Quote from: Festus on March 24, 2023, 01:37:23 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 24, 2023, 12:52:51 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 24, 2023, 12:05:07 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 23, 2023, 11:12:23 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 23, 2023, 10:38:54 PM

I believe the sequence of events was roughly:
1. She wrote it using OGL, and had already announced the KS launch date.
2. Then WotC made noises about revoking OGL and she consulted with lawyers and started scrubbing the doc of any WotC IP that might be a problem. For example there was a version where stirges became "stingbats"
3. Then WotC caved and put the 5.1 SRD into CC.
4. To avoid the KS launch date slipping she included the CC attribution and carried on with the ready-for-the-printers manuscript.

I might have misstated or omitted some details, but that's the gist.

She's never made any bones about this being an offshoot of D&D. She has published a bunch of 5e adventures and has expressed a fondness for the system. If the purity test is being adequately anti-5e or anti-WotC to please everyone here, she'll fail that for sure.

I think that's a flat out stupid purity test. Fact is that if every single one of her ~10k backers *and* all their friends never bought a WotC product ever again, WotC likely wouldn't even notice.

Whatever

Care to point to where ANYONE says it has to be anti-5e or anti-WotC or anti-ANYTHING?

Pointing out that using either the OGL or the CC By contributes to D&D's network effect isn't putting ANY requirement on her or her game, it's just pointing a fact that negates the game having a negative effect on D&D, something that has been stated (by people here, who I'm answering to) the game will do.

After that you can resume calling everyone a bigot.

*Laughing* Wow.

First, I wouldn't use "bigot" in relation to a bias for or against a game system or company. I reserve that word for more serious and impactful biases.
Second, this forum and thread are chock full of all sorts of anti-this and anti-that, especially anti-WotC, which I'm actually cool with. WotC sucks.
Third, SHARK praised the author saying "she took notice of WOTC's BS, and swiftly set herself up...to stomp on them, with style" and called it a 'very nice "Fuck You!" to WOTC"
Fourth, Steven Mitchell said "Anything that takes a bite out of WotC and their host of smug assholes is a net plus. "
THEN you chimed in that if the game used the OGL or CC it did anything but that.

So yeah, the context of the thread was *absolutely* about the author specifically being anti-WotC, taking notice, stomping on them, "fuck you", WotC's BS, WotC being smug assholes, and so on. But hey, sorry to have ruffled your feathers! Bless your heart.

*More laughing*

NOWHERE in your wall of text have you provided proof that ANYONE established a "purity test" (your own words) that the game or the developer have to be anti-ANYTHING.

Now, you can either provide it or admit you were wrong.

As for calling people a bigot, my bad, I mixed you with fingerrod.

I stated that *if* the purity test is being anti-WotC, she'd fail. And that I think such a test is dumb. I stand by that. If you think I'm wrong about that, that's ok. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me.

I did not accuse any specific person of promulgating such a test, though based on my short time here it strikes me as likely that some folks here feel that way. I've certainly known folks elsewhere who feel that way.

I know SHARK does *not* feel that way. He's happy to see WotC take a hit, but he's also praised Kelsey Dionne for her business acumen. If you're defending him, no need. I did not intend to imply he was using such a test. He quite evidently is not.

SHARK, my apologies sir! Like FingerRod, I have a high regard for your posts on this topic. If I've treated you unfairly, I am sorry.

My words clearly struck a nerve with you, Geeky, but I don't know you well enough to speculate as to why. And without knowing why, I honestly don't know if I'm sorry or not. And at this point I am beyond caring. So if this isn't enough, you'll just have to cope somehow.

Cheers!

Greetings!

Thank you, Festus. I'm glad you enjoy my commentary. And, you are fine, my friend. You have not offended me in any way, so we are good.

I also believe you are right though. Even if a particular dynamic is not being explicitly stated--like "Purity Tests"--it can still feel that way, as inferred by people's actions, or words, or tone, for example. This issue right here, also for example, is not the first time that various people here have brought up the issue or feel that is sometimes pushed here in various discussions that do seem to promote a kind of "Purity Testing" or "Purity Spiral". We all know that Libtards embrace such--but even others can get caught up in doing the same kind of attitude or dynamic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rytrasmi on March 24, 2023, 11:40:30 AM

Quote from: SHARK on March 23, 2023, 11:46:28 PM
Greetings!

