TheRPGSite

Since some people seem to think that "OSR Taliban" is a brand-new term I specifically invented on account of certain responses to the news about the D&D starter set or the Basic D&D PDF.  Likewise, some people seem to want to pretend that when I used that term it means that I think ALL the OSR (which, let's remember, I count myself as a member of) are like a 'taliban'.  

For the record, the term "OSR Taliban" is several years older than the recent controversy.  It does NOT refer to just anyone who isn't gushingly enthusiastic about 5e.

It does refer to that extremist wing of the OSR (fortunately now in a diminishing minority, but who a few years back seemed to be main movers of the OSR's ideas and 'gatekeepers' for it) who engage in "old school extremism", who only want to play the original editions or precise clones, who deride any mechanic created after a certain date (the date varies, and they get into contests of "who is more old school" by competing as to what cutoff date they use).  They often claim to seek some kind of UR-D&D by looking at long-lost notes of Gygax or Arneson's.  In short, the guys who think that if you are using anything in RPGs made after 1983, or 81, or 79, or 74 (or sometimes even earlier!) then you are "betraying old school".  These are the people who just wanted the OSR to be a long string of identical "clone" games after another, and reject any innovation whatsoever.  They had a lot of influence at one point, but as they ran out of stuff to precisely clone and more designers started making (awesome) OSR games that weren't clones but were NEW ideas using the old-school framework (stuff like "Stars Without Number", "DCC", "LotFP", "ACKS", Arrows of Indra, Other Dust, Hulks and Horrors, Machinations of the Space Princess, etc. etc.), they ended up becoming sidelined.

In short, if you don't care about 5e, or if you're still cautious and distrusting of WoTC, that doesn't make you "OSR Taliban".  If on the other hand you were determined right from the start to despise 5e and declare it "not old school enough" no matter what 5e does then you may be OSR Taliban (and bonus points if you deceptively make posts pretending like you "MIGHT have liked" 5e but "-insert latest revelation here- has just totally ruined it for you because they did it wrong").  And if you're one of these guys who thinks that anything that does not precisely mimic a single old edition of D&D or any innovation at all beyond an arbitrary dateline is going to be wrong, then you're definitely "OSR Taliban".

Keep up Pundit currently it's all about the rate of errata/technology. They're convinced it will be exactly like 4e. Regardless of the fact that WotC have watched for YEARS how successful Pathfinder is. Or that there are serious numbers of players playing Pathfinder that would drop it for something you could make 3e Lite.

They're ignoring the bigger picture because it's gotten down to "where was the spot that Bad WotC touched you?".

I don't see any OSR Taliban in the conversation to any serious degree here or anywhere unless they're trolling or just not up with current information. Concerned? Confused? Yes, but not malicious in general or by intention.

I don't think I've seen much of any of that 'OSR Taliban' stuff... here or anywhere. Where's a hotbed of it so I can go have a look?

Quote from: Simlasa;758414I don't think I've seen much of any of that 'OSR Taliban' stuff... here or anywhere. Where's a hotbed of it so I can go have a look?

Best I know is WotC boards by Polaris and Gatt but I'm convinced they're trolling on purpose more then anything else at this point. I really don't see actual extreme OSR guys posting anything on the open sites.

Quote from: Simlasa;758414I don't think I've seen much of any of that 'OSR Taliban' stuff... here or anywhere. Where's a hotbed of it so I can go have a look?

Cadriel was doing that here just the other day.  According to him, you can't play 5e in an OSR style because it has a basic skill system.  When pointed out NWP in 1E, he was saying anything not in the core 3 books of 1e isn't "true" old school playing

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758419Cadriel was doing that here just the other day.  According to him, you can't play 5e in an OSR style because it has a basic skill system.  When pointed out NWP in 1E, he was saying anything not in the core 3 books of 1e isn't "true" old school playing

Actually that would be 4 corebooks.

1. Players Handbook
2. Dungeon Master Guide
3. Monster Manual
4. Unearthed Arcana

Every last one is considered core by the overwhelming majority of 1e players let alone 2e players like myself who literally straight ported 1e stuff into our games.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758419According to him, you can't play 5e in an OSR style because it has a basic skill system.

I guess that cuts out Runequest 2e then... which I'd always thought of as an OSR game... and will readily play in the style I consider 'old school'.
Whatever.

Hell, I remember James Maliszewski using the term to self-describe back in 2008.

The only time I've seen the phrase used outside this thread (I don't get out much) is by people getting upset with the term.

A) because they are who it talks about and them don't likes thems labels
B) who it comes from (with typical comments about "betraying" OSR or adopting it for his own ends by being a paid consultant to said new edition of the world's most widely known RPG).

Makes me chuckle.

Quote from: LibraryLass;758441Hell, I remember James Maliszewski using the term to self-describe back in 2008.

Who is he Rachael? Remember I'm middle school (better known as someone that plays 2/3e) so I'm serious.

Quote from: Marleycat;758405They're ignoring the bigger picture because it's gotten down to "where was the spot that Bad WotC touched you?".

It was my WALLET doctor, right here in the bill fold!

Quote from: David Johansen;758446It was my WALLET doctor, right here in the bill fold!

The first argument I've seen that's valid. Ever wonder why I use FantasyCraft for my 3e games with PF adventure paths and have high hopes for 5e......one guess only.:)

So in other words, Pundit, made up people who only exist in your head?  Still?

Quote from: Marleycat;758444Who is he Rachael? Remember I'm middle school (better known as someone that plays 2/3e) so I'm serious.

He was the guy that had the Grognardia blog. Which I never really read (I only came back to gaming after the 5e announcement, after burning out on 3.x) and is now perhaps best known for the ill-fated Dwimmermount Kickstarter (which is actually almost done, amazingly enough, only 2 years late)

Quote from: JeremyR;758452He was the guy that had the Grognardia blog. Which I never really read (I only came back to gaming after the 5e announcement, after burning out on 3.x) and is now perhaps best known for the ill-fated Dwimmermount Kickstarter (which is actually almost done, amazingly enough, only 2 years late)

Yeah, probably the main voice of the OSR in the early days.

Quote from: Marleycat;758405They're ignoring the bigger picture because it's gotten down to "where was the spot that Bad WotC touched you?".

I think Id need a couple of dolls for that one... :eek:

aheh.

That is part of the problem. WOTC is fully capable of screwing things up on an epic level. And some of the stuff Dance, Mearls and one or two staff from WOTC have stated has not been exactly heartening. But not totally put-off-ish either.

And the OP makes me glad I missed all the OSR crazyness. Reminds me of certain toy or board game collectors who are into making their own versions of said items and then extolling how their vision is so much purer than yours.

Quote from: Marleycat;758426Actually that would be 4 corebooks.

1. Players Handbook
2. Dungeon Master Guide
3. Monster Manual
4. Unearthed Arcana

Every last one is considered core by the overwhelming majority of 1e players let alone 2e players like myself who literally straight ported 1e stuff into our games.

No no no! Its PHB, DMG, MM, and Deities & Demigods! Yeesh, get it right kids! :o

Quote from: JeremyR;758452He was the guy that had the Grognardia blog. Which I never really read (I only came back to gaming after the 5e announcement, after burning out on 3.x) and is now perhaps best known for the ill-fated Dwimmermount Kickstarter (which is actually almost done, amazingly enough, only 2 years late)

Thanks, now it get the deal about Dwimmermount. And his view. Just to let you know I am probably younger then you despite playing most the same editions.:)

Quote from: Omega;758457No no no! Its PHB, DMG, MM, and Deities & Demigods! Yeesh, get it right kids! :o

Dammit!!!:) I totally forgot the 1st print Deities and Demigods. That book is mythical to me and mine. I heard about it but never ACTUALLY saw it.

Quote from: Omega;758456And the OP makes me glad I missed all the OSR crazyness.

I think 'all the OSR crazyness' is kind of overblowing it... nothing like the 'edition wars.' Certain folks did try to surf the wave and puff themselves up over it... claiming vague credentials of having 'been there.'
Kind of like Pundit is doing with his involvement with 5e.

Quote from: Marleycat;758426Actually that would be 4 corebooks.

1. Players Handbook
2. Dungeon Master Guide
3. Monster Manual
4. Unearthed Arcana

Every last one is considered core by the overwhelming majority of 1e players let alone 2e players like myself who literally straight ported 1e stuff into our games.

I have to disagree.  I still play 1e today, and have all these years.  No one I've met considers UA core any more than they consider OA core.  In fact, most 1e players I know spit upon UA

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758468I have to disagree.  I still play 1e today, and have all these years.  No one I've met considers UA core any more than they consider OA core.  In fact, most 1e players I know spit upon UA

well I don't consider MM core.
It's just a catalogue of possible monster types and adds no rules to the game.
If you really want the monster stat details they are at the back of the DMG anyway although I would be more likely to create my own monsters just because its easier and I could find better monster artwork in books or comics 90% of the time.

(shrug)  If Pundit didn't coin it, someone would've.  The capacity of our hobby to label, stigmatize and demonize Those Who Oppose Us is great.  After all, why go to all the trouble of staking out and defending a position when you can just point an accusing finger and shriek "OSR Taliban!  OSR TALIBAN!  OSR TALIBAAAAAN!!!  And hey ... if you need to feel a sense of persecution, it's easy -- just conflate someone's statement of "I like to play games of this style, and games of other styles are boring" with "OMG he thinks that all the other games should be set on fire and the publishers should be castrated!  With mallets!"

(It really does seem, from the shrieking, that all sides in edition wars debates play by such rules.)

Quote from: Marleycat;758426Actually that would be 4 corebooks.

1. Players Handbook
2. Dungeon Master Guide
3. Monster Manual
4. Unearthed Arcana

Every last one is considered core by the overwhelming majority of 1e players let alone 2e players like myself who literally straight ported 1e stuff into our games.

I don't use Unearthed Arcana. There has been some polling on Dragonsfoot which indicates that the majority of DMs there don't use it, and relatively few treat the whole thing as a core book - unsurprising since it is a book of add-ons that mostly appeared as Dragon articles. The majority of 1e DMs generally may use it, I don't know, but I don't think it's considered 'core' by an overwhelming majority. If you'd asked me I'd have said 'core' was PHB-DMG-MM, for 1e, 2e*, and 3e. And presumably 5e. (4e deliberately held back a lot of widely-regarded-as-core stuff from the 4e PHB & 4e MM, it appears in 4e PHB2 and MM2, but core isn't really a clear concept in 4e.)

*Monstrous instead of Monster Manual for 2e.

Quote from: jibbajibba;758477well I don't consider MM core.
It's just a catalogue of possible monster types and adds no rules to the game.
If you really want the monster stat details they are at the back of the DMG anyway although I would be more likely to create my own monsters just because its easier and I could find better monster artwork in books or comics 90% of the time.

Youve obviously never read the MM then. It tends to lay out the abilities of each monster in detail.

The back of the DMG is just stat blocks with no description and some powers not even listed for monsters. Useful for quick reference. Otherwise useless.

Quote from: Omega;758493Youve obviously never read the MM then. It tends to lay out the abilities of each monster in detail.

The back of the DMG is just stat blocks with no description and some powers not even listed for monsters. Useful for quick reference. Otherwise useless.

No I have read it in detail.

I am quite capable of creating a range a of monsters with interesting abilities and feel no need to use the monsters made up by other folks any more than I feel the need to use their NPCs.

I never said that I haven't used MM (or indeed FF and MM2) merely that they are not core as in you don't need to have them to play. You will find it impossible to play D&D without the DMG - for the combat tables and saves (until you memorise them of course) and practically impossible without the PHB for class descriptors and spells and weapons. You could create your own classes and spells of course but i feel that takes you beyond creative tweak and is somewhat more involved that statting up a Boggart as a 1/2 HD creature with a blink ability that likes to play practical jokes and uses minor spell like effects to frustrate and annoy PCs for fun, or deciding how a shadow dragon should work on the fly.

And the Pundit ran berserk among the Men of Straw.  He slew fifty to the left and fifty to the right, and did not think it too many.

Quote from: P&P;758511And the Pundit ran berserk among the Men of Straw.  He slew fifty to the left and fifty to the right, and did not think it too many.

Classic Pundejo. Like I told him in the D&D Basic thread that got this shitstorm started, I don't think anyone holds the position he's railing against.

But then we are talking about someone who believes White Wolf and/or storygamers are plotting the downfall of Western civilization.

Quote from: The Butcher;758513Classic Pundejo. Like I told him in the D&D Basic thread that got this shitstorm started, I don't think anyone holds the position he's railing against.

But then we are talking about someone who believes White Wolf and/or storygamers are plotting the downfall of Western civilization.

I'm sure someone does, but it's a weak man argument; it's not worth spewing the vitriol at a couple of people on the fringe.

On the other hand, if your entire online reputation comes from playing a particular character, you kinda have to run that persona as far and as hard as you can, even if it is right into the ground...

Quote from: The Butcher;758513Classic Pundejo. Like I told him in the D&D Basic thread that got this shitstorm started, I don't think anyone holds the position he's railing against.

But then we are talking about someone who believes White Wolf and/or storygamers are plotting the downfall of Western civilization.

OSR Taliban never that great a term as it applied to maybe 4 people.  JMal for instance wasn't an OSR Taliban, he was more of an OSR Fake Talmudic Scholar. :D

Remember also the OSR "One True Wayism" really only came about defensively as the new school and cool kids felt it necessary to tear down, denigrate, marginalize, and insult everything that came before as something only the RPG version of Archie Bunker played.

As Ravenswing said, if you look over the last week or so, you'll find OSR Taliban now apparently means "disagree with anything having to do with 5e".  

People went to war this time without even a released game.  I guess the battles over 6th will begin when it's announced.

Quote from: CRKrueger;758538As Ravenswing said, if you look over the last week or so, you'll find OSR Taliban now apparently means "disagree with anything having to do with 5e".  

People went to war this time without even a released game.  I guess the battles over 6th will begin when it's announced.

No. My stance is why do some raise nonsense at every turn as information comes out about the game in dribs and drabs when all they intend to do is maybe download a free PDF.  You can actually figure out the people that might get all or some of the big 3 because most aren't raising a ruckus but are in chill mode and actually trying to see what WotC's attempting and wondering if it actually has any shot of success.

It'd be more fun to talk about what do you like/hate about the playtest or how would you configure the game, what do you want in future products or whatever. Without over analyzing tweets out of context. Tweets are a terrible source of information for analysis.

Quote from: Marleycat;758550No. My stance is why do some raise nonsense at every turn as information comes out about the game in dribs and drabs

Welcome to the roleplaying community on the internet, I guess. Happens for any game with a large enough following.

To be honest, with all the design team's talk about "story" and the inclusion of things like Ideals, Flaws and Bonds (and now the Renown/affiliation mechanic for Organized Play at least), I'm surprised I haven't seen more OSR hostility to 5E as 'storygaming', 'railroading', 'new school disguised as old school', 'swine gaming' and the like. But then, this forum is the closest I dare tread to an OSR stronghold. :)

I started using the term four or five years ago. The context was people who took a particular mode of old-school play - sandbox, dungeon exploration, resource management, looting but avoiding fighting, henchmen and hirelings, etc. and declared that people who didn't play that way were doing it wrong. What started as a reaction against modern RPGs had become a purity test applied to those who did play early TSR D&D but weren't playing the way Gygax ran Greyhawk. Even though I started playing in 1979 with Holmes Basic, I've been told at various times that I was never doing it right because:

• I used a lot of published modules.
• As a consequence of using published modules, we had enormous hordes of magic items and gold.
• Even though we awarded XP for GP, we enjoyed combat and cleared out dungeons of all monsters if at all possible.
• We never used domain management rules.

The key thing to keep in mind is I never came under fire for this stuff, or saw anyone else come on fire for it, 7 or 8 years ago. The tenets of the OSR Taliban only became codified when people on certain forums started parsing the reports of Gygax and trying to systematize very early D&D play modes. That's why Taliban is such an apt turn - it isn't standard conservatism, but a very virulent strain that hearkens back to the ideals of a past that never was. The OSR Taliban turned old-school discussion from how people actually played to how people should play.

I remember a handful of OSR folks dick-waving about who was the most old-school, but that was a few years ago. I think that's mostly died down. I really haven't seen much OSR commentary on 5e compared to 3e and 4e commentary.

Of course, I really don't even know what counts as OSR anymore. Apparently 2e and late Basic/Rules Cyclopedia sometimes do and sometimes don't. I do get the impression that 5e is starting to appeal to that demographic (mine) more than the AD&D 1e demographic. The rules and general philosophy seem closer, and I suspect we'll see more Thunder Rift or Four from Cormyr stuff than Expedition to Barrier Peaks (which is very, very 1e despite the tech trappings).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;758553To be honest, with all the design team's talk about "story" and the inclusion of things like Ideals, Flaws and Bonds (and now the Renown/affiliation mechanic for Organized Play at least), I'm surprised I haven't seen more OSR hostility to 5E as 'storygaming', 'railroading', 'new school disguised as old school', 'swine gaming' and the like. But then, this forum is the closest I dare tread to an OSR stronghold. :)

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more pushback on that as well. Probably because I suspect most people who aren't FATE fans will ignore that. This is the first edition I've ever seen that's been influenced by FATE-style metagame mechanics (as opposed to D&D metagame mechanics). There was a reputation system in some older editions, but I don't imagine it got a lot of use.

From what I can tell (disclaimer: Middle/New Schooler who knows the OSR primarily from outside, is admittedly a hostile witness, and only bought his own copies of the 1E books two or three weeks ago :) ), the "Old School" is fundamentally people who like TSR/pre-3E editions of D&D, with some expansion into other games of the time period--pretty much pre-Vampire stuff.

Within that big tent, there's a whole bunch of subcategories and gradations, ranging from those who stand on the edge of 'middle school'--usually 2E and RC fans who sometimes identify or are identified with the group--to the kinds of folks Haffrung is talking about, with all sorts, from AD&D 1E purists to those who denounce the Thief as 'new school', in between. For one example of how diverse it can be, someone here mentioned a few days ago that for them, Runequest 2 was old school, while over on TBP a few years ago, Old Geezer once said that from his point of view, Runequest's skill system was an example of 'new school'.

I try to understand it and share what I understand of it with others, but to be honest, the only thing that really bothers me is the argument of some that the things I enjoy--2nd Edition's tone and feel, more story-focused and heroic  gaming, etc.--are the things that 'betrayed and murdered D&D'. The game did change, and one can argue about whether or not it should have changed, but the change happened and attracted a lot of people, and while they may not be 'old school' in the strictest sense, they have a stake in D&D and a right to be heard, even if it's to negotiate a secession and cease-fire. :)

(Thinking of starting up a "5hining Armor Movement" to counter some of the more virulent 5atanists out there ... :D )

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;758560(Thinking of starting up a "5hining Armor Movement" to counter some of the more virulent 5atanists out there ... :D )

The 5ghtback?

Quote from: CRKrueger;758538As Ravenswing said, if you look over the last week or so, you'll find OSR Taliban now apparently means "disagree with anything having to do with 5e".  

.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't make it any more true.  I will, of course, completely retract this if you can show me one person who accused another of being OSR Taliban for just disagreeing with anything to do with 5e.

But I doubt you'll ever actually provide anything remotely like that.

OSR Taliban very strong. OSR Taliban fight the oppressors. OSR Taliban will rain fire on one major rpg system EACH WEEK until demands are met.:p

Well from what Estar said about actually playing the game at Origins (he made a thread about it) it seems we all may be getting what we want or at least the game looks flexible enough to achieve it.

Quote from: Marleycat;758576Well from what Estar said about actually playing the game at Origins (he made a thread about it) it seems we all may be getting what we want or at least the game looks flexible enough to achieve it.

I have to grudgingly agree. I'm tired of being suckered by new editions, but 5e does seem like it's going to be an okay edition. Maybe the lack of razzledazzle high concepts will actually mean that they'll make a solid, middle-of-the-road, economically-strong game. I'm not sure 5e is going to do that well, but I'd LOVE to be proven wrong and see it become wildly successful.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402Since some people seem to think that "OSR Taliban" is a brand-new term I specifically invented on account of certain responses to the news about the D&D starter set or the Basic D&D PDF.  Likewise, some people seem to want to pretend that when I used that term it means that I think ALL the OSR (which, let's remember, I count myself as a member of) are like a 'taliban'.  

For the record, the term "OSR Taliban" is several years older than the recent controversy.  It does NOT refer to just anyone who isn't gushingly enthusiastic about 5e.

It does refer to that extremist wing of the OSR (fortunately now in a diminishing minority, but who a few years back seemed to be main movers of the OSR's ideas and 'gatekeepers' for it) who engage in "old school extremism", who only want to play the original editions or precise clones, who deride any mechanic created after a certain date (the date varies, and they get into contests of "who is more old school" by competing as to what cutoff date they use).  They often claim to seek some kind of UR-D&D by looking at long-lost notes of Gygax or Arneson's.  In short, the guys who think that if you are using anything in RPGs made after 1983, or 81, or 79, or 74 (or sometimes even earlier!) then you are "betraying old school".  These are the people who just wanted the OSR to be a long string of identical "clone" games after another, and reject any innovation whatsoever.  They had a lot of influence at one point, but as they ran out of stuff to precisely clone and more designers started making (awesome) OSR games that weren't clones but were NEW ideas using the old-school framework (stuff like "Stars Without Number", "DCC", "LotFP", "ACKS", Arrows of Indra, Other Dust, Hulks and Horrors, Machinations of the Space Princess, etc. etc.), they ended up becoming sidelined.

In short, if you don't care about 5e, or if you're still cautious and distrusting of WoTC, that doesn't make you "OSR Taliban".  If on the other hand you were determined right from the start to despise 5e and declare it "not old school enough" no matter what 5e does then you may be OSR Taliban (and bonus points if you deceptively make posts pretending like you "MIGHT have liked" 5e but "-insert latest revelation here- has just totally ruined it for you because they did it wrong").  And if you're one of these guys who thinks that anything that does not precisely mimic a single old edition of D&D or any innovation at all beyond an arbitrary dateline is going to be wrong, then you're definitely "OSR Taliban".

This should have been directed to me, but I suppose RPGPundit wanted to stir up some more 5e drama/buzz.

Anyways, you totally missed the point.

It has nothing to do with 5e, nothing to do with old school or gamers liking what they like.  In the last month or so, half a dozen people (not really behind your back because its posted publicly) called you an asshole, the principle reason was your use of the term "OSR Taliban".  And when new people who had never heard of you before (yeah, there's a lot of OSR people who don't know who the heck you are) started agreeing, "Yeah, that guy does sound like a total douche."  Well, I felt bad for you.  That's why I tried to open your eyes to what was going on.

At this point, I'm basically done defending you.  Maybe I shouldn't have started in the first place but whatever.  When OSR people talk ill of RPGPundit, citing that less than diplomatic phrase as their main reason, I'll just ignore it.  There, problem solved.

VS

Quote from: The Butcher;758513Classic Pundejo. Like I told him in the D&D Basic thread that got this shitstorm started, I don't think anyone holds the position he's railing against.

But then we are talking about someone who believes White Wolf and/or storygamers are plotting the downfall of Western civilization.

I think the key is this:

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402It does refer to that extremist wing of the OSR (fortunately now in a diminishing minority, but who a few years back seemed to be main movers of the OSR's ideas and 'gatekeepers' for it) who engage in "old school extremism", who only want to play the original editions or precise clones, who deride any mechanic created after a certain date (the date varies, and they get into contests of "who is more old school" by competing as to what cutoff date they use).  They often claim to seek some kind of UR-D&D by looking at long-lost notes of Gygax or Arneson's.  In short, the guys who think that if you are using anything in RPGs made after 1983, or 81, or 79, or 74 (or sometimes even earlier!) then you are "betraying old school".  These are the people who just wanted the OSR to be a long string of identical "clone" games after another, and reject any innovation whatsoever.

I bolded the part where Pundit (and others) jump to a conclusion. You can find examples of people doing something resembling the things he mentions:

(1) Only want to play original editions or precise clones;
(2) Deride late edition mechanics;
(3) Seek some kind of Ur-D&D.

... although there's a bit of re-interpretation of even these behaviors going on. It's all about seeing some focused, passionate behavior in a couple individuals and choosing to read a hostile motivation into it. Those guys aren't just picking a range of what they want to play... they're forcing everyone else to play the same way! They aren't just singling out late edition mechanics as reasons why they don't play more recent editions... they are rejecting innovation! They aren't just studying the original rules and contemporary commentary to see where they might have diverged from what we think the rules say, or looking for lost rules that might be interesting... they are turning original D&D into a religion, with Gary and Dave as prophets!

If you actually look at what people are actually doing, without reading various sinister intentions into it, you see that not only are the "OSR Taliban" not really living up to the name, there's a lot more divergence from the "One True Faith" than some would have us believe. Everyone I know of who did a blog series on the original rules or posted about articles in Strategic Review or rare zines of the day also stated which rules they'd like to keep, what rules they'd drop, and which they'd change. Everyone who runs a dedicated OD&D-only blog posts house rules.  Can't think of anyone who runs OD&D "rules as written" with all the rules... most OSR types deried RAW as being a new school thing, anyways.

Quote from: Omega;758457No no no! Its PHB, DMG, MM, and Deities & Demigods! Yeesh, get it right kids! :o

That's sort of where I come from. PHB, DMG, MM and selectively Deities & Demigods as a template for implementing cosmology (and whatever pantheons I wanted to include in a campaign - but not all in the book).

A lot of players I know love UA, but also lots of DMs don't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402Since some people seem to think that "OSR Taliban" is a brand-new term I specifically invented on account of certain responses to the news about the D&D starter set or the Basic D&D PDF.  Likewise, some people seem to want to pretend that when I used that term it means that I think ALL the OSR (which, let's remember, I count myself as a member of) are like a 'taliban'.  

I'm utterly amazed than anyone would give a shit about such a stupid term, or that you'd need to chime and explain it's origins.

I now have a perverse desire to design a Forge-style game called OSR Taliban!.

Quote from: talysman;758583... although there's a bit of re-interpretation of even these behaviors going on. It's all about seeing some focused, passionate behavior in a couple individuals and choosing to read a hostile motivation into it. Those guys aren't just picking a range of what they want to play... they're forcing everyone else to play the same way! They aren't just singling out late edition mechanics as reasons why they don't play more recent editions... they are rejecting innovation! They aren't just studying the original rules and contemporary commentary to see where they might have diverged from what we think the rules say, or looking for lost rules that might be interesting... they are turning original D&D into a religion, with Gary and Dave as prophets!

I think where the term comes into play is that some people get really hostile when you go against group think.  I loved AD&D as much as others, but I'm not fond of some of the memes coming out, or the outright intolerance portrayed on some of the message boards--it's like you can't just like AD&D, you have to HATE everything else.

I guess it depends on how people behave.  My test is how you treat people who think differently.  If you call a person who plays the newer version of D&D "3tards" or "4ons" or whatever insult, you've failed the test and are kind of engaging in the intolerant behavior.  I also think the grognard faction deserves more criticism because they are the older gents--the people who should know better and be more mature--I can forgive a twenty-something but it's hard to be forgiving of a 50 year old person who should have the maturity and perspective to understand that it's not that important in the scheme of the world.

And yes, OSR Taliban is also taking things to the extreme...but there is a sort of fundamentalist attitude sometimes from elements of the OSR...so maybe a more polite term is apt for that.

Quote from: Marleycat;758416Best I know is WotC boards by Polaris and Gatt but I'm convinced they're trolling on purpose more then anything else at this point. I really don't see actual extreme OSR guys posting anything on the open sites.

Isn't Polaris the one who's always going on about the math?

Quote from: cranebump;758624Isn't Polaris the one who's always going on about the math?

Yeah. I am not sure he actually plays because all he does is go on for pages setting up white room scenerios. It's kind of like watching these guys trying to create PUN PUN for 5e using multi-classing. It's silly because multi-classing is only an option. So in alot of games neither the white room scenerios or multi-classing edge cases will ever be an issue. You know, for people actually playing the game?

Quote from: Haffrung;758554The tenets of the OSR Taliban only became codified when people on certain forums started parsing the reports of Gygax and trying to systematize very early D&D play modes. That's why Taliban is such an apt turn - it isn't standard conservatism, but a very virulent strain that hearkens back to the ideals of a past that never was. The OSR Taliban turned old-school discussion from how people actually played to how people should play.

To be 100% fair, both the worshippers of the early versions of D&D and the idolaters who hate it are loving or hating the D&D that's in their head, because most of them never played it back then, they're too young.

So what you have on the one hand is guys like Jmal trying to divine the old school experience and people rallying around that, then you have the guys hating and talking about stuff they have zero experience with, just echoing purple prose.

Then you have guys like Benoist, who decided to just actually read the rules and decided he liked what it said.  Now after years of being told he's essentially insane for thinking he had IC immersion in his roleplaying and that he was constructing a story whether he knew it or not, and that he was brain damaged, and that all problems that surfaced in 3e were present all the time in 1e, that choosing a dagger instead of shortsword is charop, that 13th Age is what D&D promised but never delivered and all the other 100% pure horseshit sane people have to choke down if they are engaged with this hobby on the internet, he could get pretty damn angry.  Getting labeled OSR Taliban for suggesting that the box was an incomplete box for not including chargen was a bit of a stretch.

Liking Unearthed Arcana or disliking Unearthed Arcana is an opinion.

Pointing out that classes like Barbarian, Cavalier, and rules like Weapon Specialization can fundamentally change the nature of the game is pointing out a fact.

Claiming that UA is a non-sacred text because Gygax published under extreme duress and torture because he needed the money is getting towards OSR Taliban.  I've never heard anyone say that on THIS forum.

Pundit started this thread due to an unfortunate incident that happened on his blog and probably shouldn't have.

Quote from: JRT;758620I think where the term comes into play is that some people get really hostile when you go against group think.  I loved AD&D as much as others, but I'm not fond of some of the memes coming out, or the outright intolerance portrayed on some of the message boards--it's like you can't just like AD&D, you have to HATE everything else.

JRT, any intolerance you perceive is not due to your having a lack of hate for editions other than AD&D, it's for coming on a board and lecturing people about AD&D when you freely admit that you don't play the game (or any RPG as far as I know) and never have.  You just enjoy reading them.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I wouldn't presume to go on a classic car restoration forum and lecture hot rodders on the basis of having looked through a Chilton's once, either, and it's basically the same thing.

Pinning any resulting flak on whether or not those hot rodders are generalists or lovers of a specific brand of car is completely missing the point.

Quote from: CRKrueger;758538Remember also the OSR "One True Wayism" really only came about defensively as the new school and cool kids felt it necessary to tear down, denigrate, marginalize, and insult everything that came before as something only the RPG version of Archie Bunker played.

This is true.  I had seen other game forums completely take a piss on DnD and when 4th edition came they really started to piss on older editions.  Hell even White Wolf join the fray when they did that "Graduate to a better game" advertisement for Exalted second edition.

Hell even in this day I see world of darkness writers still dissing on dungeons and dragons along with the people playing those games.  Even the writers of exalted 3.0 who had possibly one of the best cases why you should NEVER put money into kickstarter took a chance to insult warhammer 40k.  Yet they are the ones in the hot seat because CCP fuck them over.

Giving up discussing RPGs online was one of the wisest decisions I've taken.

I know you can't just give it up because its your job pundit, but these things seldom end in something productive.

Best to just enjoy the game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;758628So what you have on the one hand is guys like Jmal trying to divine the old school experience and people rallying around that, then you have the guys hating and talking about stuff they have zero experience with, just echoing purple prose.

Then you have guys like Benoist, who decided to just actually read the rules and decided he liked what it said.  Now after years of being told he's essentially insane for thinking he had IC immersion in his roleplaying and that he was constructing a story whether he knew it or not, and that he was brain damaged, and that all problems that surfaced in 3e were present all the time in 1e, that choosing a dagger instead of shortsword is charop, that 13th Age is what D&D promised but never delivered and all the other 100% pure horseshit sane people have to choke down if they are engaged with this hobby on the internet, he could get pretty damn angry.

I'm fine with divining the origins of the game. In the mid-90s, long before the OSR or internet forums about old-school D&D were a thing, I made my own lonely investigation into Gygaxian dungeons, with access only to the original Greyhawk supplement, a photocopied Blackmoor, and old Strategic Review and Dragon magazines. I even created my own megadungeon with a town sitting right on top.

So I get the appeal. I don't hate early Gygaxian D&D. What I dislike is being told by guys who have read the Old School Primer and hang out on old-school forums that I wasn't playing right when we cleared out the Caves of Chaos, or that you really need to track provisions and use hirelings to play old-school D&D, or that there's no way you should have three +1 longswords by the time you're level 5. If people want to model their game after a campaign played in Lake Geneva from 1975 to 1977, then fill your boots. Just don't pretend that's anything more than a preference, or that it was the standard approach to the game by the time the Holmes Basic set was flying off the shelves, let alone AD&D.

pffft, its "OSR Nazis"! Taliban is such a hipster term.

Boys, boys!  This isn't so hard!

You're ALL wrong!

Quote from: Haffrung;758648So I get the appeal. I don't hate early Gygaxian D&D. What I dislike is being told by guys who have read the Old School Primer and hang out on old-school forums that I wasn't playing right when we cleared out the Caves of Chaos, or that you really need to track provisions and use hirelings to play old-school D&D, or that there's no way you should have three +1 longswords by the time you're level 5. If people want to model their game after a campaign played in Lake Geneva from 1975 to 1977, then fill your boots. Just don't pretend that's anything more than a preference, or that it was the standard approach to the game by the time the Holmes Basic set was flying off the shelves, let alone AD&D.

It seems to me that around that time, there were two major groups of people playing D&D - the old grognards, and the kids that picked up various Basic sets - let's just call them "munchkins".

Now, I'm definitely a part of that latter group, and I'm 42.  So there's not really a bunch of people in the former group around any more.  I was lucky enough to get to play with a parent of a friend that had been running a game since the earlier days.  And it was illuminating.  How they viewed RPGs was pretty much totally different than the interpretation I had gleaned from the games I had bought when I was twelve.

And don't get me wrong.  How us munchkins interpreted D&D led to a bunch of cool stuff.  There's nothing "bad" or "wrong" about it.  But let's also not delude ourselves that we were playing the same game (in any meaningful sense) as the grognards at the time.

Personally, I'm happy that the OSR is rediscovering and reinvigorating that style of play, because it was a pretty damn cool way to run the game.  And, regardless of what you want to call it, it's worth pointing out as a separate style of play, and one that's probably closer to the style of game that the rules were built around (and that closeness makes the rules work with a lot less friction, to be honest).

And yeah, if you're not tracking provisions or using hirelings, you're probably not playing the game in the manner that the rules were built around.  So fucking what?  And if you're talking to a bunch of folks that are talking about that style of play, yeah, they're gonna say "that's not really what we're talking about".  Again, so what?

Quote from: EOTB;758633JRT, any intolerance you perceive is not due to your having a lack of hate for editions other than AD&D, it's for coming on a board and lecturing people about AD&D when you freely admit that you don't play the game (or any RPG as far as I know) and never have.  You just enjoy reading them.

I think you're making a few assumptions.  First of all, this is not just based on my experiences with the Alehouse and elsewhere, it's based on observing the behavior on several different forums over the last 10 years.  

The main thing I notice in regards to the "hate" is one hypocritical rule I see on many of the forums--nobody can make fun of the games the forum is dedicated to, but you are allowed to blast, belittle, etc., the "enemy game".  To me, that seems wrong, especially if you're trying to lead by example--and if you started an exclusive community to do that, why engage it the same behavior.  I have yet to see a forum dedicated to classic gaming where the rules would be applied equally (don't bash anybody's game, keep it civil, etc.)

It could just be a magnification of on-line personas where I think in real life most of the people are probably a lot nicer than they come across.  But still, I don't think it reflects very well on the hobby.

(And to be clear, even people who don't get enjoyment out of the act of tabletop gaming can enjoy it in other ways, and making fun of them for that is, to me, akin of making fun of a homosexual person because he doesn't have sex "the right way".  Unless you are debating the act of gaming, there are other things both people can debate and have common interest, since even the gamers read the books, appreciate the art, etc.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;758628Claiming that UA is a non-sacred text because Gygax published under extreme duress and torture because he needed the money is getting towards OSR Taliban.  I've never heard anyone say that on THIS forum.

Yeah, that's an example of the extremism I see.  I've seen people accuse him of not writing Lejendary Adventures because they didn't like it and they can't believe the same man who wrote AD&D wrote that--but if you analyze the text patterns, etc, it's pretty much him.  

Maybe Gary did change, and his writing patterns and themes drifted from what you originally loved.

But perhaps also you changed as well and the same magic you felt reading a new work by Gygax in 1980 doesn't feel the same in 1993 or 1999...

Well, if I keep getting fun, new OSR content, along with a snazzy wardrobe, you can call me OSR Taliban! Dressing up as a Pac Man ghost sounds like fun.
:cool::cheerleader:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758565But I doubt you'll ever actually provide anything remotely like that.

Like what, 2 minutes of searching?  You don't use it, you just go to the mattresses over every minor perceived criticism.  You're the only real 5avior or whatever they're called.  Haffrung is an ally of opportunity because he has a chance to carry on his war against the grognards, Marleycat is piling on and me-tooing because that's what she does when there's no football, she's bored, poking Ben is involved and someone allows Pew-Pew for wizards.

Quote from: Haffrung;752616The fact the 5E release isn't catered to the online population of dogmatic grumblers is the most hopeful sign yet that they're aiming to retake the RPG market lead. Because when D&D is thriving, it's because it's market is built on a foundation of tens of thousands of casual gamers out there actually playing the game, not the hundreds of theorists, BNGs, and edition-warriors who complain about it endlessly online. Frankly, I'd be worried about the prospects of 5E if the OSR Taliban, denners, and RPGnet system-wonks were praising the roll-out.

Quote from: Haffrung;757120Holy shit, they're coming out of the woodwork. Did someone at the Knights and Knaves Alehouse call a jihad?

Of course you weren't playing the right way in '81. Haven't the OSR Taliban taught you anything? The right way to play D&D wasn't discovered until a bunch of grognards heard the Word on the internet in 2007.

As the person who coined the term, I'm happy to say it's people like you who keep it alive with your reactionary dogma, appeals to tradition, and born-again fervour.

Do you really have people at your table who feel entitled to a Bluff or Sense Motive roll? Or does the very idea that other people out there enjoy that stuff feel like a rejection of what you like?

So it was formed by a bunch of disaffected gamers who wanted to get back to the most harsh fundamentals of the earliest era of D&D as a reaction against the softness and indulgence of the modern gaming culture. Gee, that's nothing like the Taliban.

Who in this thread has said anything about exploration being an invalid playstyle? It's a fine playstyle. What people here are challenging is this notion that it's the 'true' way to play old-school D&D. It isn't. It's the way that a bunch of forum-wonks have seized on in the last 7-8 years, mainly as ascetic reaction against a modern gaming culture that they hate as corrupt and indulgent.

Our own community? Going over? Fuck man, this sounds like some kind of cult. I remember when being a D&D grognard meant reading about cool adventures on the Necromancer Games forums and getting jazzed up about the Wilderlands reprint. When did it become a fucking identity?

And there we have it. Learned to play after 1976? Under 16 when you started playing? Enjoy commercial production values? The OSR don't need you 'round, anyhow.

Quote from: Haffrung;755912There is no "Core D&D Experience". Arneson and Gygax approached the game differently right from the outset. When are the OSR Taliban going to recognize that the D&D hobby doesn't have a Koran?

Quote from: Haffrung;752343I'm pretty sure WotC care more about sales than what a bunch of geeks who represent a fraction of their customers say on the internet. If 4E was pulled early it's because it didn't meet sales targets. If it did meet those targets, they'd still be publishing 4E, regardless of how many geeks pissed and moaned about it on RPG forums.

And to be honest, I don't think 5E will be warmly embraced by the online D&D wonks, who tend towards the dogmatic and combative. It lacks the cutting-edge mechanics that please the system-wonks, and it won't be old-school enough to suit the OSR taliban (nothing is). But I do think it will be a commercial success. And I think it will demonstrate how out of step the RPG forum community is with the far larger, and far more casual and easy-going market of people who play the game and don't argue about it on the internet.

