Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961034Which started around 1974.

I remember Gary and Rob and Dave in the early days of TSR getting letters DEMANDING that the letter writer's new rules be used to replace some section of the published rules (usually the magic system), and DEMANDING payment and royalties.

"We made up a different magic system that we think is fun, other people might think it's fun too" is one thing.  "Your magic system is HORRIBLE and you must use THIS one instead and pay us $1000 and a 10% royalty" is something else again.

Thats the kind of letter that deserves to be framed and kept for the sheer level of amusement it provides.

Quote from: Dumarest;961023If you mean every post you've written in this thread, then you are correct.

I can't help but notice every time you are asked to support your assertions with documentation, you change the subject, and every time you are contradicted you fail to respond and instead write "bullshit" or similar childish statements.

So glad to have the Ignore tool to ignore tools like you.

Yep I'll call bullshit when some sperm-burping cum-dumster declares "I didn't even know there had been a 3rd edition of AD&D, let alone a 3.5, 4th, and Pathfinder until just a few years ago."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;961029I know of Gronan and Krueger, whose the third?

gronan on the list?  Come on CB, gronan has been Chester all his life It was amusing to watch chirine come here and gronan immediately roll and show his belly.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;961038No.

What I was asking you to do is point me to the people who do declare those things from the OSR. So you will "nod and carry on" with baseless statements that you can't back up. So... okay.

What's your proof that it isn't there?
You're the one inferring the righteousness all based on nah-uh.  
Hell, I copy-pasted what CB said and neither you or crk realized it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960463Not according to the proponents. There was only ONE way to play D&D, and it's their way.  In fact, every single Edition of D&D has had a bunch of people with their refusal to move forward, to even try the next edition.  Maybe they're afraid they might like it, or it would change how they see their old edition, or some such crap.  There's always an excuse not to look ahead, take as objective a view as possible and then decide.  Nope, gotta bash every other tribe out there.

Quote from: Voros;961127I believe estar's OP was partially in response to an absurdly reactionary anti-OSR thread on Knights and Knaves Alehouse.

Check the Q&A threads in Dragonsfoot where RPG designers like David Cook are driven off by fools for supposedly ruining D&D or not being true their half-baked conception of a 'Gygaxian' ideal.

Or read some Grognardia blog posts where he claims Dragonlance 'ruined' D&D, his goofy conception of 'Gygaxian naturalism' or the 'kidification of D&D.' Even worse, read some of the comments on the same blog and you'll find some sad sacks begging to be taught how to play D&D 'properly' from the wise old grognards.

Voros, thank you for the information I was seeking.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;961186Voros, thank you for the information I was seeking.

Why should anybody care what some random peener-puller on the Internet says?


...says some random peener-puller on the Internet...

Quote from: Voros;961127I believe estar's OP was partially in response to an absurdly reactionary anti-OSR thread on Knights and Knaves Alehouse.

It was a bunch of things. Over on Knight and Knaves they were complaining about how it was OD&D that seemed to be the darling of the OSR not AD&D. I pointed out that one reason that OD&D gained traction was a because a bunch of people effectively communicated how they were using it in their campaigns. So that more people could say "OK I see how you do that." I pointed out that the same tools are available to them and it only requires to get out there and in essence talk it up about AD&D by showing how it can be used to run campaigns.

I wrote the OP because open content is one of the more important tools and one of the main reasons why it isn't about any one groups or person view of what classic D&D is.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;961222Why should anybody care what some random peener-puller on the Internet says?


...says some random peener-puller on the Internet...

I wanted to know what sort of things people were using to base their complaints upon.

After reviewing the sites, what I found was that some sites (particularly K&K) were exactly as described... while other were not.

That anyone believes there is some sort of wholesale complaining from the OSR about everyone playing wrong still confounds me (it simply isn't true). But now, after having a chance to look at some of the sited sources I know where people are coming from and can draw my conclusion without wondering if I missed something.

Not a big deal. Not worth spending anymore time on. But I was curious.

Quote from: estar;961224It was a bunch of things. Over on Knight and Knaves they were complaining about how it was OD&D that seemed to be the darling of the OSR not AD&D. I pointed out that one reason that OD&D gained traction was a because a bunch of people effectively communicated how they were using it in their campaigns. So that more people could say "OK I see how you do that." I pointed out that the same tools are available to them and it only requires to get out there and in essence talk it up about AD&D by showing how it can be used to run campaigns.

I wrote the OP because open content is one of the more important tools and one of the main reasons why it isn't about any one groups or person view of what classic D&D is.

Putting aside the absurd rhetoric on that thread about 'real D&D' it does bring up a good question.

The impression has always been that AD&D was champ but then why has the OSR been more about OD&D and B/X? As others have noted when I first bought the RC when it came out I couldn't convince anyone in my group to play the 'watered down kiddie version' (hilariously repeated on the K&KA thread).

Today my impression is that B/X has the edge even over OD&D in terms of players.

As you say estar the OD&D folks seemed to be the ones who got out there and made the argument for the system most consistently. I think a sense of purism or more positively going back to the roots of the game were also an attractive motivation for many. But why then has the formerly much slighted B/X grown and perhaps pulled ahead as the preferred system?

I would argue it is probably because of the easier availability of the original rules, their superior presentation in the rule books and the inherent virtues of clarity, simplicity and speed of play at the table. And of course how many people got their start in the hobby via the Red Box and even when playing 'AD&D' were in fact playing a mashup of Basic and AD&D?

Plus it seems to me that the two biggest producers of content in the OSR, LotFP and DCC, used B/X as the basis for their own rules systems. Not to forget my favourite BtW. I think producing quality adventure material is the single best way to promote one's system and despite the claims on K&KA much of the best material so far has been produced by those companies. That is why it has become the preferred OSR system. But then who cares what others or the majority are playing? If that was one's determining factor why would you play an OSR game over 5e?  