The idea isn't complex, people. Generally, the more people playing Shadowdark, the less people wallowing in WOTC and 6E sewage. In my book, that's a *win* and it makes me happy.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Exactly this! Shadowdark can only benefit the hobby as a whole and, perhaps, send some like-minded players over to the weird games that I like. And that's the worst case scenario. Best case is that the game succeeds and now we have more opportunities to play something other than D&D (TM).

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it turns out to be some secret new world order woke plot funded by George Soros, well shucks you fooled me. No shame in that.

Greetings!

*Laughing* "George Soros Funded!" So hilarious. And, you know it's true, too. "some secret new world order plot funded by George Soroes". OMG. Geesus. You know, Rytrasmi, the clown-world we are living in just seems to get more absurd and mind-boggling stupid *every day*--that I often just howl in laughter now, at all the nonsense.It's too much stupid train! It's also hilarious that like with your observation there--on one hand, we know it can sound absolutely ridiculous--but on the other hand, as we have lived and seen, we know these seemingly "Ridiculous" things, are so often exactly true! I'm getting into a rant now, LOL, but good commentary, my friend.I love the humour. 

I need to make some new coffee and light up my pipe.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 24, 2023, 04:40:39 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 24, 2023, 01:37:23 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 24, 2023, 12:52:51 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 24, 2023, 12:05:07 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 23, 2023, 11:12:23 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 23, 2023, 10:38:54 PM

I believe the sequence of events was roughly:
1. She wrote it using OGL, and had already announced the KS launch date.
2. Then WotC made noises about revoking OGL and she consulted with lawyers and started scrubbing the doc of any WotC IP that might be a problem. For example there was a version where stirges became "stingbats"
3. Then WotC caved and put the 5.1 SRD into CC.
4. To avoid the KS launch date slipping she included the CC attribution and carried on with the ready-for-the-printers manuscript.

I might have misstated or omitted some details, but that's the gist.

She's never made any bones about this being an offshoot of D&D. She has published a bunch of 5e adventures and has expressed a fondness for the system. If the purity test is being adequately anti-5e or anti-WotC to please everyone here, she'll fail that for sure.

I think that's a flat out stupid purity test. Fact is that if every single one of her ~10k backers *and* all their friends never bought a WotC product ever again, WotC likely wouldn't even notice.

Whatever

Care to point to where ANYONE says it has to be anti-5e or anti-WotC or anti-ANYTHING?

Pointing out that using either the OGL or the CC By contributes to D&D's network effect isn't putting ANY requirement on her or her game, it's just pointing a fact that negates the game having a negative effect on D&D, something that has been stated (by people here, who I'm answering to) the game will do.

After that you can resume calling everyone a bigot.

*Laughing* Wow.

First, I wouldn't use "bigot" in relation to a bias for or against a game system or company. I reserve that word for more serious and impactful biases.
Second, this forum and thread are chock full of all sorts of anti-this and anti-that, especially anti-WotC, which I'm actually cool with. WotC sucks.
Third, SHARK praised the author saying "she took notice of WOTC's BS, and swiftly set herself up...to stomp on them, with style" and called it a 'very nice "Fuck You!" to WOTC"
Fourth, Steven Mitchell said "Anything that takes a bite out of WotC and their host of smug assholes is a net plus. "
THEN you chimed in that if the game used the OGL or CC it did anything but that.

So yeah, the context of the thread was *absolutely* about the author specifically being anti-WotC, taking notice, stomping on them, "fuck you", WotC's BS, WotC being smug assholes, and so on. But hey, sorry to have ruffled your feathers! Bless your heart.

*More laughing*

NOWHERE in your wall of text have you provided proof that ANYONE established a "purity test" (your own words) that the game or the developer have to be anti-ANYTHING.

Now, you can either provide it or admit you were wrong.

As for calling people a bigot, my bad, I mixed you with fingerrod.

I stated that *if* the purity test is being anti-WotC, she'd fail. And that I think such a test is dumb. I stand by that. If you think I'm wrong about that, that's ok. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me.

I did not accuse any specific person of promulgating such a test, though based on my short time here it strikes me as likely that some folks here feel that way. I've certainly known folks elsewhere who feel that way.