Quote from: Marleycat;757052But 0/1/2e NEVER had options EVAR! It's against the OSR Taliban credo doncha know?  Nobody played RAW before 3e before then it was DIY recipe of 0/1/2e plus houserules on top in the overwhelming majority.

And THAT is a major reason why I like 5e. It's trying to turn the clock back and be FantasyCraft for 1/2/3/4e. It's trying to be a configurable game not compatible per se. It's a huge distinction.

And that ladies and gents would be MY definition of the "full Dungeons and Dragons experience".

Quote from: Marleycat;700466Agreed but there must be a balance and it isn't that hard to achieve, seriously. I think Ben would be a great DM to play under but remember he is OSR Taliban so has to keep to a certain line regardless.

(When I do Dnd I use FantasyCraft which flat out doesn't allow these abuses, other than that; I run or play Mage the Awakening mostly) so this is largely a non-issue to me.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;758571OSR Taliban very strong. OSR Taliban fight the oppressors. OSR Taliban will rain fire on one major rpg system EACH WEEK until demands are met.:p

Greyhawk Greg!

Quote from: CRKrueger;758679Like what, 2 minutes of searching?  You don't use it, you just go to the mattresses over every minor perceived criticism.  You're the only real 5avior or whatever they're called.  Haffrung is an ally of opportunity because he has a chance to carry on his war against the grognards, Marleycat is piling on and me-tooing because that's what she does when there's no football, she's bored, poking Ben is involved and someone allows Pew-Pew for wizards.

You forgot to add Mistwell, with his statements of immutable truth that invariably prove to be wrong.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758565No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't make it any more true.  I will, of course, completely retract this if you can show me one person who accused another of being OSR Taliban for just disagreeing with anything to do with 5e.

But I doubt you'll ever actually provide anything remotely like that.

This is MarleyCat's accusation (in the second post on this thread) that I am part of the OSR Taliban for the comments I made in this thread: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29829

Quote from: Marleycat;758405Keep up Pundit currently it's all about the rate of errata/technology. They're convinced it will be exactly like 4e.

I clearly don't fit into RPGPundit's definition of OSR Taliban as detailed here:

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402It does refer to that extremist wing of the OSR (fortunately now in a diminishing minority, but who a few years back seemed to be main movers of the OSR's ideas and 'gatekeepers' for it) who engage in "old school extremism", who only want to play the original editions or precise clones, who deride any mechanic created after a certain date (the date varies, and they get into contests of "who is more old school" by competing as to what cutoff date they use).

So, the only basis for MarleyCat's accusation seems to be that I am disagreeing with 5e.

There's an OSR Taliban? Do they have cool jackets? Jackets would make me join.

*calls in drone strike

Quote from: CRKrueger;758679Like what, 2 minutes of searching?  You don't use it, you just go to the mattresses over every minor perceived criticism.  You're the only real 5avior or whatever they're called.  Haffrung is an ally of opportunity because he has a chance to carry on his war against the grognards, Marleycat is piling on and me-tooing because that's what she does when there's no football, she's bored, poking Ben is involved and someone allows Pew-Pew for wizards.

yeah, none of that was people reacting to people saying "anything critical 5e", but people losing their shit over really stupid stuff, and saying things like "the starter set needs to die in fire" and "if you play with pregens, you're missing the purpose of the entire game."

most of those quotes were in response to Cadriel, who you are aware said things like using certain AD&D rules meant you weren't playing "old school".  He was saying things that quite literally defined him as Pundit describes in his OP

nice try though.  Too bad you fail.  Hell, all the people you are accusing of being "5aviors" have voiced criticism of 5e as well.  But in true nature of TBP culture, you seem to have taken the position that if one does not bitch about something with vehemence, then they must be fanbois.  Just the fact that you think you're being clever by using a term like "5avior" shows your maturity on the topic, and is the sort of behaviour we're talking about in the OP

Quote from: Skywalker;758682This is MarleyCat's accusation (in the second post on this thread) that I am part of the OSR Taliban for the comments I made in this thread: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29829



I clearly don't fit into RPGPundit's definition of OSR Taliban as detailed here:



So, the only basis for MarleyCat's accusation seems to be that I am disagreeing with 5e.

it wasn't just that you were disagreeing with 5e.  Go reread your own link again.  She said, more than once, that you had a fair point.  Then you went off the rails when you started basing your criticism of 5e not based on the actual game, but you just know it's a disaster because WotC, (rather than compare the basic set with similarly complex games) and it sucks because it's too much of a hassle and illegal to show your buddy your version of the free PDF if there's been some sort of update; any update, like they would be completely incompatible versions or something

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758690yeah, none of that was people reacting to people saying "anything critical 5e", but people losing their shit over really stupid stuff

I didn't see anybody 'losing their shit'... except for SOME of the folks promoting 5e. Pundit doesn't count because he's pretty much performance art.

Quoteand saying things like "the starter set needs to die in fire"

What I said was that I wanted the Basic and "the starter set can go die in a fire" not "needs"... and I meant that as pure hyperbole upon discovering that there's going to be different rules-lite rulebook and I could ignore the Starter altogether. Not that explaining this, yet again, will stop you from continuing to rant about it.

Quote"if you play with pregens, you're missing the purpose of the entire game."

Which was badly said but those of us giving him the benefit of a doubt knew what Jeff was talking about... not agreeing with that statement but agreeing with it's sentiment, that playing a character of your own creation is a central part of what many folks enjoy about RPGs (though not you or Marleycat, by your own admission).

Really, I think the '5aviors' are the ones flipping out... throwing out insult rants like Trenchriron's or repeatedly telling people to 'shut up' like Marleycat... and THAT, more than anything, is what's fueling this fire... because calmer folks, like Omega and Estar, are handling it all much better without being dicks.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758691it wasn't just that you were disagreeing with 5e.  Go reread your own link again.  She said, more than once, that you had a fair point.  Then you went off the rails when you started basing your criticism of 5e not based on the actual game, but you just know it's a disaster because WotC, (rather than compare the basic set with similarly complex games) and it sucks because it's too much of a hassle and illegal to show your buddy your version of the free PDF if there's been some sort of update; any update, like they would be completely incompatible versions or something

Which has what to do with me being OSR Taliban as MarleyCat accused? Perhaps, you should reread over your link again:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758565I will, of course, completely retract this if you can show me one person who accused another of being OSR Taliban for just disagreeing with anything to do with 5e.

I set it out as simply as possible for you. I assume (but without any real surprise) that this means that you are backing out of the retraction you promised?

Quote from: cranebump;758684There's an OSR Taliban? Do they have cool jackets? Jackets would make me join.

Yeah, but they're reversible polyester leisure suits with clashing neckerchiefs like Fred from Scooby-Doo.

Not everything from the 70s has stood up as well as RPGs.

Quote from: Simlasa;758693I didn't see anybody 'losing their shit'... except for SOME of the folks promoting 5e. Pundit doesn't count because he's pretty much performance art.
What I said was that I wanted the Basic and "the starter set can go die in a fire" not "needs"... and I meant that as pure hyperbole upon discovering that there's going to be different rules-lite rulebook and I could ignore the Starter altogether. Not that explaining this, yet again, will stop you from continuing to rant about it.
Which was badly said but those of us giving him the benefit of a doubt knew what Jeff was talking about... not agreeing with that statement but agreeing with it's sentiment, that playing a character of your own creation is a central part of what many folks enjoy about RPGs (though not you or Marleycat, by your own admission).

Really, I think the '5aviors' are the ones flipping out... throwing out insult rants like Trenchriron's or repeatedly telling people to 'shut up' like Marleycat... and THAT, more than anything, is what's fueling this fire... because calmer folks, like Omega and Estar, are handling it all much better without being dicks.

oh, so it's "you guys are losing your shit, and the guys who actually wrote out words flipping out?  I knew what they really meant so their words don't count.".

wow.  Where's a giant rolleyes when I need one

Quote from: cranebump;758684There's an OSR Taliban? Do they have cool jackets? Jackets would make me join.

"It's the beards"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758698oh, so it's "you guys are losing your shit, and the guys who actually wrote out words flipping out?  I knew what they really meant so their words don't count.".

Nope, because even taken at face value, what Jeff said was not 'flipping out'... he wasn't castigating entire groups of people on here, telling them to 'fuck off' or 'shut up!'... it was just an (inaccurate) opinion about the Starter set... that could have been talked about rather then just attacking his character.
I know that some people just can't help themselves but add snark to everything... and that's happened on both sides. But on this subject I've tried hard to avoid insulting anyone personally... though I'm sure I've slipped here and there.

Quote from: cranebump;758684There's an OSR Taliban? Do they have cool jackets? Jackets would make me join.

The handshake is BAD ASS.

Quote from: Skywalker;758695Which has what to do with me being OSR Taliban as MarleyCat accused? Perhaps, you should reread over the link again. I set it out as simply as possible. I assume (but without any real surprise) that this means that you are backing out of the retraction you promised?

you went into "OSR Taliban" mode when you went from rational criticism to "I know it's going to be horrible and a disaster because WotC (rather than compare 5e basic to other similarly complex games), and showing my buddy my free PDF is too much of a hassle and I don't want to break the law". That is, it wasn't criticism of 5e, but morphed into any reason you could find to complain about it, even if those reasons are monumentally stupid.  There's a reason you got so many responses like you did in that thread.. To say your excuses are weak sauce is the understatement of the year

Quote from: Simlasa;758700Nope, because even taken at face value, what Jeff said was not 'flipping out'... he wasn't castigating entire groups of people on here, telling them to 'fuck off' or 'shut up!'... it was just an (inaccurate) opinion about the Starter set... that could have been talked about rather then just attacking his character.

I shouldn't be shocked that you're completely turning a blind eye and ignoring anything that contradicts you, since you just got done doing it a minute ago.  I will give you this though, you've got the Bill O'Reilly tactic down.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758704I shouldn't be shocked that you're completely turning a blind eye and ignoring anything that contradicts you, since you just got done doing it a minute ago.

You seem to define 'flipping out' as anyone saying anything you don't agree with, No?
What do you mean by 'flipping out' then?
To me it's when people start getting personal with their insults, rather than sticking to the actual argument... even if some folks are 'wrong'.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758703you went into "OSR Taliban" mode when you went from rational criticism to "I know it's going to be horrible and a disaster because WotC (rather than compare 5e basic to other similarly complex games), and showing my buddy my free PDF is too much of a hassle and I don't want to break the law".

RPGPundit's definition of OSR Taliban is:

QuoteIt does refer to that extremist wing of the OSR (fortunately now in a diminishing minority, but who a few years back seemed to be main movers of the OSR's ideas and 'gatekeepers' for it) who engage in "old school extremism", who only want to play the original editions or precise clones, who deride any mechanic created after a certain date (the date varies, and they get into contests of "who is more old school" by competing as to what cutoff date they use).  They often claim to seek some kind of UR-D&D by looking at long-lost notes of Gygax or Arneson's.  In short, the guys who think that if you are using anything in RPGs made after 1983, or 81, or 79, or 74 (or sometimes even earlier!) then you are "betraying old school".  These are the people who just wanted the OSR to be a long string of identical "clone" games after another, and reject any innovation whatsoever.

How does my concerns over errata management have anything in common with that definition?

The term OSR Taliban is being applied to those who just disagree with any element of 5e, as was accused by CRKrueger, and to which you promised a retraction if you were shown posts of such. Not only that, you have just done exactly what you claimed isn't happening by accusing me of going into OSR Taliban mode over that point, proving CRKrueger right.

Quote from: Simlasa;758706You seem to define 'flipping out' as anyone saying anything you don't agree with, No?
What do you mean by 'flipping out' then?
To me it's when people start getting personal with their insults, rather than sticking to the actual argument... even if some folks are 'wrong'.

and your position is that Jeff never got insulting?

point proven

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758708and your position is that Jeff never got insulting?

Nope, I never said that. Only that what he said about chargen being the focus of the game was NOT an insult OR flipping out... just wrong (the way he said it).
What I did see was a bunch of people who were enthusiastic about 5e quickly go on attack mode an anyone expressing ANY doubt... or expressing opinions based on some earlier playtest... or just saying 'hmmm... don't like the sounds of that'. Suddenly you, Marleycat and Trenchriron were hurling poo at them...
That's what I saw first and what set me off most... not any potential 'issue' with the, as yet non-existant, rules.
In comparison Jeff, Skywalker and others have seemed fairly calm. I didn't see any of them telling people to 'shut up'.

you said Jeff never "flipped out", defining flipping out as someone who gets personal and insulting.  And now you're shifting the goal posts?

Jesus.  You people wonder why the trolls at SA grognards.txt love this site.  You guys are the gift that just keeps on giving

Quote from: JRT;758669I think you're making a few assumptions.  First of all, this is not just based on my experiences with the Alehouse and elsewhere, it's based on observing the behavior on several different forums over the last 10 years.  

The main thing I notice in regards to the "hate" is one hypocritical rule I see on many of the forums--nobody can make fun of the games the forum is dedicated to, but you are allowed to blast, belittle, etc., the "enemy game".  To me, that seems wrong, especially if you're trying to lead by example--and if you started an exclusive community to do that, why engage it the same behavior.  I have yet to see a forum dedicated to classic gaming where the rules would be applied equally (don't bash anybody's game, keep it civil, etc.)

It could just be a magnification of on-line personas where I think in real life most of the people are probably a lot nicer than they come across.  But still, I don't think it reflects very well on the hobby.

(And to be clear, even people who don't get enjoyment out of the act of tabletop gaming can enjoy it in other ways, and making fun of them for that is, to me, akin of making fun of a homosexual person because he doesn't have sex "the right way".  Unless you are debating the act of gaming, there are other things both people can debate and have common interest, since even the gamers read the books, appreciate the art, etc.)

Really.  You equate someone's choice of RPGs to something like a person's sexuality in regards to something that should receive only positive reinforcement.

See, I don't have even close to that level of shit wrapped up in what game I play, or you play (read, whatever).

If I go on a Seahawks fan forum, I'm not going to find a lot of positive discussion about other football teams.  And it doesn't bother me if a 49ers fan gets butt-hurt about it.  Or the reverse.

RPGs are no different; they're a game.

As for the OP, meh.  It's not as if I've played 1E for 25 years because of lack of options to satisfy the desperate need for innovations I didn't feel.  Although I do find it somewhat amusing that in coming up with his definition, two actually very distinct groups of old-school gamers that don't overlap very much are all jumbled together.  So I'm not sure if he even really understands the general population of which he speaks except on the most superficial level.

But apparently the group most like OP (the OSR tinkerers/rediscoverers)aren't interested in where he wants to lead them - into nouveau-old 5E.  

And the other group (the hide-bound close cloners) never needed what he wants to sell them.  

So really, its kind of brilliant to make a sort of gaming boogeymen out of them for anyone that varies between "I think I've heard of them before" and "those pricks rejected my bona fides".  All you have to do to show you're not one of those folks is buy 5e (or Arrows of Indra, I suppose) and talk about it on OP's forum.  

Voila; screed at 11.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758712you said Jeff never "flipped out", defining flipping out as someone who gets personal and insulting.

I didn't say he 'never' flipped out... just that the quote you used was not an example of such... wasn't insulting... and neither was the thing I said (both of us were annoyed by the Starter, not 5e itself).
Jeff may well have crossed over into insulting nonsense at some point, I haven't bothered to go back and look... but I don't recall him spewing forth the way some have.
I'm just saying the first big hunks of poo I saw flung, which put me into ARGUE mode, were from the folks who seemed to be boosters for the new game... and that that sort of thing ultimately works against the cause of promoting a game.

It's like Pundit's plan worked and has sucked us all in to his delusional vortex.

Quote from: Skywalker;758695Which has what to do with me being OSR Taliban as MarleyCat accused? Perhaps, you should reread over your link again:



I set it out as simply as possible for you. I assume (but without any real surprise) that this means that you are backing out of the retraction you promised?

What do you think?  Keep on him though, the logical contortions he's gonna use will be fun to see.
:popcorn:

At this point not only is he going to the mattresses over every single perceived criticism of 5e but also every perceived criticism of every 5e supporter's argument.  You could prove him wrong ten times, it doesn't matter, he'll try to weasel his way out of it because that would prove I said something right.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;758553To be honest, with all the design team's talk about "story" and the inclusion of things like Ideals, Flaws and Bonds (and now the Renown/affiliation mechanic for Organized Play at least), I'm surprised I haven't seen more OSR hostility to 5E as 'storygaming', 'railroading', 'new school disguised as old school', 'swine gaming' and the like. But then, this forum is the closest I dare tread to an OSR stronghold. :)

I brought this up previously and interestingly no ones picked up on it yet. Yeah, they have been tossing around terms like storytelling and and such.

But like for example their mention of Living Rules or even Basic/Starter. What WOTC means may not be what anyone else thinks it means. So we just end up sitting back and waiting to see what the fuck Mearls and co really meant.

Im waiting for him to describe Keep on the Borderlands as an MMO at this point.

Quote from: Skywalker;758682This is MarleyCat's accusation (in the second post on this thread) that I am part of the OSR Taliban for the comments I made in this thread: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29829



I clearly don't fit into RPGPundit's definition of OSR Taliban as detailed here:



So, the only basis for MarleyCat's accusation seems to be that I am disagreeing with 5e.

That's correct your issue isn't the game itself but that WotC's in charge. More importantly it was a jab at Pundit for being Pundit...he keeps the boredom away.

@CK, You are a jewel.:)

Quote from: Omega;758722I brought this up previously and interestingly no ones picked up on it yet. Yeah, they have been tossing around terms like storytelling and and such.

But like for example their mention of Living Rules or even Basic/Starter. What WOTC means may not be what anyone else thinks it means. So we just end up sitting back and waiting to see what the fuck Mearls and co really meant.

Im waiting for him to describe Keep on the Borderlands as an MMO at this point.

I did but I run and play NWoD so it's a selling point to me IF I feel like using it because it's 1 option among hundreds or thousands for 5e.

Quote from: Simlasa;758706You seem to define 'flipping out' as anyone saying anything you don't agree with, No?
What do you mean by 'flipping out' then?
To me it's when people start getting personal with their insults, rather than sticking to the actual argument... even if some folks are 'wrong'.

No it's when you bring up non-issues about a Free PDF like Skywalker helps me understand your motives or more specifically your actual axe to grind isn't against 5e so I call your shit after explaining 5e is configurable and give simple solid houserules to invalidate the direct attacks against 5e. While also actually keeping up with what people in the know say while playing.. Not theorycrafting or over analyzing out of context tweets.

What really pisses me off is that NONE of you get what WotC is attempting. When did it ever become 5avior to get that they are attempting to to do D&D/AD&D like before but with D&D being 100% compatible with AD&D while AD&D is configurable by modern standards or a  FantasyCraft for all editions much like an organized 2e? And as a bonus D&D is FREE!!!

Quote from: CRKrueger;758628So what you have on the one hand is guys like Jmal trying to divine the old school experience and people rallying around that, then you have the guys hating and talking about stuff they have zero experience with, just echoing purple prose.

You see this over at BGG too with board gamers. People who vocally and often snidely deride certain types of gaming. Because someone told them they should. Not because they actually played the game and didnt like it. That sort of snobbery really irks me to no end.

Hell we've had people here declaring their desdain for the game - who DID NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE PLAYTEST!!!

Quote from: CRKrueger;758679You're the only real 5avior or whatever they're called.  Haffrung is an ally of opportunity because he has a chance to carry on his war against the grognards, Marleycat is piling on and me-tooing because that's what she does when there's no football, she's bored, poking Ben is involved and someone allows Pew-Pew for wizards.

I am a grognard, you twat. I'll give you three guesses where my username comes from. But I'm a grognard who hasn't been pretending for the last six years that he always played D&D like Gygax did in the 70s.

My god the autism in this thread

Quote from: CRKrueger;758721What do you think?  Keep on him though, the logical contortions he's gonna use will be fun to see.
:popcorn:

At this point not only is he going to the mattresses over every single perceived criticism of 5e but also every perceived criticism of every 5e supporter's argument.  You could prove him wrong ten times, it doesn't matter, he'll try to weasel his way out of it because that would prove I said something right.

you haven't proven me wrong about anything.  I swear, you and Jeff have this horrible problem of whining about people picking on you, making up arguments no one has come close to saying, and declaring victory all in the same sentence.  

newsflash: I couldn't give two shits how pundit defines OSR Taliban.  That's not relevant to my point.  My point was that no one has accused another of being that simply because they dared voice any criticism towards 5e.  And they haven't.  Those accusations have only been made at people who have this deep rooted and irrational beef with 5e, with an equally irrational love for "the good old days".

so Skywalker, how pundit defines OSR Taliban has nothing to do with marlycat calling you that.  What it was was your weak ass reasoning for arguing against errata in the basic rules.

and the reason I "go to the mattress" isn't because I'm some 5avior who can't handle any criticism, its because of your behavior and debate tactics.  You guys are doing the EXACT same type of arguments the big purple SJW crowd does whenever they are denouncing something.  It pisses me off when they do it, and you're no better.  You're not 12.  Grow up and act your age.. It should be noted I haven't had issue with most of the posters who have criticized 5e, but my issue is with the same half dozen posters regardless of topic.  So I know it's a nice convenient excuse for you to say it's because I'm some sort of 5e fanboi, but that would be you, missing the point yet again

@CK, Did I hurt Ben's feels or something? He's been MIA for at least a couple weeks after his latest temper tantrum.:)

Also, I never called Skywalker or anybody OSR Taliban given he's a story game guy quite near my overall preferences. That was all CK taking a partial quote and twisting it to fit his argument even though his conclusion about myself was pretty spot on (boredom and football). No worries I'll be outie by August because I have
nina trolls to educate about the Facts of Life right now I'm letting the boys do it. But come September? It's on like Donkey Kong when I'm not playing 5e.:)

And yes Sacrosanct nailed another part of the meaning for that post beyond the actual sarcastic jab at Pundit for making this thread like I already said upthread.

I could give a shit about anybody questioning a free PDF or whatever legalities there might be around me emailing it to any of my friends. Or downloading, printing and binding the whole damn thing for myself or anybody I choose.

Quote from: Marleycat;758750@CK, Did I hurt Ben's feels or something? He's been MIA for at least a couple weeks after his latest temper tantrum.:)

Nothing to do with you.  He's gone though, so you won't have to worry about temper tantrums anymore.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758746you haven't proven me wrong about anything.

And according to you, I'm sure no one ever will. ;)

Quote from: 5acrosanctYou guys are doing the EXACT same type of arguments the big purple SJW crowd does whenever they are denouncing something.

I guess you missed the positive things I said, which is natural considering it doesn't fit your narrative of who is a 5enemy.

Quote from: 5acrosanctshould be noted I haven't had issue with most of the posters who have criticized 5e, but my issue is with the same half dozen posters regardless of topic.  So I know it's a nice convenient excuse for you to say it's because I'm some sort of 5e fanboi, but that would be you, missing the point yet again

Ok, you haven't answered every single possible criticism of 5e spread across half a dozen threads...well anyone who's actually been here reading can put the truth to that lie.

Quote from: CRKrueger;758753Nothing to do with you.  He's gone though, so you won't have to worry about temper tantrums anymore.

Can you PM me? Because that sounds like something serious or IRL stuff happened.

Quote from: Marleycat;758756Can you PM me? Because that sounds like something serious or IRL stuff happened.

He's fine personally.  It was a him and Pundit thing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758746My point was that no one has accused another of being that simply because they dared voice any criticism towards 5e.  And they haven't.  Those accusations have only been made at people who have this deep rooted and irrational beef with 5e, with an equally irrational love for "the good old days".

so Skywalker, how pundit defines OSR Taliban has nothing to do with marlycat calling you that.  What it was was your weak ass reasoning for arguing against errata in the basic rules.

So, if you criticise 5e based on anything earlier than something next month, that's 'OSR Taliban' as everything up until next month is the good old days? In other words, you cast the net so wide that it includes any criticism of 5e. :confused: Do you even know what "OSR" means?

What a feeble attempt attempt to shift the goal posts (something you claim other do all the time) after you were clearly proven wrong and shown a coward for not doing what you said you would. Your continued flailing about, rather than just accepting that, only serves to make you look a complete incompetent and doing exactly what CRKrueger has correctly described you doing.

Trying to redefine what MarleyCat said in post 2 in direct reference to RPGPundit's original post with the definition I quoted, some 90 posts later, just shows you for the fool you are.

Quote from: CRKrueger;758757He's fine personally.  It was a him and Pundit thing.

Ah, that's too bad because I respect and like him even if disagree with him about RPG's sometimes. Hope it gets worked out. And it's good he's fine IRL.

I'm at work for an 11 hour shift and my name is enough to cause 5acrosanct to have a meltdown. I don't even have to be online because I am living rent free inside of his head.

I know this is snarky, but I find it hysterical that 5acrosanct is standing somewhere, shaking with rage, and yelling into his smartphone "JEFF!!" doing his best Sheldon Cooper imitation.

My god, you're all a bunch of drama queens. Why doesn't anyone think about real issues? Like me.

/closes embroidered leisure suit jacket tighter, readjusts Taliban turban, exits in a huff.

Quote from: FASERIP;758745My god the autism in this thread

This is the exact opposite of that: it's people investing emotionally in an edition of the game so that any criticism of their preferred game is a personal slight that must be argued obsessively. In this case one edition that doesn't exist yet and another that will continue to exist regardless of the new game being published.

Quote from: Simlasa;758710Nope, I never said that. Only that what he said about chargen being the focus of the game was NOT an insult OR flipping out... just wrong (the way he said it).
What I did see was a bunch of people who were enthusiastic about 5e quickly go on attack mode an anyone expressing ANY doubt... or expressing opinions based on some earlier playtest... or just saying 'hmmm... don't like the sounds of that'. Suddenly you, Marleycat and Trenchriron were hurling poo at them...
That's what I saw first and what set me off most... not any potential 'issue' with the, as yet non-existant, rules.
In comparison Jeff, Skywalker and others have seemed fairly calm. I didn't see any of them telling people to 'shut up'.

I honestly think this type of behaviour has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-5e per se. It's about the degree to which people are insecure over their edition preference. But that right there tells you a whole lot about such people, whether they're aggressively pro-5e, anti-5e, or whatever. They'd rather argue stupidly and in bad faith than have their preference put in doubt. It doesn't occur to them that reading contrary opinions does not necessarily devalidate their preference. That's why they can't keep on track with arguments, constantly derail it with ad hominems and '..B..b..but but I like it and your opinion doesn't change it'. Indeed it doesn't, and now keep these two points separate. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=497451&postcount=297)

What a bunch of pathetic twats.

You can take that as official if you like.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;758571OSR Taliban very strong. OSR Taliban fight the oppressors. OSR Taliban will rain fire on one major rpg system EACH WEEK until demands are met.:p

OMG this is my new sig.

Quote from: Skywalker;758758So, if you criticise 5e based on anything earlier than something next month, that's 'OSR Taliban' as everything up until next month is the good old days? In other words, you cast the net so wide that it includes any criticism of 5e. :confused: Do you even know what "OSR" means?

What a feeble attempt attempt to shift the goal posts (something you claim other do all the time) after you were clearly proven wrong and shown a coward for not doing what you said you would. Your continued flailing about, rather than just accepting that, only serves to make you look a complete incompetent and doing exactly what CRKrueger has correctly described you doing.

Trying to redefine what MarleyCat said in post 2 in direct reference to RPGPundit's original post with the definition I quoted, some 90 posts later, just shows you for the fool you are.

It's not shifting goal posts to point out your strawman, just so you know.

I said people have not called others "OSR Taliban" for simply criticizing 5e.  You said, "Here's Marley calling me one, which according to Pundit I'm not"

Pundit's opinion doesn't mean squat as to what that term is.  I thought I was pretty clear in explaining that.  He is not the final authority on what that term means, therefore, who cares what his definition is.  The point is that she never called you that simply because you criticized 5e.  She called you that for reason I already explained no less than twice to you.  It's the reason you've had so many responses in that thread think you're excuses are pretty damn silly for the basis of your criticism.

Quote from: EOTB;758715Really.  You equate someone's choice of RPGs to something like a person's sexuality in regards to something that should receive only positive reinforcement.  See, I don't have even close to that level of shit wrapped up in what game I play, or you play (read, whatever).

Just to clarify--Nope, I didn't use that example for "someone's choice of RPGs", but as an analogy for the example of prejudice towards somebody who enjoys the game products a different way (by primarily reading it instead of playing it regularly), and by using that fact to dismiss any opinion that person has, instead of actual debating the issues.

Quote from: TristramEvans;758763This is the exact opposite of that: it's people investing emotionally in an edition of the game so that any criticism of their preferred game is a personal slight that must be argued obsessively. In this case one edition that doesn't exist yet and another that will continue to exist regardless of the new game being published.

I think part of this is one key thing too--there's going to be a majority and a minority in terms of what gets played.  The big problem for some people is being a minority is not what they want--they want their view to be the majority so their playstyle can survive generations.  

And a lot of the emotion comes down to what will the future of D&D be, and what it will be like in the next decade.

Quote from: Windjammer;758766I honestly think this type of behaviour has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-5e per se. It's about the degree to which people are insecure over their edition preference. But that right there tells you a whole lot about such people, whether they're aggressively pro-5e, anti-5e, or whatever. They'd rather argue stupidly and in bad faith than have their preference put in doubt. It doesn't occur to them that reading contrary opinions does not necessarily devalidate their preference. That's why they can't keep on track with arguments, constantly derail it with ad hominems and '..B..b..but but I like it and your opinion doesn't change it'. Indeed it doesn't, and now keep these two points separate. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=497451&postcount=297)

I didn't see it as an edition discussion at all. I saw it as a discussion about where an entry level product needed chargen if the aim of the product was to bring in non-rpg players.
It is relevant that the product is D&D but only because it is one of a handful of games that has the market penetration to even attempt that strategy (ie increasing the actual RPG play base as opposed to simply looking to steal some players from other existing games).

While I don't think Sacrosanct is as innocent as he likes to pretend, I also think some of you are being willfully ignorant.

There are about a half dozen guys who do the same thing over and over.

1. Some bit of information about 5e comes out.
2. Come out of the woodwork to talk about how that is the worst thing ever.
3. A few 5e fans explain why they think it isn't the worst thing ever, sometimes pulling more recent information to show how the suspicions of people are wrong.
4. Double down on ridiculousness (Omg, its illegal to share a free pdf between my friends!).
5. Eventually get quiet.
6. Wait for next bit of information about 5e to come out.
7. Repeat.

You know, if people did this once, it would be one thing. But when its the same people doing it over and over, you start to get the idea that they are just looking for things to bitch about. And I can get why the "5aviors" get tired of it.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758834While I don't think Sacrosanct is as innocent as he likes to pretend, I also think some of you are being willfully ignorant.

There are about a half dozen guys who do the same thing over and over.

1. Some bit of information about 5e comes out.
2. Come out of the woodwork to talk about how that is the worst thing ever.
3. A few 5e fans explain why they think it isn't the worst thing ever, sometimes pulling more recent information to show how the suspicions of people are wrong.
4. Double down on ridiculousness (Omg, its illegal to share a free pdf between my friends!).
5. Eventually get quiet.
6. Wait for next bit of information about 5e to come out.
7. Repeat.

You know, if people did this once, it would be one thing. But when its the same people doing it over and over, you start to get the idea that they are just looking for things to bitch about. And I can get why the "5aviors" get tired of it.

When I first brought up that chargen is important to RPGs, I was immediately told that I was a filthy CharOp Denner by a 5avior. You might want to take a harder look at the 5aviors if you are going to point fingers.

If you think that people are reacting poorly to partial facts and bits of information being dribbled out by WotC, then that may be solved by having WotC quit pussyfooting around by giving us hints in order to increase the advertising buzz and just hold a public Q&A session. Holding WotC accountable for their shitty news releases should be considered.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758834While I don't think Sacrosanct is as innocent as he likes to pretend, I also think some of you are being willfully ignorant.

Its almost like I didn't say this part.

And hell, if you want to talk about WotC being shitty at how they are releasing information: I'm almost certain no one here will disagree with you. But when a few people are chicken littling about the game itself every time WotC speaks, it starts to look more like an agenda than anything else.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758834While I don't think Sacrosanct is as innocent as he likes to pretend, I also think some of you are being willfully ignorant.

There are about a half dozen guys who do the same thing over and over.

1. Some bit of information about 5e comes out.
2. Come out of the woodwork to talk about how that is the worst thing ever.
3. A few 5e fans explain why they think it isn't the worst thing ever, sometimes pulling more recent information to show how the suspicions of people are wrong.
4. Double down on ridiculousness (Omg, its illegal to share a free pdf between my friends!).
5. Eventually get quiet.
6. Wait for next bit of information about 5e to come out.
7. Repeat.

You know, if people did this once, it would be one thing. But when its the same people doing it over and over, you start to get the idea that they are just looking for things to bitch about. And I can get why the "5aviors" get tired of it.

What's funny is the exact same dynamic is at play on RPGnet, only it's not grognards but 4E fans taking shots. The common ground between the grognards and 4E fans seems to be a hatred of WotC, desire for 5E to fail, and ignorance of the actual contents of the playtest and information released so far.

Quote from: jeff37923;758836When I first brought up that chargen is important to RPGs, I was immediately told that I was a filthy CharOp Denner by a 5avior. You might want to take a harder look at the 5aviors if you are going to point fingers..

Good lord....

No one said that Jeff.  This is what I'm talking about, when I say that you keep making up arguments in your head to paint yourself as some victim.

What I did say, and what I've clarified to you at least a half dozen times now, was that someone who says chargen/advancement is the entire point fo the game is saying the same thing Denners and charoppers say.  Because that's a true statement; they do say that.  Somehow you turned that into "if I bring up importance of chargen, I'm a dirty charopper."  I don't know how, but somehow you managed to mangle the meaning up so bad that's what you took from it.

so please, stop making this shit up already.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758834While I don't think Sacrosanct is as innocent as he likes to pretend.

You did write that, my bad.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758834There are about a half dozen guys who do the same thing over and over.

Name fucking names or shut the fuck up.

This conspiracy bullshit is nauseating.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402Since some people seem to think that "OSR Taliban" is a brand-new term I specifically invented on account of certain responses to the news about the D&D starter set or the Basic D&D PDF.  Likewise, some people seem to want to pretend that when I used that term it means that I think ALL the OSR (which, let's remember, I count myself as a member of) are like a 'taliban'.  

A+++ Troll, would read again.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;758842Name fucking names or shut the fuck up.

This conspiracy bullshit is nauseating.

Keep in mind that I don't think they are all "OSR Taliban" just "anti-5e", but:

1. Windjammer
2. Sommerjon
3. Skywalker

Borderline case:

3. Exploderwizard

"I'm going to jump in because Sacrosanct said something (whether it was accurate or not) and I have the biggest hate boner for him" cases:

4. Jeff

Hell, I don't personally agree with everything the 5e fan crowd is saying. I don't agree with everything Sacrosanct has said. But Jeff feels the need to jump in on every thread with Sacrosanct just to bash him WHETHER WHAT HE IS SAYING MAKES SENSE OR NOT. Jeff will throw his fucking towel in with anyone who is arguing with Sacrosanct, it doesn't matter what the argument is about.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758849"I'm going to jump in because Sacrosanct said something (whether it was accurate or not) and I have the biggest hate boner for him" cases:

4. Jeff

Hell, I don't personally agree with everything the 5e fan crowd is saying. I don't agree with everything Sacrosanct has said. But Jeff feels the need to jump in on every thread with Sacrosanct just to bash him WHETHER WHAT HE IS SAYING MAKES SENSE OR NOT. Jeff will throw his fucking towel in with anyone who is arguing with Sacrosanct, it doesn't matter what the argument is about.

Could you link to some examples of this? I'm asking because I'm the one being brought up in 5E conversations while I'm at work.

Quote from: jeff37923;758854Could you link to some examples of this? I'm asking because I'm the one being brought up in 5E conversations while I'm at work.

I'll try to find some spots later. I've go to go pick up my daughter from camp. I could be wrong, it could just be an impression I get because you two seem to go at it a lot from my perspective, and sometimes for no real good reason. You seem to want to bring up that he disagreed with your statement in a way that characterized your point badly (but so did your original statement, your actual point, stated later on, actually did make sense), and he refused to accept your later clarification of your point.

And this has now gotten brought up in about every thread. I think sometimes he mentions it first, sometimes you mention it first. It just is getting ridiculous.

Honestly, Sacrosanct goes a little too far in the other direction for my taste on being a 5e fan. I'm super-pumped for 5e personally, but I just avoid certain conversations, and I have my own doubts about certain aspects (I'm really hoping the errata train for 5e is kept pretty small). That said, I do understand when he gets annoyed at people who are making criticisms as though they are objective fact when they've already proven to be untrue (stuff that got changed in the playtest early on for instance).

And now I really have to run because I rambled on and forgot I was about to leave. ARGGGH.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758849Keep in mind that I don't think they are all "OSR Taliban" just "anti-5e", but:

3. Skywalker

FWIW I have made only 3 observations regarding 5e since previews began. The only repetition is that despite being proved correct in each case, Sacrosanct et al have continued to argue otherwise without end.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758802It's not shifting goal posts to point out your strawman, just so you know.

I said people have not called others "OSR Taliban" for simply criticizing 5e.  You said, "Here's Marley calling me one, which according to Pundit I'm not"

Your lack of sense and logic here is outstanding.

Quote from: Skywalker;758865FWIW I have made only 3 observations regarding 5e since previews began. The only repetition is that despite being proved correct in each case, Sacrosanct et al have continued to argue otherwise without end.

But you haven't been proven correct or incorrect THAT is the point! You think your correct about an issue that most don't even care for and wouldn't follow anyway. YOU ARE NOT TALIBAN get it? But you are concerned about a FREE PDF getting some updates that currently WotC is saying would ONLY happen by public playtest IF then. And arguing that it's illegal to share said FREE PDF with your friends. That is the height of ridiculous and just grasping to find anything to be contrary at this point.

Have at WotC if you can't trust them because they hurt you so bad but leave off with the ridiculous arguments about something not likely to happen or even cared about unless you actually plan to spend a bit of money on the game. I mean you do get what you pay for right?

That post was actually meant as a backhanded jab at PUNDIT for starting this stupid thread. It's a classic Pundit troll move the whole thing! Then you have CK doing his thing and off we go.

Quote from: Marleycat;758867But you haven't been proven correct or incorrect THAT is the point! You think your correct about an issue that most don't even care for and wouldn't follow anyway.

I am pretty sure you believe what you say, so that's pretty much that.

Quote from: Skywalker;758866Your lack of sense and logic here is outstanding.

Well this certainly is ironic.  I said you weren't called that for simply criticising 5e, and somehow your "logic" was to say, "But I'm not because Pundit's definition doesn't think so."

Whatever definition Pundit used has absolutely zero bearing or relevance on whether or not you were called "OSR Taliban".  Seeing as how you went several pages in that thread where no one (even Marleycat) was busting your chops for criticizing 5e, that proves what I said.  You weren't called that for simply criticizing it.  You weren't called that until after you started getting all silly with your reasoning as to why you couldn't share your free pdf with your buddy.  Who cares if Marleycat was using Pundit's definition or not, that's not the point.  The indisputible fact was that you were not called that term for just criticizing 5e.  And that's all I said.

Quote from: Skywalker;758868I am pretty sure you believe what you say, so that's pretty much that.

Just like yourself. Shocking correct? Quit acting innocent I am done with it ok? Get the damn FREE PDF or not it won't cost you a thing. Now if you actually pay money for a book or something then you have some justification to be worried. It is like with 4e I just didn't care what they did because I bought 3 books played the game for a month then said nope not for me and gave said books away and found alternative games that did what I like.

Now you don't even have to spend a penny to see if the game is for you. That I say is a heck of deal.

Quote from: Marleycat;758867YOU ARE NOT TALIBAN get it?

Just seen in the edit - Thanks for that. I don't think it will stop Sacrosanct spinning his own nonsensical defence to get out of what he promised, but FWIW I appreciate you clearing that up.

Quote from: Skywalker;758874Just seen in the edit - Thanks for that. I don't think it will stop Sacrosanct spinning his own nonsensical defence to get out of what he promised, but FWIW I appreciate you clearing that up.

