TheRPGSite

What people forget time and time again when it comes to what the OSR is about, what it ought to be doing, where is it going; that it defining characteristic is the use of open content, leveraging digital technology and using the internet for distribution.

The net effect is that there are no gatekeepers, there nothing that the OSR as whole (if something like that is even possible) or segments or cliques can do to impend any projects from being released and distributed.

No one incident prompted this essay but I follow the OSR as best as I can and I think everybody needs reminded of this aspect of the OSR. That in the end it the OSR is not about one vision, not even about Gary Gygax's and Dave Arneson's vision. It about the freedom to take the pieces that existed at the beginning of our hobby and assemble them into the form that YOU judge best not what some what publisher or author says is best. And it is perfectly fine that you wind up agreeing with what a particular author says like Gygax, Arneson, Mentzer, Gonnerman , Proctor, Finch, Raggi , etc.

If your favorite retro-clone or supplement is not open enough. Or you don't like the community that surrounds it. You can always go back to original wellspring the d20 SRD and follow the same steps as OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, etc did to realize your vision of your project. Regardless whether it is for sharing or for commercial sale.

Going hand and hand with that is the fact that for better or for worse the OSR is a thing. For the past decade and a half there been a group of hobbyists actively publishing, promoting, and playing classic editions of Dungeons and Dragon and similar RPGs. This is result of everybody taking advantage of the freedom granted by the open content found in the d20 SRD to expand the quantity and variety of material that supports classic D&D.

So it is any surprise that we have the situation we have today?

But the good news is that it is not a zero sum game. The projects that a group who is interested in using a classic edition 'as is' has zero impact on a group whose project is about using newer mechanics with classic edition concepts. This is what true creative freedom looks like, messy but the opportunity is there for everybody to participate in the manner of their choosing.

It not just about publishing either, technology has allow fans of even the most obscure RPGs to communicate with one another and find some way to play new campaigns. Software like Fantasy Ground and Roll20 make this even easier.

And the OSR has benefited hobbyists who never quit playing the classic editions. Today it is far easier to find new material, new gamers, that are willing to play your favorite edition.

I submit that we live in a second golden age of tabletop roleplaying and in some ways exceed the first age in the 70s. That if you ever find yourself wondering where everything went all you need to do is shift your perspective to another corner of the OSR. In the years since the release of Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy and Marshal and Finch's OSRIC the OSR has grown far and wide. There are forums, blogs, websites, kickstarters, paterons, Google Plus, Facebook, etc, etc.

On my blog I have a link to Hoards and Hordes which is a list maintained by Guy Fullerton of various OSR product he consider Gygaxian. Even with that arbitrary limitation by 2012 he couldn't keep up with the everything that was going on. The list from April 2012 onwards become about what Guy find interesting.

It is a mess but from where I stand it is a glorious mess.

Well said.

In many ways it's better than it was in the early days inasmuch as there is a plethora of free material available at the click of a button and easy access to a community of players and GMs, although unfortunately depending on where you live it may also be online but that's still one up from the old days of being in a small town and having a copy of D&D and not knowing anyone else into it.  

I just wish the focus wasn't so heavily on D&D. Of course I should talk being too lazy or inept  to make anything for the games I like better!

Quote from: estar;959626What people forget time and time again when it comes to what the OSR is about, what it ought to be doing, where is it going; that it defining characteristic is the use of open content, leveraging digital technology and using the internet for distribution.

The net effect is that there are no gatekeepers, there nothing that the OSR as whole (if something like that is even possible) or segments or cliques can do to impend any projects from being released and distributed.

Are we still using QFT? Because QFT.

Conversely, people who are too concerned about what the OSR is or isn't or should be, are just a byproduct of the Internet working as intended (http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html).

Quote from: estar;959626No one incident prompted this essay

Of course not. :D

Though I do not consider myself part of the OSR because I never stopped playing this sillyass game the way I always have, I am extremely grateful that the OSR has become a thing, because at least there are other people acknowledging that yeah, these games can be fun in their own right.

You know what else the OSR forgets?  That just because it's fun for YOU, it's not going to be fun for EVERYBODY.  And browbeating them on how your way is 'better' isn't going to endear them to your favourite version of D&D.

Now, admittedly, the players of other editions, like Rules Cyclopedia and later (All the officially numbered and not-so-numbered iterations) need to recognize that too.