I know SHARK does *not* feel that way. He's happy to see WotC take a hit, but he's also praised Kelsey Dionne for her business acumen. If you're defending him, no need. I did not intend to imply he was using such a test. He quite evidently is not.

SHARK, my apologies sir! Like FingerRod, I have a high regard for your posts on this topic. If I've treated you unfairly, I am sorry.

My words clearly struck a nerve with you, Geeky, but I don't know you well enough to speculate as to why. And without knowing why, I honestly don't know if I'm sorry or not. And at this point I am beyond caring. So if this isn't enough, you'll just have to cope somehow.

Cheers!

Greetings!

Thank you, Festus. I'm glad you enjoy my commentary. And, you are fine, my friend. You have not offended me in any way, so we are good.

I also believe you are right though. Even if a particular dynamic is not being explicitly stated--like "Purity Tests"--it can still feel that way, as inferred by people's actions, or words, or tone, for example. This issue right here, also for example, is not the first time that various people here have brought up the issue or feel that is sometimes pushed here in various discussions that do seem to promote a kind of "Purity Testing" or "Purity Spiral". We all know that Libtards embrace such--but even others can get caught up in doing the same kind of attitude or dynamic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I dare him or you to back your claims of purity test.

Mind reading doesn't cut it, that's the SJW way.

He KNOWS he can't so he backpedals and goes into "I said IF!" as if he wasn't implying there was a purity test, and now you are saying there's one even if not explicit.

Well by all means do the work and show us all the quotes and the logical steps to get to that conclusion. But no mind reading allowed.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 26, 2023, 09:28:35 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 24, 2023, 04:40:39 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 24, 2023, 01:37:23 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 24, 2023, 12:52:51 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 24, 2023, 12:05:07 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 23, 2023, 11:12:23 PM

Quote from: Festus on March 23, 2023, 10:38:54 PM

I believe the sequence of events was roughly:
1. She wrote it using OGL, and had already announced the KS launch date.
2. Then WotC made noises about revoking OGL and she consulted with lawyers and started scrubbing the doc of any WotC IP that might be a problem. For example there was a version where stirges became "stingbats"
3. Then WotC caved and put the 5.1 SRD into CC.
4. To avoid the KS launch date slipping she included the CC attribution and carried on with the ready-for-the-printers manuscript.

I might have misstated or omitted some details, but that's the gist.

She's never made any bones about this being an offshoot of D&D. She has published a bunch of 5e adventures and has expressed a fondness for the system. If the purity test is being adequately anti-5e or anti-WotC to please everyone here, she'll fail that for sure.

I think that's a flat out stupid purity test. Fact is that if every single one of her ~10k backers *and* all their friends never bought a WotC product ever again, WotC likely wouldn't even notice.

Whatever

Care to point to where ANYONE says it has to be anti-5e or anti-WotC or anti-ANYTHING?

Pointing out that using either the OGL or the CC By contributes to D&D's network effect isn't putting ANY requirement on her or her game, it's just pointing a fact that negates the game having a negative effect on D&D, something that has been stated (by people here, who I'm answering to) the game will do.

After that you can resume calling everyone a bigot.

*Laughing* Wow.

First, I wouldn't use "bigot" in relation to a bias for or against a game system or company. I reserve that word for more serious and impactful biases.
Second, this forum and thread are chock full of all sorts of anti-this and anti-that, especially anti-WotC, which I'm actually cool with. WotC sucks.
Third, SHARK praised the author saying "she took notice of WOTC's BS, and swiftly set herself up...to stomp on them, with style" and called it a 'very nice "Fuck You!" to WOTC"
Fourth, Steven Mitchell said "Anything that takes a bite out of WotC and their host of smug assholes is a net plus. "
THEN you chimed in that if the game used the OGL or CC it did anything but that.

So yeah, the context of the thread was *absolutely* about the author specifically being anti-WotC, taking notice, stomping on them, "fuck you", WotC's BS, WotC being smug assholes, and so on. But hey, sorry to have ruffled your feathers! Bless your heart.

*More laughing*

NOWHERE in your wall of text have you provided proof that ANYONE established a "purity test" (your own words) that the game or the developer have to be anti-ANYTHING.