Sacrosanct has his views it doesn't mean I am in 100% lockstep agreement with him. But in general and in the things that interest myself about 5e yeah I pretty much am in agreement with him. There is a big difference between the two. My deal with you is/was ONLY about the PDF errata situation and sharing it between friends.

The problem arose because CK took a partial quote meant for Pundit and completely twisted it out of context to support whatever his current argument with Sacrosanct was.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758870Well this certainly is ironic.  I said you weren't called that for simply criticising 5e, and somehow your "logic" was to say, "But I'm not because Pundit's definition doesn't think so."

I set it all out in baby steps for you above, with quotes even.

You have since called me OSR Taliban (something MarleyCat has now backed away from) because I had concerns with how the Basic PDF dropping next month would allow me to manage my errata. You had to contort out of RPGPundit's definition, forcing you to cast a new definition so broad that it encompasses pretty much any criticism of 5e.

But you say no one has ever called someone OSR Taliban for criticising 5e :D

Assuming we can get back on topic, I thought this was particularly insightful:

http://dyverscampaign.blogspot.com/2014/06/whats-all-this-osr-taliban-noise_17.html

Charles Akins did the research, he should get the credit.

VS

Quote from: Marleycat;758405Keep up Pundit currently it's all about the rate of errata/technology. They're convinced it will be exactly like 4e. Regardless of the fact that WotC have watched for YEARS how successful Pathfinder is. Or that there are serious numbers of players playing Pathfinder that would drop it for something you could make 3e Lite.

They're ignoring the bigger picture because it's gotten down to "where was the spot that Bad WotC touched you?".

I don't see any OSR Taliban in the conversation to any serious degree here or anywhere unless they're trolling or just not up with current information. Concerned? Confused? Yes, but not malicious in general or by intention.

I don't have any problem with the people who feel distrustful of WoTC; as long as there's a real condition by which they can feel WoTC has regained their trust.

If on the other hand they're just determined to continue to be butthurt and nothing will ever ever fix it, not even the most old-school-friendly version of D&D in 20 years, then there's something dishonest about continuing to pretend you could be convinced otherwise.

Quote from: VengerSatanis;758879Assuming we can get back on topic, I thought this was particularly insightful:

http://dyverscampaign.blogspot.com/2014/06/whats-all-this-osr-taliban-noise_17.html

Charles Akins did the research, he should get the credit.

VS

Now that was something I didn't know. Pretty cool though, kudo's to Charles also.

Quote from: Skywalker;758877I set it all out in baby steps for you above, with quotes even.

You have since called me OSR Taliban (something MarleyCat has now backed away from) because I had concerns with how the Basic PDF dropping next month would allow me to manage my errata. You had to contort out of RPGPundit's definition, forcing you to cast a new definition so broad that it encompasses pretty much any criticism of 5e.

But you say no one has ever called someone OSR Taliban for criticising 5e :D

Jesus Christ dude, what part of "No one has been called OSR Taliban for simply criticizing 5e" don't you get?  Do I need to use crayon and pictures?

Step 1: You criticized 5e

then..

No one called you OSR taliban.

Done!  See! what I said was true.  You made a criticism about 5e and no one called you OSR taliban, proving that people can in fact criticize 5e and not be called that.  It wasn't until after you went off the rails before you were called that.  Christ, I have criticized 5e.  So has Marleycat.  So has just about everyone else.  And yet, only a small handful of people were ever called that term.

So why you insist on holding to the position that one cannot criticize 5e without being called OSR Taliban is beyond me.  The facts disprove you at every turn.  I'm not backing out or otherwise not holding up to my end of the bargin because no one has of yet been able to show me one single example of where someone was being accused of being OSR Taliban for "simply criticizing 5e".  All the quotes CK provided, and even with regards to Marleycat's statement about you, were in response to statements that went far beyond simple criticisms and into lunacy complaints.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758880I don't have any problem with the people who feel distrustful of WoTC; as long as there's a real condition by which they can feel WoTC has regained their trust.

If on the other hand they're just determined to continue to be butthurt and nothing will ever ever fix it, not even the most old-school-friendly version of D&D in 20 years, then there's something dishonest about continuing to pretend you could be convinced otherwise.

True on both counts. I would say if your deal is distrust of WotC try the free PDF and if they really fundamentally change it in some way, drop it and go play games that cater to your preferences better.

But if your still being butthurt as you put it, after say the DMG with all the options and suggestions are out where you can configure the game in a million directions, then no 5e isn't for you regardless.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758880I don't have any problem with the people who feel distrustful of WoTC; as long as there's a real condition by which they can feel WoTC has regained their trust.

That's the real shame of this fervour. WotC have done some good things in the past. I am a fan of SW Saga and RCR and the early years of 4e. I even have 5e on preorder and do plan to buy and play it. But I don't plan to do so without being sceptical of WotC's past mistakes or being wilfully blind to issues with 5e that I perceive.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758880If on the other hand they're just determined to continue to be butthurt and nothing will ever ever fix it, not even the most old-school-friendly version of D&D in 20 years, then there's something dishonest about continuing to pretend you could be convinced otherwise.

You mean like all the jackass grognards who bitched endlessly about WotC sitting on AD&D for years, then stating loudly they would NOT purchase the reprints out of spite due to some perceived grievance?

I remember those guys.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758883No one called you OSR taliban.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758703you went into "OSR Taliban" mode ...

Wait. Wuh? :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758883I'm not backing out or otherwise not holding up to my end of the bargin because no one has of yet been able to show me one single example of where someone was being accused of being OSR Taliban for "simply criticizing 5e".  

Yes, you are. And this entire tirade has been your desperate and transparent attempt to avoid doing what you said you would. It must be doing wonders for your credibility.

Quote from: Skywalker;758889Wait. Wuh? :D

I can only assuming you're trolling at this point, because no one can be this oblivious.  Maybe in larger more colorful letters this time?

Quote from: meYou made a criticism about 5e and no one called you OSR taliban, proving that people can in fact criticize 5e and not be called that. It wasn't until after you went off the rails before you were called that.

You do understand the concept of "sequence of events", right?

QuoteYes, you are. And this entire tirade has been your desperate and transparent attempt to avoid doing what you said you would. It must be doing wonders for your credibility.

Unless you can show me where someone called you that after your intial criticisms, then no, I'm not.  And we both know  that no one called you that after your initial criticisms.  Therefore, you can criticize 5e without being called OSR taliban, and you are objectively wrong when you claim that you can't.

Quote from: Skywalker;758889Wait. Wuh? :D

Well that can be interpreted in other ways you know. Or you could be over analyzing it just a bit.:)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758890I can only assuming you're trolling at this point, because no one can be this oblivious.  Maybe in larger more colorful letters this time?

Again, your new definition of OSR Taliban, which you created as a desperate attempt to avoid what you said you would do, as someone going off the rails about a criticism of 5e (which seems to have little to do with OSR, RPGPundit's definition or even common usage) only successfully manages to prove your original statement wrong.

Again, your new definition of OSR Taliban, which you created as a desperate attempt to avoid what you said you would do, as someone going off the rails about a criticism of 5e (which seems to have little to do with OSR, RPGPundit's definition or even common usage) only successfully manages to prove your original statement wrong.

Quote from: Skywalker;758894Again, your new definition of OSR Taliban, which you created as a desperate attempt to avoid what you said you would do, as someone going off the rails about a criticism of 5e (which seems to have little to do with OSR, RPGPundit's definition or even common usage) only successfully manages to prove your original statement wrong.

so that's a "yes" then, you are legitimately this stupid?

* however someone defines "OSR Taliban" has no bearing on whether or not you were called that.  Changing, adjusting,  adding, or modifying any of the definitions does impact in any way whether or not you were called that.  You either were called that, or you weren't.  That simple.

* You made several criticisms of 5e without a single person calling you that term, therefore, your claim of "anyone simply criticisng 5e is called OSR taliban" is objectively untrue.  It wasn't until you got really stupid with your reasoning before anyone used that term for you.  Additionally, the numerous examples of people who have criticized 5e and not been called "OSR Taliban" also reinforces that your claim is objectively wrong.

* no one has yet provided a single instance showing where a poster was called that term for "simply criticisng 5e".  Therefore, I'm not backing out of anything.

You are the only one to have shifted your position in this argument by trying to redefine what is meant by OSR Taliban to being those that disagree with anything having to do with 5e in a way that you find stupid, out of desperation to avoid having to do what you said you would do.

By desperately trying to add in a subjective qualifier that only you can determine, all you have done is prove the original statement by CRKrueger is correct.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758849Keep in mind that I don't think they are all "OSR Taliban" just "anti-5e", but . . .

Good on you for stepping up, EN.

I wouldn't count any of those names as 'OSR anything,' myself, and I haven't paid enough attention to the 5e discussion to really know who's where on what, but thank you for not hiding behind, 'Some people say . . . ' passive-aggro nonsense.

Quote from: Haffrung;758554I started using the term four or five years ago. The context was people who took a particular mode of old-school play - sandbox, dungeon exploration, resource management, looting but avoiding fighting, henchmen and hirelings, etc. and declared that people who didn't play that way were doing it wrong. What started as a reaction against modern RPGs had become a purity test applied to those who did play early TSR D&D but weren't playing the way Gygax ran Greyhawk. Even though I started playing in 1979 with Holmes Basic, I've been told at various times that I was never doing it right because:

• I used a lot of published modules.
• As a consequence of using published modules, we had enormous hordes of magic items and gold.
• Even though we awarded XP for GP, we enjoyed combat and cleared out dungeons of all monsters if at all possible.
• We never used domain management rules.

The key thing to keep in mind is I never came under fire for this stuff, or saw anyone else come on fire for it, 7 or 8 years ago. The tenets of the OSR Taliban only became codified when people on certain forums started parsing the reports of Gygax and trying to systematize very early D&D play modes. That's why Taliban is such an apt turn - it isn't standard conservatism, but a very virulent strain that hearkens back to the ideals of a past that never was. The OSR Taliban turned old-school discussion from how people actually played to how people should play.

Your bullet points are exactly how I played (Basic) D&Di. Modules ruled. B2 and X1 were a shared background, and everyone at our school was grabbing up different modules as soon as they could get them so they could be the first GM to run 'em. and we wouldn't consider a dungeon complete if there there was a single kobold or rat left unkilled or a single EP or CP left unlooted. When we weren't playing modules we were more informed by LotR than wargaming, so we didn't use hirelings, etc. No one has ever given me any shit about it though.

Quote from: robiswrong;758662It seems to me that around that time, there were two major groups of people playing D&D - the old grognards, and the kids that picked up various Basic sets - let's just call them "munchkins".

Now, I'm definitely a part of that latter group, and I'm 42.  So there's not really a bunch of people in the former group around any more.  I was lucky enough to get to play with a parent of a friend that had been running a game since the earlier days.  And it was illuminating.  How they viewed RPGs was pretty much totally different than the interpretation I had gleaned from the games I had bought when I was twelve.

And don't get me wrong.  How us munchkins interpreted D&D led to a bunch of cool stuff.  There's nothing "bad" or "wrong" about it.  But let's also not delude ourselves that we were playing the same game (in any meaningful sense) as the grognards at the time.

Personally, I'm happy that the OSR is rediscovering and reinvigorating that style of play, because it was a pretty damn cool way to run the game.  And, regardless of what you want to call it, it's worth pointing out as a separate style of play, and one that's probably closer to the style of game that the rules were built around (and that closeness makes the rules work with a lot less friction, to be honest).

And yeah, if you're not tracking provisions or using hirelings, you're probably not playing the game in the manner that the rules were built around.  So fucking what?  And if you're talking to a bunch of folks that are talking about that style of play, yeah, they're gonna say "that's not really what we're talking about".  Again, so what?

Which is why I was interested in the OSR to begin with. These old ways of playing informed by Wargaming and what the original grognards were doing was completely new to me and very fresh, and made a load of rules I thought were strange back when I started the hobby all of a sudden make sense. yet I never felt the need to tell anyone this is how we should all play now.

I also like the punkish DIY vibe of the OSR, and the fact that there's a greater appreciation of JG stuff which I always had a soft spot for despite it not being as slick as TSR output.

I'm looking forward to running some 5e as soon as the pdf is available and will more than likely get the PHB, and DMG. Not sure about the MM. It will have to be really good. I'm not short on ideas or reference material for monsters.

Quote from: Skywalker;758898You are the only one to have shifted your position in this argument by trying to redefine what is meant by OSR Taliban to being those that disagree with anything having to do with 5e in a way that you find stupid, out of desperation to avoid having to do what you said you would do.

By desperately trying to add in a subjective qualifier that only you can determine, all you have done is prove the original statement by CRKrueger is correct.

Nice edit.

But to address this new text, I'm not redifining anything.  Seriously, i don't know how more clear I can be on this.  The definition doesn't matter.  You were either called it, or you weren't.  Full stop.  My position has been the entire time one that disagrees with your argument "any simple criticism of 5e and you're called an OSR taliban".  That statement is flat out not true.  No one has been called an OSR taliban for "simply criticizing 5e."  The people who have been called that have taken their criticism to absurd levels.  

Absurd levels =/= simple criticism.

That seems to be a key thing you can't grasp.  And just like in that other thread where you've weasled your reasoning at every turn each time you were shown to be wrong until it became a position of absurdity, you're doing it here too.  You have continued to refuse to actually address what I've been actually saying, and keep bringing up this "how it's defined" crap that has no relevance at all to whether or not anyone actually called you that term or not.  You also refuse to acknowledge that you yourself have criticized 5e without anyone calling you OSR Taliban.  Not until you went into bonkerville with your whole reasoning behind errata at any rate.

My position is this:  No one has been called an OSR Taliban for simply criticizing 5e.  OMG, wait for it.....it's also the exact same position I had at the begining.  How is that shifting my position?  It's the same.  Literally.

If there's anyone who keeps proping up fake arguements, it's you, CK, and Jeff.  Want examples?

Jeff: I can't even talk about how chargen is important without someone calling me a filthy denner.

Actual statement that was made: If someone says chargen is the whole point of the game, that's the same sort of statment Denners make

It's like you can't actually stand on any merit arguing what was actually said, so you have to spin it and turn the hyperbole up to 11 and hope no one notices.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758905Jeff: I can't even talk about how chargen is important without someone calling me a filthy denner.

Actual statement that was made: If someone says chargen is the whole point of the game, that's the same sort of statment Denners make.

Not to really get into this, but I don't think Jeff ever said that. Why was it that brought up in the first place?

Quote from: Endless Flight;758907Not to really get into this, but I don't think Jeff ever said that. Why was it that brought up in the first place?

Over the Starter Set not having chargen. Basically Sacrosanct did say exactly that or pretty much obviously meant that. He was using the word "Denner" as an analogy or to clarify that the argument being used is EXACTLY what a Denner would use and then Jeff did say something to the effect of "Oh, so now I am a denner? In a complete bad faith argument.

Problem is even I could figure out it was a basic troll so just ignored the whole thing but Sacrosanct isn't wired like that and took the bait hook, line, and sinker.

Hanging out on football forums with all guys has gotten me clued into this kind of thing and toughened me up a lot because to survive serious sexual harassment you have to be able to give as well as you get if you're a female on a sport site beyond maybe baseball.

And trolling other team's football forums is literally a form of entertainment for a lot of these guys and there is an art to it. So your trolldar gets honed quite well.:)

Yeah, but I don't remember anybody, including Jeff, saying character generation is "everything", only that it really should be in the starter set instead of online in PDF form. I'm not sure why Denners had to be brought up in the first place.

Quote from: Endless Flight;758907Not to really get into this, but I don't think Jeff ever said that. Why was it that brought up in the first place?

he did earlier today

Quote from: jeff37923;758836When I first brought up that chargen is important to RPGs, I was immediately told that I was a filthy CharOp Denner by a 5avior. You might want to take a harder look at the 5aviors if you are going to point fingers.
.

Quote from: Endless Flight;758909Yeah, but I don't remember anybody, including Jeff, saying character generation is "everything", only that it really should be in the starter set instead of online in PDF form. I'm not sure why Denners had to be brought up in the first place.

What he actually said was that anyone who uses pregens is defeating the entire purpose of the game.  To which I had replied, "Anyone who says the entire purpose of the game is chargen is something the Denners and charoppers say."

Then he later went on to clarify his statement and denied ever making it in the first place (so I provided him his quote), but as you can see from the post I just quoted from today, is still making up things no one has ever said.

Quote from: Endless Flight;758909Yeah, but I don't remember anybody, including Jeff, saying character generation is "everything", only that it really should be in the starter set instead of online in PDF form. I'm not sure why Denners had to be brought up in the first place.

Jeff said, and I might not be 100% accurate to the wording, something like:

Not having chargen misses the whole point of the game.

Which to be honest, represented what he meant badly, based on what he clarified later. Which honestly what he said later was something that wasn't unreasonable, even if I may not be 100% on board with it.

Yet for some reason the whole argument is over what he first said and Sacrosancts first response to it, rather than acknowledging the whole thing was based on terrible wording and an overreaction to the terrible wording.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758905No one has been called an OSR taliban for "simply criticizing 5e."  The people who have been called that have taken their criticism to absurd levels.  

That's an entirely circular and self serving argument. Your new qualifier is that OSR Taliban is when a criticism of 5e is "absurd" as judged by you, right? And this your judgement of the people's arguments that you are already disagreeing with. And you have shown that you will go to absurd lengths to disagree with any criticism of 5e.

By adding in this new subjective qualifier, all you are doing is proving the original comment by CRKrueger. You have just tried to redefine "OSR Taliban" as everyone who criticises 5e. Because if someone criticises 5e, you will invariably go to absurd lengths to attack that person. If they defend the criticism, you consider them to be going to equally absurd lengths. You then call them OSR Taliban. Which is exactly what CRKrueger said was happening.

And just so its clear, it seems like you have completely dropped the idea that OSR Taliban is about criticism coming from any sense of the past.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758911he did earlier today






What he actually said was that anyone who uses pregens is defeating the entire purpose of the game.  To which I had replied, "Anyone who says the entire purpose of the game is chargen is something the Denners and charoppers say."

Then he later went on to clarify his statement and denied ever making it in the first place (so I provided him his quote), but as you can see from the post I just quoted from today, is still making up things no one has ever said.

Dude, I think you have Aspergers. Might wanna get checked out.

Quote from: Weru;758902and made a load of rules I thought were strange back when I started the hobby all of a sudden make sense. yet I never felt the need to tell anyone this is how we should all play now.

Oh, hell yeah.  GP for XP, hirelings, association rules, encumbrance, training times and most of the age-related stuff, hell, tons of stuff makes sense from the "grognard" POV that is totally asinine from the "munchkin" view.

My "old-school awakening" (which predated the OSR, it was the early/mid-90s for me) strongly informed how I approach new RPGs, as I now don't assume that something that seems nonsensical is the fault of the author, but rather is something I'm not grasping.

My interest in 5e is pretty much based around how much I can play "grognard style" with it.  If it's strongly biased towards a 2e ("munchkin") style, then it's less interesting to me.  I mean, I ain't gonna rant and rave about it, but a cleaned up, modernized ruleset for running that style of game would be of interest for me.

I frankly doubt that's 5e's primary target, though, and it probably *shouldn't* be, as that's not what most people associate RPGs with any more.

Quote from: Skywalker;758913By adding in this new subjective qualifier, all you are doing is proving the original comment by CRKrueger. You have just tried to redefine "OSR Taliban" as everyone who criticises 5e. Because if someone criticises 5e, you will invariably go to absurd lengths to attack that person. If they defend the criticism, you consider them to be going to equally absurd lengths. You then call them OSR Taliban. Which is exactly what CRKrueger said was happening.

Honestly, nobody seemed to be giving you shit until you started going on the "WotC will make me break the law and put me in jail if I don't want to use their errata!" angle.

From an outside view (5e's interesting to me, but as I've said or implied elsewhere, I'm not sold on it) that criticism is stretching pretty damn far.

Quote from: robiswrong;758918Honestly, nobody seemed to be giving you shit until you started going on the "WotC will make me break the law and put me in jail if I don't want to use their errata!" angle.

From an outside view (5e's interesting to me, but as I've said or implied elsewhere, I'm not sold on it) that criticism is stretching pretty damn far.

Which is exactly what I was getting at.  No one accused him for being an OSR Taliban for simply criticizing 5e.  That thread clearly shows him making criticisms for a while and no one accused him of that.  

Ergo, simply criticizing 5e does not bring about accusations of being OSR Taliban like he and CK are so adamant in insisting.

Quote from: robiswrong;758918Honestly, nobody seemed to be giving you shit until you started going on the "WotC will make me break the law and put me in jail if I don't want to use their errata!" angle.

From an outside view (5e's interesting to me, but as I've said or implied elsewhere, I'm not sold on it) that criticism is stretching pretty damn far.

I made a number of related criticisms around Basic PDF and errata management. Only that one got much discussion as Sacrosanct took it (and conspicuously not the others) to absurd levels. Hell, I even admitted that the likelihood of any legal action from WotC is very low, so I am not sure how it can be claimed that I went to absurd levels with it.

Quote from: Brad;758914Dude, I think you have Aspergers. Might wanna get checked out.

I was answering a question.  Your post makes no sense.

Quote from: Skywalker;758921I made a number of related criticisms around Basic PDF and errata management. Only that one got much discussion as Sacrosanct took it (and conspicuously not the others) to absurd levels. Hell, I even admitted that the likelihood of any legal action from WotC is very low, so I am not sure how it can be claimed that I went to absurd levels with it.

Go look at that thread again, because it's not just me that was going "man what" with your posts at the end.

You're just a big bucket of revisionist history, aren't you?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758923Go look at that thread again, because it's not just me that was going "man what" with your posts at the end.

FWIW I have. I just wish you would do the same. All those comments you refer to are responding to the one criticism I made that you argued to absurd levels. None of my other criticisms have been discussed.

Sorry dude, you can't blame me because many other people keyed in on your absurd reasoning against the errata.  I don't have that kind of control over people, as much as I'd like to.

It has nothing to do with control. Just the sheer amount of posts you are willing to generate.

There was this wise man by the name of Rodney King...

:D

Let's pretend for a moment there are some people who fit this definition of an OSR Taliban.

I don't care.

What I do care about is that those people create cool shit that they share, that they post cool ideas, and that I can use those things with 5e, maybe with a few tweaks.

Even if they're just talking about their OSR games, if it's good, it will probably inspire me to create interesting things for my 5e game as well.

I just don't see the point in making those people feel like they're not wanted, in marginalizing them and their views, or in putting the beat-down on them.  They don't deserve it, they're my peers regardless of what edition they are playing, and it's counter-productive.

Quote from: Mistwell;758934Let's pretend for a moment there are some people who fit this definition of an OSR Taliban.

I don't care.

What I do care about is that those people create cool shit that they share, that they post cool ideas, and that I can use those things with 5e, maybe with a few tweaks.

Even if they're just talking about their OSR games, if it's good, it will probably inspire me to create interesting things for my 5e game as well.

I just don't see the point in making those people feel like they're not wanted, in marginalizing them and their views, or in putting the beat-down on them.  They don't deserve it, they're my peers regardless of what edition they are playing, and it's counter-productive.

FWIW, I wouldn't put too much merit in a handful of people on this site about what they think is or isn't OSR because they don't own that term, and there are plenty of other "Old school" players out there who are more than welcoming of 5e.

For example, I have my Felk Mor superdungeon, designed specifically in the old school style (art direction, sandbox, no requirement of minis/battlemaps, streamlined options, etc) using the 5e ruleset, and I've received tons of positive feedback from "Old School" players.  I.e., for every person like Cadriel who says I can't possibly play 5e in a true OSR style, I have a dozen other self-identifying OSR players who have told me they are really looking forward to it.  G+ groups are a wonderful thing, when keeping some things in perspective.

Quote from: robiswrong;758916My interest in 5e is pretty much based around how much I can play "grognard style" with it.  If it's strongly biased towards a 2e ("munchkin") style, then it's less interesting to me.  I mean, I ain't gonna rant and rave about it, but a cleaned up, modernized ruleset for running that style of game would be of interest for me.

I frankly doubt that's 5e's primary target, though, and it probably *shouldn't* be, as that's not what most people associate RPGs with any more.

2e is "munchkin" style? Ok, but don't be all that surprised when very few would agree since it is a different game then D&D. AD&D has slightly different assumptions but munchkiny isn't one of them, now 3e OTOH.....

But you're right about 5e and what and who it should cater to without purposely being exclusionary to the non-primary targets.

Quote from: Marleycat;7589402e is "munchkin" style? Ok, but don't be all that surprised when very few would agree since it is a different game then D&D. AD&D has slightly different assumptions but munchkiny isn't one of them, now 3e OTOH.....

By "munchkin" I simply mean the style of play that grew out of the kids (myself included) that picked up the game in the early 80s or late 70s, as opposed to the wargamers it originated with.

Quote from: robiswrong;758941By "munchkin" I simply mean the style of play that grew out of the kids (myself included) that picked up the game in the early 80s or late 70s, as opposed to the wargamers it originated with.

Ahh, I misunderstood a bit. Working under that definition I completely understand and agree.

Munchkin is a cool game, I play it at a café I go to. If by OSR Taliban, it means those guys that were in their early twenties when I was just a kid in '79 when I started to play; yeah, screw them, they were a bunch of dickheads.

So its now the OSR Taliban versus the I5I5 5aviors?

We've come a long way baby!!!

Quote from: Brad;758914Dude, I think you have Aspergers. Might wanna get checked out.

Aspergers doesnt exist anymore. Got removed from the DSM, probably due to the sheer number of internet wankheads self-diagnosing themselves with it because they cant tell the difference between not being able to comprehend unspoken social norms and just being an asshole.

Quote from: TristramEvans;758978Aspergers doesnt exist anymore. Got removed from the DSM, probably due to the sheer number of internet wankheads self-diagnosing themselves with it because they cant tell the difference between not being able to comprehend unspoken social norms and just being an asshole.

I told the fools that there'd come a day when I'd be called righteous and genius, not a madman, for calling them out on having Assburgers!

Quote from: robiswrong;758941By "munchkin" I simply mean the style of play that grew out of the kids (myself included) that picked up the game in the early 80s or late 70s, as opposed to the wargamers it originated with.

This is part of the introduction of the OD&D version of D&DG, circa 1976

QuoteThis volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the "Monty Hall" DM's. Perhaps now some of the 'giveaway' campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are. This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters. When Odin, the All-Father has only(?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?

"munchkinism" was invented early on.

I would go as far as saying that it was that Lord Fang (I think that's the name), that guy who was a vampire in Dave Arneson's campaign, who was the first munchkin. Apparently the whole cleric class was invented to spite him.

(And Arduin. That had rules for 100 level characters)

Robiswrong demonstrates the importance of choosing your terminology carefully. Because critical reading is at a premium.

Other than that, I agree 100% with his comments in this thread.

Quote from: Arminius;758983Robiswrong demonstrates the importance of choosing your terminology carefully. Because critical reading is at a premium.

Other than that, I agree 100% with his comments in this thread.

I'm pretty sure that's the origin of the term "munchkin".  It just makes too much sense for it to be a reference to the general diminutive size of the younger players.

It'd be interesting if someone around then actually knows the origins of the term.

Quote from: JeremyR;758981This is part of the introduction of the OD&D version of D&DG, circa 1976

I can only speculate what the authors would have thought of WotC era D&D.

I first encountered the term munchkin in the early 90s used in reference to combat-centric players who were all about abusing pointbuy chargen to create superninjabadasses with no logic behind them. No idea of its previous origins, but that usage was pretty consistent whenever I encountered the term in reference to rpgs over the 20 years hence.

TE is right. Probably because abusing mechanics, treating NPCs as non-persons, and ignoring setting logic while amassing, gold, XP, and magic items was commonly found among younger players, and maybe because it was "small minded and petty." See "Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins," a humorous n-fold taxonomy of RPG players dating at least to the mid-80s.

Robiswrong's "munchkin" refers to a more general group.

Quote from: JeremyR;758981I would go as far as saying that it was that Lord Fang (I think that's the name), that guy who was a vampire in Dave Arneson's campaign, who was the first munchkin. Apparently the whole cleric class was invented to spite him.

(And Arduin. That had rules for 100 level characters)

So "trying new shit" and "adding more shit to counteract unintended consequences of something we pulled out of our asses in ten minutes" is now being a "munchkin" and "inventing to spite"?

Instead of "trying stuff" and "reacting to changes?"

Fuck everybody.  Fuck the whole fucking hobby.  Fuck the Internet.  Fuck sentient life.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759017Fuck everybody.  Fuck the whole fucking hobby.  Fuck the Internet.  Fuck sentient life.

... I'm pretty sure that's a good way to pick up a disease.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759017So "trying new shit" and "adding more shit to counteract unintended consequences of something we pulled out of our asses in ten minutes" is now being a "munchkin" and "inventing to spite"?

Instead of "trying stuff" and "reacting to changes?"

Fuck everybody.  Fuck the whole fucking hobby.  Fuck the Internet.  Fuck sentient life.

Remember the game "telephone"? The modern version is called the internet.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759017Fuck everybody.  Fuck the whole fucking hobby.  Fuck the Internet.  Fuck sentient life.

I am pleased to announce the foundation of the OSR ISIS.

Join our most holy jihad

All of the infidels will play 3LBB inshallah

Anyone else feel like you're watching a bunch of folks arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758834While I don't think Sacrosanct is as innocent as he likes to pretend, I also think some of you are being willfully ignorant.

There are about a half dozen guys who do the same thing over and over.

1. Some bit of information about 5e comes out.
2. Come out of the woodwork to talk about how that is the worst thing ever.
3. A few 5e fans explain why they think it isn't the worst thing ever, sometimes pulling more recent information to show how the suspicions of people are wrong.
4. Double down on ridiculousness (Omg, its illegal to share a free pdf between my friends!).
5. Eventually get quiet.
6. Wait for next bit of information about 5e to come out.
7. Repeat.

You know, if people did this once, it would be one thing. But when its the same people doing it over and over, you start to get the idea that they are just looking for things to bitch about. And I can get why the "5aviors" get tired of it.

And your primary exhibit of anti-5e-with-agenda is me? I'm on record for being positively disposed to the 5e modules, for cutting the new digital iniative some slack, for liking Rob Conley's playtest report, and staying out of nearly all the controversy threads on PDF file sharing, weapon dmg tables etc etc. The only 5e thing I reacted strongly to was Pundit's trolling of the board and his fellow mods, one of whom has apparently left this board as a result.

But I'm glad you clarified your level of reading comprehension for us.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;758858I'll try to find some spots later. I've go to go pick up my daughter from camp. I could be wrong, it could just be an impression I get because you two seem to go at it a lot from my perspective, and sometimes for no real good reason. You seem to want to bring up that he disagreed with your statement in a way that characterized your point badly (but so did your original statement, your actual point, stated later on, actually did make sense), and he refused to accept your later clarification of your point.

And this has now gotten brought up in about every thread. I think sometimes he mentions it first, sometimes you mention it first. It just is getting ridiculous.

OK, I can understand this. My original wording was poor, but even with that poor wording most people understood what I was saying and didn't suddenly conflate character creation with character optimization - which is straw man that has been attributed to me and it is a lie.

Now, shortly after that, I put 5acrosanct on Ignore because I've gotten tired of his intellectual dishonesty. However, when I see him keep bringing my name up in quoted text still lying about my post and opinion of 5E. It gets tiresome and I get annoyed. I should probably develop a thicker skin, but 5acrosanct is fixated on me and one of the things I like about this place is that I can call an asshole an asshole when they act like one.

This is all backwards.

The Taliban are revolutionaries, trying to undermine the existing order and force people to do things their way, hoping and working for the day when all other ways of doing things are forgotten.

Old school is the Western world, and D&D5e is the Taliban.

Seriously!

Quote from: TristramEvans;758987I first encountered the term munchkin in the early 90s used in reference to combat-centric players who were all about abusing pointbuy chargen to create superninjabadasses with no logic behind them. No idea of its previous origins, but that usage was pretty consistent whenever I encountered the term in reference to rpgs over the 20 years hence.

First written article using the term seems to be around the early 90s. When I first heard of the term it was very derogatory and aimed at players who were out to get "the most stuff" or "win" the game somehow by outclassing everyone else. Before that Monty Haul Players was used instead far as I recall.

So guess the 90s was then the transition occurred.

And outside gaming the term is indeed still used to refer to children.

heh, Found this on a search which sums it up fairly well.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;759045This is all backwards.

The Taliban are revolutionaries, trying to undermine the existing order and force people to do things their way, hoping and working for the day when all other ways of doing things are forgotten.

Old school is the Western world, and D&D5e is the Taliban.

Seriously!

Nah the Taliban are a bunch of revolutionaries who are unhappy with the current world order and want to return to a fictionalised version of the past as idealized in their interpretation of the holy book and a number of second hand reports of the teachings and behavior of a now dead messianic figure who first delivered the Truth to the people.

They started out small but have grown in number through a number of viral memes which largely focus on the perceived moral superiority of their interpretation of The Law.

With the help of the CIA they then managed to overthrow Soviet occupation and established an afghan state founded on their core principles.

In all these features they are very similar to parts of the OSR and other reactionary groups like the Tea party and UKIP.

Gronanism (usually uncountable, plural gronanisms)

1: A masturbatory act of self-importance
2: Pulling something out of one's own ass in the failed expectation that others will enthusiastically kowtow before it
3: Subsequent feelings of butthurt resulting from #2

Quote from: jeff37923;759042OK, I can understand this. My original wording was poor, but even with that poor wording most people understood what I was saying and didn't suddenly conflate character creation with character optimization - which is straw man that has been attributed to me and it is a lie.

It's not a strawman if no one made it.  Once again, making up arguments no one actually ever said.  If there is only a term for that... This would be irony.  Again.

Unless of course you can show a quote where someone conflated general character generation with charopping?  The closest anyone ever came was saying that if you say chargen is the entire purpose of the game, then that's what charoppers say.

You keep repeating this lie as if eventually it will become true.  It won't.

QuoteNow, shortly after that, I put 5acrosanct on Ignore because I've gotten tired of his intellectual dishonesty. .

Yay, doubleing down on the irony.  Of the two of us, I believe I have been the one to have repeatedly shown you quotes of the things you denied ever saying, and you are the one who hasn't been able to show one single quote of people saying what you're accusing them of.

No one's called you a filthy denner just for saying chargen was important, like you said.  No one's conflated general chargen with charopping.  The list goes on.  And insisting on spelling my name with an "5" like you're witty or something doesn't exactly put you on the ivory tower of intellectual integrity.

So you're either bonefide delusional, or it's you who is being incredibly dishonest.

Okay, Usenet of course is going to have the earliest sources online; that's where I first saw the Real Roleplayers article. So I did a search and found these:

http://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.frp/Real$20men$20loonies$20munchkins/rec.games.frp/bUYvvbiQgkc/YufAU5wYzpsJ

http://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.frp/Real$20men$20loonies$20munchkins/rec.games.frp/bYLOJyZY3Jk/GEbVSa3yvEkJ

http://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.frp/Real$20men$20loonies$20munchkins/rec.games.frp/8nLw2eXfiHo/eU4Njz3NRdcJ

Hopefully the links work. Note the posts to back to 4/91. Troy Kammerdiener reports seeing it "a few years back" on the SJG Games BBS, which would take it back to the late 80s. The article itself says the 4-part breakdown was compiled in 1983. I think the way the term is introduced in the article without explanation suggests that it was "common knowledge" at the time which would push it back even earlier, but you can judge for yourself.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;759045This is all backwards.

The Taliban are revolutionaries, trying to undermine the existing order and force people to do things their way, hoping and working for the day when all other ways of doing things are forgotten.

Old school is the Western world, and D&D5e is the Taliban.

Seriously!

Has anyone on this board who is optimistic about 5E said other editions or other ways of playing are bad? Even one comment? It's clear who feels threatened here and who has the narrowest conception of what can be tolerated as fun. 90 per cent of the negativity, bitching, and criticism of other games and styles on this board comes from a few vocal grognards.

Quote from: Ravenswing;759029Anyone else feel like you're watching a bunch of folks arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

  Not really. But I do medieval theology as a vocation, and while that was never actually discussed, it does raise some interesting questions about the nature of space, location, and spirit.

  This feels more like watching the National Assembly at the height of the Terror, when everyone's competing to see who can be more revolutionary and denounce their opponents as Enemies of the People. :)

More like a bunch of losers arguing over shit that doesn't matter, but hey, that's the Internet for ya. :)

Quote from: Chainsaw;759109More like a bunch of losers arguing over shit that doesn't matter, but hey, that's the Internet for ya. :)

This would make you one of us losers, you realize?

Quote from: Mistwell;759112This would make you one of us losers, you realize?

We can smell our own.

Quote from: Mistwell;759112This would make you one of us losers, you realize?

Somebody give this guy another biscuit.

Quote from: Mistwell;758934Let's pretend for a moment there are some people who fit this definition of an OSR Taliban.

I don't care.

What I do care about is that those people create cool shit that they share, that they post cool ideas, and that I can use those things with 5e, maybe with a few tweaks.

Even if they're just talking about their OSR games, if it's good, it will probably inspire me to create interesting things for my 5e game as well.

I just don't see the point in making those people feel like they're not wanted, in marginalizing them and their views, or in putting the beat-down on them.  They don't deserve it, they're my peers regardless of what edition they are playing, and it's counter-productive.

This.

VS

Quote from: Arminius;759081I think the way the term is introduced in the article without explanation suggests that it was "common knowledge" at the time which would push it back even earlier, but you can judge for yourself.

Yeah, I agree.  I guess where I'm going is:

1) Why the term "munchkin"?
2) Given the connotation of size inherent in the term, does that suggest an etymology that originates with children entering the hobby?

By applying the term to the style of game that originated with the kids entering the hobby in the early 80s (or earlier), I guess I'm trying to rehabilitate it to some extent, and to have terms to differentiate the pre-80s playstyle from the style that became dominant through the 80s leading up to 2e and, arguably up to the 3e era.

edit - Ha!  Wikipedia suggests that the term did in fact originate as a term used by older players to describe younger ones, though I don't have the ability to get to the actual article (published in Interactive Fantasy Issue 2, 1994):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)

The whole us vs. them thing is simple to resolve.

• You believe the terms being used to describe your camp is offensive.  That's fine, but don't engage in the same behavior then.  If it's okay for you to offend the other camp with insulting terms, don't try to act all offended if they do the same.  Apply the golden rule in your life, and also let your peers know you won't tolerate them insulting those outside your camp.
  
  
• You believe the terms being thrown around are nothing but "trash talk" and hyperbole, or satirical parody.  Okay, fine, then don't get offended by anything the other camp says.  Let it roll off your back and treat it as harmless hyperbole, just more of "Yo Mamma" .  If for instance it was okay for the Pundit to call Storygamers "Swine" and you accepted that as acceptable hyperbole, the "OSR Taliban" statement is just another part of that aimed at another target closer to your heart.  And if you use insulting terms like 'tard, Taliban, Fundie, Nazi, whatever, in jest, don't come crying when that camp does it back.
  

You have to apply one philosophy or another here.

Quote from: robiswrong;759117Yeah, I agree.  I guess where I'm going is:

1) Why the term "munchkin"?

I'm more curious about that since that only brings to mind two things.

• The Wizard of Oz and their little people.
• "Donut Holes" from Dunkin Dounts.

Neither give me a vision of power gamers or Monty Haul style campaigns.

Quote from: JRT;759119I'm more curious about that since that only brings to mind two things.

• The Wizard of Oz and their little people.
• "Donut Holes" from Dunkin Dounts.

Neither give me a vision of power gamers or Monty Haul style campaigns.

Right, which is why my hypothesis is that "munchkin" originally referred primarily to younger kids (as a reference to their size and annoyingness), and over time became attached to the way that the kids played, regardless of who was actually doing it.

And in the 30 years that have passed, the original meaning got lost, and we were left with the only commonly used meaning being about the playstyle.

Quote from: JRT;759118The whole us vs. them thing is simple to resolve.

