into this mess. :D

Quote from: estar on March 31, 2022, 12:25:40 PM
Your post is also a good way of describing the situation.

Quote from: Pat on March 31, 2022, 12:14:33 PM
In a looser sense, it can include other older games like Traveller. It doesn't need to be one and not the other. As with most words, the meaning should be clear from context.

And to riff again off a recent movie, The OSR is Everything, Everywhere, All at once. Especially now that we are over 15 years into this mess. :D

Again, that's postmodern garbage. Words have meanings, otherwise communication would be impossible. We've dealt with ambiguity and context-dependent meanings since the origin of language. It's not an excuse to say nothing means anything.

[quote author=Pat link=topic=44562.msg1211796#msg1211796 date=1648751797, OSR doesn't have a "meaning" that is useful for the purpose of communication beyond that something is connected to one of the classic editions of D&D. It is not a way of running adventures, it is not a way of creating RPG systems, it is not a way of creating settings, it not certainly not a way of playing.

There are however large subgroups that do have a playstyle, design systems a certain way, create settings in a particular way. But none of them are the OSR only part of the OSR.

And again, that's complete garbage. Movements can encompass many things and can still be defined. This nothing means anything approach is basically linguistic nihilism, the Noam Chomsky equivalent of a 14 year old writing death poetry.