Now, you can either provide it or admit you were wrong.

As for calling people a bigot, my bad, I mixed you with fingerrod.

I stated that *if* the purity test is being anti-WotC, she'd fail. And that I think such a test is dumb. I stand by that. If you think I'm wrong about that, that's ok. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me.

I did not accuse any specific person of promulgating such a test, though based on my short time here it strikes me as likely that some folks here feel that way. I've certainly known folks elsewhere who feel that way.

I know SHARK does *not* feel that way. He's happy to see WotC take a hit, but he's also praised Kelsey Dionne for her business acumen. If you're defending him, no need. I did not intend to imply he was using such a test. He quite evidently is not.

SHARK, my apologies sir! Like FingerRod, I have a high regard for your posts on this topic. If I've treated you unfairly, I am sorry.

My words clearly struck a nerve with you, Geeky, but I don't know you well enough to speculate as to why. And without knowing why, I honestly don't know if I'm sorry or not. And at this point I am beyond caring. So if this isn't enough, you'll just have to cope somehow.

Cheers!

Greetings!

Thank you, Festus. I'm glad you enjoy my commentary. And, you are fine, my friend. You have not offended me in any way, so we are good.

I also believe you are right though. Even if a particular dynamic is not being explicitly stated--like "Purity Tests"--it can still feel that way, as inferred by people's actions, or words, or tone, for example. This issue right here, also for example, is not the first time that various people here have brought up the issue or feel that is sometimes pushed here in various discussions that do seem to promote a kind of "Purity Testing" or "Purity Spiral". We all know that Libtards embrace such--but even others can get caught up in doing the same kind of attitude or dynamic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I dare him or you to back your claims of purity test.

Mind reading doesn't cut it, that's the SJW way.

He KNOWS he can't so he backpedals and goes into "I said IF!" as if he wasn't implying there was a purity test, and now you are saying there's one even if not explicit.

Well by all means do the work and show us all the quotes and the logical steps to get to that conclusion. But no mind reading allowed.

Greetings!

Hey GeekyBugle!

Well, to my mind, it isn't about "Mind Reading" at all, brother. It is more of an impression, gained from people's written tone. As far as quotations or "evidence"--I can't be bothered to go back 10 or 15 pages searching for various snippets of conversation and commentary. It is an impression I got from more than one commentator engaging in increasingly needle-fine critiques of Shadowdark, suggesting that Shadowdark isn't really OSR, or OSR "enough". To me, such fine-tooth comb searching for something in Shadowdark seemed to be very petty--and embracing an attitude of "Purity Tests". Several other members also pointed this dynamic out--so I am certainly not unique or alone in making that observation.

Just go back and read it all yourself. If you get the impression of a kind of "Purity Testing" being embraced, great. If you don't, then you don't.

I picked up on it though, again, as did others.

Several people have also remarked about such pettiness and "Purity Testing" tome in private e-mails to me. These members may have or may not have expressed such opinions directly in the thread, but they still interpreted some of the commentary here as embracing a "Purity Testing" attitude, and being increasingly petty in trying to find something to criticize Shadowdark about--or Kelsey herself.

So, again, I would say, go back through the pages, and read it yourself. Ask yourself, "Is this line of critique petty?" and "Is this commentator running a fine-toothed comb in critiquing Shadowdark in some superficial way that doesn't align with what they think of as OSR?"; and then, looking at several such examples, ask yourself if such commentary sounds like they are embracing "Purity Testing".

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 26, 2023, 09:28:35 PM

I dare him or you to back your claims of purity test.

Mind reading doesn't cut it, that's the SJW way.

He KNOWS he can't so he backpedals and goes into "I said IF!" as if he wasn't implying there was a purity test, and now you are saying there's one even if not explicit.

Well by all means do the work and show us all the quotes and the logical steps to get to that conclusion. But no mind reading allowed.

Oh I absolutely implied there might be an anti-5e or anti-WotC purity test, and intentionally so. But I qualified my statement with "if" and did not accuse any specific individuals precisely because I am *not* a mind reader. I raised the possibility because I thought it relevant to the discussion.

I also am not going to go back through reams of posts to pluck out quotes, but I stand by my words as written. I am curious as to why you are so torqued up about it, though. We're talking about a *game* after all. Did you think we were discussing something else?