• You believe the terms being used to describe your camp is offensive.  That's fine, but don't engage in the same behavior then.  If it's okay for you to offend the other camp with insulting terms, don't try to act all offended if they do the same.  Apply the golden rule in your life, and also let your peers know you won't tolerate them insulting those outside your camp.
  
  
• You believe the terms being thrown around are nothing but "trash talk" and hyperbole, or satirical parody.  Okay, fine, then don't get offended by anything the other camp says.  Let it roll off your back and treat it as harmless hyperbole, just more of "Yo Mamma" .  If for instance it was okay for the Pundit to call Storygamers "Swine" and you accepted that as acceptable hyperbole, the "OSR Taliban" statement is just another part of that aimed at another target closer to your heart.  And if you use insulting terms like 'tard, Taliban, Fundie, Nazi, whatever, in jest, don't come crying when that camp does it back.
  

You have to apply one philosophy or another here.

I would boil it down even simpler than that.

It's a fucking game that you like to play.  If someone cares what people they don't really know think about what they like to play, then they need to examine why external validation is so important to them.

This doesn't mean you can't have a strong opinion, and share it.  It's the receiver who chooses to give it power, or not.  

Nut up and grow a skin thicker than paper mache.  First-world problems.  Who gives a fuck if Pundit wants to embarrass himself with some dumbass categorization?

Robiswrong--

I don't know when I first heard or read the term. I played my first game of D&D about 1976; friends were reading the Dragon; I attended my first con probably around 80-82 on the East Coast. Jeff Okamoto et. al. had their munchkin conversation in Oakland in 1983. I attended college, interacted with a new set of gamers, and went to a couple other cons. I started reading rec.games.frp heavily in 1987; I also read the SJG BBS, and I'm sure I had read the "Real Men" article by 91 at the latest.

The point is I can't say exactly when I first heard the term but it always had a natural connotation of small-minded, immature play focused on "winning" and gaining power. I never had a sense that it would refer to younger players if they played some other way, or that it couldn't refer to an older player.

A friend of mine has a different way of referring to the phenomenon you're talking about; I think he calls it the Red Box Generation (in which he includes himself). It obviously precedes Mentzer but the idea is the group of people who got into D&D with little prior wargaming experience. Obviously with the Basic sets culminating with Mentzer this population got larger and larger and younger & younger. But I don't think anyone ever associated "munchkin" with story-plotted play. In fact if anything that was considered "sophisticated" or on the flipside, boring and pretentious, but not immature.

Also, gaming culture moved very quickly in its early days. I don't know when the OSR people really started playing or what moment some of them are trying to recreate, but if someone claims that D&D play was always as diverse as it was in 1980, they're committing a fallacy.

Well, shit, I hate to miss an edition release implosion, but I am busy right now.

Anyway, someone made this for me, I'll share it with you.
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/5d1f4e899afc50f9bed5a339dc285372_zpse7d4f6fa.jpg)

Quote from: Arminius;759145A friend of mine has a different way of referring to the phenomenon you're talking about; I think he calls it the Red Box Generation (in which he includes himself). It obviously precedes Mentzer but the idea is the group of people who got into D&D with little prior wargaming experience. Obviously with the Basic sets culminating with Mentzer this population got larger and larger and younger & younger. But I don't think anyone ever associated "munchkin" with story-plotted play. In fact if anything that was considered "sophisticated" or on the flipside, boring and pretentious, but not immature.

Yeah, the term "muchkin" clearly doesn't refer to story-oriented play.  But I think story-oriented (in the DragonLance sense) play is an evolution in many ways of the "Red Box Generation" of players.

Some mates of mine that got into gaming for the first time five years back because of Labyrinth Lord, one of which is running her first game very soon (and are generally now enthusiastic gamers without even knowing who WOTC are) didn't believe me that 'gaming politics' was big enough to be any part of anything outside of real life.  I linked them to this thread.  No one cares.

Quote from: Gib;759196Well, shit, I hate to miss an edition release implosion, but I am busy right now.

Anyway, someone made this for me, I'll share it with you.
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/5d1f4e899afc50f9bed5a339dc285372_zpse7d4f6fa.jpg)

Hahahah!

Quote from: Haffrung;759090Has anyone on this board who is optimistic about 5E said other editions or other ways of playing are bad? Even one comment? It's clear who feels threatened here and who has the narrowest conception of what can be tolerated as fun. 90 per cent of the negativity, bitching, and criticism of other games and styles on this board comes from a few vocal grognards.

Eyup. The worst thing you could say of the 5E crowd is that they are overly positive and enthusiastic about the new edition to the point where they deny it has any flaws at all. I'm just not seeing anyone saying you must convert to the new edition or else! Or even that its the best edition evarrr...

Quote from: Gib;759196Well, shit, I hate to miss an edition release implosion, but I am busy right now.

Anyway, someone made this for me, I'll share it with you.
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/5d1f4e899afc50f9bed5a339dc285372_zpse7d4f6fa.jpg)

Quoted for awesomeness.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759059Nah the Taliban are a bunch of revolutionaries who are unhappy with the current world order and want to return to a fictionalised version of the past as idealized in their interpretation of the holy book and a number of second hand reports of the teachings and behavior of a now dead messianic figure who first delivered the Truth to the people.

They started out small but have grown in number through a number of viral memes which largely focus on the perceived moral superiority of their interpretation of The Law.

With the help of the CIA they then managed to overthrow Soviet occupation and established an afghan state founded on their core principles.

In all these features they are very similar to parts of the OSR and other reactionary groups like the Tea party and UKIP.

You missed the Robin Hood angle too. OSR is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor! (By making them pay for the stolen goods. But thats totally beside the point! We stole from the RICH!) :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;759257You missed the Robin Hood angle too. OSR is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor! (By making them pay for the stolen goods. But thats totally beside the point! We stole from the RICH!) :rolleyes:

You may be one of those who isn't aware that there are really two groups of old school players: the group that tends to hang out on G+/blogs that kind of took off after 2007 - 2008; and an older old-school scene typified by forums like Dragonsfoot and K&KA (these are the "close-clone enthusiasts" that Pundit likes to bitch about, although he tends to lump everyone all together like a 19th century european explorer who can't tell the natives apart).

There is some venn diagram-style overlap between the two, but most of the forum folks have little clue about the G+ crowd that visibly flies the OSR flag, and most of the bloggers/G+ crowd has little love for the forum folks.

One distinguishing feature of the older forum scene is that their works are shared for free.  No one is asking any money.  In fact, since they are generally playing the original games, it is basically a requirement of the tacit agreement with WotC that allows the forum folks to create fan content with all the IP of the original games posted directly on the forums, that such content MUST be free.

Now the tinkerers/G+ crowd also gives away a lot of free stuff - there is a metric tonne of free gaming stuff on their blog posts and such - but once they take that material and "innovate" with it, as Pundit is so verbose in his appreciation of, they usually charge for it (although it is not uncommon for at least the PDFs to be free).

So depending on how you use "OSR" (because that definition no two people seem to agree on), if you think that all of the old school scene is trying to make money off of other people's games, I would point you to threads like this on Dragonsfoot, which has linked to 193 free adventures on that site and elsewhere.  Also, the decade-old eZine that DF publishes, Footprints, is on the site and available for free.

193 free adventures thread at DF (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=60472)

So although I don't disagree entirely with your post, I want lurkers and those not closely affiliated with the old school scene to know that - at least for direct non-innovative clones and the original games - the content is generally free (with some exceptions, usually dead-tree modules for said clones and such).

Great post and information. So what now? OOSR/NOSR?

Quote from: Marleycat;759265Great post and information. So what now? OOSR/NOSR?

The Dire Osrnosr. We need stats for this!

Quote from: EOTB;759263So although I don't disagree entirely with your post, I want lurkers and those not closely affiliated with the old school scene to know that - at least for direct non-innovative clones and the original games - the content is generally free (with some exceptions, usually dead-tree modules for said clones and such).

heh, I am aware a darn good chunk of OSR is free. The pay to play jab was mostly aimed at a particular individual who used the "Robin Hood" line on me and threw a fit when it was pointed out he was charging people for it rather than sharing it. That and it was pretty lackluster "work" at exorberant prices.

Seen worse. Much worse.

Quote from: Marleycat;759265Great post and information. So what now? OOSR/NOSR?

I'm not really keen on any label, since they just tend to be co-opted by people who may or may not be like minds, anyway.

I would just say that there are large numbers of people who have loved to play 1E/0E/BX for decades, don't want a new game, and have little interest in RPGs of WotC-era and later.  

The original games deserve to truly live, and be supported, so long as there are large numbers of people who enjoy them as their gaming experience of choice.  Not relegated to being fondly remembered as the clunky progenitors, or spiritual godfathers, of Arrows of Indra or LotFP while they sit unused on the bookshelf.  As much as pundit bitches about the first clones, they weren't necessarily intended to be played as games.  They were intended to provide a legal harbor to a market of for-profit module and accessory support for those original games - the document(s) had to be written for that intention to come to fruition.  The later-wave neo-clones might be roughly compatible, but they are not the same in varying significant ways.  The whole "I would rather buy OSRIC than 1E and play it as a game in and of itself" phenomenon was 100% unanticipated, and not a goal of that particular project, at least. (edit - please note, I am not a contributor to the OSRIC document and do not speak for its authors, although I am acquainted with many of them).  

The guys who put together OSRIC are the first ones to tell people that they recommend buying the 1E books if someone hasn't already, because they think that Gary's authorial voice is an important part of experiencing 1E, even if it isn't always precise in transmission.  Most of the contributors to OSRIC don't use it at their tables except possibly a minor few as a secondary reference.

Quote from: EOTB;759277I'm not really keen on any label, since they just tend to be co-opted by people who may or may not be like minds, anyway.

I would just say that there are large numbers of people who have loved to play 1E/0E/BX for decades, don't want a new game, and have little interest in RPGs of WotC-era and later.  

The original games deserve to truly live, and be supported, so long as there are large numbers of people who enjoy them as their gaming experience of choice.  Not relegated to being fondly remembered as the clunky progenitors, or spiritual godfathers, of Arrows of Indra or LotFP while they sit unused on the bookshelf.  As much as pundit bitches about the first clones, they weren't necessarily intended to be played as games.  They were intended to provide a legal harbor to a market of for-profit module and accessory support for those original games - the document(s) had to be written for that intention to come to fruition.  The later-wave neo-clones might be roughly compatible, but they are not the same in varying significant ways.  The whole "I would rather buy OSRIC than 1E and play it as a game in and of itself" phenomenon was 100% unanticipated, and not a goal of that particular project, at least. (edit - please note, I am not a contributor to the OSRIC document and do not speak for its authors, although I am acquainted with many of them).  

The guys who put together OSRIC are the first ones to tell people that they recommend buying the 1E books if someone hasn't already, because they think that Gary's authorial voice is an important part of experiencing 1E, even if it isn't always precise in transmission.  Most of the contributors to OSRIC don't use it at their tables except possibly a minor few as a secondary reference.

Sounds fine by me. Why can't other OSR guys just be level headed and real like yourself? You are talking to me not at or down to me. The OSR/NOSR was a joke by the way.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;759097This feels more like watching the National Assembly at the height of the Terror, when everyone's competing to see who can be more revolutionary and denounce their opponents as Enemies of the People. :)

Heh, I like your analogy better than mine.  Yeah, that suits.

Quote from: Marleycat;759278Sounds fine by me. Why can't other OSR guys just be level headed and real like yourself? You are talking to me not at or down to me. The OSR/NOSR was a joke by the way.

I didn't take it wrong, no worries.  

I'll cop to a real undercurrent of snobbery(?), for lack of a precise term, in a fair amount of old schoolers.  I think it has a lot of disparate reasons.

1) there's nothing worse than a convert, and a lot of those who either came back to old school after spending years playing d20 or 4E, or learned about the guts of it for the first time (sometimes both) drank long and hard from the kool-aid.  It's not just the game they like, it's a revelation.

2) it is tiring to some to hear jabs at the older games for non-unified mechanics, or what have you.  Unified mechanics may be simple but there is a loss of precision, or flavor.  Doesn't matter, really - different strokes for different folks - but we all are a bit protective of the things we hold dear, and most of the people remaining who didn't bother to switch in all this time really like what they play.  As probably the example of greatest depth in the effect of lots of differing sub-systems, 1E is very balanced but in a rock-paper-scissors kind of way, not an "everyone shines equally throughout the level cycle" way that unified mechanics can help facilitate.

3) As Robiswrong talked about up thread, there is a real difference between play as typified in the 80's and later, and earlier play - everyone might have been using mostly the same rulebook, but they weren't really playing the same game.  The points of emphasis were very, very different.

(My theory - not that it matters - is that the RPGA drove the play style change from tactical adventure game to heavy role-play, because they were the loud voice that TSR was listening to, and writing tons of letters to Dragon magazine.  And they may have been the ones willing to pay annual dues and wear a TSR lapel pin, but they were NOT the casual gamer who was fueling the TSR boom period)

And unless that type of play was experienced at the time, many people who aren't on those old-school boards, or deciphering scraps of paper scavenged from Arneson's storage unit, don't even understand that play at a basic level. So it can be frustrating to see people complain about what they see as useless cruft.  

I'll give a quick example.  Common complaint in D&D is the all powerful magic-user/mage/wizard/sorcerer whatever-the-fuck, right?  People say D&D is broken because the wizard rules all after a certain level.

Now, lots of people if they play 1E drop the Weapon versus AC type table as too fiddly and hard to remember.  But go look at the column for AC type 10.  It's pretty much all bonuses to hit for every weapon.  Now, what AC type are single classed wizards almost always going to be?  AC type 10.  They can have a dexterity of 18, a shield spell, a ring of protection +6, and bracers of AC -4 but they're still AC type 10 .  So that pretty much boils down to a rule of "everyone has a bonus to hit wizards in combat".  Then, when fighters get multiple attack routines (either at level 1 with specialization, or, if that rule isn't used, at level 7) they don't even have to roll initiative against a wizard if they can close to melee with him; the fighter automatically goes first at the start of every other round, and that eventually goes up to every round after a few more levels.  The fighter can beat the snot out of that wizard if the spell chucker is dumb enough to cast a spell instead of using a magic item like a wand.

Wizards aren't overpowered in D&D, fighters just get shafted by taking out all the fiddly bits that give them advantages.  Even the much maligned speed factor rules are designed so that on a tied initiative roll (when they even have to roll initiative against a wizard in melee), the fighter is going to go first most times unless the wizard is casting 1st or 2nd level spells, or verbal-only type spells.

Hell, look at open hand bonus; it's +4 to hit AC type 10 with a speed factor of 1.  Now go look at the monk's movement rate (can flank a shield wall in open terrain and get in melee with a back-rank wizard), and then the rules for stunning in 1E, and lastly the saving throw bonuses/class abilities of the monk.  Also don't forget that monks are one of the few classes other than fighters and their sub-classes to get that all-important multiple attack routines that allow them to go before the initiative roll on at least some rounds, and that they were errata'd to use the pretty favorable cleric to-hit charts.  Mid-level monks are basically designed to kill wizards like a farmer reaping wheat at harvest.

Anyway, I digress.  I guess my main point is I hear you.  Lots of old school gamers feel that other gamers just don't get it, and it bleeds through in too many conversations.  it's bled through in a lot of mine.  I'm not immune.  But if someone doesn't really grok a tactical combat style of D&D, than 1E might not be the game for them.  A later edition, or something streamlined like B/X, might be better for their type of game, and that's fine.  Everybody play what they like.  But people are damned sensitive about roleplaying games for some reason.

Edit - hell, my main hangout is Knights and Knaves Alehouse, reputed on the internets as the most intolerant, orthodox, closed-minded bastion of old school play there is.  And that isn't really true - it's more like we have no patience for people who can't take time to read the site rules; the site was founded for a very specific purpose as compared to here, and we do talk smack about other games like sports fans will talk about competing teams - but I can't say that reputation really bothers me, either ;)

Quote from: EOTB;759289I didn't take it wrong, no worries.  

I'll cop to a real undercurrent of snobbery(?), for lack of a precise term, in a fair amount of old schoolers.  I think it has a lot of disparate reasons.

1) there's nothing worse than a convert, and a lot of those who either came back to old school after spending years playing d20 or 4E, or learned about the guts of it for the first time (sometimes both) drank long and hard from the kool-aid.  It's not just the game they like, it's a revelation.

2) it is tiring to some to hear jabs at the older games for non-unified mechanics, or what have you.  Unified mechanics may be simple but there is a loss of precision, or flavor.  Doesn't matter, really - different strokes for different folks - but we all are a bit protective of the things we hold dear, and most of the people remaining who didn't bother to switch in all this time really like what they play.  As probably the example of greatest depth in the effect of lots of differing sub-systems, 1E is very balanced but in a rock-paper-scissors kind of way, not an "everyone shines equally throughout the level cycle" way that unified mechanics can help facilitate.

3) As Robiswrong talked about up thread, there is a real difference between play as typified in the 80's and later, and earlier play - everyone might have been using mostly the same rulebook, but they weren't really playing the same game.  The points of emphasis were very, very different.

(My theory - not that it matters - is that the RPGA drove the play style change from tactical adventure game to heavy role-play, because they were the loud voice that TSR was listening to, and writing tons of letters to Dragon magazine.  And they may have been the ones willing to pay annual dues and wear a TSR lapel pin, but they were NOT the casual gamer who was fueling the TSR boom period)

And unless that type of play was experienced at the time, many people who aren't on those old-school boards, or deciphering scraps of paper scavenged from Arneson's storage unit, don't even understand that play at a basic level. So it can be frustrating to see people complain about what they see as useless cruft.  

I'll give a quick example.  Common complaint in D&D is the all powerful magic-user/mage/wizard/sorcerer whatever-the-fuck, right?  People say D&D is broken because the wizard rules all after a certain level.

Now, lots of people if they play 1E drop the Weapon versus AC type table as too fiddly and hard to remember.  But go look at the column for AC type 10.  It's pretty much all bonuses to hit for every weapon.  Now, what AC type are single classed wizards almost always going to be?  AC type 10.  They can have a dexterity of 18, a shield spell, a ring of protection +6, and bracers of AC -4 but they're still AC type 10 .  So that pretty much boils down to a rule of "everyone has a bonus to hit wizards in combat".  Then, when fighters get multiple attack routines (either at level 1 with specialization, or, if that rule isn't used, at level 7) they don't even have to roll initiative against a wizard if they can close to melee with him; the fighter automatically goes first at the start of every other round, and that eventually goes up to every round after a few more levels.  The fighter can beat the snot out of that wizard if the spell chucker is dumb enough to cast a spell instead of using a magic item like a wand.

Wizards aren't overpowered in D&D, fighters just get shafted by taking out all the fiddly bits that give them advantages.  Even the much maligned speed factor rules are designed so that on a tied initiative roll (when they even have to roll initiative against a wizard in melee), the fighter is going to go first most times unless the wizard is casting 1st or 2nd level spells, or verbal-only type spells.

Hell, look at open hand bonus; it's +4 to hit AC type 10 with a speed factor of 1.  Now go look at the monk's movement rate (can flank a shield wall in open terrain and get in melee with a back-rank wizard), and then the rules for stunning in 1E, and lastly the saving throw bonuses/class abilities of the monk.  Also don't forget that monks are one of the few classes other than fighters and their sub-classes to get that all-important multiple attack routines that allow them to go before the initiative roll on at least some rounds, and that they were errata'd to use the pretty favorable cleric to-hit charts.  Mid-level monks are basically designed to kill wizards like a farmer reaping wheat at harvest.

Anyway, I digress.  I guess my main point is I hear you.  Lots of old school gamers feel that other gamers just don't get it, and it bleeds through in too many conversations.  it's bled through in a lot of mine.  I'm not immune.  But if someone doesn't really grok a tactical combat style of D&D, than 1E might not be the game for them.  A later edition, or something streamlined like B/X, might be better for their type of game, and that's fine.  Everybody play what they like.  But people are damned sensitive about roleplaying games for some reason.

Edit - hell, my main hangout is Knights and Knaves Alehouse, reputed on the internets as the most intolerant, orthodox, closed-minded bastion of old school play there is.  And that isn't really true - it's more like we have no patience for people who can't take time to read the site rules; the site was founded for a very specific purpose as compared to here, and we do talk smack about other games like sports fans will talk about competing teams - but I can't say that reputation really bothers me, either ;)

I disagree with quite a lot of that, from the idea that 1e's fiddly localised mechanics are somehow more precise than anything else to your support for the monk with is an entirely meta class that breaks a lot of the inherent D&D systems because it grants things like improved AC through training that a full time professional fighter can't gain to the idea that heavy roleplay focus was driven by the RPGA whereas in reality it was driven by the majority of players.
I even disagree with the idea that people that disagree with 1e rules merely haven't bothered to read or understand them.

However, I will fight to the death to support your right to hold those opinions and to play whatever game you choose to play in whatever way you like, even if you are wrong on the detail :D

Quote from: EOTB;759263You may be one of those who isn't aware that there are really two groups of old school players: the group that tends to hang out on G+/blogs that kind of took off after 2007 - 2008; and an older old-school scene typified by forums like Dragonsfoot and K&KA (these are the "close-clone enthusiasts" that Pundit likes to bitch about, although he tends to lump everyone all together like a 19th century european explorer who can't tell the natives apart).

A couple of points that I want to add to your excellent summary of the situation.

1) Pundit and many other don't get that the "forum" side you talk about is a akin to Chess Club where the focus and indeed the point of its existence is Chess. In case of Dragonsfoot, K&KA, OD&D Forum, etc they are "clubs" focused on classic D&D.  If they get testy or ornery is because dickheads are doing the equivalent of going into the club and telling the chess players they should playing checkers or go. That their game sucks because it is old and obsolete.

2) Pundit failed (and continues to fail as showing by his OSR Taliban rant) to realize there was NEVER any gatekeepers. The Indie Press Revolution was founded when in Print on Demand was infancy and traditional print runs were the only viable recourse for getting hard copy of a book. So naturally it acted as a gatekeeper.

But the OSR was born during the rights of Print on Demand and grew up along side Lulu, and Lightning Source (RPGNow/Drivethru RPG). Plus right in the middle of its initial years, tablets came out making PDFs viable as a primary reading format. By 2010, the possibility of any gatekeeper or bottleneck went down the shitter.

As Pundit demonstrated with Arrows of Indra anybody can just write and get material published. Heck Arrows of Indra demonstrated that you can go with a quasi-traditional publisher-author arrangement to get material out there. Rather than forced to do everything on your own.

Promotion is the only area of the OSR where certain individuals or groups has an outsize impact. Even if a person thoroughly pisses off that group off, they still can't block anybody or even slow down what that person publishes and promotes.

Anybody reading this and willing and can put in the work can have a OSR product out. Can find more than a few people willing to help promote it or help with things like art, layout, edits, etc. They can piss off nearly all of the OSR and still get their project out there.

In fact is somehow they managed to piss off 100% of the OSR there are other groupings of people publishing independently (Fate, etc) that can be tapped for help or promotion.

Quote from: EOTB;759289Knights and Knaves Alehouse, reputed on the internets as the most intolerant, orthodox, closed-minded bastion

K&KA's overshadowed by RPGNet's intolerance and close-mindedness.  Like a cockle overshadowed by a whale.

Quote from: P&P;759323K&KA's overshadowed by RPGNet's intolerance and close-mindedness.  Like a cockle overshadowed by a whale.

I always forget about them because there's no reason to go there :D

Quote from: EOTB;759289I didn't take it wrong, no worries.  

I'll cop to a real undercurrent of snobbery(?), for lack of a precise term, in a fair amount of old schoolers.  I think it has a lot of disparate reasons.

1) there's nothing worse than a convert, and a lot of those who either came back to old school after spending years playing d20 or 4E, or learned about the guts of it for the first time (sometimes both) drank long and hard from the kool-aid.  It's not just the game they like, it's a revelation.

2) it is tiring to some to hear jabs at the older games for non-unified mechanics, or what have you.  Unified mechanics may be simple but there is a loss of precision, or flavor.  Doesn't matter, really - different strokes for different folks - but we all are a bit protective of the things we hold dear, and most of the people remaining who didn't bother to switch in all this time really like what they play.  As probably the example of greatest depth in the effect of lots of differing sub-systems, 1E is very balanced but in a rock-paper-scissors kind of way, not an "everyone shines equally throughout the level cycle" way that unified mechanics can help facilitate.

3) As Robiswrong talked about up thread, there is a real difference between play as typified in the 80's and later, and earlier play - everyone might have been using mostly the same rulebook, but they weren't really playing the same game.  The points of emphasis were very, very different.

(My theory - not that it matters - is that the RPGA drove the play style change from tactical adventure game to heavy role-play, because they were the loud voice that TSR was listening to, and writing tons of letters to Dragon magazine.  And they may have been the ones willing to pay annual dues and wear a TSR lapel pin, but they were NOT the casual gamer who was fueling the TSR boom period)

And unless that type of play was experienced at the time, many people who aren't on those old-school boards, or deciphering scraps of paper scavenged from Arneson's storage unit, don't even understand that play at a basic level. So it can be frustrating to see people complain about what they see as useless cruft.  

I'll give a quick example.  Common complaint in D&D is the all powerful magic-user/mage/wizard/sorcerer whatever-the-fuck, right?  People say D&D is broken because the wizard rules all after a certain level.

Now, lots of people if they play 1E drop the Weapon versus AC type table as too fiddly and hard to remember.  But go look at the column for AC type 10.  It's pretty much all bonuses to hit for every weapon.  Now, what AC type are single classed wizards almost always going to be?  AC type 10.  They can have a dexterity of 18, a shield spell, a ring of protection +6, and bracers of AC -4 but they're still AC type 10 .  So that pretty much boils down to a rule of "everyone has a bonus to hit wizards in combat".  Then, when fighters get multiple attack routines (either at level 1 with specialization, or, if that rule isn't used, at level 7) they don't even have to roll initiative against a wizard if they can close to melee with him; the fighter automatically goes first at the start of every other round, and that eventually goes up to every round after a few more levels.  The fighter can beat the snot out of that wizard if the spell chucker is dumb enough to cast a spell instead of using a magic item like a wand.

Wizards aren't overpowered in D&D, fighters just get shafted by taking out all the fiddly bits that give them advantages.  Even the much maligned speed factor rules are designed so that on a tied initiative roll (when they even have to roll initiative against a wizard in melee), the fighter is going to go first most times unless the wizard is casting 1st or 2nd level spells, or verbal-only type spells.

Hell, look at open hand bonus; it's +4 to hit AC type 10 with a speed factor of 1.  Now go look at the monk's movement rate (can flank a shield wall in open terrain and get in melee with a back-rank wizard), and then the rules for stunning in 1E, and lastly the saving throw bonuses/class abilities of the monk.  Also don't forget that monks are one of the few classes other than fighters and their sub-classes to get that all-important multiple attack routines that allow them to go before the initiative roll on at least some rounds, and that they were errata'd to use the pretty favorable cleric to-hit charts.  Mid-level monks are basically designed to kill wizards like a farmer reaping wheat at harvest.

Anyway, I digress.  I guess my main point is I hear you.  Lots of old school gamers feel that other gamers just don't get it, and it bleeds through in too many conversations.  it's bled through in a lot of mine.  I'm not immune.  But if someone doesn't really grok a tactical combat style of D&D, than 1E might not be the game for them.  A later edition, or something streamlined like B/X, might be better for their type of game, and that's fine.  Everybody play what they like.  But people are damned sensitive about roleplaying games for some reason.

Edit - hell, my main hangout is Knights and Knaves Alehouse, reputed on the internets as the most intolerant, orthodox, closed-minded bastion of old school play there is.  And that isn't really true - it's more like we have no patience for people who can't take time to read the site rules; the site was founded for a very specific purpose as compared to here, and we do talk smack about other games like sports fans will talk about competing teams - but I can't say that reputation really bothers me, either ;)

Interesting, honestly I don't know enough or really care enough to say if your view or details are wrong but the weapon/armour chart deal makes sense to me and gives an actual reason why everyone ignored it. On the RPGA? I agree with you just look no further then the reason for 4e it was basically the same thing but internet driven.

Quote from: Marleycat;759346Interesting, honestly I don't know enough or really care enough to say if your view or details are wrong but the weapon/armour chart deal makes sense to me and gives an actual reason why everyone ignored it. On the RPGA? I agree with you just look no further then the reason for 4e it was basically the same thing but internet driven.

I never played the RPGA back then, but was just a casual gamer who played with friends.  I also never used weapon vs. armor type, but still don't agree magic users were over powered in 1e like many people claim.

* spell components: they are hard to find, and you can see a huge difference between a gaming table that uses them, and one that doesn't

* spell interruption:  super easy to do, and not only does the spell fail, but the MU loses it

* weak at low level:  most of the 1e games I have ever played happen at level 10 or lower.  Before MUs really start to get really powerful.  If 95% of your game play is with a MU that is super weak to competant, I have a hard time seeing how they are overpowered.  I suspect many of the crowd who say they are skip right to the high levels.  Like those people who go right to level 20 builds in 3e

* super squishy.  Even a level 10 MU in 1e is only going to have around 25 hp.  As much as the crowd likes to say MUs have one-shot kills, a fighter can kill a MU in one round as well

* spell learning.  You had to roll to see if you could even learn a spell to begin with.

I'm sure there are others, but you get the point.  I'm 100% convinced that people complaining about overpowered MUs in AD&D created the problem themselves either by their playstyle, or ignoring many of the rules, or both.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759350I never played the RPGA back then, but was just a casual gamer who played with friends.  I also never used weapon vs. armor type, but still don't agree magic users were over powered in 1e like many people claim.

* spell components: they are hard to find, and you can see a huge difference between a gaming table that uses them, and one that doesn't

* spell interruption:  super easy to do, and not only does the spell fail, but the MU loses it

* weak at low level:  most of the 1e games I have ever played happen at level 10 or lower.  Before MUs really start to get really powerful.  If 95% of your game play is with a MU that is super weak to competant, I have a hard time seeing how they are overpowered.  I suspect many of the crowd who say they are skip right to the high levels.  Like those people who go right to level 20 builds in 3e

* super squishy.  Even a level 10 MU in 1e is only going to have around 25 hp.  As much as the crowd likes to say MUs have one-shot kills, a fighter can kill a MU in one round as well

* spell learning.  You had to roll to see if you could even learn a spell to begin with.

I'm sure there are others, but you get the point.  I'm 100% convinced that people complaining about overpowered MUs in AD&D created the problem themselves either by their playstyle, or ignoring many of the rules, or both.

All of this I knew because it's exactly the same in 2e. It was the armour chart in 1e that I didn't know about because nobody really used it. We used weapon speeds though.

Anyway you're 100% spot on in my opinion. I never saw magic users as overpowered
there is a reason why I multi-classed if I had the scores, it's called survival.:)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759350I never played the RPGA back then, but was just a casual gamer who played with friends.  I also never used weapon vs. armor type, but still don't agree magic users were over powered in 1e like many people claim.

* spell components: they are hard to find, and you can see a huge difference between a gaming table that uses them, and one that doesn't

* spell interruption:  super easy to do, and not only does the spell fail, but the MU loses it

* weak at low level:  most of the 1e games I have ever played happen at level 10 or lower.  Before MUs really start to get really powerful.  If 95% of your game play is with a MU that is super weak to competant, I have a hard time seeing how they are overpowered.  I suspect many of the crowd who say they are skip right to the high levels.  Like those people who go right to level 20 builds in 3e

* super squishy.  Even a level 10 MU in 1e is only going to have around 25 hp.  As much as the crowd likes to say MUs have one-shot kills, a fighter can kill a MU in one round as well

* spell learning.  You had to roll to see if you could even learn a spell to begin with.

I'm sure there are others, but you get the point.  I'm 100% convinced that people complaining about overpowered MUs in AD&D created the problem themselves either by their playstyle, or ignoring many of the rules, or both.

the power of the wizard has nothing to do with the wizards strength in a toe to toe fight. This is the same issue that the denners site for the power of the wizard its a bogus point because it assumes a white room duel situation.
The power of the wizard is their power to influence the wider world and in this regard the wizard outclasses the warrior by a quadratic margin.
Once you pass 5th level or so the wizard becomes dominant by the time you reach 15th well...

Now I don't mind that power differential its just a thing and I mitigate it to a degree, by shifting HPs to make wizards slightly more robust at the first couple of levels and I insist wizards only use found spells. I would also look to change the spell slots a little and make acquisition of spells more steady with less of a power jump across those middle levels (a wizard gains 3 spells from level 1 -3 but 7 from level 11 to 13). However it won't change the fundamental thing that a 12th level wizard has many ways to alter the world not available to the warrior.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759362the power of the wizard has nothing to do with the wizards strength in a toe to toe fight. This is the same issue that the denners site for the power of the wizard its a bogus point because it assumes a white room duel situation.
The power of the wizard is their power to influence the wider world and in this regard the wizard outclasses the warrior by a quadratic margin.
Once you pass 5th level or so the wizard becomes dominant by the time you reach 15th well...
.

See, even then I think the power of the wizard is way overstated.  99% of those arguments assume the wizard:

* has all spells in his or her spell book
* has access/has memorized all spells
* never runs out of spells

I.e., the wizard isn't going to know which spells would be perfect for every challenge they may face in an adventure.  Congrats on memorizing invisibility, knock, fireball, and charm person.  Not going to help you much when there are a ton of traps and not a lot of monsters you'll be facing.  Sure you could be dominant if you had chosen fly, grease, and enlarge instead.  But you didn't because you didn't know what you were facing.

Quote from: estar;759314A couple of points that I want to add to your excellent summary of the situation.

1) Pundit and many other don't get that the "forum" side you talk about is a akin to Chess Club where the focus and indeed the point of its existence is Chess. In case of Dragonsfoot, K&KA, OD&D Forum, etc they are "clubs" focused on classic D&D.  If they get testy or ornery is because dickheads are doing the equivalent of going into the club and telling the chess players they should playing checkers or go. That their game sucks because it is old and obsolete.

Did people really do that? I don't know about the other forums, but I've been going to Dragonsfoot since about 2004, and I don't recall people who favour other editions going there and telling the grognards how to play. Heck, even people who played and enjoyed AD&D were forbidden from mentioning the very existence of 3E (TETSNBN) on Dragonsfoot.

Now, I get that old-school players felt scorned by the wider D&D community during the 3E boom. And that fostered a lot of resentment. So the desire for secure bunkers where old-school players (or people fond of talking about old-school D&D) could share their preferences in peace were perfectly natural. But those bunkers did have an atmosphere of sour resentment that I came to find oppressive.

So the forum I hung out in back in those days was the Necromancer Games forum, which had a very different vibe. Definitely old-school gamers, but ones who weren't especially wedded to any particular rules set (about half played 3E, half - including co-owner Bill Webb himself - played earlier editions). Or at least weren't bothered that other people played different editions. What mattered was the play style, and cool adventures that supported that playstyle. And that forum was responsible for the first (and to my mind still the best) achievement of the OSR, which was to get the Wilderlands of High Fantasy reprinted.

Then two things changed.

Some forum wonks and bloggers became fascinated with how Gygax and co played in the earliest days of D&D. Gygax and other original players were posting on forums, and fans started collecting their remarks and systematically codifying them into dogma. A proliferation of blogs spread this dogma. There was less talking about how posters or bloggers played in the early days, and much more about how they should have been playing. Session reports of going through the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl were supplanted by theory-wank about megadungeons.

The second thing was a self-conscious movement was formed. The OSR. And it quickly manifested the ugly side of all movements: group-think, tribalism, and dogma. Where once I could comment that I used a wound system, and another old-schooler would respond cool, how does it work, now the response became D&D has never needed a wound system - you should just play another game. And as you suggested, Estar, the most fanatical loyalists to Gygaxian D&D were the new converts. They weren't even defending the way they had played D&D back in the day, but the way they read on a forum people were supposed to play D&D. Bollocks.

And that's when I parted company with many of the gronards on D&D forums. I can't stand dogma, theory-wank, and tribalism. And the most vocal OSR flag-bearers demonstrated those traits as strongly as the Forge did back in their day. Maybe those vocal posters aren't representative of the movement as a whole. But just as Ron Edwards and Vincent Baker became the poster-boys for the story-game movement, for better or worse, the most strident OSR advocates represent their movement. It would be nice if the moderate members of groups called out the douchebags once in a while, but that's tribalism for you.

Quote from: Haffrung;759369Did people really do that? I don't know about the other forums, but I've been going to Dragonsfoot since about 2004, and I don't recall people who favour other editions going there and telling the grognards how to play.

Dragonsfoot has actually had at least one generally positive thread about 5th edition. O.k. it is tucked away in other games, but it is hardly a site I would characterize as being fraught with edition warring.

Quote from: Marleycat;759346Interesting, honestly I don't know enough or really care enough to say if your view or details are wrong but the weapon/armour chart deal makes sense to me and gives an actual reason why everyone ignored it. On the RPGA? I agree with you just look no further then the reason for 4e it was basically the same thing but internet driven.

the weapon vs armour chart is ignored for a bunch of reasons.

i. Its badly laid out. It talks about Axe vs AC3 as opposed to axe versus split mail etc

ii. It doesn't work against monsters as they don't feature so if played for real it gives the monsters a huge advantage as they can pick weapons to get big bonuses vs PCs but unless the DM rules that say a Wyvern's hide is AC10 as its just skin the PCs get no bonus back and since the PCs are fighting monsters about 90% of the time in most old school games .....

iii. It tries to mitigate the armour as defense paradigm that was adopted as the D&D combat model but when put in the context of a D&D combat round being 1 minute of thrust and parry the additional detail of the wpn vs armour table feels bolted on and overly complex and it subverts the armour as defense paradigm because it draws attention to the "blow that hits but no damage" as implied by I would done damage wth another weapon.

iv. the numbers have no basis in logic they are just pulled out of the hat of a guy. There is no science no logic or experience involved therefore the added benefit of "realism" is only real if you agree with uncle Gary.  Furthermore when you look at the implication of the table against say a guy in no armour the result is that a 7th fighter can never miss with a punch against an unarmoured guy no matter what that opponents level is unless he is monk (see note on monks next)

v. Forget Wizards, they aren't supposed to get into fights. If you wizard is toe to toeing it you have already lost. The Wpn Vs armour table totally fucks monks right up the arse :) Unable to wear armour, worked your way up to 17th level to beat multiple foes in man to man combat to finally reach -3 AC well to a guy with a sword you have AC0 and good luck trying to use your open hand combat attack against his plate armour with your -6 (doing this from memory so might be out) to hit him.

just sayin.....

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759365See, even then I think the power of the wizard is way overstated.  99% of those arguments assume the wizard:

* has all spells in his or her spell book
* has access/has memorized all spells
* never runs out of spells

I.e., the wizard isn't going to know which spells would be perfect for every challenge they may face in an adventure.  Congrats on memorizing invisibility, knock, fireball, and charm person.  Not going to help you much when there are a ton of traps and not a lot of monsters you'll be facing.  Sure you could be dominant if you had chosen fly, grease, and enlarge instead.  But you didn't because you didn't know what you were facing.

Again you are looking at the wizard as a bloke that wonders round dungeons looking for stuff. The 13th level wizard is a bloke that lives in a tower surrounded by various magical stuff he has charmed/summoned /bound etc and picks his own fights. For these fights he has planning , time to prep whatever spells he needs etc etc .

Quote from: jibbajibba;759386Again you are looking at the wizard as a bloke that wonders round dungeons looking for stuff. The 13th level wizard is a bloke that lives in a tower surrounded by various magical stuff he has charmed/summoned /bound etc and picks his own fights. For these fights he has planning , time to prep whatever spells he needs etc etc .

And I will repeat, in AD&D, 99% of game play occurs before level 10, let alone 13, for most people.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759386Again you are looking at the wizard as a bloke that wonders round dungeons looking for stuff. The 13th level wizard is a bloke that lives in a tower surrounded by various magical stuff he has charmed/summoned /bound etc and picks his own fights. For these fights he has planning , time to prep whatever spells he needs etc etc .

Who actually played 2e up to 13th level? Unless you started at 12th level or whatever. Besides what you're describing is a particular playstyle just one among many.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759387And I will repeat, in AD&D, 99% of game play occurs before level 10, let alone 13, for most people.

with this i entirely agree.