PS. Someone on the same K&KA thread claimed DCC's artwork is made to appeal to 3e players?? The Erol Otus and early 1e influence is so clear on their artwork I have no idea what they're going on about.

Quote from: Voros;961234Someone on the same K&KA thread claimed DCC's artwork is made to appeal to 3e players??

That's just the crack talking.

Quote from: Voros;961234The impression has always been that AD&D was champ but then why has the OSR been more about OD&D and B/X? As others have noted when I first bought the RC when it came out I couldn't convince anyone in my group to play the 'watered down kiddie version' (hilariously repeated on the K&KA thread).

My guess based on observing gamers in my neck of the woods (eastern OH, western PA, western NY) is that most people played with AD&D stuff (classes, spells, magic items, etc) with B/X style combat and task resolution.

The "average" in the OSR to me appears to be as a result of extensive kitbashing which gravitates towards the OD&D/(B/X)/BECMI end of classic D&D rather than AD&D due to the lite nature of those editions. Pyschologically you don't have a dominant company like TSR/Wizards trying to sell their latest as the greatest.

Reading the rest of your post it looks like your own observations line up with my own.

I will add, because people are so used to the domination of TSR/Wizards, that there are zero barriers to getting stuff out there either actual play accounts, promotion, or published works for one's favorite edition including AD&D. It just take somebody or a group with the right touch to make it happen. Finally it not an emergency because the side benefit of open content is that it always there and ready to be picked up. Which is why the OSR kept trucking along despite the many fumbles along the way.

Quote from: estar;961240My guess based on observing gamers in my neck of the woods (eastern OH, western PA, western NY) is that most people played with AD&D stuff (classes, spells, magic items, etc) with B/X style combat and task resolution.

The "average" in the OSR to me appears to be as a result of extensive kitbashing which gravitates towards the OD&D/(B/X)/BECMI end of classic D&D rather than AD&D due to the lite nature of those editions. Pyschologically you don't have a dominant company like TSR/Wizards trying to sell their latest as the greatest.

Reading the rest of your post it looks like your own observations line up with my own.

   In support of this, what TSR was hearing from gamers in the late 80s and early 90s was that newer gamers gravitated towards AD&D because the rules and extensive support gave them a sense of security, while more experienced gamers came to appreciate and take advantage of B*D&D's looseness. I don't think anyone will argue that the OSR is very much a production of experienced gamers.

Way back in the dark ages of high school I was pretty much an AD&D player when it came to D&D. Basic was for kids. Until I found myself with access only to the B/X rules and the Fiend Folio. So I ran a "back to Basic" campaign and had a blast. After that I pretty much ditched AD&D, and went on to 0D&D with large helping of Arduin and considerable house rulings. I don't think my game ended up any simpler than AD&D, but it was much easier to customize the 0D&D B/X chassis than it was AD&D.

Quote from: Voros;961234The impression has always been that AD&D was champ but then why has the OSR been more about OD&D and B/X? As others have noted when I first bought the RC when it came out I couldn't convince anyone in my group to play the 'watered down kiddie version' (hilariously repeated on the K&KA thread).

I started with B/X when I was 11 and loved it, but within a year, I got my hands on AD&D, and simply assumed it to be better. It was "Advanced" after all!Like you say, we simply assumed that B/X was the kids version. I didn't posses the game criticism skills to really think about what was better. Sure, I found the organization of AD&D to be a confusing mess, but clearly, that was on me, so I wasn't going to admit it. Year's later, I gave it another look and really appreciated it.

Looking at it now, I think B/X is an ideal build for a lot of OSR campaigns. OD&D is too stripped down for some, but B/X gives a little more structure while still being light enough to easily mod or attach new rules to. Modding AD&D usually means ripping a lot of parts out, and I find it easier to add house rules to an existing set than to use a rule set where I ignoring large parts of it.

And personally, I prefer race as class. If elves or dwarves are too limited, it is more interesting to go the ACKS route and have additional custom classes for each race. It's a lot more interesting then just having all races use the same classes.

Quote from: Voros;961234As you say estar the OD&D folks seemed to be the ones who got out there and made the argument for the system most consistently. I think a sense of purism or more positively going back to the roots of the game were also an attractive motivation for many. But why then has the formerly much slighted B/X grown and perhaps pulled ahead as the preferred system?

B/X is simply the best version of D&D ever printed considering page count,clarity, simplicity, and general usefulness of content at the table. Now that it is available to purchase again outside of e-bay and flea markets, it is not surprising that it has grown in popularity.

Quote from: estar;961224It was a bunch of things. Over on Knight and Knaves they were complaining about how it was OD&D that seemed to be the darling of the OSR not AD&D. I pointed out that one reason that OD&D gained traction was a because a bunch of people effectively communicated how they were using it in their campaigns. So that more people could say "OK I see how you do that." I pointed out that the same tools are available to them and it only requires to get out there and in essence talk it up about AD&D by showing how it can be used to run campaigns.

One thing people are forgetting too is that, during the last years of his life (the 2000s decade), when Gary would decided to play a D&D game (instead of Lejendary Adventures) at cons or in private, he stated he was using the OD&D "white box" rules with a few supplements and house rules.  That was stated on various message board threads and email and that might have made it seem more appealing to folks.  He wasn't using the AD&D books at that time.

Looking at rpgnow, I would say that OD&D/S&W/Whitebox reigns supreme among the current wave of retroclones and OSR releases. So many games are based on Whitebox, you have almost every genre covered; from Indiana Jones to Star Wars, from John Carter to Lovecraft.