Personally I think the OSR could really benefit from a "purity test" or for an actual grown up term. A robust set of unequivocal standards that can be agreed upon for what does and does not define an OSR game. I think such a think could only benefit the OSR. Because I'm sick and tired of people striping rules out of 5E and calling that an OSR product with very little change. I'm not saying that OSR should just be B/X derived stuff. But that in whatever form an OSR game takes it should follow the dos and don'ts. To prevent fairweather games shallowly using the OSR as a marketing gimmick.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 27, 2023, 09:39:18 AM
Personally I think the OSR could really benefit from a "purity test" or for an actual grown up term. A robust set of unequivocal standards that can be agreed upon for what does and does not define an OSR game. I think such a think could only benefit the OSR. Because I'm sick and tired of people striping rules out of 5E and calling that an OSR product with very little change. I'm not saying that OSR should just be B/X derived stuff. But that in whatever form an OSR game takes it should follow the dos and don'ts. To prevent fairweather games shallowly using the OSR as a marketing gimmick.

I think to literally create rules for what constitutes an "OSR" game is (somewhat?) antithetical to the entire movement, though I wholeheartedly share your sentiment that the term is being used far too broadly and at times even inappropriately, such that it means very little these days. A label like OSR *should* convey certain qualities so that people can see the label applied to a particular game and assume certain things. A while back on Dragonsfoot there was a good thread where people debated a few other terms to use to differentiate among various categories of clones/retroclones/new games, but that effort seems to have died out.

And I certainly agree with the above poster that we need to be careful about using "OSR" for what is and will soon be an avalanche of 5e-inspired games. I will hold my opinion on whether ShadowDark falls into this category, and I am also not sure what to do with an otherwise great game like Into the Unknown, a similar OSR-inspired variation on the 5e ruleset.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 27, 2023, 09:39:18 AM
Personally I think the OSR could really benefit from a "purity test" or for an actual grown up term. A robust set of unequivocal standards that can be agreed upon for what does and does not define an OSR game. I think such a think could only benefit the OSR. Because I'm sick and tired of people striping rules out of 5E and calling that an OSR product with very little change. I'm not saying that OSR should just be B/X derived stuff. But that in whatever form an OSR game takes it should follow the dos and don'ts. To prevent fairweather games shallowly using the OSR as a marketing gimmick.

The exercise would be pointless.  It's the same as defining what "story" means in an RPG.  No one agrees exactly on either.

What is helpful is to provide your own context.  "I think X is OSR and Y is not OSR because reasons A, B, and C".  Presumably those reasons give the reader insight into the criteria being used to make the judgment.  Then the reader can decide if those reasons make sense.  Moreover, the reader can decide if those reasons are even relevant.

Of course, it would be even better to drop the OSR part out of it entirely, and explain  what is enjoyed or not enjoyed about the particular thing.  If I say I'm running a game that has some OSR elements, doesn't mean much out of context.  If I say I'm running a game with some "old school feel with more modern mechanics" that tells you a lot more.  It's not perfect, and still subject to misinterpretation, but it is better.  However, we live in a world where everyone wants the capsule in 254 characters or less, with nuance, and interest.  Which is frankly, a stupid expectation.  So what we get instead is "conversation starters" of varying degrees of sincerity.  "This isn't OSR to me" means exactly nada when it comes to facts or information conveyed.  It means, "if you want to, we could talk about why, assuming I even know why I feel the way I do about it".  If we are being generous.  It could also mean someone is trying to blow things up.  It could even mean someone is trying to draw clicks ....

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 27, 2023, 11:08:41 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 27, 2023, 09:39:18 AM
Personally I think the OSR could really benefit from a "purity test" or for an actual grown up term. A robust set of unequivocal standards that can be agreed upon for what does and does not define an OSR game. I think such a think could only benefit the OSR. Because I'm sick and tired of people striping rules out of 5E and calling that an OSR product with very little change. I'm not saying that OSR should just be B/X derived stuff. But that in whatever form an OSR game takes it should follow the dos and don'ts. To prevent fairweather games shallowly using the OSR as a marketing gimmick.