I would actually say 60% happens in level 1-5 and wizards are shit :)

So I would opt to up Wizards at the low levels and reduce them at higher levels.

Do this by

i. dropping d4 HP and giving them d6 (i hate d4s as I always stand on them:) )
ii. start all PCs on d6 HP at 0 level and make all gained HP the fatigue stuff starting at 1st
iii. Adjust the spell slot table to give more spells at lower level and fewer at higher levels to even out that curve

Quote from: jibbajibba;759395with this i entirely agree.

I would actually say 60% happens in level 1-5 and wizards are shit :)

So I would opt to up Wizards at the low levels and reduce them at higher levels.

Do this by

i. dropping d4 HP and giving them d6 (i hate d4s as I always stand on them:) )
ii. start all PCs on d6 HP at 0 level and make all gained HP the fatigue stuff starting at 1st
iii. Adjust the spell slot table to give more spells at lower level and fewer at higher levels to even out that curve

Oh, like 5e except for the hitpoints (d4 again). But spell slots at level 20 are..... 4/4/3/2/2/1/1/1/1.

Quote from: Marleycat;759413Oh, like 5e except for the hitpoints (d4 again). But spell slots at level 20 are..... 4/4/4/3/2/1/1/1/1.

Mages use d6 for hp in 5e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759416Mages use d6 for hp in 5e.

So we're good then. Pretty sure I got spell slots wrong though. I think it's 4/4/3/2/2/1/1/1/1. Either way it's near what Jibba suggested they should do.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759395with this i entirely agree.

I would actually say 60% happens in level 1-5 and wizards are shit :)

So I would opt to up Wizards at the low levels and reduce them at higher levels.

Do this by

i. dropping d4 HP and giving them d6 (i hate d4s as I always stand on them:) )
ii. start all PCs on d6 HP at 0 level and make all gained HP the fatigue stuff starting at 1st
iii. Adjust the spell slot table to give more spells at lower level and fewer at higher levels to even out that curve

Oh, like 5e except for the hitpoints (d4 again). But spell slots at level 20 are..... 4/4/4/3/2/1/1/1/1.

What I have learned from this thread:

- Pundit is as crazy as I suspected.

- The people I have on ignore (as I can glean from quotes of them) are there for a reason

- Most of those same people and others who are not have been waiting for the moment for anything that could be deemed a negative attitude about 5e to appear - even if it's mere indifference.  I suspect this is because they were worried they'd find themselves on the same side of 5e as people they just can't stand.  How it must have galled these poor people that folks who hated 4e were generally positive about 5e, and thank God that positivity has waned or mellowed; they're now back in their safe hugbox and can go back to hurling invectives at the mean ol' grognards.

Some general comments.
The existence of two distinct OSRs doesn't really matter any more to anyone except the people who place themselves in the original grognard group, and probably not even most of them.  And, yeah, I have been around for a long time and Im painfully aware of who belongs to which group. I even have rarely used KKnA and DF accounts. I don't post at those places a lot because I forget which opinions of mine are party approved and it is too much work to sort out.  I'm not mad about it, though. It just isn't worth the effort to argue with some tool who thinks everyone should only use modules. Also, TBH, I have been playing DnD since 78-79 but I have never been a 1e scholar. I know B/X inside and out, but most of the older guys are indifferent to it, so what is there to talk about?

I don't know much about 5e, nothing actually, I have not read a word of it; but socially, this looks like it is shaping up to be a lot like the initial arrival of 3e, which was actually, imo, more divisive than 4E- people actually played 3e in preference to TSR DnD after all.

TDD, you are a cool guy, but you and many other grogs need to make a decision as to weather or not you are superior and indifferent to everyone else or the pathetic victim of their misguided undeserved abuse. You play both cards in the above post, they are mutually exclusive.

Since Gib is gracing us with a rare moment of seriousness I'll state my position if anyone cares.

I'm pretty indifferent to 5e but as someone said upthread it'll be nice if it encourages more people to give a try to a sandbox style, maybe with publishers actually releasing sandbox-type settings along the lines of Griffin Mountain for D&D. Even if not, the novelty and publicity of the game could be a way to attract players to a sandbox campaign.

OTOH if the game can be used something like the old Fantasy Trip, which was the only RPG that I ever enjoyed in a detailed tactical map-and-counters fashion, that could be interesting. But if all the support along those lines is similar to the 3e-4e SoulCalibur superpowerz style, I don't think it will be my cup of tea.

Quote from: Gib;759449TDD, you are a cool guy, but you and many other grogs need to make a decision as to weather or not you are superior and indifferent to everyone else or the pathetic victim of their misguided undeserved abuse. You play both cards in the above post, they are mutually exclusive.

Well, I thank you and the feeling is mutual.  Your The Metal Earth stuff is a wonder to behold.  But that aside, are they?  I just generally viewed it as pointing and laughing.

Welp, regardless, it's food for thought and I appreciate the insight.

Quote from: Gib;759449I don't post at those places a lot because I forget which opinions of mine are party approved and it is too much work to sort out.

...you and many other grogs need to make a decision as to weather or not you are superior and indifferent to everyone else or the pathetic victim of their misguided undeserved abuse. You play both cards in the above post, they are mutually exclusive.

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQAhTRN_1VM6QFMpx_s2_QvvnfAGqT2Sp2FuRVm_D787TgiHy7)

Quote from: jibbajibba;759386Again you are looking at the wizard as a bloke that wonders round dungeons looking for stuff. The 13th level wizard is a bloke that lives in a tower surrounded by various magical stuff he has charmed/summoned /bound etc and picks his own fights. For these fights he has planning , time to prep whatever spells he needs etc etc .

Which why a Wizard in his tower, with all magical defenses is a challenge for a whole party, just like a Fighter in his stronghold or Cleric in his temple, or Thief in his guild.

In this Sacrosanct is 100% correct, the people that think AD&D shared the LFQW problem like later versions, are using the AD&D in their head, which is a vague memory of how they or other people played, when they used maybe 25% of the rules.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759475Which why a Wizard in his tower, with all magical defenses is a challenge for a whole party, just like a Fighter in his stronghold or Cleric in his temple, or Thief in his guild.

In this Sacrosanct is 100% correct, the people that think AD&D shared the LFQW problem like later versions, are using the AD&D in their head, which is a vague memory of how they or other people played, when they used maybe 25% of the rules.

AD&D magic-users are definitely weaker than their 3E counterparts. And I find few things more annoying that the endless LFQW arguments put up by system-wonks.

However, even back in the day we recognized that fighter/magic-user balance was achieved over the lifespan of the respective classes, and was not evident at either the low or the high levels. At levels 1-4 fighters are stronger than magic-users. At levels 7 and higher, magic-users are stronger. I've never had a player say it's unfair. But it's a thing.

Put it this way - would you rather venture into the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl with:

Party A. 2x level 10 Fighters, 1x level 10 Cleric, 1x level 10 Thief, 1x level 10 Magic-user

Party B. 2x level 10 Magic-users, 1x level 10 Cleric, 1x level 10 Thief, 1x level 10 Fighter

Quote from: thedungeondelver;759426What I have learned from this thread:

- Pundit is as crazy as I suspected.

- The people I have on ignore (as I can glean from quotes of them) are there for a reason

- Most of those same people and others who are not have been waiting for the moment for anything that could be deemed a negative attitude about 5e to appear - even if it's mere indifference.  I suspect this is because they were worried they'd find themselves on the same side of 5e as people they just can't stand.  How it must have galled these poor people that folks who hated 4e were generally positive about 5e, and thank God that positivity has waned or mellowed; they're now back in their safe hugbox and can go back to hurling invectives at the mean ol' grognards.

Emphasis mine. I think in general the argument in this thread is neither "sensible 5e realists vs. irrational 5e-hating grognards" nor "kool-aide-drinking 5e lovers vs. reasonable pre-4e players", but is "multiple pairs of forumites united in mutual hate looking for flaws in each other's comments so they can keep hating." Only maybe 1% of the ttext in this thread is about any actual edition of tthe game... the rest is Clash of the Tiiny Titans.

Quote from: talysman;759490Emphasis mine. I think in general the argument in this thread is neither "sensible 5e realists vs. irrational 5e-hating grognards" nor "kool-aide-drinking 5e lovers vs. reasonable pre-4e players", but is "multiple pairs of forumites united in mutual hate looking for flaws in each other's comments so they can keep hating." Only maybe 1% of the ttext in this thread is about any actual edition of tthe game... the rest is Clash of the Tiiny Titans.

Yeah, that's a thing that I've seen occur here - people deciding they are Against Something, and then they don't really engage with The Opposition, but instead just look for things to use as cheap points.

That said, there's a bunch of people here that *don't* do that, and they're the reason I hang here.

Quote from: Haffrung;759481AD&D magic-users are definitely weaker than their 3E counterparts. And I find few things more annoying that the endless LFQW arguments put up by system-wonks.

However, even back in the day we recognized that fighter/magic-user balance was achieved over the lifespan of the respective classes, and was not evident at either the low or the high levels. At levels 1-4 fighters are stronger than magic-users. At levels 7 and higher, magic-users are stronger. I've never had a player say it's unfair. But it's a thing.

Put it this way - would you rather venture into the Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl with:

Party A. 2x level 10 Fighters, 1x level 10 Cleric, 1x level 10 Thief, 1x level 10 Magic-user

Party B. 2x level 10 Magic-users, 1x level 10 Cleric, 1x level 10 Thief, 1x level 10 Fighter

To fight giants, more fighters definitely, or at least enough to make a front. More mages then fighters means Squashed the Sorceror.

Quote from: Haffrung;759481However, even back in the day we recognized that fighter/magic-user balance was achieved over the lifespan of the respective classes, and was not evident at either the low or the high levels. At levels 1-4 fighters are stronger than magic-users. At levels 7 and higher, magic-users are stronger. I've never had a player say it's unfair. But it's a thing.

Well, part of that is also balanced by:

1) Character mortality actually happening
2) The idea of multiple characters - being "outclassed" isn't nearly as much of an issue if you might be on the other side of the imbalance next week

Neither of those really work with the Big Damn Heroes on their Big Important Quest model, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759475Which why a Wizard in his tower, with all magical defenses is a challenge for a whole party, just like a Fighter in his stronghold or Cleric in his temple, or Thief in his guild.

In this Sacrosanct is 100% correct, the people that think AD&D shared the LFQW problem like later versions, are using the AD&D in their head, which is a vague memory of how they or other people played, when they used maybe 25% of the rules.

Nah, domian mangement is part of AD&D so your wizard has a tower etc. The fighte rin his castle surrounded by a crew of 1 level dudes and a couple of captains is no match for the wizard in facxt he isn;t a match for the cleric with his 0 level dudes who are all fanatically loyal and fight for free.

I can recall very clearly my 13th level thief with his 9th level barbarian mate being entirely outclassed by my cousin's 12th level wizard very very clearly. I seem to remember that campain lasted 2 years and without Balthazar we woudl have had no chance against teh Gith or that big dragon that attacked our castle (I was hiding for the dragon fight or I would be dead).

I agree you can limit the wizard ar higher levels and assist them at lower levels to make a more rounded play experience and I think 5e does a bunch of stuff I would have done to do that whilst not really altering the feel of the game (so you still have spell slots just less of them for example)

Don't want to get into a white room combat debate, but not sure how a 1e wizard is going to survive a dragon attack without a fighter to keep the dragon off him.  Let me guess, you weren't using speed factors for initiative so the wizard never got interrupted, right?

Wizards can do a lot of things, but they drop like a cardboard cutout when they don't have a ring of guys around them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759628Don't want to get into a white room combat debate, but not sure how a 1e wizard is going to survive a dragon attack without a fighter to keep the dragon off him.  Let me guess, you weren't using speed factors for initiative so the wizard never got interrupted, right?

Wizards can do a lot of things, but they drop like a cardboard cutout when they don't have a ring of guys around them.

You fucked up CK his stance is pure white room already.

Quote from: Marleycat;759632You fucked up CK his stance is pure white room already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkae0-TgrRU&feature=kp

:confused:

Quote from: CRKrueger;759628Don't want to get into a white room combat debate, but not sure how a 1e wizard is going to survive a dragon attack without a fighter to keep the dragon off him.  Let me guess, you weren't using speed factors for initiative so the wizard never got interrupted, right?

Wizards can do a lot of things, but they drop like a cardboard cutout when they don't have a ring of guys around them.

Not a white room combat this is very much a nuanced combat.

The wizard was polymorphed into a wren...blah blah blah... the wizard killed it by casting an enlarge on the portcullis as it collapsed on its head.

We always use speed factors for intiative by the way. The wizard didn't get interrupted because he wasn't in front of the dragon at any point in the combat. The fighter had borrowed my flying carpet to try and distract the beast but aside from a few scratches he didn't do a lot to it.

We entirely knew the dragon was coming by the way as we have scrying it the day previous which was why I was hiding.

Now I have no problem with Wizards being more able to alter the world , they are wizards that is kind of their stchick. In a game with magic the guy that controls the magic will win if he's smart, just like in a game with tech the guy that controls the tech will win (you might be great with a lightsabre but can you beat 40 droids with chain guns ...etc). To me it's a feature of the game but to pretend its not a feature of the game and that in a game that never made any pretence to balance the wizard and the fighter just happen to be perfectly balanced is a bit daft.

Quote from: Marleycat;759632You fucked up CK his stance is pure white room already.

Entirely the opposite.

As I noted in response to sacro's comments earleir comparing the Wizards AC and HPs to the figther's is ludicrous because no decent smart wizard is going to be within 400 feet of the fighter when he kills him.

On the other hand as a fighter I just regard the wizard as another weapon in my arsenal to deploy as I see fit. So if I am in a party and I am the 10th level fighter I will seize command, reluctantly at first so as not to appear too arrogant, and tell the wizard what to do. Had a great game where my fighter who had only experienced battle mages was in a team with this great PC wizard who had zero combat spells. I would be shouting out, "now cast rock to mud so the horses sink into the mire," and he would meekly reply, " Um I don't knwo that spell", "Fireball them then!" "Um...sorry" . Excellent game.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759641http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkae0-TgrRU&feature=kp

:confused:

He's literally talking about a different game then what has been actually discussed on the thread. Much like you do always. It doesn't mean I disagree or dislike either of your viewpoints, but that it's literally moving the goalposts.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759644Entirely the opposite.

As I noted in response to sacro's comments earleir comparing the Wizards AC and HPs to the figther's is ludicrous because no decent smart wizard is going to be within 400 feet of the fighter when he kills him.

On the other hand as a fighter I just regard the wizard as another weapon in my arsenal to deploy as I see fit. So if I am in a party and I am the 10th level fighter I will seize command, reluctantly at first so as not to appear too arrogant, and tell the wizard what to do. Had a great game where my fighter who had only experienced battle mages was in a team with this great PC wizard who had zero combat spells. I would be shouting out, "now cast rock to mud so the horses sink into the mire," and he would meekly reply, " Um I don't knwo that spell", "Fireball them then!" "Um...sorry" . Excellent game.

That's just tactics and actually the same I'd use. But it's not your prior setup which is both a different game and edition dependent no less. If we are talking 13th* level nobody attacks anybody directly straight up it's a political game by then.

Quote from: Marleycat;759648That's just tactics and actually the same I'd use. But it's not your prior setup which is both a different game and edition dependent no less. If we are talking 13th* level nobody attacks anybody directly straight up it's a political game by then.

What you talking about?
 I mentioned that a 13th level wizard lives in a castle and picks their own fights on their own terms and them I mentioned a specific example of, in this case a 12th level wizard who lived in a castle and fought on their own terms...

The generic example leads to the specific instance which is from an actual game I was actually in.

Generic rule -> backed up by specific example of play.

And people do attack people in 13th level games as sited in this example ... as you already stated "who plays 2e (or I assume 1e as you tend to be vague in your examples) to 13th level?", well me obviously and there must be a few others ....

Do try and keep up.

,

Quote from: jibbajibba;759654What you talking about?
 I mentioned that a 13th level wizard lives in a castle and picks their own fights on their own terms and them I mentioned a specific example of, in this case a 12th level wizard who lived in a castle and fought on their own terms...

The generic example leads to the specific instance which is from an actual game I was actually in.

Generic rule -> backed up by specific example of play.

And people do attack people in 13th level games as sited in this example ... as you already stated "who plays 2e (or I assume 1e as you tend to be vague in your examples) to 13th level?", well me obviously and there must be a few others ....

Do try and keep up.

No you're just picking arbitrary situations and going on. Compared to what was actually being discussed about by CK and Sacrosanct. I mean your game isn't relevant to what they actually were posing.

Also you say 13th level guys just attack each other I don't. Why you ask? Because each edition and home game has different parameters and expectations.

And who actually plays 2e 13th level 0-13 in an actual campaign? Very few actually and that's a fact. And most stopped between 10-15th in 3e because the game imploded.

Why do you think the experience tables and expected time of actually getting to 20th (30th) for 4e is getting shorter and shorter? It's because the majority play a given campaign for 6-12 months usually.

Quote from: Marleycat;759646He's literally talking about a different game then what has been actually discussed on the thread. Much like you do always. It doesn't mean I disagree or dislike either of your viewpoints, but that it's literally moving the goalposts.

I am still confused what a "white room" is.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759660I am still confused what a "white room" is.

It is a room full of privileges

Quote from: yabaziou;759664It is a room full of privileges

* headdesk *

Quote from: Old Geezer;759660I am still confused what a "white room" is.

Theorycrafting. Setting up some scenerio like Wizard vs Fighter alone with maximum everything in some video game PVP and GO!

Quote from: jibbajibba;759380i. Its badly laid out. It talks about Axe vs AC3 as opposed to axe versus split mail etc

ii. It doesn't work against monsters as they don't feature so if played for real it gives the monsters a huge advantage as they can pick weapons to get big bonuses vs PCs but unless the DM rules that say a Wyvern's hide is AC10 as its just skin the PCs get no bonus back and since the PCs are fighting monsters about 90% of the time in most old school games .....

This doesnt sound right? The WP v AC table seems to be following a few discreet patterns at a glance. Certain weapons seem to do well against certain ranges which happen to also usually be occupied by only one type of armour, sometimes 2. A Wyvern is AC 2. A quick glance shows mostly pole arms and bashing weapons like maces and flails as getting a bonus. An orc is AC 6 and about the best thing to wack em with is a 2 handed sword.

Take note of the trident, works better vs someone unarmoured or wearing leather, but  once you get to scale+shield or chain, it starts to have a harder time. Scale and chain would be ok at defeating a thrusting weapon like a trident.

Others dont make that sort of sense. But possible Im just unaware of the nuances of that weapon vs that type of armour?

I fail to see how you can say Jibba Jabba is engaging in a white box exercise. He is citing examples from actual play. Also hand waving 13th level play as political is pure bullshit. True for some but not for others. At higher levels the wizard almost always trumps the fighter (in just about every every edition except 4th which isn't really D&D anyway). I don't see the point of denying it. That is not the same as saying the game is broken or no good. Nor is it saying that a good DM can't change that default state of affairs. I'm excited about 5E but geez some are laying it on a bit thick around here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759628Don't want to get into a white room combat debate, but not sure how a 1e wizard is going to survive a dragon attack without a fighter to keep the dragon off him.  Let me guess, you weren't using speed factors for initiative so the wizard never got interrupted, right?

Wizards can do a lot of things, but they drop like a cardboard cutout when they don't have a ring of guys around them.

If you're 10th level and above, something has gone wrong if the fight devolves into a toe-to-toe melee. You should be ambushing and slamming foes down lickety-split. Sure, it's useful to have a couple front-line fighters (or a fighter and cleric) if it comes down to a desperate melee. But it's hard to drop a magic-user like a cardboard cutout if he has haste, invisibility, levitate, web, blink, gaseous form, etc. Any prudent mage reserves at least a third of his spells for evasion and flight. Once a mage is done with his offensive spells, it's time to hide or get the hell out of dodge.

Quote from: Fiasco;759670Also hand waving 13th level play as political is pure bullshit. True for some but not for others.

The notion that D&D at level 10 and beyond is all about domain management is one of the more ludicrous Old School Revisionist memes. You don't see much domain management in the G-series, D-series, Tsojcanth, Tharizdun, or Tomb of Horrors. All penned by Gygax himself.

Quote from: Fiasco;759670At higher levels the wizard almost always trumps the fighter (in just about every every edition except 4th which isn't really D&D anyway). I don't see the point of denying it. That is not the same as saying the game is broken or no good.

You wouldn't have got much of an argument on the matter eight or nine years ago. But alas, it has become haram to speak of such things today.

Quote from: Omega;759668This doesnt sound right? The WP v AC table seems to be following a few discreet patterns at a glance. Certain weapons seem to do well against certain ranges which happen to also usually be occupied by only one type of armour, sometimes 2. A Wyvern is AC 2. A quick glance shows mostly pole arms and bashing weapons like maces and flails as getting a bonus. An orc is AC 6 and about the best thing to wack em with is a 2 handed sword.

Take note of the trident, works better vs someone unarmoured or wearing leather, but  once you get to scale+shield or chain, it starts to have a harder time. Scale and chain would be ok at defeating a thrusting weapon like a trident.

Others dont make that sort of sense. But possible Im just unaware of the nuances of that weapon vs that type of armour?

The armour vs weapon table isn;t supposed to be AC3 vs a ssword its supposed tyo be plate mail vs a sword, so a miliary pick is a better weapon  to attack a guy in plate as its designed to bit into armour (however not sure how this means it doesn;t work so well vs chain and the two people become as easy to hit in either armour).

For that reason you can't use it against monsterous AC as monstrous ac doesn't equal a suit of armour. So you need to try and guesstimate how the monster gets its AC.
Are dragon scales like metal plate armour or are the scales more like thick leather? Is a wyvern's skin covered in overlapping scales like sacle armor or ...

So teh Weapn vs armour table is prettry crap when fighting monsters.

Worse still though if you use rules like attaacks to unarmoured heads. So in AD&D to encourage the use of helmets we are told that 1 in 6 of an intelligent monsters attacks will be against an aunarmoured head = AC 10. So the implication is an intelligent PC can do this whenever they like. the next obvious thing is wow that is way too tough so you impose a - to hit say -4 as a called shot, but if the sword already gets +3 versus AC 10 that means you swing at heads at almost no minus as often as you like.

Then supposing your setting has guys dressed like conquistadors in metal breastplates and helmets but uncovered legs and arms ... peicemeal armour Weapon vs AC is not your friend.

All of this loaded ontop of an abstract and pretty dodge combat system really makes very little sense.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759677For that reason you can't use it against monsterous AC as monstrous ac doesn't equal a suit of armour. So you need to try and guesstimate how the monster gets its AC.
Are dragon scales like metal plate armour or are the scales more like thick leather? Is a wyvern's skin covered in overlapping scales like sacle armor or ...

Where does it day this? I am seeing is weapon vs armour class. Not weapon vs PLATE, etc?

Quote from: Omega;759678Where does it day this? I am seeing is weapon vs armour class. Not weapon vs PLATE, etc?

Yup and that is the first problem I called out with it.

The table is meant to show some basic stuff about selecting the best weapon to fight certain armours.

Chain is good at repelling slashing weapons, The military Pick was designed to penetrate plate etc etc

The table is printed as AC but shoudl be armour type. If you wander round the web you will see that all clones copies show armour type instead.

This is why the original point that a wizard with Bracers of defence AC2 and a +4 ring of protection still has AC "Type" 10 is entirely valid, though not sure what you are supposed to do if the wizard has stoneskin up or mage armour.....

Quote from: Old Geezer;759641http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkae0-TgrRU&feature=kp

:confused:

:D

:rotfl:

Good one, Geezer.

Edit: To answer your question, "white room combat" is a theoretical situation in which both elements are at full strength with no environmental or roleplay features which would naturally favor one side or the other and are going to engage in a straight fight until one of them or the other is unable to.

In other words the sort of fight that never, ever happens in an actual game.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759660I am still confused what a "white room" is.

It's a room with black curtains near the station, obviously.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759660I am still confused what a "white room" is.

To give a fuller explanation: you know how people who are really into 3E-style character optimisation or whatever like to claim that certain character types are useless based solely on their calculated damage output per round in an entirely bland, vanilla combat against cardboard enemies with no environmental factors supporting or undermining particular strategies and no unexpected gambits or thinking outside the character sheet on the part of the players?

That's white rooming. It's judging PC classes and types based on their theoretical performance in a perfectly featureless white room - in other words, a situation which is going to be vanishingly rare in-game. It's ridiculous firstly because in any situation you actually face in play you are going to have situational factors to exploit which could make nonsense of your white room conceptualisations, and secondly because it relies a lot on ignoring out the heuristic element of RPGs - the capability of players to come up with ideas that aren't summarised on their character sheet, and the ability of GMs to use intelligent monster tactics and play the world.

There exist better metrics (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) for determining a class's performance.

Thanks all.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759660I am still confused what a "white room" is.

First, you take 6 White Albums and make a cube....

Quote from: Fiasco;759670I'm excited about 5E but geez some are laying it on a bit thick around here.

Excited doesn't cut the mustard in these parts Fiasco. You either swear eternal allegiance to a game you have not read or played yet because it has not come out yet OR thou shalt be branded as one of "Them".

Quote from: Haffrung;759673The notion that D&D at level 10 and beyond is all about domain management is one of the more ludicrous Old School Revisionist memes. You don't see much domain management in the G-series, D-series, Tsojcanth, Tharizdun, or Tomb of Horrors. All penned by Gygax himself.

As an OSR fan, I fully agree with you.

In the few D&D campaigns I've played at high level, domain management (if it existed at all for our PCs) was always background to our roving adventures.

Quote from: Old Geezer;759660I am still confused what a "white room" is.

It's an album by the KLF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Room). I think I've got Adorable Girlfriend's copy in my car CD player.

Alternatively, it's another form of "oh but you're thinking about roleplaying games the wrong way" argument-dismissal. Basically (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22338), it's a 2, a 3, a 5 and a 9.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759691There exist better metrics (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) for determining a class's performance.

Holy fuck! Is that shit for real?

Quote from: Spinachcat;759694In the few D&D campaigns I've played at high level, domain management (if it existed at all for our PCs) was always background to our roving adventures.

Exactly how it worked for us. It was really fun stuff to tinker with out of session.

Quote from: Fiasco;759698Holy fuck! Is that shit for real?

As noted, the "white room" concept doesn't really do a whole lot for determining if two classes are balanced against each other; it seems a pretty commonly accepted notion that game balance isn't related to who wins in a fist-fight between PCs.

Given that D&D is largely a combat game, with a bit of puzzle elements thrown in (locks and traps and such), it seems entirely sensible to judge a class upon its ability to deal with challenges of those sorts: primarily combat, with some other bits thrown in. If you can establish a set of encounters that hit enough of the spectrum for what you expect characters of X level to be able to deal with, you can start comparing classes by running them through those sets and seeing what results fall out.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759700As noted, the "white room" concept doesn't really do a whole lot for determining if two classes are balanced against each other; it seems a pretty commonly accepted notion that game balance isn't related to who wins in a fist-fight between PCs.

Given that D&D is largely a combat game, with a bit of puzzle elements thrown in (locks and traps and such), it seems entirely sensible to judge a class upon its ability to deal with challenges of those sorts: primarily combat, with some other bits thrown in. If you can establish a set of encounters that hit enough of the spectrum for what you expect characters of X level to be able to deal with, you can start comparing classes by running them through those sets and seeing what results fall out.

Is that SGT not a test of versatility rather than ability (Or breadth of ability, as opposed to depth of ability), then? Or am I missing something?

Quote from: Ladybird;759702Is that SGT not a test of versatility rather than ability (Or breadth of ability, as opposed to depth of ability), then? Or am I missing something?

90% of the encounters in a SGT are combat, usually with some kind of gimmick (can you deal with a flying creature, can you deal with incorporeal, etc).

Near as I can tell, it mostly does two things: (1) indicates that the monk is a shit class, because it is in 3.5, and destroys the notion that a grab-bag of abilities is worthwhile (which cascades to class design in general); and (2) since the encounters are done off of CR, it clearly illustrates that 3e is the "caster edition," since most fighter-types aren't going to be able to do squat on their own against twelve shadows or six trolls.

Noting that it's based on the CR system is important because the theory is that all classes are treated equal in terms of what they bring to the table (not numerically identical, but on equal footing), and the SGT pretty clearly illustrates that that is not the case. A 10th-level monk is not worth the same, mechanically, as a 10th-level wizard, and the power gap between them is ridiculously large.

So... yeah, I guess it is more about versatility than raw power. But that's why it's a better metric than "white rooms," anyway: those are pretty useless for figuring out if two classes are balanced against each other. Doing a straight DPR comparison is pointless and doesn't tell you jack. You need to have a variety of encounters that run the gamut of things you'd expect characters of a given level to run into, to get more rigorous testing that will yield useful results. SGT is a lot more of a pain in the ass to deal with than doing a simple white room, but it also yields a lot more useful information.

Quote from: Fiasco;759699Exactly how it worked for us. It was really fun stuff to tinker with out of session.

for us this episode would be in the "establishing" phase. As we found the ruby kingdom deserted (a long story) and the Barbarian was its rightful heir so the castle which was kind of magical itself opened up for him.

I took on the role of diplomat, spymaster and treasurer. The barbarian was the king and leader of the army and the wizard was well, the court magician.

we ventured forth on adventures as you say dealing with local pirates, etc. The dragon was a neighbour who wasn't too keen on us setting up shop.

It was a clear advantage of what can a wizard do to deal with an incoming large threat.
We could have tried it without him.
We could have used the flying carpet and some thing from my deck of illusion to lure the dragon towards the walls then I could have jumped onto its back with my ring of jumping and tried a backstab with my frost brand (not sure the DM would have allowed me to backstab a dragon). Then jumped off and run away with my boots of speed leading the critter into a trap where the barbarian could have tried toe to toeing with it (he had like 96 HP or something crazy) and I could have tried to have gotten round the back again somehow. But ... it was a bloody big dragon :)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759700Given that D&D is largely a combat game, with a bit of puzzle elements thrown in (locks and traps and such), it seems entirely sensible to judge a class upon its ability to deal with challenges of those sorts: primarily combat, with some other bits thrown in. If you can establish a set of encounters that hit enough of the spectrum for what you expect characters of X level to be able to deal with, you can start comparing classes by running them through those sets and seeing what results fall out.

Not for everyone.

I wouldn't choose a game with an abstract combat system if combat was the primary reason for playing. Bags of HP and static defenses aren't very entertaining on their own. I prefer GURPS to really get the fight fix.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759700As noted, the "white room" concept doesn't really do a whole lot for determining if two classes are balanced against each other; it seems a pretty commonly accepted notion that game balance isn't related to who wins in a fist-fight between PCs.

Given that D&D is largely a combat game, with a bit of puzzle elements thrown in (locks and traps and such), it seems entirely sensible to judge a class upon its ability to deal with challenges of those sorts: primarily combat, with some other bits thrown in. If you can establish a set of encounters that hit enough of the spectrum for what you expect characters of X level to be able to deal with, you can start comparing classes by running them through those sets and seeing what results fall out.

Sorry but that looks like Denner shit. Not. Interested. Also little to no basis on how the game plays.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759691There exist better metrics (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) for determining a class's performance.

Those seem to be almost entirely combat challenges. Each list has like one open or or detect trap challemge, then it is just monsters.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759717Those seem to be almost entirely combat challenges. Each list has like one open or or detect trap challemge, then it is just monsters.

Hey! Remember the first rule of fight club!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759711Not for everyone.

Quote from: Fiasco;759714Also little to no basis on how the game plays.

Don't really give a fuck what happens at your table. A given instance of the game does not change the fact that the system is 90% combat driven. Exploration and social rules pretty much do not exist; you cannot objectively measure things that don't exist.

Combat metrics are pretty much the only thing to go by, and since D&D is largely about murderhobos anyway, you might as well measure it and balance around it.

We can sit here and talk all day about how your monk or whatever other shit class you've played was awesome at random RP stuff, but that's not objectively measurable and doesn't have jack to do with the system in question. If it could've just as easily have happened in GURPS or $otherGame by virtue of not interacting with mechanics, it's not relevant to questions of game balance.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759717Those seem to be almost entirely combat challenges. Each list has like one open or or detect trap challemge, then it is just monsters.

Yep. As I mentioned, though, a lot of the combats have "gimmicks" - manticores fly, shadows are incorporeal, trolls regenerate.

It's not like you can have social encounters on the list. There's no rules for them, and no class is particularly focused on them; as I said, you can't measure what doesn't exist.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759720It's not like you can have social encounters on the list. There's no rules for them, and no class is particularly focused on them; as I said, you can't measure what doesn't exist.

There are rules for social encounters. Third edition has bluff, diplomacy, etc and for some those are class skills. Earlier editions still used chr and the reaction ajustment. You also have the bard. 2E had a bunch of NWPs that were divided by class and could be used in social situations (for example using ettiquette you might know how to behave before a king). But there are more things you could measure than just social encounters. There are investigations, tests of athetic ability, politics (particularly if you are using things like keeps and followers). But even if there were only just combat and stuff like detecting traps and opening doors, it doesn't make sense for the lists to be 98% combat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759722There are rules for social encounters. Third edition has bluff, diplomacy, etc and for some those are class skills. Earlier editions still used chr and the reaction ajustment. You also have the bard. 2E had a bunch of NWPs that were divided by class and could be used in social situations (for example using ettiquette you might know how to behave before a king). But there are more things you could measure than just social encounters. There are investigations, tests of athetic ability, politics (particularly if you are using things like keeps and followers). But even if there were only just combat and stuff like detecting traps and opening doors, it doesn't make sense for the lists to be 98% combat.

No point arguing with a Denner...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759722There are rules for social encounters.

That's... kinda funny.

You can't really argue that the social encounter systems in D&D - pick an edition - hold a candle to the amount of mechanics that exist for combat. In 3.5, you've got, what, three skills? Compared to how many pages of goddamn feats, not to mention the tome of battle?

Sure, attempts have been made at handling them, but not nearly to the breadth of options or depth of play that combat has. When there's a class all about talking to people opposite the fighter, then I'll entertain the notion that D&D gives a crap about social stuff. Until then, not so much.

QuoteThere are investigations, tests of athetic ability, politics (particularly if you are using things like keeps and followers). But even if there were only just combat and stuff like detecting traps and opening doors, it doesn't make sense for the lists to be 98% combat.

Honestly... it doesn't matter.

The SGT was designed with 3.5 in mind, so let's keep to that, just for sake of discussion.

Investigations: at 10th level, a wizard can just magic the answer. A cleric can probably do so better - speak with dead, commune, blah blah blah. A fighter is going to use... gather information? As a cross-class skill? Based on Charisma? Yeah. That'll go well. A rogue might do okay, but not all rogues are Cha-focused. A bard would probably do well, because that's up their alley, but they're also casters, so... casters win.

Tests of athletic ability: the wizard polymorphs and wins. The druid wildshapes, and wins. The cleric probably has an answer of some kind. A fighter will do well, but can't really hold a candle to the wizard turning into a troll or whatever. The rogue will probably do cool balancing things, but the druid can turn into a cat or whatever and win more.

Politics: This is probably just straight social skills. Some casters (sorcerers, clerics) will be better at this than others (wizard, druid), but then magic says "Hi, you're my friend now, tell me everything you know." Or just read their thoughts. Or whatever. Most of those skills are cross-class for the fighter-types, so they... get to stand around, mostly, and not contribute? Bards, again, will probably win here, but - again - they're also casters.

The other problem with these sorts of tests is that they're subjective. And I don't necessarily mean just in terms of mechanics; I mean the goals are subjective. If you fight an owlbear, there are two outcomes: it dies, or you do. Trying to determine if you win a political encounter - whatever that would look like - is a lot messier and harder to judge.

The game is largely about murderhobos. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. Combat's the thing it's mostly about, and it's convenient that the combat system has a pretty objective ending point. It's a reasonable metric, and makes the point pretty clear: 3.5 is caster edition, full stop. You'd be hard-pressed to find a class that can hold a candle to most casters.

Quote from: Fiasco;759723No point arguing with a Denner...

In this case you would seem to be correct.

Right. I forgot that you folk don't like the idea of investigating the mechanics of the games you play with any degree of mathematical rigor, and like to just pretend that how the rules function should have no impact on what players do at all or what makes sense in-setting.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759720Don't really give a fuck what happens at your table. A given instance of the game does not change the fact that the system is 90% combat driven. Exploration and social rules pretty much do not exist; you cannot objectively measure things that don't exist.

Serious question: have you actually played the game, or are you merely making an analysis by reading the book? The forest and trees and all that shit...also, not having rules spelled out in the book to do stuff doesn't mean you can't do those things. That's why you have a referee, to arbitrate actions that need to be interpreted.

Waiting for the response about wanting something more "objective", ignoring that every legitimate sport in existence has a referee...

A major flaw I see with the SGT is that it would be blind to synergistic effects between PCs. What if a character by themselves is disadvantage, but in a party with other niches being taken by other characters they can kick ass? A fighter by themselves might struggle, but what about a fighter carrying all the buffs their wizard and cleric pals can pile on them? If you're going to take this sort of rigorous approach to testing out classes, and you're going to brush aside large parts of the game on the basis that the rules don't really focus on them, shouldn't you also take note of the fact that the rules assume that the game is not going to be a 1-on-1 affair, but will involve a party with multiple classes represented?

(And what about the magic sword which the fighter, wizard and cleric found last week, and which only the fighter can use?)

Disagreeing with your conclusions does not mean people don't want to consider the math. I am happy to examine the math and happy to look at game balance, but I don't believe combat should be the only factor considered. It is also important to factor in what actually goes on at the table.

Quote from: CRKrueger;758628So what you have on the one hand is guys like Jmal trying to divine the old school experience and people rallying around that, then you have the guys hating and talking about stuff they have zero experience with, just echoing purple prose.

Yes, let's note that "Jmal", who in spite of having zero old-school play experience got crowned "pope of the OSR" by certain quarters that liked his elitist fanaticism (which he no doubt borrowed from years and years of being a fan of the White Wolf Storytelling Games that his new drooling fanboys despised, ironically), also proudly declared himself a member of the "OSR Taliban".

Presumably, those who still think (in spite of his defrauding countless backers plus a respectable gaming company that made the mistake of getting into bed with him) that JMal is in some way an authority on the OSR would not be so hypocritical as to think that self-described Taliban JMal is totally awesome, but I'm a horrible person for implying that there is an OSR Taliban.

Quote from: Brad;759743not having rules spelled out in the book to do stuff doesn't mean you can't do those things. That's why you have a referee, to arbitrate actions that need to be interpreted.

No. No that is not fucking why you have a GM.

As a GM, I have better things to do with my time than come up with fucking "rulings." I have a world to run, NPCs to play, and things to do in the background to make the world resemble an actual place as can reasonably be accomplished.

The rules are the physics of the world. That is how I interpret them, that is how I interact with them, and that is the proposition that serves as the foundation for the rest of my approach to gaming. Away from the table, discussing the extreme limits of a system is important because it can reveal things like "non-casters are essentially non-persons," as is revealed in 3.5 with sufficient scrutiny. The system encourages certain approaches and discourages others, through what mechanics are present: essentially, system fucking matters.

At the table, I want mechanics to support all the various things that characters may do, from combat to social encounters to exploration to crafting and dealing with economics, because I don't want to sit at the head of the table trying to make shit up on the fly, because that's how you get bad rules and an inconsistent system, and inconsistency is to be avoided at pretty much any cost (again, personal preference, but is a key tenet in my approach to gaming).

QuoteWaiting for the response about wanting something more "objective", ignoring that every legitimate sport in existence has a referee...

If you're just going to belittle my opinion, then why even fucking ask?

No system can cover all situations. This is obvious. Even with a game that has rules covering a wide variety of topics, a game must necessarily not cover everything, because to try to do so would be to produce a game that is unwieldy and unplayable due to lookup times. Sacrifices have to be made: exchanging precision of correlation to events in-fiction for playability at the table, and that's fine, to an extent.

The GM is there to fill in the gaps, but those gaps need mostly be corner-cases or things where the rules couldn't be reasonably expected to cover (very specific circumstances, or just odd/unexpected ones produced by things happening in the instance at the table).

