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 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.