The exercise would be pointless.  It's the same as defining what "story" means in an RPG.  No one agrees exactly on either.

What is helpful is to provide your own context.  "I think X is OSR and Y is not OSR because reasons A, B, and C".  Presumably those reasons give the reader insight into the criteria being used to make the judgment.  Then the reader can decide if those reasons make sense.  Moreover, the reader can decide if those reasons are even relevant.

Of course, it would be even better to drop the OSR part out of it entirely, and explain  what is enjoyed or not enjoyed about the particular thing.  If I say I'm running a game that has some OSR elements, doesn't mean much out of context.  If I say I'm running a game with some "old school feel with more modern mechanics" that tells you a lot more.  It's not perfect, and still subject to misinterpretation, but it is better.  However, we live in a world where everyone wants the capsule in 254 characters or less, with nuance, and interest.  Which is frankly, a stupid expectation.  So what we get instead is "conversation starters" of varying degrees of sincerity.  "This isn't OSR to me" means exactly nada when it comes to facts or information conveyed.  It means, "if you want to, we could talk about why, assuming I even know why I feel the way I do about it".  If we are being generous.  It could also mean someone is trying to blow things up.  It could even mean someone is trying to draw clicks ....

I agree it would be pointless or even detrimental to try and create some top down standard. Who would determine the standard? How are those people chosen? Some sort of council or standards committee? How does that even work in a creative industry?

Honestly, using a label with the words "old school" and critiquing new games for mining ideas from other products and not being original enough seems a bit incongruous. I think it has to be a subjective "eye of the beholder" situation. If the lable is evocative and descriptive enough, the community will adopt it. Naturally over time the meaning will evolve and new terms will come along.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 27, 2023, 09:39:18 AM
Personally I think the OSR could really benefit from a "purity test" or for an actual grown up term. A robust set of unequivocal standards that can be agreed upon for what does and does not define an OSR game. I think such a think could only benefit the OSR. Because I'm sick and tired of people striping rules out of 5E and calling that an OSR product with very little change.

5e is already heavily OSR influenced and very easy to drift further in that direction. The design was influenced by Pundit & Zak. WoTC were burned by the failure of 4e and 5e was a (successful) reaction against 4e in a largely OSR direction. Of course bits are half-assed (on the GM side) and there are still some 4e-isms in there. But they didn't go back to 3e, seeing that Paizo had the market for heavy crunch, caster supremacy D&D.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 27, 2023, 09:39:18 AM
Personally I think the OSR could really benefit from a "purity test" or for an actual grown up term. A robust set of unequivocal standards that can be agreed upon for what does and does not define an OSR game. I think such a think could only benefit the OSR. Because I'm sick and tired of people striping rules out of 5E and calling that an OSR product with very little change. I'm not saying that OSR should just be B/X derived stuff. But that in whatever form an OSR game takes it should follow the dos and don'ts. To prevent fairweather games shallowly using the OSR as a marketing gimmick.

Certainly a lot of games get called OSR when 'retro' would be a much more apt term.

Prof. DM addressed the kerfuffle with our Pundit on his latest video on Shadowdark. (Is it Shadowdark or ShadowDark, by the way?)

We'll probably get to thirty... But can we do 31 forum pages of free Shadowdark advertising?

I'll pitch in:

Quote from: zer0th on March 28, 2023, 12:27:20 PM
Prof. DM addressed the kerfuffle with our Pundit on his latest video on Shadowdark. (Is it Shadowdark or ShadowDark, by the way?)
...

Bah! He pussed out. (and I like the guy)

Names!!!! PDM Names!! 

He just glossed over it as a non-troversey.

But trip-over-your-dick fawning reviews do come across as suspect when all the relationships to the designer are not made clear.

PDM didn't seem to get that.


Anyway, on with the purity test debate, and my dream of 31+ pages...

Quote from: Jaeger on March 28, 2023, 01:28:33 PM

Anyway, on with the purity test debate, and my dream of 31+ pages...

I'm accusing Jaeger of impure thoughts. I mean just look at the grin on his face as he eats that popcorn! 

I am finding the whole Shadowdark phenomenon baffling. I just scanned the free player quickstart and it looks like much the same old OSR stuff to me, with 5e stat checks added. Dozens of groups have probably already thought of that.