Quote from: Warthur;759744A major flaw I see with the SGT is that it would be blind to synergistic effects between PCs. What if a character by themselves is disadvantage, but in a party with other niches being taken by other characters they can kick ass?

That is an interesting point, I suppose, but I'm still not sure it matters.

The problem is that the fighter "needs" those buffs and items and such to stay competitive. You're right, a wizard and a fighter can get some pretty fantastic mileage with buffs.

But the problem is that the fighter isn't strictly necessary in a lot of cases: spellcasters, in 3.5, have access to just too many spells and tricks and such. I mean, if you look at accounts of high-level play in 3.5, a lot of the times the fighter is reduced to glorified meat shield in combat, while the casters are doing the heavy lifting. It's called rocket tag for a reason, and the fighters are the guys bringing dull knives to that fight.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759745It is also important to factor in what actually goes on at the table.

What happens "at the table" cannot be objectively quantified, or - if it can - I have not seen any means of measurement that allow for it.

You have to take the system as it is, and see what happens with it. If the game is written in such a way that high-level wizards can basically do whatever they want with impunity in whatever setting they find themselves, you - as a GM - need to figure out why they haven't. Why, if the game basically says that fighters and monks are useless, people of those classes are even still around.

I'm interested in things like the SGT because they draw out the implications hidden in the mechanics that impact the setting. Mathematical analysis of the system as itself is necessary to figure out the logical ramifications it has on the world it is intended to act as a simulation for. Basically my goal is to find the absurd optimizations so that I can avoid them in my own design, because I don't care for the effect it has on the setting.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759747No. No that is not fucking why you have a GM.

That's exactly why you have a GM.

Quote from: Brad;759750That's exactly why you have a GM.

Don't bother. When someone fully believes that the rules ARE the game then you might as well be addressing a brick wall.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759751Don't bother. When someone fully believes that the rules ARE the game then you might as well be addressing a brick wall.

If you read the rules of poker, and analyze them mathematically, there is NO WAY for a pair of deuces to beat a full house. It just can't happen. Then you actually play poker with people and learn that there's skill involved and sometimes the better hand doesn't win and yes, you can beat a full house with deuces.

So, yeah, you're right...the game itself is the product of rules put into play, not the rules themselves.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759749What happens "at the table" cannot be objectively quantified, or - if it can - I have not seen any means of measurement that allow for it.

Sure you can. You may identify a potential problem in the game based on the numbers, then you do a survey on how that problem is adressed at the table and discover 90% of tables do something that makes it a non-problem for them (or that to your surprise 90% of them actually like it). I am not saying it is the same as measuring the difference between a +5 long sword against an ogre and magic missile against an ogre, but it can be quantified and does impact what your numbers mean. If you are going to build and sell a game, it is important to know how your customers use the product and how they deal with problems you have identified. I think just going on your numbers in a vaccuum isnt enough.

The single most important factor in a combat isn't the AC of the opponents, the damage per round, or any of that stuff - it's the context. Who gets the jump on who and where. An encounter where the PCs would be slaughtered if they stand toe-to-toe with the monsters and trade blows may very well be trivially easy if they ambush the monsters. And vice-versa. And that context cannot be quantified. Which is probably one of the reasons why the math and balance crowd love the prescribed encounter approach to D&D, where the context of X monsters starting in Y position against the party starting at Z is hard-coded into the game. Of course, that approach largely negates player tactical skill in favour of chargen skill.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759751When someone fully believes that the rules ARE the game then you might as well be addressing a brick wall.

Quote me, you fucker. Quote where I said that, because I am sick of this strawman horseshit.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;759755Sure you can. You may identify a potential problem in the game based on the numbers, then you do a survey on how that problem is adressed at the table and discover 90% of tables do something that makes it a non-problem for them (or that to your surprise 90% of them actually like it).

I'm so glad Wizards is shifting to this model for dealing with errata rather than high-handedly assuming that what is a bug for them can't be a feature for anyone else.

Quote from: Haffrung;759760The single most important factor in a combat isn't the AC of the opponents, the damage per second, or any of that stuff - it's the context. Who gets the jump on who and where. An encounter where the PCs would be slaughtered if they stand toe-to-toe with the monsters and trade blows may very well be trivially easy if they ambush the monsters. And vice-versa. And that context cannot be quantified. Which is probably one of the reasons why the math and balance crowd love the prescribed encounter approach to D&D, where the context of X monsters starting in Y position against the party starting at Z is hard-coded into the game. Of course, that approach largely negates player tactical skill in favour of chargen skill.

Personal anecdote: started running a B/X/AD&D mashup game after playing in a long 3.X campaign. First encounter, the characters walked right into a kobold ambush and got slaughtered, resounding TPK. Really set the tone for the game and let the players know there's no way to quantify encounter level, or whatever the fuck that even means. Later in the same game, the party (now mostly level 2) annihilated some mummies...they learned quickly.

Quote from: Brad;759766Later in the same game, the party (now mostly level 2) annihilated some mummies...they learned quickly.

Yep. A party that could be wiped out by a band of kobolds could in turn wipe out a bunch of mummies. I played in a campaign where we took down the Dark Tower starting as level 1 characters. It all depends on context. Which renders mathematical comparisons and encounter levels pretty useless.

Quote from: Fiasco;759670I fail to see how you can say Jibba Jabba is engaging in a white box exercise. He is citing examples from actual play. Also hand waving 13th level play as political is pure bullshit. True for some but not for others. At higher levels the wizard almost always trumps the fighter (in just about every every edition except 4th which isn't really D&D anyway). I don't see the point of denying it. That is not the same as saying the game is broken or no good. Nor is it saying that a good DM can't change that default state of affairs. I'm excited about 5E but geez some are laying it on a bit thick around here.

First of Jibba just threw out some unrelated nonsense about my 13th level wizard in a tower will kick your butt concerning a scenerio that had nothing to do with domain management. He's the one asking what do you mean about who actually plays high level games? I answer truthfully a tiny percentage for a variety of actual reasons.

My point is the whole thing is pointless because who cares about some 13th wizard not related to the previous conversation?

Quote from: Haffrung;759760The single most important factor in a combat isn't the AC of the opponents, the damage per round, or any of that stuff - it's the context. Who gets the jump on who and where. An encounter where the PCs would be slaughtered if they stand toe-to-toe with the monsters and trade blows may very well be trivially easy if they ambush the monsters. And vice-versa. And that context cannot be quantified. Which is probably one of the reasons why the math and balance crowd love the prescribed encounter approach to D&D, where the context of X monsters starting in Y position against the party starting at Z is hard-coded into the game. Of course, that approach largely negates player tactical skill in favour of chargen skill.

One of the reasons white room analysis bothers me.  I mean, it's valuable for a good general starting point, but people should never, ever rely on it as the end all-be all factor when determine good or bad game design.  Varying context and player decision making ability is what makes the game the game.  Otherwise just let a computer program run every combat scenario and go do something else if all you do is look at the game through a white room lens.

Quote from: Brad;759766Personal anecdote: started running a B/X/AD&D mashup game after playing in a long 3.X campaign. First encounter, the characters walked right into a kobold ambush and got slaughtered, resounding TPK. Really set the tone for the game and let the players know there's no way to quantify encounter level, or whatever the fuck that even means. Later in the same game, the party (now mostly level 2) annihilated some mummies...they learned quickly.

It is also my experience that most "new school" players catch up to the deadlier tone of old school gaming fairly quickly. Those who clearly prefer a more "empowered" playstyle (i.e. don't show up for the post-massacre session) are a minority in my experience.

Context is the "devil in the details" that can defeat the most rigorous and accurate mathematical analysis.

The problem with "white-rooming" is that is always assumes facts not in evidence to make it's case, no matter what that is.  Example:  I'm not really calling Haffrung out here, but just pointing out something that really we all kinda do.

He says any Wizard worth their salt has Invisibility, Fly, etc, all the mobility and non-Fighter stuff, so he should never be going toe-to-toe.  Ok, yeah, I agree, in theory.  But then in the same post, he also mentions G1-3, D1-2, Q1.  Contextually, there are dozens of times in those modules where you're not under the open sky, with room to stick and move and use mobility spells to always be at perfect distance.  I mean people remember how limited you were to move around in the actual Demonweb of Q1, right?

Another thing that bugs me is, yes a spell exists, that does not mean that
1. A Magic-User has it to begin with.
2. It's even memorized.
3. It hasn't already been cast.
4. The Magic-User isn't saving it for a more critical situation. (remember in 1e you don't Nova then force the party to rest for 8 hours after every 15 minutes of casting.

Context isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759779Context is the "devil in the details" that can defeat the most rigorous and accurate mathematical analysis.

The problem with "white-rooming" is that is always assumes facts not in evidence to make it's case, no matter what that is.  Example:  I'm not really calling Haffrung out here, but just pointing out something that really we all kinda do.

He says any Wizard worth their salt has Invisibility, Fly, etc, all the mobility and non-Fighter stuff, so he should never be going toe-to-toe.  Ok, yeah, I agree, in theory.  But then in the same post, he also mentions G1-3, D1-2, Q1.  Contextually, there are dozens of times in those modules where you're not under the open sky, with room to stick and move and use mobility spells to always be at perfect distance.  I mean people remember how limited you were to move around in the actual Demonweb of Q1, right?

Another thing that bugs me is, yes a spell exists, that does not mean that
1. A Magic-User has it to begin with.
2. It's even memorized.
3. It hasn't already been cast.
4. The Magic-User isn't saving it for a more critical situation. (remember in 1e you don't Nova then force the party to rest for 8 hours after every 15 minutes of casting.

Context isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Agreed. Though in general, I'd still rather have an extra level 10 magic-user in the party than an extra level 10 fighter. That wouldn't be the case at level 8. But level 5 spells (even when you only have a couple random ones in your spell book) are game-changers.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759764Quote me, you fucker. Quote where I said that, because I am sick of this strawman horseshit.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759747No. No that is not fucking why you have a GM.

As a GM, I have better things to do with my time than come up with fucking "rulings." I have a world to run, NPCs to play, and things to do in the background to make the world resemble an actual place as can reasonably be accomplished.

The rules are the physics of the world. That is how I interpret them, that is how I interact with them, and that is the proposition that serves as the foundation for the rest of my approach to gaming. Away from the table, discussing the extreme limits of a system is important because it can reveal things like "non-casters are essentially non-persons," as is revealed in 3.5 with sufficient scrutiny. The system encourages certain approaches and discourages others, through what mechanics are present: essentially, system fucking matters.

At the table, I want mechanics to support all the various things that characters may do, from combat to social encounters to exploration to crafting and dealing with economics, because I don't want to sit at the head of the table trying to make shit up on the fly, because that's how you get bad rules and an inconsistent system, and inconsistency is to be avoided at pretty much any cost (again, personal preference, but is a key tenet in my approach to gaming).

Non casters are non persons because the by the rules, they cannot crank out the damage per round of a caster?

Are you even listening to the drivel spewing out of your mouth?

For the record equating the worth of a character to their strict mechanical output via the rules is basically saying the rules are the game.

Quote from: The Butcher;759775It is also my experience that most "new school" players catch up to the deadlier tone of old school gaming fairly quickly. Those who clearly prefer a more "empowered" playstyle (i.e. don't show up for the post-massacre session) are a minority in my experience.

This has been my experience as well, I've even had players who blow up and walk out, come back later because the way they used to play wasn't "exciting" anymore.  I remember seeing Twilight Zone or one of those other shows where a mobster dies and goes to heaven, he wins at every gambling game, women fall all over him, but then he gets bored because he never loses, the chicks never say no.  He finds out he's not in heaven, he's in hell.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759782This has been my experience as well, I've even had players who blow up and walk out, come back later because the way they used to play wasn't "exciting" anymore.  I remember seeing Twilight Zone or one of those other shows where a mobster dies and goes to heaven, he wins at every gambling game, women fall all over him, but then he gets bored because he never loses, the chicks never say no.  He finds out he's not in heaven, he's in hell.

I pity players who have never experienced the visceral dread and tension of a game run by a capable DM where PC death is very much on the table. That's not to say it's the only, or even the best way to play D&D. But it's a very rewarding experience that I'd guess a lot of players have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

Quote from: Haffrung;759785I pity players who have never experienced the visceral dread and tension of a game run by a capable DM where PC death is very much on the table. That's not to say it's the only, or even the best way to play D&D. But it's a very rewarding experience that I'd guess a lot of players have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

I think my sig is appropriate at this time to express how I feel about PC death :D

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759781Non casters are non persons because the by the rules, they cannot crank out the damage per round of a caster?

...oh my god, that's what you think this is about? Get the bananas out of your ears, and read what I'm writing this time.

Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

A high-level D&D wizard is basically a walking industrial revolution in a can.

On top of all that, the combat disparity is distressing because of what it does to the dynamic at the table. You don't even need optimizers to wind up with casters accidentally stealing the show from everybody else. The purpose of game balance is to make as many character choices feasible as possible, to make them valued at the table, not to make sure that "everybody is doing the same damn DPR all the time," or what the fuck ever you think I was trying to get across. It's to stop things like wizards whipping out a wand of why are you even here, rogue.

I mean, seriously, if I had the approach you think I do, don't you think I would be singing 4e's praises? Jesus. I care about balance away from the table so I don't have to fucking worry about it at the table, so we can get on with the game. So I don't have to deal with fucking optimizers and what-not, so I don't have to worry about whether or not one guy is going to steal the spotlight, whether on purpose or on accident. The rules should just fucking work, so we can do the thing we're actually there to do, which is the story and simulation end of shit, and the rules should actually support the kind of world I want to present to the players, not some half-assed bullshit that the way characters work makes obsolete two levels in. This is why I insist the GM isn't there to do fucking rulings, because after having run 3.5 for 10+ years, I'm pretty goddamn sick of trying to make a game actually function "properly" (for my personal value of properly) on the fly; I just want it to work, without problems of crazy balance or stupid shit going on, and I want the mechanics to actually support the way I envision the world working, not resulting in crazy shit like wizards single-handedly fueling the world economy and manufacturing.

I only brought up the SGT because people were talking about white room testing, which isn't a useful measure of combat effectiveness. Just because I approve of the SGT doesn't mean I consider it the be-all end-all of game balance; it's a tool, and like most tools, it has its uses. But it's not the only tool in the box.

D&D has always had "world breaking" spells as you describe from day 1.  However, there was also always the assumption that PCs were pretty rare, and if you did ever run into that high level mage, he had a lot better things to do than go around creating walls of iron.

Sometimes I get the impression that 3e players played where there was a level 10 magic user on every block

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759794D&D has always had "world breaking" spells as you describe from day 1.  However, there was also always the assumption that PCs were pretty rare, and if you did ever run into that high level mage, he had a lot better things to do than go around creating walls of iron.

Sometimes I get the impression that 3e players played where there was a level 10 magic user on every block

I am actually surprised by a lot of old 1e material about how high level general everyday folks seems to be to be honest.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792...oh my god, that's what you think this is about? Get the bananas out of your ears, and read what I'm writing this time.

Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

A high-level D&D wizard is basically a walking industrial revolution in a can.

Its your business what kind of world you want, and that high level casters are so common that really powerful spells become mundane. I prefer worlds in which high level casters are rare. That's why I play older editions with caster restrictions and XP tables that reflect that.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792On top of all that, the combat disparity is distressing because of what it does to the dynamic at the table. You don't even need optimizers to wind up with casters accidentally stealing the show from everybody else. The purpose of game balance is to make as many character choices feasible as possible, to make them valued at the table, not to make sure that "everybody is doing the same damn DPR all the time," or what the fuck ever you think I was trying to get across. It's to stop things like wizards whipping out a wand of why are you even here, rogue.

Once again, you choose the world assumptions by which you play. Just because casters are uber and the crafting rules are completely borked by RAW doesn't mean it has to be that way in YOUR game. Authority begins and ends with those at the table. This is what you fail to understand, repeatedly.
 

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792I mean, seriously, if I had the approach you think I do, don't you think I would be singing 4e's praises? Jesus. I care about balance away from the table so I don't have to fucking worry about it at the table, so we can get on with the game. So I don't have to deal with fucking optimizers and what-not, so I don't have to worry about whether or not one guy is going to steal the spotlight, whether on purpose or on accident. The rules should just fucking work, so we can do the thing we're actually there to do, which is the story and simulation end of shit, and the rules should actually support the kind of world I want to present to the players, not some half-assed bullshit that the way characters work makes obsolete two levels in. This is why I insist the GM isn't there to do fucking rulings, because after having run 3.5 for 10+ years, I'm pretty goddamn sick of trying to make a game actually function "properly" (for my personal value of properly) on the fly; I just want it to work, without problems of crazy balance or stupid shit going on, and I want the mechanics to actually support the way I envision the world working, not resulting in crazy shit like wizards single-handedly fueling the world economy and manufacturing.

Then simply make it so.

ITT: People who have said 5e is fundamentally broken because of things that would be small things to change at the table (at will cantrips), tell someone who thinks 3e is broken for things that would be large things to change at the table (revamping high level magic, crafting rules) how the game isn't fundamentally broken because they can change things.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

(Not to say I agree with Gnomeworks. I think the SGT is just as wonky as a lot of other tests, but high level magic + 3.x crafting rules do break 3.x play, from experience at the table)

Quote from: jibbajibba;759797I am actually surprised by a lot of old 1e material about how high level general everyday folks seems to be to be honest.

In the modules there were a lot of crazy high level NPC'S so it does give off the wrong impression because it makes it seem like that's just a normal kingdom or whatever.

Quote from: Marleycat;759800In the modules there were a lot of crazy high level NPC'S so it does give off the wrong impression because it makes it seem like that's just a normal kingdom or whatever.

True, but the DMG is pretty clear as to how often you can expect to run into higher level NPCs in a game world.  MOdules are a bit of an exception because they are catered to that particular adventure.  I.e., you  might have two level 12 NPCs in the same town in a module when the DMG says they are much less frequent, but all that means is that it's a rare town, and not the expectation for every town.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792...oh my god, that's what you think this is about? Get the bananas out of your ears, and read what I'm writing this time.

Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

A high-level D&D wizard is basically a walking industrial revolution in a can.

On top of all that, the combat disparity is distressing because of what it does to the dynamic at the table. You don't even need optimizers to wind up with casters accidentally stealing the show from everybody else. The purpose of game balance is to make as many character choices feasible as possible, to make them valued at the table, not to make sure that "everybody is doing the same damn DPR all the time," or what the fuck ever you think I was trying to get across. It's to stop things like wizards whipping out a wand of why are you even here, rogue.

I mean, seriously, if I had the approach you think I do, don't you think I would be singing 4e's praises? Jesus. I care about balance away from the table so I don't have to fucking worry about it at the table, so we can get on with the game. So I don't have to deal with fucking optimizers and what-not, so I don't have to worry about whether or not one guy is going to steal the spotlight, whether on purpose or on accident. The rules should just fucking work, so we can do the thing we're actually there to do, which is the story and simulation end of shit, and the rules should actually support the kind of world I want to present to the players, not some half-assed bullshit that the way characters work makes obsolete two levels in. This is why I insist the GM isn't there to do fucking rulings, because after having run 3.5 for 10+ years, I'm pretty goddamn sick of trying to make a game actually function "properly" (for my personal value of properly) on the fly; I just want it to work, without problems of crazy balance or stupid shit going on, and I want the mechanics to actually support the way I envision the world working, not resulting in crazy shit like wizards single-handedly fueling the world economy and manufacturing.

I only brought up the SGT because people were talking about white room testing, which isn't a useful measure of combat effectiveness. Just because I approve of the SGT doesn't mean I consider it the be-all end-all of game balance; it's a tool, and like most tools, it has its uses. But it's not the only tool in the box.

I actually agree with a lot of the detail here but not the outcome.

Yes there is a large disparity between a high level fighter and a high level caster. However, it doesn't matter. The game isn't about winning and its not even about getting time in the spotlight. Sometimes its fun to play the hobbit, Malvolio is a great character, Oberyn Martell will live in your mind a long time.
The game is about roleplaying the character.
This doesn't mean I am balance agnostic I want to try and tweak some of the things I see as big breakers.
So take Hit points they are a major resource for fighters but they recover incredibly slowly in 1e. Whereas the casters main resource, spells, all recover daily.
Like I said I would modify the 1e spell slot progression to make low level wizards better but curtail the excesses of multiple powerful spells.

However, these tweaks won't give you a "fix" they might curb excess. At the end of the day D&D is a game in which you all roleplay characters of mixed abilities and skills. You have to live with that or pick another game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759801True, but the DMG is pretty clear as to how often you can expect to run into higher level NPCs in a game world.  MOdules are a bit of an exception because they are catered to that particular adventure.  I.e., you  might have two level 12 NPCs in the same town in a module when the DMG says they are much less frequent, but all that means is that it's a rare town, and not the expectation for every town.

trouble is the showing doesn't match the talking

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759799ITT: People who have said 5e is fundamentally broken because of things that would be small things to change at the table (at will cantrips), tell someone who thinks 3e is broken for things that would be large things to change at the table (revamping high level magic, crafting rules) how the game isn't fundamentally broken because they can change things.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

(Not to say I agree with Gnomeworks. I think the SGT is just as wonky as a lot of other tests, but high level magic + 3.x crafting rules do break 3.x play, from experience at the table)

No hypocrisy. I see 3E and 5E in the same light, hell you can toss 4E in there too. All games I will happily play but have no desire to run.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;759805No hypocrisy. I see 3E and 5E in the same light, hell you can toss 4E in there too. All games I will happily play but have no desire to run.

Yet you toss down every post about how you could cut out at will cantrips in your campaign if you want to as irrelevant.

The same advice you are giving here.

Hmmmm...

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759799ITT: People who have said 5e is fundamentally broken because of things that would be small things to change at the table (at will cantrips), tell someone who thinks 3e is broken for things that would be large things to change at the table (revamping high level magic, crafting rules) how the game isn't fundamentally broken because they can change things.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

(Not to say I agree with Gnomeworks. I think the SGT is just as wonky as a lot of other tests, but high level magic + 3.x crafting rules do break 3.x play, from experience at the table)

The whole past month or so has been wonky like that.  For years we had people saying how you don't need unique options when creating PCs because what defines your PC is how you play him or her during the actual game play.  We've had tons of arguments about how 2 B/X fighters can be completely different in the game despite being mechanically the same.  As soon as the starter set didn't include chargen, then you had the same people get very upset about not having enough options to create your own character.  If two B/X fighters are mechanically the same, what's the big difference between one you rolled stats for, and one that was already made?  The actual difference between the two on paper is nearly nonexistent.  I thought it was about how you played him during play that mattered?*

So it doesn't surprise me at all to see someone who said/implied/agreed that 5e is broken because houseruling something like at will cantrips is too major of a change, to now say that completely changing the foundation of how 3e plays isn't a big deal.

doesn't make any sense at all, but doesn't surprise me.

*Before someone strawmans me with this, I am NOT saying chargen isn't important or key part of D&D.  Just pointing out the inconsistencies in arguments made.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759806Yet you toss down every post about how you could cut out at will cantrips in your campaign if you want to as irrelevant.

The same advice you are giving here.

Hmmmm...

At will cantrips won't keep me from playing the game. Why would I make more work for myself by choosing a system to run that needs so much tinkering when I'm happy with what I have?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759808The whole past month or so has been wonky like that.  For years we had people saying how you don't need unique options when creating PCs because what defines your PC is how you play him or her during the actual game play.  We've had tons of arguments about how 2 B/X fighters can be completely different in the game despite being mechanically the same.  As soon as the starter set didn't include chargen, then you had the same people get very upset about not having enough options to create your own character.  If two B/X fighters are mechanically the same, what's the big difference between one you rolled stats for, and one that was already made?  The actual difference between the two on paper is nearly nonexistent.  I thought it was about how you played him during play that mattered?*

So it doesn't surprise me at all to see someone who said/implied/agreed that 5e is broken because houseruling something like at will cantrips is too major of a change, to now say that completely changing the foundation of how 3e plays isn't a big deal.

doesn't make any sense at all, but doesn't surprise me.

*Before someone strawmans me with this, I am NOT saying chargen isn't important or key part of D&D.  Just pointing out the inconsistencies in arguments made.

Some people can't separate the concept of chargen from charop or even from mechanical capability in any capacity.

If you handcraft an object and it performs the same as another object made by someone else its still special to you because YOU created it.

Quote from: Fiasco;759698Holy fuck! Is that shit for real?

It's a favorite at the Den.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759720Don't really give a fuck what happens at your table. A given instance of the game does not change the fact that the system is 90% combat driven. Exploration and social rules pretty much do not exist; you cannot objectively measure things that don't exist.

The weird thing about Denners is they're so locked into the 3.x mentality, when apparently they hate 3.x because it's a "bad game".  They seem to judge all games by the criteria of doing the things 3.x does.  It's like some kind of bizarro Stockholm Syndrome.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759720It's not like you can have social encounters on the list. There's no rules for them, and no class is particularly focused on them; as I said, you can't measure what doesn't exist.

In D&D 3.x.  As well as the fact that most of the language is directed specifically at D&D 3.x.  The default answer to "are we playing the same game" if using the SGT is "yes", because you're clearly all playing 3.x.

Quote from: The Butcher;759775It is also my experience that most "new school" players catch up to the deadlier tone of old school gaming fairly quickly. Those who clearly prefer a more "empowered" playstyle (i.e. don't show up for the post-massacre session) are a minority in my experience.

The important thing, I find, is setting up appropriate expectations.  Warn 'em first that death may be on the line, and give 'em ways of avoiding it.

It's when they walk in with the expectation "the GM will give us balanced encounters, and we have no choice, so we may as well just charge" that things often go to shit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759797I am actually surprised by a lot of old 1e material about how high level general everyday folks seems to be to be honest.

Yeah, in a lot of cases what you're seeing is a private campaign that got published, and those "everyday folks" are retired PCs.  Forgotten Realms, especially.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792Combat disparity is problematic, but is hardly the reason why 3.5 is "caster edition." The problem is that casters, not necessarily right out of the gate but pretty damn shortly thereafter, completely and fundamentally alter the world they exist in, if you take the rules to their logical conclusions. Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again? Spells like wall of iron, which completely negate the need for normal mining methods and utterly destroys any notion of a sensible economic system. I mean, that's just two examples off the top of my head, and I know that there are more; things like raise dead completely alter how a world functions, and yet the entire presentation of the game acts like this shit doesn't exist. D&D keeps trying to hang onto these pseudo-medieval trappings when that shit makes zero sense with all this crazy magic running around.

The problem with this line of thought is that while you are right in the ramfication of the impact of magic, you are wrong in that it applies to where the typical D&D settings is at socially and economically.

Wizards can create food, water, metal and all that. But the wizard is also a scholarly class. The wizard is a person that was born, raised, and had to be TAUGHT to be a wizard. Until he reached the point where he can learn the spells to create food & water and create hunks of metal he had to have his food, clothing and shelter provided for. In a society that doesn't have much surplus to use for this sort of thing.

Moreso the economic development is rooted in a time before the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. Not only they are missing key pieces that went into figure out mass production they missing the pieces of the foundation of the pieces of the industrial revolution. I am not talking material or machine tech but the very idea of production lines and automation. This is world where everything is done by hand by craftsmen with secrets passed from master to apprentices.

Along with all the other cultural and intellectual diversity that piled up through the centuries to make our modern age possible. They are non-existent in the typical D&D 3.X setting.

Eventually a D&D setting will go through their equivalent of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and it will be far out crazy because of magic.


But until then it is world with little surplus to waste on people studying books where knowledge is handed down through rigid and traditional channel from master to apprentice. Where said knowledge is crufted with useless shit that has no basis in reality but present because that tradition and they have no equivalent of the scientific method to pare it away. No peer review to allow people to compare notes at least.

In our own history, while the powerful had better food and more wealth their lives were not qualitatively better than the peasants they lorded over. No amount of gold or power could cure a king of cancer, or save him from the infection of a severely broken limb. The King's entertainment were those of his peasant but on a grander scale.

However with D&D Magic that changes. With highly skill craftsmen of magic known as wizards pockets of luxury that are close to modern day standard can exist. While the lack of the concept of mass production and the inability of society to train more than a few wizards a year would preclude wall of iron spells to supply the King's Army. It would allow for the Kings Guard to be equipped with the finest.

In the absence of other factors, any high magic system that require book learning would result in a world that 20% better than a comparable time in history up to the enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

That overall progress would be retarded due the fact that elites would enjoy a quality of life several order of magnitude better than the peasantry. There would fewer chances for the disruptions that accelerated human progress and diversity. Near immortal elves, long lived dwarves, and the incredible utility of magic (once learned) would also act as brakes.

Quote from: estar;759819The problem with this line of thought is that while you are right in the ramfication of the impact of magic, you are wrong in that it applies to where the typical D&D settings is at socially and economically.

Wizards can create food, water, metal and all that. But the wizard is also a scholarly class. The wizard is a person that was born, raised, and had to be TAUGHT to be a wizard. Until he reached the point where he can learn the spells to create food & water and create hunks of metal he had to have his food, clothing and shelter provided for. In a society that doesn't have much surplus to use for this sort of thing.

Moreso the economic development is rooted in a time before the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. Not only they are missing key pieces that went into figure out mass production they missing the pieces of the foundation of the pieces of the industrial revolution. I am not talking material or machine tech but the very idea of production lines and automation. This is world where everything is done by hand by craftsmen with secrets passed from master to apprentices.

Along with all the other cultural and intellectual diversity that piled up through the centuries to make our modern age possible. They are non-existent in the typical D&D 3.X setting.

Eventually a D&D setting will go through their equivalent of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and it will be far out crazy because of magic.


But until then it is world with little surplus to waste on people studying books where knowledge is handed down through rigid and traditional channel from master to apprentice. Where said knowledge is crufted with useless shit that has no basis in reality but present because that tradition and they have no equivalent of the scientific method to pare it away. No peer review to allow people to compare notes at least.

In our own history, while the powerful had better food and more wealth their lives were not qualitatively better than the peasants they lorded over. No amount of gold or power could cure a king of cancer, or save him from the infection of a severely broken limb. The King's entertainment were those of his peasant but on a grander scale.

However with D&D Magic that changes. With highly skill craftsmen of magic known as wizards pockets of luxury that are close to modern day standard can exist. While the lack of the concept of mass production and the inability of society to train more than a few wizards a year would preclude wall of iron spells to supply the King's Army. It would allow for the Kings Guard to be equipped with the finest.

In the absence of other factors, any high magic system that require book learning would result in a world that 20% better than a comparable time in history up to the enlightenment and the industrial revolution.

That overall progress would be retarded due the fact that elites would enjoy a quality of life several order of magnitude better than the peasantry. There would fewer chances for the disruptions that accelerated human progress and diversity. Near immortal elves, long lived dwarves, and the incredible utility of magic (once learned) would also act as brakes.

In theory you are right but in actual play D&D is nothing like that.

A bloke walks into a random tavern on the road to blah blah and he expects to find a couple of fighting men, a wizard or two and a holy man capable of miracles. When those guys die looting some tomb or other the survivors expect to stumble across another couple of like minded adventurers. There appears to be a constant unending supply of wizards available at every hostlery and injured adventurers expect to be able to walk into the local temple and receive miraculous healing.

The description of the default game world in no way matches the reality of the game as played.
Now if we had some more rigorous entry requirements, give wizards entry requirements more like paladins, min 17 intelligence say or you have to roll your class randomly and casters were one in 50 PCs or something then you would have a position as it stands casters are 2 a penny.
You can't compare casters to say savants at medieval courts because the regularity with with they appear makes them close to a skilled craftsman, a mason, metal worker or carpenter, or more like an artist you offer patronage to.

Random rolling + actual mortality took care of wizards pretty much in earlier versions.

The assumption that the Big Four Heroes won't die causes a lot of this issue, as well.

Quote from: robiswrong;759823Random rolling + actual mortality took care of wizards pretty much in earlier versions.

The assumption that the Big Four Heroes won't die causes a lot of this issue, as well.

up to a certain level yes but as I said a wizard has to be playing either dumb or in line with a very rigid paradigm to die after 6th or 7th level usless they are specifically targeted for assassination or similar which is a risk upto about 12th or 13th level.

A key issue of balance of course is that there is a concept that in old school games balance is a factor of the level process so fighters are tough at first but then wizards overtake.
The result of this of course is that at any point in play along that level curve none of the classes are balanced you can almost never have a party where everyone has a well matched niche of powers etc etc

Now I repeat I don't D&D was ever meant to be a balanced game. with most of the rules no thought was given to them at all they emerged through play and the ones that worked for a fast moving adventure game that was fun were kept and others discarded and that is totally fine but looking at the emergent rules and claiming they were a conscious set of options even let alone a well balanced system is obviously ludicrous.

And when some folks decry the travesty of balance that D&D became in 4e and claim balance is not required but then go one to explain through a series of underused, oft times ignored and ill considered rules that the classes in 1e are all balanced is difficult for me to get my head round.

Why its the sort of thing the OSR Taliban might say.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;759821In theory you are right but in actual play D&D is nothing like that.


The description of the default game world in no way matches the reality of the game as played.
Now if we had some more rigorous entry requirements, give wizards entry requirements more like paladins, min 17 intelligence say or you have to roll your class randomly and casters were one in 50 PCs or something then you would have a position as it stands casters are 2 a penny.
You can't compare casters to say savants at medieval courts because the regularity with with they appear makes them close to a skilled craftsman, a mason, metal worker or carpenter, or more like an artist you offer patronage to.

I view actual play D&D has being skewed to the viewpoint of the PCs. They encounter the above more often because that is the social circle they are part of. They don't deal with the seething masses of peasantry on a day to day basis.

Again because of the modern day we are used to dealing with and knowing about strangers from across the globe. The situation for the D&D setting is one of where a day's travel in any direction is the practical limit for 80% of the populace. With once in a year week long journey. And a once in a decade month long journey.

PCs are the exception because they travel far and encounter at lot of variety.

As far as entry requirement, you could roleplay that like in Ars Magica or Harnmaster Magic but in D&D it can be abstracted by the virtue that you created a character of that class. A wizard PC has had a master, had the connections or luck to become an apprentice, spent the time learning and is now on his own for the first time.

He is part of a loose but privileged class that includes other adventuring types.

And I will stress that the above is only for when the referee wants an explanation, or has a interesting idea that dovetails nicely with the above.

As for me, the social background for the Majestic Wilderlands is two decades worth of extrapolation and actual play based on the premise of the last two posts.  It mostly background noise but I had observant players pick up on it and use it to their advantage. It also served as a source of complications that led to adventures.

It has also checked more industrious players who attempted to ignite the industrial revolution on their own. The main source of frustration is the lack of anybody they can rely on to make industrial revolution happen. The inhabitants just don't GET it. They have little concept of being on time other than sunrise, noon, etc. Or working steady for hours on hours throughout the year. They are burst workers for the most part. They work hard during say harvest or during an emergency. But afterwards it is back to the slow rhythms of the agricultural year. In our history this was overcome by sheer brutality.

In most D&D Settings somebody trying this would be quickly be consider an evil overlord and bring down the ire of the established powers and the interest of adventuring parties.

Yes eventually the magical industrial revolution will happen and it will work exactly like the distractors say it would with unlimited iron and all that. But the typical D&D setting is set in the time before that with centuries to go before circumstances are right and the intellectual foundation is in place to make it happen.

Along with the fact the player is not willing (or finds it boring) to make his character part of an industrial assembly line.

How does "wizards are actually super rare people in the setting" square up as being from the same grognard mindset that spawns the "any player who wants to play something rare suffers from special snowflake syndrome."

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759835How does "wizards are actually super rare people in the setting" square up as being from the same grognard mindset that spawns the "any player who wants to play something rare suffers from special snowflake syndrome."

I think those are two different things.  IMO anyway.  I'm OK with players wanting to play that rare mage because PCs are rare by definition anyway.  But just because the PC happens to be a mage, doesn't mean that there should be mages in every town.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759835How does "wizards are actually super rare people in the setting" square up as being from the same grognard mindset that spawns the "any player who wants to play something rare suffers from special snowflake syndrome."

In 1/2e wizard is easy to qualify for, it's the Paladin or Bard that would be the special snowflake. Jibba has a point that if wizards were so rare they should have much stiffer entry requirements like a paladin. If you were never taking in things like the actual setting or other realistic factors.

Like adventurers in of themselves are a rare breed and that Dnd itself is centered on the player point of view because it has to be to actually work. Now in 2e if you wanted to be any good at being a wizard you really should have an INT of 14 or higher you can play that INT 9 wizard but realistically they're pretty boned from the start. The older the version of Dnd the less the stats actually matter if at all.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759835How does "wizards are actually super rare people in the setting" square up as being from the same grognard mindset that spawns the "any player who wants to play something rare suffers from special snowflake syndrome."

Wizards are clearly pretty common as adventurers.  A wizard isn't awesome just *because* he's a wizard.  It's because of what they *do*.

And that's the real annoyance of "special snowflake syndrome".  Wanting to be special because of what your character *is*, not what your character *does*.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759836I think those are two different things.  IMO anyway.  I'm OK with players wanting to play that rare mage because PCs are rare by definition anyway.  But just because the PC happens to be a mage, doesn't mean that there should be mages in every town.

Yeah. I was mostly just yanking peoples chains on that one. I should know better, but sometimes its fun.

(Though I do laugh at some of the more extreme "special snowflake" accusations I see sometimes)

Just make special snowflake a class. The guy can have a book-length backstory at level one, hold his pinky out when he drinks his espresso and wear a beret and a Che shirt. Done!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759794D&D has always had "world breaking" spells as you describe from day 1.  However, there was also always the assumption that PCs were pretty rare, and if you did ever run into that high level mage, he had a lot better things to do than go around creating walls of iron.

Quote from: estar;759832I view actual play D&D has being skewed to the viewpoint of the PCs. They encounter the above more often because that is the social circle they are part of. They don't deal with the seething masses of peasantry on a day to day basis.

Yep. In my campaigns, one in a hundred people have a level. The vast majority of those are fighters. Next most common is thieves. Wizards are in the neighbourhood of one in a thousand. Most of those are level 1-2 apprentices and dabblers. A duchy with 5,000 inhabitants might have one wizard over level 4. He's probably an eccentric weirdo who lives in a cave or a tower researching the arcane writings of Mergo the Cabalist, not a mid-level bureaucrat in the Department of Civic Infrastructure at Castle Fairweather.

Same with clerics. Most are 0-level lay priests. Clerics with a level are dedicated warrior-priests. Since most don't do crazily dangerous adventuring stuff, there are half as many 2nd level clerics as 1st level clerics. And half as many 3rd level as 2nd level. A 5th level cleric is likely a renowned, fanatical warrior-priest. He doesn't spend all day sitting on his ass in a temple in a city curing people with gout - he's going on perilous quests to the Mountains of Shadow to destroys nests of ghouls.

Basically, only adventurers have and gain levels. For the most parts, adventurers are weird, obsessive outcasts. Ergo, people with levels don't play a big part in the mundane management of cities and kingdoms.

The collision happens not so much over special snowflake but over "PCs can't die" + "everyone levels up at the same rate" + "replacement characters start at party level" + ignore INT limits on spells known + ignore chance to know spell + magic users can freely pick their spells instead of having to discover/research/learn from a willing teacher.

As Robiswrong said upthread, balance isn't just the wizard sucking at low level, it's also the attrition of PC wizards.

Quote from: Skywalker;758707The term OSR Taliban is being applied to those who just disagree with any element of 5e,

I've explicitly stated, several times, that not everyone who has a problem with 5e or is distrustful of WoTC is "OSR Taliban".  There are many people who have legitimate and honest reasons not to like 5e, or who felt sufficiently burnt by Wizards in the past (trust me, I can totally relate) that they're just not ready to trust anything they say until they  have the product in their hands.
And of course, there's also a lot of people displaying irrational hatred of 5e who have nothing to do with the OSR.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759799ITT: People who have said 5e is fundamentally broken because of things that would be small things to change at the table (at will cantrips), tell someone who thinks 3e is broken for things that would be large things to change at the table (revamping high level magic, crafting rules) how the game isn't fundamentally broken because they can change things.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

(Not to say I agree with Gnomeworks. I think the SGT is just as wonky as a lot of other tests, but high level magic + 3.x crafting rules do break 3.x play, from experience at the table)

See, I don't have a problem with people saying 3.5 has issues.  Of course it does.  It has gigantic issues, and the fact that I can change them all doesn't change that fact that it does indeed have them.  

Where I draw the line is people saying that "1e was just the same thing" when they either didn't play 1e at all, or they played 2e with half the rules and are commenting on 1e.  That's bullshit.

2e, 3e, 3.5e made successive changes to the Magic-User that fundamentally altered the structure of the class from the 1e version.  The 1e version of the class that I actually played for years and GM'd for longer is not the fake version people have floating in their head.

3e's problem was the Butterfly Effect, Death of a Thousand Cuts, whatever you want to call it.  A series of isolated, minor changes that created a fundamental difference in the paradigm of gameplay compared to previous versions.

So, now I see a supposedly minor change in 5e, a supposedly more old school game, Wizards having at-will cantrips, I say the exact same thing, I think it's one of those small isolated changes that fundamentally changes the Wizard class (guaranteed low damage output) which can snowball into massive differences in the game as a whole.  Time will tell.

In any case, the Rule 0 fallacy does not apply to any game, and I've commented many times on the Denner's ability to find true holes in math, which is important in determining if a class can indeed do what the numbers say it is supposed to do.

Quote from: jibbajibba;759821In theory you are right but in actual play D&D is nothing like that.

A bloke walks into a random tavern on the road to blah blah and he expects to find a couple of fighting men, a wizard or two and a holy man capable of miracles. When those guys die looting some tomb or other the survivors expect to stumble across another couple of like minded adventurers. There appears to be a constant unending supply of wizards available at every hostlery and injured adventurers expect to be able to walk into the local temple and receive miraculous healing.

It's obvious some 1e players touched you in a very bad place indeed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759865It's obvious some 1e players touched you in a very bad place indeed.

You know it's funny. I have given a ton of shit to people here because they are still pissed off about 4e, but, man, no game keeps people mad longer than 1e.
That's  a hell of a thing.

Quote from: Haffrung;759851Basically, only adventurers have and gain levels. For the most parts, adventurers are weird, obsessive outcasts. Ergo, people with levels don't play a big part in the mundane management of cities and kingdoms.

That an approach that work. I don't personally do that, I always had leveled individuals inhabiting my settlements. What does happen is that incidence of powerful or supernatural classes is very low. The main exception are clerics even remote villages usually has a 3rd level cleric (priest) in residence. But even with clerics it is a heirarchy with 9th level high priest about as common as bishops in western europe. Which means there are more than just a handful but they are not exactly common either.

Anyway either approach will work for a campaign. The key is being aware of your assumption so you can be consistent.

Quote from: Gib;759868You know it's funny. I have given a ton of shit to people here because they are still pissed off about 4e, but, man, no game keeps people mad longer than 1e.
That's  a hell of a thing.

Yeah, it's weird.  Probably due to people of a certain age being an adolescent or teenager when they had problems with their friends or acquaintances while playing the game and tied it to the game in some formative way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759859Where I draw the line is people saying that "1e was just the same thing" when they either didn't play 1e at all, or they played 2e with half the rules and are commenting on 1e.  That's bullshit.

2e, 3e, 3.5e made successive changes to the Magic-User that fundamentally altered the structure of the class from the 1e version.  The 1e version of the class that I actually played for years and GM'd for longer is not the fake version people have floating in their head.

I played with AD&D 1e for a number of years and use D&D 3e a lot over the years although it was never my primary game. I think the 3e core book Wizard is comparable to the 1e Magic User. Are their differences? Sure, the 1e Wizards has more "boom" spells. Spells that have outsize effect compared to their spell level. Like 1e Sleep. 1e Magic User have slightly less utility than their 3e Wizards counterparts due to 3e spell list.

Like all the classes in the 3e core book, the main advantage a 3e Wizard has is flexibility. The ability to customize their character.

Another difference is that a high level 3e Wizards powers relies on a mix of mechanics and items.  While 1e Wizards get some nice high level spells the focus on getting that Staff of the Archmagi and other kewl items to make the really big bangs as a Wizard. The end result is the same in both game a grossly overpowered character. Just how you get there differs.

Now if you start throwing in all the 3e expansion books well 1e has third party books and Dragon articles that break shit left and right. Note the same things as the 3e era of splatbooks but the result is the same.

When people start arguing over shit between OD&D to 3e and now 5e is all about inches. 4e is the exception because it a completely different game with its own issues. Where editions matter is in personal preferences. Many love the fact that high level characters get most of their power from magic items not feats, the right multi-classing setup. Many love how 3e handles high level customization.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759859In any case, the Rule 0 fallacy does not apply to any game, and I've commented many times on the Denner's ability to find true holes in math, which is important in determining if a class can indeed do what the numbers say it is supposed to do.

I applaud you for being consistent, man. I mean that sincerely. I was mostly poking at ExploderWizard.

I just think that if people are going to argue about games, they should be consistent about how they argue for games they like and against games they hate.

In my OD&D, low level Clerics and Wizards are pretty common. Why? If you have an average WIS, you can pledge your soul to a god and they make you a cleric. If you make it to 2nd level, the god even gives you spells. If you have an average INT and if you are literate, you can read thick books for couple years and learn how to cast magical spells.

I'm cool with that...for my D&D games. I have different ideas on how common spellcasters are in Warhammer, etc.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759741Right. I forgot that you folk don't like the idea of investigating the mechanics of the games you play with any degree of mathematical rigor, and like to just pretend that how the rules function should have no impact on what players do at all or what makes sense in-setting.

I actually find it quite interesting. Thanks for posting about it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;759746but I'm a horrible person for implying that there is an OSR Taliban.

That's why you're horrible??? :)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759764Quote me, you fucker. Quote where I said that, because I am sick of this strawman horseshit.

What forum doesn't reek of that particular odor?

Quote from: Marleycat;759769My point is the whole thing is pointless because who cares about some 13th wizard not related to the previous conversation?

I care Marleycat. I care about that poor 13th level wizard as a person!

Quote from: jibbajibba;759797I am actually surprised by a lot of old 1e material about how high level general everyday folks seems to be to be honest.

Its pretty funny when you roll up high level NPCs deep in the dungeons. You never meet those guys coming or going, just apparently hanging out at that level.

But hey, its one of those D&D idiosyncrasies that we either run with, or run from.

Quote from: RPGPundit;759854I've explicitly stated, several times, that not everyone who has a problem with 5e or is distrustful of WoTC is "OSR Taliban".  There are many people who have legitimate and honest reasons not to like 5e, or who felt sufficiently burnt by Wizards in the past (trust me, I can totally relate) that they're just not ready to trust anything they say until they  have the product in their hands.
And of course, there's also a lot of people displaying irrational hatred of 5e who have nothing to do with the OSR.

How does feeling that WOTC screwed 4E over, as a product, fall under this?

Quote from: Marleycat;758459Dammit!!!:) I totally forgot the 1st print Deities and Demigods. That book is mythical to me and mine. I heard about it but never ACTUALLY saw it.

I have seen two copies. One is in a private collection.

The other was in a store selling for US$70. I'll go with the 3.x version myself as I have it on PDF.

Quote from: Jame Rowe;759937How does feeling that WOTC screwed 4E over, as a product, fall under this?



I have seen two copies. One is in a private collection.

The other was in a store selling for US$70. I'll go with the 3.x version myself as I have it on PDF.

The one with Melnibone and Cthulhu?  I have like 4 of 'em, didn't know they were that rare.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759946The one with Melnibone and Cthulhu?  I have like 4 of 'em, didn't know they were that rare.

You might think of selling me one of them.:)

Quote from: CRKrueger;759946The one with Melnibone and Cthulhu?  I have like 4 of 'em, didn't know they were that rare.

They're not. If you are lucky you can even get them cheap because the seller doesn't know the difference between versions.

Quote from: estar;759819Eventually a D&D setting will go through their equivalent of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and it will be far out crazy because of magic.

Blackmoor would be an example of that. Magitech getting to the point that Blackmoor gets magically nuked off the map sufficient to tilt the planet off its axis.

Quote from: Marleycat;759838In 1/2e wizard is easy to qualify for, it's the Paladin or Bard that would be the special snowflake. Jibba has a point that if wizards were so rare they should have much stiffer entry requirements like a paladin. If you were never taking in things like the actual setting or other realistic factors.

Wizards are rare in 1/2 and even BX because they die to just about anything.

Wizardry probably has one of the highest mortality rates of any adventuring class.

Why are they so prolific at low levels then? Because of the very fact that IF you live long enough, you MIGHT gain incredible power. Hell, that is the motivation for some players who take mages.

Or to use a game design anology. Why do people keep putting out CCGs when the industry is paved with the hundreds of corpses of companies that have failed and failed and failed and failed? Because its seen as a road to incredible wealth IF you survive.

Quote from: Omega;759962Blackmoor would be an example of that. Magitech getting to the point that Blackmoor gets magically nuked off the map sufficient to tilt the planet off its axis.

Or Mystara I LOVE Mystara.

Quote from: Omega;759968Wizards are rare in 1/2 and even BX because they die to just about anything.

Wizardry probably has one of the highest mortality rates of any adventuring class.

Why are they so prolific at low levels then? Because of the very fact that IF you live long enough, you MIGHT gain incredible power. Hell, that is the motivation for some players who take mages.

Or to use a game design anology. Why do people keep putting out CCGs when the industry is paved with the hundreds of corpses of companies that have failed and failed and failed and failed? Because its seen as a road to incredible wealth IF you survive.

Interesting theory if a bit self fulfilling...I like it.:)

Considering I had zero expectations for Yu Gi Oh! and Kaijudo and Vanguard, as they came long after the CCG bubble, it is quite valid that one can still make it.

Ambition, the desire for legacy, and the vicissitudes of Fate and Time are easy setting explanations for much about high lvl wizards, plentiful apprentices, and strewn about magic items.

But then it is still all about your own views on your own setting, and thus context remains king.

Quote from: Opaopajr;760024Considering I had zero expectations for Yu Gi Oh! and Kaijudo and Vanguard, as they came long after the CCG bubble, it is quite valid that one can still make it.

Ambition, the desire for legacy, and the vicissitudes of Fate and Time are easy setting explanations for much about high lvl wizards, plentiful apprentices, and strewn about magic items.

But then it is still all about your own views on your own setting, and thus context remains king.

Now THAT makes sense. It's similar to Mage the Awakening's setting conceit's....Obsession, mystery, power, and power corrupts.

Quote from: Opaopajr;760024Considering I had zero expectations for Yu Gi Oh! and Kaijudo and Vanguard, as they came long after the CCG bubble, it is quite valid that one can still make it.

Kaijudo is the ressurrected corpse of an older game. Try 2. With cartoon.

Yu-gi-oh is still chugging away because its multimedia and got its start on the crest of the CCG wave.

Chaotic or Rokugan are better examples as they came out well after the bubble burst and which are still going last check.

A handfull in the vast ocean of dead CCGs.

Kinda like 1st level wizards. "ow... dead... again... ow..."

Good news, relatively speaking, is that with 5th ed you can still get wiped out.

In my mind, which is a much more awesome place than the world outside of it, the OSR Taliban consists of one loony neckbeard in a bi-plane kamikazing into the WoTC building while clutching hos copy of Game Mastery signed by Gygax in his terrified sweaty palms just before Boom!

PS I dont care if he's a duechebag or that he didnt finish that megadungeon kickstarter, or if he's a hypocrit, I enjoyed reading Grognardia and I miss it. Poseur or not, he was an entertaining writer.

Quote from: estar;759832I view actual play D&D has being skewed to the viewpoint of the PCs. They encounter the above more often because that is the social circle they are part of. They don't deal with the seething masses of peasantry on a day to day basis.

Again because of the modern day we are used to dealing with and knowing about strangers from across the globe. The situation for the D&D setting is one of where a day's travel in any direction is the practical limit for 80% of the populace. With once in a year week long journey. And a once in a decade month long journey.

PCs are the exception because they travel far and encounter at lot of variety.

As far as entry requirement, you could roleplay that like in Ars Magica or Harnmaster Magic but in D&D it can be abstracted by the virtue that you created a character of that class. A wizard PC has had a master, had the connections or luck to become an apprentice, spent the time learning and is now on his own for the first time.

He is part of a loose but privileged class that includes other adventuring types.

And I will stress that the above is only for when the referee wants an explanation, or has a interesting idea that dovetails nicely with the above.

As for me, the social background for the Majestic Wilderlands is two decades worth of extrapolation and actual play based on the premise of the last two posts.  It mostly background noise but I had observant players pick up on it and use it to their advantage. It also served as a source of complications that led to adventures.

It has also checked more industrious players who attempted to ignite the industrial revolution on their own. The main source of frustration is the lack of anybody they can rely on to make industrial revolution happen. The inhabitants just don't GET it. They have little concept of being on time other than sunrise, noon, etc. Or working steady for hours on hours throughout the year. They are burst workers for the most part. They work hard during say harvest or during an emergency. But afterwards it is back to the slow rhythms of the agricultural year. In our history this was overcome by sheer brutality.

In most D&D Settings somebody trying this would be quickly be consider an evil overlord and bring down the ire of the established powers and the interest of adventuring parties.

Yes eventually the magical industrial revolution will happen and it will work exactly like the distractors say it would with unlimited iron and all that. But the typical D&D setting is set in the time before that with centuries to go before circumstances are right and the intellectual foundation is in place to make it happen.

Along with the fact the player is not willing (or finds it boring) to make his character part of an industrial assembly line.

That is a load of pretty specific setting assumptions.

The Base D&D game makes no claims to be anything like that at all and is at best a vague sketch of a medieval-ish europe-esque hodge podge.

The material provided for the official settings liek Greyhawk and FR doesn't match your proposed design at all.

I can see that IF the world was as you described THEN some of your logical reasoning would be correct but the whole thing would have the logical consistency of a PG Woodhouse novel (Bertie Wooster is constantly meeting people seemingly at random who are associated with or related to his extended family or chaps he went to school with).

Quote from: CRKrueger;759865It's obvious some 1e players touched you in a very bad place indeed.

Nah I played it basically daily through all of high school.

But the "say" of 1e is very much out of kilter with the "show" of 1e.

Logical consistency is just one of my pet peeves (I am the guy that works out where the orc's take a shit and what they eat daily, the guy that likes to ensure that the water catchment area of the valley could indeed lead to the creation of a lake of that size etc etc ).
There is no point saying Magic users are rare if every town has a mage guild and the PCs can learn magic with no need to have found a mentor or attended a college or arcane arts or whatever. If any PC can be a wizard and there is no restriction on any back story they have to have to have been trained as a wizard then anyone can learn to be a wizard, ipso facto wizards are common not rare.
Saying but PCs are "rare" just because they are adventurers is just a fudge that covers up a hole in setting logic.

I would prefer if a setting had a random roll to see if you have magical potential or had much harder % changes to learn each spell (make 15 int a 10% change or something) or had a background requirement that only nobility or people from Blahblah land could choose the wizards path or ... make mages common like they are in normal D&D but accept that and alter the background accordingly.

And again I am not angry with D&D of any stripe. I just don't bother to adopt them as games. I never moved to 3e because it was quite obvious from cracking the first set of books open that is was a game of system mastery and I am not a fan of system mastery. Its true over time we altered a lot of the 1e/2e game to suit our play style but its still D&D. My own heartbreaker goes further and ends up with a game that can't be considered D&D but at its core its as close to D&D as St John's gospel is to St Luke's/

Quote from: TristramEvans;760036In my mind, which is a much more awesome place than the world outside of it, the OSR Taliban consists of one loony neckbeard in a bi-plane kamikazing into the WoTC building while clutching hos copy of Game Mastery signed by Gygax in his terrified sweaty palms just before Boom!

PS I dont care if he's a duechebag or that he didnt finish that megadungeon kickstarter, or if he's a hypocrit, I enjoyed reading Grognardia and I miss it. Poseur or not, he was an entertaining writer.

Nah, JMal was a pompous, small minded little cock who had nothing much of worth to say.

Quote from: Omega;760034Chaotic or Rokugan are better examples as they came out well after the bubble burst and which are still going last check.

Never seen or heard of Chaotic.

But I know my L5R (Rokugan) and that was very much before the bubble burst. To be more precise, Imperial edition (the 1st set) was rather during when Spellfire and On the Edge and the like was floundering and Decipher was up shit's creek with Paramount over Star Trek CCG. By '96-'97 it was reprinting its core, after 3 or so expansions, in Obsidian edition prepping for the Day of Thunder.

'94-'95 was around MtG 3rd ed (a.k.a. Revised) and Fallen Empires, and the mega printing of Jyhad, proved that customers could not absorb so much and FLGSes took it in the pants. The first big crash was pretty much in the following two years as Spellfire, Mythos, etc. implodes while MtG, Netrunner, and Jyhad catches a cold. Oh the heady days of youth...

Quote from: jibbajibba;760056Nah I played it basically daily through all of high school.

But the "say" of 1e is very much out of kilter with the "show" of 1e.

Logical consistency is just one of my pet peeves (I am the guy that works out where the orc's take a shit and what they eat daily, the guy that likes to ensure that the water catchment area of the valley could indeed lead to the creation of a lake of that size etc etc ).
There is no point saying Magic users are rare if every town has a mage guild and the PCs can learn magic with no need to have found a mentor or attended a college or arcane arts or whatever. If any PC can be a wizard and there is no restriction on any back story they have to have to have been trained as a wizard then anyone can learn to be a wizard, ipso facto wizards are common not rare.
Saying but PCs are "rare" just because they are adventurers is just a fudge that covers up a hole in setting logic.

There is an option also that mage rarity increases with level. While apprentice magic users might be as common as other adventurers, those that survive to become high level won't be so common and there might not be even one in every town, much less a guild full of them.

Of course the DM must actually show this in the npc population for it to be true for the campaign.

Quote from: TristramEvans;760036In my mind, which is a much more awesome place than the world outside of it, the OSR Taliban consists of one loony neckbeard in a bi-plane kamikazing into the WoTC building while clutching hos copy of Game Mastery signed by Gygax in his terrified sweaty palms just before Boom!

See the Exploderwizard quote currently dwelling in my signature. I liked it so much I entertained the idea of doing an OSR Taliban video, with demands and shit (and maybe even "executing" a 5enthusiast), and uploading it to Youtube.

Quote from: TristramEvans;760036PS I dont care if he's a duechebag or that he didnt finish that megadungeon kickstarter, or if he's a hypocrit, I enjoyed reading Grognardia and I miss it. Poseur or not, he was an entertaining writer.

Quote from: Fiasco;760069Nah, JMal was a pompous, small minded little cock who had nothing much of worth to say.

He may well be. Nevertheless, the things he did say on that blog had some worth to me, someone who wasn't around in the days of OD&D, B/X and 1e, but helped contextualize some poorly understood reminiscences of my AD&D 2e and BECMI/RC experience.

It was also the first place I read about Appendix N and it got me to track down and read Jack Vance, Clark Ashton Smith, Poul Anderson and others I haven't even heard about.

So yeah, whatever his failings as a human being, or his lack of Old School Ideological Purity, JaMal was my first guide into old school D&D and the OSR. You can credit him with at least one "convert". For what I'm worth – I don't even play exclusively old school D&D! But I'm skeptical of 5e, do I count? :D

Quote from: The Butcher;760077For what I'm worth – I don't even play exclusively old school D&D! But I'm skeptical of 5e, do I count? :D

To the Inqui5ition, that makes you a ringleader.

Quote from: jibbajibba;760056Nah I played it basically daily through all of high school.

and that's how YOU played.

Quote from: Opaopajr;760071Never seen or heard of Chaotic.

But I know my L5R (Rokugan)

Chaotic is a Swedish CCG/multimedia, 2 cartoon series and an online play version.

Rokugan, ook, mispelled that. Meant, Redakai. The one with the transparent cards. Been a long day. Also multimedia. Though I've not seen the anime.

And that is something the OSR lacks. A cartoon series. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CRKrueger;759946The one with Melnibone and Cthulhu?  I have like 4 of 'em, didn't know they were that rare.

They're not; I had six a couple of summers ago, sold most of 'em off.  I've owned a total of thirteen copies.

People "think" they're rare because of the publication issues, but nobody was ever sued or legally threatened.  Something like 30,000-40,000 copies must've been printed (very likely more) as ten to fifteen thousand are still in existence (estimated).  They're just not rare.  People assign value to them that they just don't have.

D&D doesn't appear (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=deities+and+demigods&_nkwusc=dieties+and+demigods&_rdc=1) to be that expensive for those that want it either.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;760087They're not; I had six a couple of summers ago, sold most of 'em off.  I've owned a total of thirteen copies.

People "think" they're rare because of the publication issues, but nobody was ever sued or legally threatened.  Something like 30,000-40,000 copies must've been printed (very likely more) as ten to fifteen thousand are still in existence (estimated).  They're just not rare.  People assign value to them that they just don't have.

Why have you owned 13 of them?

Quote from: jibbajibba;760096Why have you owned 13 of them?

The sacrificial altar has to be propped up by exactly 13 copies of deities & demigods or dread Cthulhu won't answer.

Quote from: CRKrueger;760081and that's how YOU played.

Nah not really but that is definitely how material was generally presented in magazines and so on.
Like I have mentioned a few times we didn't generally accept the "new PCs just happen to turn up" model at all which is why as I have also mentioned previously I spent a couple of sessions playing a sword.

I mean look at the old school tropes round each player having a group of PCs and henchmen and you take the on into the adventure as appropriate how does that relate to the concept of PCs being rare and the vast majority of folks being 0 level?

Quote from: One Horse Town;760097The sacrificial altar has to be propped up by exactly 13 copies of deities & demigods or dread Cthulhu won't answer.

And the last thing you want is a....

(http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3400/v4eyu8t/products/1410/images/286/56__33283.1365006421.250.250.jpg?c=2)

Quote from: jibbajibba;760056Nah I played it basically daily through all of high school.

Quote from: CRKrueger;760081and that's how YOU played.

Quote from: jibbajibba;760098Nah not really but that is definitely how material was generally presented in magazines and so on.

So this fictional 1e playstyle you have in your head that you shit out as fact on forums every now and again you never actually played, just assumed got played from your interpretation of the rules.

Cool story bro.

Quote from: Fiasco;760069Nah, JMal was a pompous, small minded little cock who had nothing much of worth to say.

Never met him, but, as I said, I found his blog entertaining. Note that entertaining does not necessarily mean I agreed with everything he said, but if he wasnt a decent writer nobody would have STRONG OPINIONS FROM STRANGERS ON THE INTERNETS! about him years later

Quote from: TristramEvans;760155Never met him, but, as I said, I found his blog entertaining. Note that entertaining does not necessarily mean I agreed with everything he said, but if he wasnt a decent writer nobody would have STRONG OPINIONS FROM STRANGERS ON THE INTERNETS! about him years later

JMal definitely had some interesting articles.  Yeah, excessive navel-gazing, yeah essentially clueless about a lot, pompous ass - as time went on, certainly.  But he got people talking and realizing "Hey, those old games were actually pretty good you know, I'm not the only one who actually liked them."

Quote from: Brad;758887You mean like all the jackass grognards who bitched endlessly about WotC sitting on AD&D for years, then stating loudly they would NOT purchase the reprints out of spite due to some perceived grievance?

I remember those guys.

Well yes.

WOTC have been complete cocks, no question, but they did give us the OGL and thus safeguard D&D for all time. I can forgive even 4E for that.

Besides, they are a corporation, why hold them to higher standards than any other consumer product producer. When you buy a car do you not buy a Ford because they made a shit model back in 2008?

Quote from: TristramEvans;760155Never met him, but, as I said, I found his blog entertaining. Note that entertaining does not necessarily mean I agreed with everything he said, but if he wasnt a decent writer nobody would have STRONG OPINIONS FROM STRANGERS ON THE INTERNETS! about him years later

I think you'll find that Dmimmermount is what pissed off most people. He fucked up and then crawled off to G+ without ever admitting fault or apologizing to the poor stooges he defrauded.

Quote from: CRKrueger;759946The one with Melnibone and Cthulhu?  I have like 4 of 'em, didn't know they were that rare.

I'm not sure. All I know is that the for-sale copy was $70.

I'm not buying it as I still need to find a job that pays more than $8.50 US an hour.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759792Spells like create food and water: huh, so why does farming exist, again?

Q1: How many people can actually cast that spell in the game world?
Q2: How many of those people are willing to spend their days casting that spell over and over again to feed everyone else?

If the answer to Q1 is "plenty" and Q2 is "enough", then yeah, you have a gameworld without farming. But I would argue that it is a world where spellcasting powers are substantially more common than the rules assume. Remember that the composition of a PC party implies nothing about the distribution of spellcasters in the population as a whole.

Quote from: Warthur;760258Q1: How many people can actually cast that spell in the game world?
Q2: How many of those people are willing to spend their days casting that spell over and over again to feed everyone else?

Q3: How many gods will tolerate their divine power being put to such mundane, and perhaps revolutionary uses?

Gods typically don't like revolution. They don't like being used to achieve the ends of men, rather than their own ends. Remember how the gods punished Prometheus? A lot players seem to forget that every spell a cleric casts is at the sufferance of a deity, and should be cast towards the desired goals of that deity.

Quote from: Warthur;760258Q1: How many people can actually cast that spell in the game world?
Q2: How many of those people are willing to spend their days casting that spell over and over again to feed everyone else?

If the answer to Q1 is "plenty" and Q2 is "enough", then yeah, you have a gameworld without farming. But I would argue that it is a world where spellcasting powers are substantially more common than the rules assume. Remember that the composition of a PC party implies nothing about the distribution of spellcasters in the population as a whole.

Quote from: Haffrung;760259Q3: How many gods will tolerate their divine power being put to such mundane, and perhaps revolutionary uses?

Gods typically don't like revolution. They don't like being used to achieve the ends of men, rather than their own ends. Remember how the gods punished Prometheus? A lot players seem to forget that every spell a cleric casts is at the sufferance of a deity, and should be cast towards the desired goals of that deity.

There you both go again, bringing up things outside of literal RAW that impact actual game play.  When will you both learn that the only thing that matters when making generalizations about game play are white room scenarios?

;)

Quote from: Jame Rowe;759937How does feeling that WOTC screwed 4E over, as a product, fall under this?

Why would that affect your feelings about 5E one way or another? If 5E, when it comes out, turns out to be a game that you think is well-designed and which you'd enjoy playing, would you really spurn it because of sadfeels about Wizards' treatment of 4E?

Quote from: Haffrung;760259Q3: How many gods will tolerate their divine power being put to such mundane, and perhaps revolutionary uses?

Well, to be fair in some settings clerics will be getting their spells from abstract concepts or through the sheer power of belief. ("Lothar, don't you get it? You didn't need the magic feather - the Cure Light Wounds was inside you all along!") But yeah, in a setting where the gods are actual people who have opinions on stuff they're going to be like "excuse me, I didn't realise I was the God of Welfare over here."

Quote from: Haffrung;760259Q3: How many gods will tolerate their divine power being put to such mundane, and perhaps revolutionary uses?

Gods typically don't like revolution. They don't like being used to achieve the ends of men, rather than their own ends. Remember how the gods punished Prometheus? A lot players seem to forget that every spell a cleric casts is at the sufferance of a deity, and should be cast towards the desired goals of that deity.

The Neutral Good god of feeding all the poor folks?
We don't know that all gods are megalomatic arseholes who would torture an immortal for eternity for giving man the ability to make a decent hot dinner or would commit mass genocide by drowning of all the people on earth because they failed to worship him with the correct degree of reverence.

From a wizard perspective since we have established that the entry requirements are minimal and since under D&D 1e rules every large settlement has a wizard that is willing to train lower level wizards in return for gold in line with 1e training and leveling rules we can assume that said wizard who is willing to train for money -
a) is willing to train wizards
b) is interested in money

Thus would said wizard possibly train a number of acolytes in magic basics and then teach them a utilitarian 1st level wizard spell like light, mending, unseen servant or enlarge/reduce and have them mass producing a load of shit in return for room and board. These could be orphans of reasonable intelligence that make the % roll to know a spell. They are not the "rare" folks that want to be adventurers but plenty of smart kids work in sweat shops rather than live on the street.

Doesn't that all seem remarkable viable in a setting with minimal to zero entry level requirements for wizardry.

Quote from: Warthur;760266Well, to be fair in some settings clerics will be getting their spells from abstract concepts or through the sheer power of belief. ("Lothar, don't you get it? You didn't need the magic feather - the Cure Light Wounds was inside you all along!") But yeah, in a setting where the gods are actual people who have opinions on stuff they're going to be like "excuse me, I didn't realise I was the God of Welfare over here."

Unless you were like actually the God of Welfare of course :)

And how are the dozens of other god in a typical D&D world going to like the entire social and natural order being overturned by a revolution in agriculture?

The crux of the issue is applying modern values and outlooks to a fantasy world. The assumption of utilitarian and rational economic models of human organization. Vastly underestimating the role of tradition, taboo, and irational values in shaping the behavior of pre-modern societies. The designers of D&D were far better versed in history and mythology than a typical player today, for whom the D&D mileu is modern North America with swords and fireballs.

Unless the game world has undergone something like the Enlightenment, I assume the people have worldviews and outlooks much like the early medieval, but far more dangerous and passionate.

Quote from: Haffrung;760274And how are the dozens of other god in a typical D&D world going to like the entire social and natural order being overturned by a revolution in agriculture?

The crux of the issue is applying modern values and outlooks to a fantasy world. The assumption of utilitarian and rational economic models of human organization. Vastly underestimating the role of tradition, taboo, and irational values in shaping the behavior of pre-modern societies. The designers of D&D were far better versed in history and mythology than a typical player today, for whom the D&D mileu is modern North America with swords and fireballs.

Unless the game world has undergone something like the Enlightenment, I assume the people have worldviews and outlooks much like the early medieval, but far more dangerous and passionate.

well.... maybe its a monotheistic society, maybe the other gods are absent partners type gods, maybe the world is divided up into kingdoms each with a patron deity and their main role is to vie between each other for control and this becomes a defacto tactic for surrounding god kingdoms and spending time grubbing round for basic food wastes time and resources that could be used to declare Jihad.

I mean if Jesus was prepared to use his magical powers to make sure there was enough booze at a mate's wedding I am sure there are a plethora of deities willing to help the poor, heal the sick and spread a little sunshine.

And I don't reckon all preliterate people have world views anything like the early medieval european period at all. Look at pacific NW coast Amerindians and Potlatch or the rules of gift resiprosity in the Trobriand islands or the any other numerous examples we could site as being entirely not like Western Europe in 1320.

The point of my reply, folks isn't that there is a single "TRUTH" so how a world of D&D using 3e magic (or any edition magic). Only that it does not automatically implies a farmless setting, a setting without mines, or whatever logical side effect of the magic system exists.

My point is that plausible reasons can be easily constructed to explain why a D&D setting can have create food & water, and Wall of iron and yet be a medieval culture.

As people been pointing there not even a single set of plausible reason but multiple sets of reasons that can be used. Which one is the "TRUTH" is whatever set works best for your setting. Whatever set of reason leads to most interesting set of adventures for your group to experience.

And the point of even thinking about this to create more grist for the adventure mill.

Quote from: Warthur;760265Why would that affect your feelings about 5E one way or another? If 5E, when it comes out, turns out to be a game that you think is well-designed and which you'd enjoy playing, would you really spurn it because of sadfeels about Wizards' treatment of 4E?

That's my opinion as well.  It's no secret I'm no fan of 3e, and especially 4e.  But I enjoy 5e.  People need to stop thinking of WotC as some sort of hivemind single entity, where the exact same people designed 3e, 4e, and now 5e.

Things change, get over it.  I used to be a chevy guy through and through, and hated Ford.  But I bought my F150 in 2007 and it's the best vehicle I've ever owned.  It would be pretty stupid of me to punish Ford for the new F150 because the one they made in the 90s sucked ass.

Quote from: Fiasco;760233I think you'll find that Dmimmermount is what pissed off most people. He fucked up and then crawled off to G+ without ever admitting fault or apologizing to the poor stooges he defrauded.

Yes, thats exactly the thing I dont care about. Wish he'd keep doing Grognardia despite his embarrasment over it.

"The poor will be with us always." --Jesus.

Apparently he was holding out.

Grognardia was like most rock 'n roll bands' catalogues: Strong original material out of the gate but then devolving into stale, formulaic paint-by-numbers stuff.

Most of his later output was doing reviews of magazines most people never read and retrospectives of games he had never played.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;760260There you both go again, bringing up things outside of literal RAW that impact actual game play.  When will you both learn that the only thing that matters when making generalizations about game play are white room scenarios?

;)

Needless pedantry, but it is RAW in TSR that clerical spells are the province of being in good standing and even still spells granted are dependent upon deity fiat. It is the rule, even without the maths next to it. Perhaps something changed in the travels to 3e?

Quote from: jibbajibba;760267From a wizard perspective since we have established that the entry requirements are minimal and since under D&D 1e rules every large settlement has a wizard that is willing to train lower level wizards in return for gold in line with 1e training and leveling rules we can assume that said wizard who is willing to train for money -
a) is willing to train wizards
b) is interested in money

Thus would said wizard possibly train a number of acolytes in magic basics and then teach them a utilitarian 1st level wizard spell like light, mending, unseen servant or enlarge/reduce and have them mass producing a load of shit in return for room and board. These could be orphans of reasonable intelligence that make the % roll to know a spell. They are not the "rare" folks that want to be adventurers but plenty of smart kids work in sweat shops rather than live on the street.

Doesn't that all seem remarkable viable in a setting with minimal to zero entry level requirements for wizardry.

Conversely, if you follow the logic of most modules, then active adventurers are fairly uncommon since it ALWAYS falls on the PCs to save the day.
XYZ level NPCs dont count as it seems a fair portion promptly retired and founded a town, city, or kingdom. So stop asking why the heck THEY didnt save the day! hmph!

:rolleyes:

Interestingly, ine one module I had it specifically mentioned a king hiring a wizard to help with reclaiming land in a swamp. Obstensibly there to cast Lower Water and Walls of Stone.

Someone at least thought of public works mages too.

Quote from: Opaopajr;760306Needless pedantry, but it is RAW in TSR that clerical spells are the province of being in good standing and even still spells granted are dependent upon deity fiat. It is the rule, even without the maths next to it. Perhaps something changed in the travels to 3e?

bad wording on my part.  I meant RAW in the sense of a mechanic, something that can be put into an equation

Quote from: Opaopajr;760306Needless pedantry

Pish posh! What forum pendantry could ever be needless?

Quote from: Opaopajr;760306Needless pedantry, but it is RAW in TSR that clerical spells are the province of being in good standing and even still spells granted are dependent upon deity fiat. It is the rule, even without the maths next to it. Perhaps something changed in the travels to 3e?

Same rules but I've rarely seen it enforced and more commonly outright ignored regardless of edition used.

Quote from: Opaopajr;760306Needless pedantry, but it is RAW in TSR that clerical spells are the province of being in good standing and even still spells granted are dependent upon deity fiat. It is the rule, even without the maths next to it. Perhaps something changed in the travels to 3e?

Amazing how a lot of these criticisms of old school play always seem to require ignoring key elements of the rules in order to manifest themselves?

The idea that if you go around slaughtering cats, the God of Cats might not answer your prayers or indeed may even decide to show his displeasure in other ways isn't exactly rocket science.  Bog standard fantasy settings run by modern westerners are the place where you'll find humans who never fear their gods and clerics are basically wizards in plate.  Greyhawk however, wasn't one of those, and for all the high-level hijinks, the original Realms wasn't either.

Quote from: Marleycat;760340Same rules but I've rarely seen it enforced and more commonly outright ignored regardless of edition used.

You're right which is exactly why it's an issue in my OD&D games.

In my OD&D, your cleric prays for his new spells and makes as WIS saving throw. If successful, your cleric is successful in getting the spells desired. On a natural 20, you may even get an additional 1st level spell favored by the god as a freebie.

If you fail the save, you still get spells, but now they are random off a list I have for each god in my campaign (I have 3 main gods for PCs). The spells are the god's favorites and reflect his domain.

If you botch the save, your prayers went wrong. Perhaps you mumbled, didn't show enough respect, forgot some bit of temple lore about today or whatever esle, but your god is peeved. This can manifest for anything to being denied your highest level spell to just knowing that your god is peeved and this day better not end without some kind of notable atonement.

And that's just the morning spells. I believe in a very Greek-god relationship with mortals for clerics, so its not unusual for clerics to get prophetic dreams or be faced with signs from their god that may divert them from their goals to please the god instead.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759727That's... kinda funny.

You can't really argue that the social encounter systems in D&D - pick an edition - hold a candle to the amount of mechanics that exist for combat.

No, but thank you for playing.  In OD&D the section on Charisma, its effects on NPCs, and how it can be modified by PCs, is considerably longer than the combat rules.

Welcome to "knowing what the fuck you're talking about."

Quote from: Spinachcat;760369You're right which is exactly why it's an issue in my OD&D games.

In my OD&D, your cleric prays for his new spells and makes as WIS saving throw. If successful, your cleric is successful in getting the spells desired. On a natural 20, you may even get an additional 1st level spell favored by the god as a freebie.

If you fail the save, you still get spells, but now they are random off a list I have for each god in my campaign (I have 3 main gods for PCs). The spells are the god's favorites and reflect his domain.

If you botch the save, your prayers went wrong. Perhaps you mumbled, didn't show enough respect, forgot some bit of temple lore about today or whatever esle, but your god is peeved. This can manifest for anything to being denied your highest level spell to just knowing that your god is peeved and this daxy better not end without some kind of notable atonement.

And that's just the morning spells. I believe in a very Greek-god relationship with mortals for clerics, so its not unusual for clerics to get prophetic dreams or be faced with signs from their god that may divert them from their goals to please the god instead.

That's fun. I'm swiping it.

Quote from: Simlasa;758440I guess that cuts out Runequest 2e then... which I'd always thought of as an OSR game... and will readily play in the style I consider 'old school'.
Whatever.

Speaking as a Chaosium RQ grognard myself, tell them that we over here in RQ land mock D&D narrative based hit points and AC, and if they want real hard core, bust open the old Pavis boxed set and watch their PCs be eaten by Broo and Rubble Runners ;) We don't need their high faluting, GM-narrativist poo.

Chaosium RQ - as hardcore sandbox as anyone else!

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;760883Chaosium RQ - as hardcore sandbox as anyone else!

It would probably get more of the respect for being hardcore old school without Howard the duck as a playable race. :D

Quote from: Exploderwizard;761011It would probably get more of the respect for being hardcore old school without Howard the duck as a playable race. :D

Those were some damn mean ducks!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;761011It would probably get more of the respect for being hardcore old school without Howard the duck as a playable race. :D

Strangely I never had a problem with the ducks... they're a bit weird/scary because they're cursed and probably bad luck to be around. If I were really bothered by them though I'd just change them to toads or something less 'jokey'.
I had more difficulty with the elves being hermaphroditic plants.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;761011It would probably get more of the respect for being hardcore old school without Howard the duck as a playable race. :D

The ducks are about the only thing I really like about Glorantha.  And to date no GM I've played with in that setting would let me play one.*



*I can forgive a setting I don't like for a good GM.

Quote from: Simlasa;761084Strangely I never had a problem with the ducks... they're a bit weird/scary because they're cursed and probably bad luck to be around. If I were really bothered by them though I'd just change them to toads or something less 'jokey'.
I had more difficulty with the elves being hermaphroditic plants.

Shades of Wraethu!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;761011It would probably get more of the respect for being hardcore old school without Howard the duck as a playable race. :D

Well, when you put it that way, yeah.

But Uncle Scrooge is hella old school.

I can't really understand the anti-duck fixation coming from dudes who play hobbits (or even sillier things).

Quote from: Phillip;761416I can't really understand the anti-duck fixation coming from dudes who play hobbits (or even sillier things).

There were no ducks in LotR.

If you don't like Sergeant Joe (http://suikoden.wikia.com/wiki/Sgt._Joe), you are wrong.

Quote from: Phillip;761416I can't really understand the anti-duck fixation coming from dudes who play hobbits (or even sillier things).

I don't play hobbits, either. I once played a half-elf but only for the bonuses.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;761500I don't play hobbits, either. I once played a half-elf but only for the bonuses.

I'm voiding you're membership card immediately!!

Membership of what?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;761546Membership of what?

Dairy Queen.:)

Quote from: Fiasco;759229Eyup. The worst thing you could say of the 5E crowd is that they are overly positive and enthusiastic about the new edition to the point where they deny it has any flaws at all. I'm just not seeing anyone saying you must convert to the new edition or else! Or even that its the best edition evarrr...

I certainly don't think that it has no flaws.  I know for a fact there'll be rules I would be changing if I personally ran 5e.

I just think that it is the best edition in quite a while and will be easier to make into the kind of game I want, or to run the kind of adventures I want than either of the last two iterations.

Quote from: RPGPundit;761671I certainly don't think that it has no flaws.  I know for a fact there'll be rules I would be changing if I personally ran 5e.

I just think that it is the best edition in quite a while and will be easier to make into the kind of game I want, or to run the kind of adventures I want than either of the last two iterations.

Yep.  I don't think there is a single person here who says they liked 5e who has remotely implied it doesn't have any flaws.  And I'm pretty sure no one has said that you need to stop playing what you like and play 5e instead.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761676Yep.  I don't think there is a single person here who says they liked 5e who has remotely implied it doesn't have any flaws.  And I'm pretty sure no one has said that you need to stop playing what you like and play 5e instead.

You aren't doing WotC any favors, you know that right? :D

Quote from: Endless Flight;761760You aren't doing WotC any favors, you know that right? :D

they're not paying me, like...ahem...someone, so why should I? ;-)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761804they're not paying me, like...ahem...someone, so why should I? ;-)

Har har! 0_o. <--->.

Quote from: RPGPundit;761671I certainly don't think that it has no flaws.  I know for a fact there'll be rules I would be changing if I personally ran 5e.

I just think that it is the best edition in quite a while and will be easier to make into the kind of game I want, or to run the kind of adventures I want than either of the last two iterations.

I know several of us 5E supporters listed several things we thought were flaws. Agree with Pundit. It's a nice set of rules, and more of a successor to 2E than 3rd and 4th were, in my opinion.

The biggest flaw I've seen so far is the Dex penalty not being applied to Armor, if I understand the way it works correctly.

Quote from: Endless Flight;761856The biggest flaw I've seen so far is the Dex penalty not being applied to Armor, if I understand the way it works correctly.

I'm not confident about the DEX thing either to be honest but I need to see it in play before declaring it the end of STR based fighters or making STR a dump stat that the charOp crowd insists it is. But I am sure I hate the 3 strike rule. Maybe I can port over 2e's death rules?

Quote from: Endless Flight;761856The biggest flaw I've seen so far is the Dex penalty not being applied to Armor, if I understand the way it works correctly.

I don't know about that being one of the biggest flaws for me (death saves are IMO), but it certainly doesn't feel rignt

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761676Yep.  I don't think there is a single person here who says they liked 5e who has remotely implied it doesn't have any flaws.  And I'm pretty sure no one has said that you need to stop playing what you like and play 5e instead.

I would say there were several of you that seemed to be implying exactly that until yesterday, when some of you started admitting that there were things you didn't like.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761869I would say there were several of you that seemed to be implying exactly that until yesterday, when some of you started admitting that there were things you didn't like.

and I would say you're either lying, or grossly mistaken.  Every time a playtest packet came out we voiced both things we liked and things we didn't.  This has been going on for at least a year.. Just because we haven't lost our shit in fits of nerdrage didn't mean we have never voiced our displeasure at certain things.  If you think we never said things we didn't like about it, then you are very much in fact taking a page from the SJW book and assuming anyone who doesn't condemn something with enough vitriol must be a fanboi of everything about it

Quote from: Sacrosanct;761873and I would say you're either lying, or grossly mistaken.  Every time a playtest packet came out we voiced both things we liked and things we didn't.  This has been going on for at least a year.. Just because we haven't lost our shit in fits of nerdrage didn't mean we have never voiced our displeasure at certain things.  If you think we never said things we didn't like about it, then you are very much in fact taking a page from the SJW book and assuming anyone who doesn't condemn something with enough vitriol must be a fanboi of everything about it

Neither. I'm not talking about 6 months ago, I'm talking about the last few days, which is when information for the final game started coming out fast and furious, and a few posters, myself included, have pointed out that you, Marleycat, Haffrung, and maybe one or two others appear to have lost your minds. It has simply seemed any criticism of 5e, no matter how trivial, must be stamped on. I certainly don't think I've imagined that, because I'm not the only one that's noticed it. It isn't unique to this board, either. There've been blog posts on the phenomenon already. Some people just can't seem to brook any disparaging remarks about 5e.

Now, to be totally fair and as I already mentioned, I have seen some complaints and reservations posted by you lot, starting yesterday. I've been following all the 5e threads here, so I don't think I missed anything. However, it still seems a bit like criticism must be of the approved variety that one of you has already noted, and things I haven't seen one of you cite are still getting a bit jumped on.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761878Neither. I'm not talking about 6 months ago, I'm talking about the last few days, which is when information for the final game started coming out fast and furious, and a few posters, myself included, have pointed out that you, Marleycat, Haffrung, and maybe one or two others appear to have lost your minds. It has simply seemed any criticism of 5e, no matter how trivial, must be stamped on. I certainly don't think I've imagined that, because I'm not the only one that's noticed it. It isn't unique to this board, either. There've been blog posts on the phenomenon already. Some people just can't seem to brook any disparaging remarks about 5e.

Now, to be totally fair and as I already mentioned, I have seen some complaints and reservations posted by you lot, starting yesterday. I've been following all the 5e threads here, so I don't think I missed anything. However, it still seems a bit like criticism must be of the approved variety that one of you has already noted, and things I haven't seen one of you cite are still getting a bit jumped on.

this is patently untrue as well.  Lots of people have made criticisms against 5e and those of us you mentioned haven't gone after them at all (like Omega).  The only time we've reacted harshly is against those criticisms that are really nothing more than irrational hate for 5e, or things that are nothing but inaccurate hyperbole.  You, CRK, and a few others keep trotting out this whole, "you can't say anything critical of 5e without being jumped on by the 5aviors" when it's not true at all based on the fact several others have criticised it (us included) and have not been jumped on at all.. That objectively proves statements like yours false

the reason you haven't noticed it is because you fellas are in serious circle the wagons mode and have some pretty big blinders on

So I tell CRK he's a dick and somehow that means I brook no criticism of 5e? Get real because it's a fact that the former is true, and the latter is irrelrvant. He is practically famous for exactly what he's doing right now. The thing is I just don't actually care about the game in any real life sense and it pisses him off. But hey thanks for the label.

It's a game that is a toolkit and that is why the usual suspects are totally going insane not me telling you what is coming given I assumed you had figured it out last year.

Get a room, you two.

Quote from: Old Geezer;760408No, but thank you for playing.  In OD&D the section on Charisma, its effects on NPCs, and how it can be modified by PCs, is considerably longer than the combat rules.

Welcome to "knowing what the fuck you're talking about."

Seriously! That's the main beef I find with folks in both the pro- and anti - camps when it comes to discussions of old D&D.

Then again, I find most of the public generally less concerned with facts than one might hope. It's not peculiar to RPG.

Quote from: Haffrung;759785I pity players who have never experienced the visceral dread and tension of a game run by a capable DM where PC death is very much on the table. That's not to say it's the only, or even the best way to play D&D. But it's a very rewarding experience that I'd guess a lot of players have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

The guys I'm DM-ing for lately, having started at 1st level in B/X and lost one p.c. (an elf), are handling it okay but clearly prefer more badass hoard-slayers. It's an interesting change of pace, though. I think that quality of appreciating various kinds of game makes a big difference.

There's also a sweet spot for these guys that falls short of the teens of levels and makes superhero games a dead letter.

I think a lot of people have similar desires, so game that makes that zone wide is probably a better commercial bet than one that neglects it to focus on one-hit wonders or nigh-invulnerable demigods.

Quote from: Simlasa;758440I guess that cuts out Runequest 2e then... which I'd always thought of as an OSR game... and will readily play in the style I consider 'old school'.
Whatever.

If you asked in a forum what an indy game is, people used to answer "blah, blah, independent game, blah, blah, no corporation, blah, blah" or some crap like that, but in actual usage, people meant a forgey game. With OSR it's the same, some people can say "blah, blah, old game, blah, blah", but what people actually mean, is TSR D&D. Period.

Quote from: Phillip;761955Seriously! That's the main beef I find with folks in both the pro- and anti - camps when it comes to discussions of old D&D.

Fuckers like you use it as a "gotcha" opportunity rather than try to be useful.

If the asshole you quoted had actually been useful and pointed out where I was apparently factually incorrect, that would have potentially led to a useful exchange of information, and perhaps even a retraction on my part. I'm not above admitting when I'm factually wrong.

But instead, old-school assholes like to use instances like that to say, "AHA! You don't know about obscure rule 73.b from a rule set double your age, so you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and everything you've said about anything ever is rendered invalid!"

To which I say: go fuck yourself.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761878Neither. I'm not talking about 6 months ago, I'm talking about the last few days, which is when information for the final game started coming out fast and furious, and a few posters, myself included, have pointed out that you, Marleycat, Haffrung, and maybe one or two others appear to have lost your minds. It has simply seemed any criticism of 5e, no matter how trivial, must be stamped on. I certainly don't think I've imagined that, because I'm not the only one that's noticed it. It isn't unique to this board, either. There've been blog posts on the phenomenon already. Some people just can't seem to brook any disparaging remarks about 5e.

There's a LOT of criticism still for Second Wind, damage on a miss (if they kept it), and martial healing, which is, evidently, in the final version. The game isn't perfect. Then again, neither is any other version of D&D. But no one asks supporters of every version to list system flaws every time they support their game.  Hell,  half the time, if you call something a flaw, the supporter will say, "I consider that a FEATURE."

On the whole disparaging remarks issue, I find the same phenomenon when one is critical of other editions as well. For example, if I were to say 3.5 promotes munchkinism, or 4E discourages improvisation, someone somewhere would jump on that and tell me I'm playing it wrong (or tell me to houserule it).  I don't think defense of one's chosen system is unique to 5E.  In any case, there were still some issues in the playtest.  That the version was still fun to play in spite of those issues has left me with a favorable impression of it. Naturally, we'll have to check out the finished version before we can truly determine overall quality.

Quote from: honesttiago;762248But no one asks supporters of every version to list system flaws every time they support their game.  Hell,  half the time, if you call something a flaw, the supporter will say, "I consider that a FEATURE."

On the whole disparaging remarks issue, I find the same phenomenon when one is critical of other editions as well. For example, if I were to say 3.5 promotes munchkinism, or 4E discourages improvisation, someone somewhere would jump on that and tell me I'm playing it wrong (or tell me to houserule it).  I don't think defense of one's chosen system is unique to 5E.  In any case, there were still some issues in the playtest.  That the version was still fun to play in spite of those issues has left me with a favorable impression of it. Naturally, we'll have to check out the finished version before we can truly determine overall quality.

Absolutely. You want to see a real shitstorm around here? Make a disparaging mark about some aspect of AD&D. For bonus points, make it clear from your remark that you're largely ignorant of how the rules actually work and your criticism is based on misapprehension of a second-hand snippet of information. Why hold people are informed and optimistic about 5E to a higher standard? Because regardless of edition, the person most ignorant about the actual rules often is in the wrong. And frankly, the 5E supporters here have been far more open to criticism about the game than most of the grognards are about their favourite edition of D&D.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762241Fuckers like you use it as a "gotcha" opportunity rather than try to be useful.

If the asshole you quoted had actually been useful and pointed out where I was apparently factually incorrect, that would have potentially led to a useful exchange of information, and perhaps even a retraction on my part. I'm not above admitting when I'm factually wrong.

Actually, he did.  OD&D, even the section on Charisma is longer than the combat section.  You said "pick an edition".  The fact that you made a broad, sweeping statement over editions that you had no knowledge of ain't his fault.

Now, he didn't exactly say it *nicely*, but I mean this *is* TheRPGSite, after all.

Now, if you want to put that in a spectrum and comment on the gradual shift of the focus of the game from exploration/adventure in OD&D to being a more character build/combat game (hey, isn't that the very definition of munchkinism?) in the later parts of 2e and certainly in 3/4e, I think you'd start to have a better understanding of D&D and the changes it's been through.

Quote from: honesttiago;762248There's a LOT of criticism still for Second Wind, damage on a miss (if they kept it), and martial healing, which is, evidently, in the final version. The game isn't perfect. Then again, neither is any other version of D&D. But no one asks supporters of every version to list system flaws every time they support their game.  Hell,  half the time, if you call something a flaw, the supporter will say, "I consider that a FEATURE."

I do find the second wind/damage on a miss thing amusing.

4e-haters:  "Dissociated mechanics!"
4e-defenders:  "Um, hit points, anyone?"
4e-haters:  "Hit points don't work like that!  They're a combination of luck, stamina, and a bunch of other stuff that's nebulously defined!" (which is, of course, true)

.. later..

4e-haters:  "Second wind is stupid!  How can you just miraculously heal your own wounds!"
4e-defenders:  "Um, I thought that hit points weren't actual wounds, but represented luck, stamina, and a bunch of other stuff that's nebulously defined?"

Similarly, damage on a miss can be simply interpreted as hitting so hard that even if you don't get past their defense, you wear them out.  Because, you know, hit points represent luck, blah blah blah.

I mean, there's lots of reasons to not like 4e.  I'm not trying to convince anyone they should, and I can give lots of reasons why people wouldn't.  I just think that the second wind/damage on a miss argument doesn't particularly make sense.

Quote from: robiswrong;762279Similarly, damage on a miss can be simply interpreted as hitting so hard that even if you don't get past their defense, you wear them out.  Because, you know, hit points represent luck, blah blah blah.
.

I will admit damage on a miss rubs me the wrong way a bit, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it because I can sort of rationalize it thus:

It only applies to great weapons.  If you've ever held up a shield and got hit by someone wielding a large weapon, even if they didn't break through your defenses per se, it still hurt your arm.

That doesn't explain compete whiffs though....  If it stayed in (and my understanding is that it's removed), I'd houserule it to where if you missed by 5 or more, you don't apply the damage.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762290I will admit damage on a miss rubs me the wrong way a bit, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it because I can sort of rationalize it thus:

It only applies to great weapons.  If you've ever held up a shield and got hit by someone wielding a large weapon, even if they didn't break through your defenses per se, it still hurt your arm.

That doesn't explain compete whiffs though....  If it stayed in (and my understanding is that it's removed), I'd houserule it to where if you missed by 5 or more, you don't apply the damage.

I like to think of it as being so combat savvy that even when you totally flub an attack that you are still so good that the other guy has to duck and dodge rather than have a moment to laugh at you.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762290That doesn't explain compete whiffs though....  If it stayed in (and my understanding is that it's removed), I'd houserule it to where if you missed by 5 or more, you don't apply the damage.

The idea of a "complete whiff" with a swung weapon doesn't really track with me.  The vast, vast, vast majority of the time you either connect or are blocked/parried.  Dodges are possible, but they're not particularly common.

Again, this is where taking D&D terms literally kind of falls apart.  "Hit" doesn't mean "hit".  It means "was effective at reducing hit points".  And "damage" doesn't even really mean "damage" either.

There's a hell of a lot of stuff you have to translate in D&D instead of taking literally.

Quote from: robiswrong;762310The idea of a "complete whiff" with a swung weapon doesn't really track with me.  The vast, vast, vast majority of the time you either connect or are blocked/parried.  Dodges are possible, but they're not particularly common.

Again, this is where taking D&D terms literally kind of falls apart.  "Hit" doesn't mean "hit".  It means "was effective at reducing hit points".  And "damage" doesn't even really mean "damage" either.

There's a hell of a lot of stuff you have to translate in D&D instead of taking literally.

That's exactly the way I see it. A miss doesn't mean your weapon, or the owlbear's claw, whoosh harmlessly through the air. A miss could mean a parry, or the target stumbles backward. Damage on a miss is a parry or a stumble that is taxing enough to the target that it reduces HP.

Quote from: Haffrung;762262Absolutely. You want to see a real shitstorm around here? Make a disparaging mark about some aspect of AD&D. For bonus points, make it clear from your remark that you're largely ignorant of how the rules actually work and your criticism is based on misapprehension of a second-hand snippet of information. Why hold people are informed and optimistic about 5E to a higher standard? Because regardless of edition, the person most ignorant about the actual rules often is in the wrong. And frankly, the 5E supporters here have been far more open to criticism about the game than most of the grognards are about their favourite edition of D&D.

AD&D grappling, pummeling, and overbearing sucks ass. Really it does. It is far too complicated and involved for what it is given that other areas of the combat system are fast and simple. :D

Do I get a cookie?

Yeah, the abstract nature of Hit Points does make "damage on a miss" possible, but if you are going to use such a mechanic it shouldn't be based on some attribute that lets you always do it, or based on a weapon class.  Ideally it would be based on some differential of attack and defense, ie. a near miss.  Without that, it's the kind of thing the system doesn't seem granular enough to track.

Quote from: Haffrung;762262Absolutely. You want to see a real shitstorm around here? Make a disparaging mark about some aspect of AD&D. For bonus points, make it clear from your remark that you're largely ignorant of how the rules actually work and your criticism is based on misapprehension of a second-hand snippet of information. Why hold people are informed and optimistic about 5E to a higher standard? Because regardless of edition, the person most ignorant about the actual rules often is in the wrong. And frankly, the 5E supporters here have been far more open to criticism about the game than most of the grognards are about their favourite edition of D&D.

Criticism of a system straight up is one thing.  To be perfectly honest, that rarely happens with 1e.  Instead, what usually happens is some argument about 3e/4e gets answered with an incorrect comparison to an earlier edition.  In fact since everyone who is playing 0-1e at this point has been playing it a while, and already has their own way of dealing with their own pet peeve, it's pretty safe to say, that getting dragged into 3e/4e arguments in a false equivalency is the majority of times 1e gets mentioned.

You want to talk about weapon speed factors or weapon bonus vs. AC or comparing surprise chances, make the thread we'll tear shit up.

You want to drag some other game into an attempt to claim that the same issue has "always existed", yeah, you'd better actually be right, or I'm going to call you on it.   I'm funny that way.

Are we pretending now that if someone says "OD&D rules are mostly about combat", and OG responds by showing that in fact, there are far more rules covering non-combat, that he is "jumping on" someone for pointing out an actual fact that proves them incorrect?  I don't think that proves them wrong in every case, but it sure as hell does in that one, and again, the thread or the current discussion wasn't about OD&D at all, it was a "oh that edition was like that too" comment, which like 99% of such comments are commonly used, and are actually  and quite provably false.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762319Yeah, the abstract nature of Hit Points does make "damage on a miss" possible, but if you are going to use such a mechanic it shouldn't be based on some attribute that lets you always do it, or based on a weapon class.  Ideally it would be based on some differential of attack and defense, ie. a near miss.  Without that, it's the kind of thing the system doesn't seem granular enough to track.

My problem with DoaM isn't whether it smacks of reality or not. It's completely gamist. I think players should have to deal with failure. Damage on a miss rewards the effort. It's the game equivalent of giving someone a ribbon for trying. This is an area where I feel players who've never dealt with earlier editions could stand a few OS sessions to see it's okay not to succeed from time to time. No one ever learned anything without falling on their ass. Of course, you say something like this and the response is typically, "Well, when I play a game, I shouldn't have to worry about failure" or maybe, "Failure isn't fun." I dunno. I like the fact that there's a yang for every yin.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762321Are we pretending now that if someone says "OD&D rules are mostly about combat", and OG responds by showing that in fact, there are far more rules covering non-combat, that he is "jumping on" someone for pointing out an actual fact that proves them incorrect?  I don't think that proves them wrong in every case, but it sure as hell does in that one, and again, the thread or the current discussion wasn't about OD&D at all, it was a "oh that edition was like that too" comment, which like 99% of such comments are commonly used, and are actually  and quite provably false.

I would imagine when they said, "The rules are mostly about combat," they meant to say, "The game is mostly about combat," a statement that is probably true for a lot of folks, but certainly not all.

Quote from: cranebump;762330My problem with DoaM isn't whether it smacks of reality or not. It's completely gamist. I think players should have to deal with failure. Damage on a miss rewards the effort. It's the game equivalent of giving someone a ribbon for trying. This is an area where I feel players who've never dealt with earlier editions could stand a few OS sessions to see it's okay not to succeed from time to time. No one ever learned anything without falling on their ass. Of course, you say something like this and the response is typically, "Well, when I play a game, I shouldn't have to worry about failure" or maybe, "Failure isn't fun." I dunno. I like the fact that there's a yang for every yin.

The undelying issue, is that some people don't see rpgs as games. Instead they are treated as a vehicle for ego stroking wish fulfilment. If we are THE heroes then we HAVE to win eventually, even if there are setbacks. This is OUR story played to show US kicking ass! :rolleyes:

Its a game. If you die, put in another quarter and keep playing.

Quote from: cranebump;762331I would imagine when they said, "The rules are mostly about combat," they meant to say, "The game is mostly about combat," a statement that is probably true for a lot of folks, but certainly not all.

If that were true then XP for combat wouldn't be so piddly compared to that for treasure. Looking at the XP tables and how paltry the awards are for combat it is clear that such awards are more of a booby prize for screwing up than a reward for good play.

What I will be looking at in 5th is

What has it got that is fun for me and my friends?  That's the reason to buy it.

How easy is it to ignore bits we don't like?  With old D&D,  we commonly add,  subtract and modify to get the game we want.

The more people are hung up on a "tournament" rules set, or on including in the books only the variations they personally prefer, the less it  is  likely to be the kind of product this old timer would buy.

Quote from: Phillip;762341What I will be looking at in 5th is

What has it got that is fun for me and my friends?  That's the reason to buy it.

How easy is it to ignore bits we don't like?  With old D&D,  we commonly add,  subtract and modify to get the game we want.

Well, yeah.  Anyone who says that they know, at this point, that the game will or will not work for them is likely full of shit.

When it comes out, I'll check it out.  And I'll give it the same consideration I'd give AD&D, or B/X, or LL, or OSRIC or any other game in that general category.

Quote from: Phillip;762341The more people are hung up on a "tournament" rules set, or on including in the books only the variations they personally prefer, the less it  is  likely to be the kind of product this old timer would buy.

Who has been hung up on "tournament" rules?  Not me.  I've been talking about campaign structure.  Which kind of presumes a, you know, campaign.

Obviously there is an OSR taliban, there's a guy who wants to burn 4e books in the other thread!

trollface.jpg

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762317AD&D grappling, pummeling, and overbearing sucks ass. Really it does. It is far too complicated and involved for what it is given that other areas of the combat system are fast and simple. :D

Do I get a cookie?

Cobra la la la la la la la!

2e
Grab Object: Called Shot. If contested, Str check contest between contestants.

Grab Person One-Hand: Called Shot. Contested Str check w/ your Str -3.

Grab Person Two-Hand (a.k.a. Wrestle): Regular atk. If hit, read chart. Check for wrestle hold and KO%.

Pummel (a.k.a. Punching): Regular atk. If hit, read chart. Check for KO%.

Overbear: Regular atk. Target pulled down and prone. (+/-4 to-hit per size difference. -2 per extra leg beyond two. Each assistant gives +1 to-hit, but use weakest attacker's to-hit.)

la la la la la la la la la la
:p

Quote from: robiswrong;762357Well, yeah.  Anyone who says that they know, at this point, that the game will or will not work for them is likely full of shit.


Who has been hung up on "tournament" rules?  Not me.  I've been talking about campaign structure.  Which kind of presumes a, you know, campaign.

What I mean is the attitude that one thing or another is in there,  therefore thus and so must be binding on us all because it's some kind of holy writ.

That's a cancerous growth in the hobby,  in my view.  If that's what people want, they can ggo play Magic or something.

Okay,  that's 1st ed.  DMG (not UA )   grappling, pummeling and ooverbearing that sucks.

Quote from: Phillip;762375What I mean is the attitude that one thing or another is in there,  therefore thus and so must be binding on us all because it's some kind of holy writ.

Not at all.  But as I've explained, how the game was playtested is going to inform what the final rules are.

The less the game was tested like the way I want to play, the more likely a version that *was* designed around the way I want to play (AD&D, B/X, possibly OD&D though I have no experience, possibly a retroclone) will be a better experience for me with requiring less work.

I mean, why would I want to choose a version that required more houseruling over one that required less houseruling?  Could I adapt 5e to my style?  Of course!  How much would that require?  I don't know!  Does 5e bring enough goodness to the table that it's worth doing so, instead of using something else?  I have no clue!

I'll find out when the basic .pdf hits.  As is... yeah, I don't think it was playtested with my playstyle as the primary goal, and so I'm predicting it will require more houseruling than if I was playing in the "intended" (read: the way it was playtested) style.

I mean, really, man, this is probably the lightest criticism of any game I've seen on this site.  "Huh, it doesn't sound like it's aimed exactly at what I want, so I'll evaluate it and see if it's something I want to adopt."

I think rob's point is a valid one, and one that won't be answered until after the game comes out.  Like him, I prefer TSR era D&D style, and for me, 5e easily replicates that with ease.  Will it for him?  Who knows, no one can say but him.  Maybe not.  Point is, no point in arguing about it until after it comes out and he decides if it's worth it

Robiswrong just seems determined to take any remark as a blow at the chip on his shoulder,  and probably bleeding over so freely from one thread to another that the only context is paranoia.

Quote from: Phillip;762393Robiswrong just seems determined to take any remark as a blow at the chip on his shoulder,  and probably bleeding over so freely from one thread to another that the only context is paranoia.

No, I'm just sick of you taking what I"m saying far, far out of proportion.

I've never said it can't be modified.

I've never said it's a bad game.

I've only said that it seems like they didn't test it in an open-table like situation.

I've said I'll look at it when it comes out, and see if I think it's worth adopting.

I've even said that the style of play I'm most interested in is an outlier, and that not targeting that makes sense.

Shit, dude, you're the one implying that a position that I didn't even take is "cancerous".

Really, that's all I've said.  "It doesn't look like it's targeted directly at what I want, but I'm going to check it out."  Somehow this gets turned into "well if that's how they did it, I wouldn't want it" and "it's a cancerous effect on the hobby".

Looking at the jumping off point of this subthread (post 456) I see Robiswrong responding to something that Phillip addressed to no one in particular as if Phillip was criticizing rob specifically.

 I could be wrong.

Quote from: Arminius;762405Looking at the jumping off point of this subthread (post 456) I see Robiswrong responding to something that Phillip addressed to no one in particular as if Phillip was criticizing rob specifically.

 I could be wrong.

Possibly.

Phillip, was that comment directed at me?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762241Fuckers like you use it as a "gotcha" opportunity rather than try to be useful.

If the asshole you quoted had actually been useful and pointed out where I was apparently factually incorrect, that would have potentially led to a useful exchange of information, and perhaps even a retraction on my part. I'm not above admitting when I'm factually wrong.

But instead, old-school assholes like to use instances like that to say, "AHA! You don't know about obscure rule 73.b from a rule set double your age, so you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and everything you've said about anything ever is rendered invalid!"

To which I say: go fuck yourself.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;759727That's... kinda funny.

You can't really argue that the social encounter systems in D&D - pick an edition - hold a candle to the amount of mechanics that exist for combat.

Your own words, shitbreath.

Hey, look!  It's your very own personalized, engraved invitation to my "Tongue my pee hole!" list.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762335If that were true then XP for combat wouldn't be so piddly compared to that for treasure. Looking at the XP tables and how paltry the awards are for combat it is clear that such awards are more of a booby prize for screwing up than a reward for good play.

Agreed.

The thing is,  whether you're old school Taliban or new school Ayatollah,  you're not going to like some stuff that a lot of other fans like.  If you style yourself  OS,  you will crap on stuff that was actually part of the scene back in the '70s because it does not match your provincial custom.

Fundamentalists of any stripe just remove themselves from the market that matters.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762333The undelying issue, is that some people don't see rpgs as games. Instead they are treated as a vehicle for ego stroking wish fulfilment. If we are THE heroes then we HAVE to win eventually, even if there are setbacks. This is OUR story played to show US kicking ass! :rolleyes:

Its a game. If you die, put in another quarter and keep playing.

That works fine for any version of Dnd made before 1989 or so or some video game that costs 25¢…Houston, we have a problem....

Let me clarify. The Seahawks are the Superbowl champions, soccer is only behind the NFL as the USA's most popular professional sport in my age group (under 40). Things change and they change fast. 5e and the new generation games are aimed at me not veteran Dnd players.

Were they are being smart is that they are trying to make it possible for 5e to be a bridge game to the older editions.

Quote from: Marleycat;762466That works fine for any version of Dnd made before 1989 or so or some video game that costs 25¢…Houston, we have a problem....

Let me clarify. The Seahawks are the Superbowl champions, soccer is only behind the NFL as the USA's most popular professional sport in my age group (under 40). Things change and they change fast. 5e and the new generation games are aimed at me not veteran Dnd players.

Were they are being smart is that they are trying to make it possible for 5e to be a bridge game to the older editions.

I would say they want to get back to having the frp lingua franca, the baseline that opens up to as much elaboration as you want,  just where you happen to want it.

It is really,  truly not rocket science to make the game more or less one of "big damn heroes"  versus "Hit?  60% chance it's time to roll up a new character!"  Ditto most other preferences. Most people want quick character generation if pcs are going to die in droves, but others might still want more detail.

It's generally  easier to add modular complications to a simple rules set than to simplify a tightly bound together complex one.

Those whose notion of playing the game is building Pun Pun are going to be pissed off by not having some mandate that a zillion rules are binding,  but who really came up with that in the first place?  Themselves! They can make the same mess for themselves again.

Those who hated this or that in the AD&D era will no doubt be among those whinging about other people being "allowed" to play such and such a character type or use such and such a rules elaboration.

They can get a room and bash each other over which should be anathematized for "wrecking the game."

Meanwhile,  everyone else can get on with actually playing. Tournaments can specify what set of rules applies. This is old hat,  people.

Quote from: Opaopajr;762361Cobra la la la la la la la!

2e
Grab Object: Called Shot. If contested, Str check contest between contestants.

I am imagining this to the tune of the opening for the movie.

Quote2-E! bum-bum-ba-dum 2-E!

Grab a person pow, Get a called shot now, 2-E! bum-bum-ba-dum 2-E!

Next's playtest Grapple was a STR vs STR or DEX contest. Drag them along at 1/2 speed or restrain them for another STR contest.

Quote from: Omega;762477I am imagining this to the tune of the opening for the movie.

Damn, now that's going to be in my head all day.  Well played.

Quote from: Phillip;762476It is really,  truly not rocket science to make the game more or less one of "big damn heroes"  versus "Hit?  60% chance it's time to roll up a new character!"  

Nope, not at all.  It's the right move to make.  Most people are playing "Big Damn Heroes" and so a new edition of the game should support that.

That's actually one of the things I think that they did right with 4e - get rid of a lot of things that made sense in the "open table" environment but didn't really translate well to "Big Damn Heroes".  They did a lot wrong, too, don't get me wrong, but looking at "hey, for a game with low death rates and where everybody plays the same character, does it really make sense to have this kind of 'wizards start weak, but end up powerful' thing going on?" was a good move.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762333The undelying issue, is that some people don't see rpgs as games. Instead they are treated as a vehicle for ego stroking wish fulfilment. If we are THE heroes then we HAVE to win eventually, even if there are setbacks. This is OUR story played to show US kicking ass! :rolleyes:

QuoteIts a game. If you die, put in another quarter and keep playing.

Both attitudes are polar enough to warrant equal pity from me. I seek neither the fake development of Twilight's Mary Sues nor the shallowness of Mario from RPGs.

Quote from: robiswrong;762529Nope, not at all.  It's the right move to make.  Most people are playing "Big Damn Heroes" and so a new edition of the game should support that.

That's actually one of the things I think that they did right with 4e - get rid of a lot of things that made sense in the "open table" environment but didn't really translate well to "Big Damn Heroes".  They did a lot wrong, too, don't get me wrong, but looking at "hey, for a game with low death rates and where everybody plays the same character, does it really make sense to have this kind of 'wizards start weak, but end up powerful' thing going on?" was a good move.

I don't think it was a good move to make such a radical change as they did.  I say,  be inclusive,  not exclusive. (Balance by level and xp makes sense, though, quite apart from this issue.)

There are new defaults as to how fast you can get the xp to gain early levels. One can easily multiply those amounts by 5 (or whatever one likes) -  without need to change anything else whatsoever!

Likewise,  it's dead simple with an old edition to start characters at,  say,  4th level -  something some old hands prefer,  since they have already "been there,  done that" to their satisfaction as far as low level play goes.

The point of "not rocket science" is that we don't need to have Big Brother give us a heavy lock down contraption,  as if somebody  playing some other way than I prefer is some kind of rogue nuclear warhead or something.

They have already suggested that veteran Dnd players should start at 3rd level anyway. We used to start at 2-3rd level in 2e all the time and it never broke anything.

Quote from: Phillip;762533I don't think it was a good move to make such a radical change as they did.

No doubt.  Making something that didn't look like D&D was probably the *biggest* mistake they made with 4e.  Almost worse, it fell into the "uncanny valley" in a lot of ways.

Quote from: Phillip;762533as if somebody  playing some other way than I prefer is some kind of rogue nuclear warhead or something.

Fortunately, nobody seems to be saying that someone playing other than the way they prefer is a rogue nuclear warhead.  Go team!

In the old game,  you can still expect MUs to bite the dust from magic missiles and fireballs and whatnot even with 10 hit points instead of 2 to 3. If you were going to treat them with kid gloves and soft pitches anyway, it makes even less difference.

Quote from: robiswrong;762529Nope, not at all.  It's the right move to make.  Most people are playing "Big Damn Heroes" and so a new edition of the game should support that.

Exactly.  Especially since it's not like all the words suddenly fell off the pages of my copies of the LBB.

The fact that I don't like that style of game doesn't mean that's not what most people like.  If 80% of your customers want that, spend 80% of your effort on providing that thing.

There is a difference between "running a business" and "taste in gaming."

Quote from: robiswrong;762547No doubt.  Making something that didn't look like D&D was probably the *biggest* mistake they made with 4e.  Almost worse, it fell into the "uncanny valley" in a lot of ways.



Fortunately, nobody seems to be saying that someone playing other than the way they prefer is a rogue nuclear warhead.  Go team!

Don't be such a twerp, when the attitude - not a particular set of words -  is so obviously the topic. Have you been in Antarctica for the past 14 years, or even just the past 6?

Quote from: estar;759314A couple of points that I want to add to your excellent summary of the situation.

1) Pundit and many other don't get that the "forum" side you talk about is a akin to Chess Club where the focus and indeed the point of its existence is Chess. In case of Dragonsfoot, K&KA, OD&D Forum, etc they are "clubs" focused on classic D&D.  If they get testy or ornery is because dickheads are doing the equivalent of going into the club and telling the chess players they should playing checkers or go. That their game sucks because it is old and obsolete.

2) Pundit failed (and continues to fail as showing by his OSR Taliban rant) to realize there was NEVER any gatekeepers. The Indie Press Revolution was founded when in Print on Demand was infancy and traditional print runs were the only viable recourse for getting hard copy of a book. So naturally it acted as a gatekeeper.

But the OSR was born during the rights of Print on Demand and grew up along side Lulu, and Lightning Source (RPGNow/Drivethru RPG). Plus right in the middle of its initial years, tablets came out making PDFs viable as a primary reading format. By 2010, the possibility of any gatekeeper or bottleneck went down the shitter.

As Pundit demonstrated with Arrows of Indra anybody can just write and get material published. Heck Arrows of Indra demonstrated that you can go with a quasi-traditional publisher-author arrangement to get material out there. Rather than forced to do everything on your own.

Promotion is the only area of the OSR where certain individuals or groups has an outsize impact. Even if a person thoroughly pisses off that group off, they still can't block anybody or even slow down what that person publishes and promotes.

Anybody reading this and willing and can put in the work can have a OSR product out. Can find more than a few people willing to help promote it or help with things like art, layout, edits, etc. They can piss off nearly all of the OSR and still get their project out there.

In fact is somehow they managed to piss off 100% of the OSR there are other groupings of people publishing independently (Fate, etc) that can be tapped for help or promotion.

Oh I agree and am well aware that there are no EFFECTIVE gatekeepers in the OSR.  The democratization of publishing has saved the OSR from the type of situation where only the cool-kids-club gets to decide what gets published, thank Zeus.

But that doesn't mean there aren't WOULD-BE gatekeepers.  Fortunately, unless something were to radically change, they're kind of doomed to fail; their only weapon is shouting loud enough about what is or is not allowed to be OSR and hope to sway the opinion of OSR-fans away from certain products while going out of their way to promote the type of products and style of play they like.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Phillip;762550Don't be such a twerp, when the attitude - not a particular set of words -  is so obviously the topic. Have you been in Antarctica for the past 14 years, or even just the past 6?

Okay, so let's be clear about this.  I've asked you this before, and you didn't answer directly:

Are you saying that I am the one shitting on people that aren't playing the way I want?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762290I will admit damage on a miss rubs me the wrong way a bit, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it because I can sort of rationalize it thus:

It only applies to great weapons.  If you've ever held up a shield and got hit by someone wielding a large weapon, even if they didn't break through your defenses per se, it still hurt your arm.

That doesn't explain compete whiffs though....  If it stayed in (and my understanding is that it's removed), I'd houserule it to where if you missed by 5 or more, you don't apply the damage.

My problem exactly.

The thing is that HPs represent skill and luck and stamina and a load of stuff. So when the guy with the great sword hits you we aren't saying the sword bites into your shoulder or hacks out of chunk of bone we are saying that you avoid most of the damage by skill and luck and stuff so instead of taking damage you expend some HPs to mitigate the wound.
If he does damage on a miss this means that the damage he does is somehow different from the damage when he hits but its described in exactly the same way, it's fatigue and stamina like having your shield bashed, but hold on if that is the case then it's the same as what happens when he hits and what if he literally swings his sword and misses by 2 feet and you stand unmoving how does that do "damage".

Quote from: jibbajibba;762625My problem exactly.

The thing is that HPs represent skill and luck and stamina and a load of stuff. So when the guy with the great sword hits you we aren't saying the sword bites into your shoulder or hacks out of chunk of bone we are saying that you avoid most of the damage by skill and luck and stuff so instead of taking damage you expend some HPs to mitigate the wound.
If he does damage on a miss this means that the damage he does is somehow different from the damage when he hits but its described in exactly the same way, it's fatigue and stamina like having your shield bashed, but hold on if that is the case then it's the same as what happens when he hits and what if he literally swings his sword and misses by 2 feet and you stand unmoving how does that do "damage".

What? I thought the discussion moved past the silliness of hitpoints?

Quote from: Marleycat;762630What? I thought the discussion moved past the silliness of hitpoints?

Well this discussion was on dissociated mechanics and the miss and still do damage one in particular.

I am sorry if I can't keep pace with the debate but being in Singapore has that effect sometimes ....

On the more recently posted topic I woudl say. D&D needs a lifepath system for creating higher level PCs (and cos it woudl be fun) I knocked one up myself a while back after all it's almost trivial in terms of effort.

I think a template lifepath system with instructions for the DM on how to tailor it to their own campaign would be a great idea. In a section of the DMG called "Creating higher level PCs: Option 3- Lifepath Sytem"

Quote from: jibbajibba;762646Well this discussion was on dissociated mechanics and the miss and still do damage one in particular.

I am sorry if I can't keep pace with the debate but being in Singapore has that effect sometimes ....

On the more recently posted topic I woudl say. D&D needs a lifepath system for creating higher level PCs (and cos it woudl be fun) I knocked one up myself a while back after all it's almost trivial in terms of effort.

I think a template lifepath system with instructions for the DM on how to tailor it to their own campaign would be a great idea. In a section of the DMG called "Creating higher level PCs: Option 3- Lifepath Sytem"

It's okay Jibba, I would love any kind of lifepath system for Dnd though.:)