At the end of the day, it's all nothing more than versions of D&D, and people should just enjoy them as they do.  Instead of arguing whose interpretations of the rules and playstyles is better or worse.  That just wastes time that you could be playing with friends and family.

Personally, I'd rather share ideas from every edition than segregate myself from others.

But then, the internet would be an awfully boring place if people did that, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959641Though I do not consider myself part of the OSR because I never stopped playing this sillyass game the way I always have, I am extremely grateful that the OSR has become a thing, because at least there are other people acknowledging that yeah, these games can be fun in their own right.

But you are part of the OSR because you are involved in the communities and sharing. Sure, you have been playing the same way since the pre-dawn of the hobby, but you don't hide yourself from those of us who did drift away and are now re-examining the original game whether in it's original form or via a retro-clone.

Open Game Content for the win. The more ideas we get to bend, stretch and twist (old & new) the better our hobby will grow to be.

Pretty excited to check out Veins of the Earth. Also located a hardcopy of Red and Pleasant Land.

I agree with Estar. It's a glorious mess.

There is majority emphasis on D&D in the OSR, but there are plenty of non-D&D clones out there as well that deserve some love and attention.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959660You know what else the OSR forgets?  That just because it's fun for YOU, it's not going to be fun for EVERYBODY.  And browbeating them on how your way is 'better' isn't going to endear them to your favourite version of D&D.

Freedom means Freedom. As long as that person isn't trying to use coercion via control of distribution or some other limited publishing resource I have no problem with them being an asshole about their preferences. And expression of one's opinion is not coercion despite some  folks belief in "mindshare", "meme", or some other group philosophy bullshit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959660At the end of the day, it's all nothing more than versions of D&D, and people should just enjoy them as they do.  Instead of arguing whose interpretations of the rules and playstyles is better or worse.  That just wastes time that you could be playing with friends and family.

OK if it is nothing more than versions of D&D then make your next campaign core book only OD&D. Doesn't sound appealing? Wow! You have preferences. Some prefer classic editions, some 'as is' some kitbashed with various other mechanics, some like to use newer RPGs but run using the same setup, adventures, and elements of older editions. And some get enthusiastic about what they are doing.  Seriously are you actually critizing people for being enthusiastic about older edition?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959660Personally, I'd rather share ideas from every edition than segregate myself from others.

The fact you are trying to paint the OSR with this just demonstrates that you don't really know jack shit about even how a small segment of it operates. I suggest you look up Goodman Games DCC RPG, Jeff Rients, Dan Proctor & Pacesetter Games, Blood & Treasure, Stars without Numbers before trying to make the argument that the OSR is mostly comprised of people who only have a narrow interest in older editions.

The same for people trying to "push" their fun onto you. Ever hear of the OD&D dicussion forum? Probably not given your demonstrated lack of knowledge about the OSR. It is noted for its friendly atmosphere that basically boils down to "Hey y'all come on over to the porch and lets talk some OD&D! Not your thing? That all right have a nice day."

Quote from: Spinachcat;959672I agree with Estar. It's a glorious mess.

There is majority emphasis on D&D in the OSR, but there are plenty of non-D&D clones out there as well that deserve some love and attention.

The OSR is the label that got applied to the people playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D. Because they are people they are interested in other things as well. And the OSR is part of a larger osr, a old school renaissance of many older RPGs and older editions. It only largest and loudest because D&D was the largest and loudest of the older RPGs.

If I had to come with a specific definition of what the OSR does it would be playing, publishing, and promoting classic editions of D&D, related RPGs, and other things people find interesting.

It the "other things people find interesting" that confuses many about the OSR but again it is a direct result of the OSR resting on a open content foundation and the ease of publishing thanks to digital technology. For example Goblinoid Games, Labyrinth Lords, and Pacesetter Games are all handled by Dan Proctor and his team. The same for "related RPGs" of which the DCC RPG is one of the better known examples plus some of the hybrid retro-clones like Blood & Treasure.

The same with play style, you got gonzo, classic dungeon crawling, weird horror, snadbox campaigns, and dozens of others including my focus on the adventure that arises from the clash of culture, politics, and religion.

Gronan is OSR, it's just for him, the "R" is neither revival, rennaissance, ruckus, rebellion nor revolution.

Rather: relic, remnant, remains, rescue, refuse, reject, religion, radical; rockerboy

I fully agree with Estar otherwise: DIY shalt be the whole of the law.

Quote from: estar;959626The net effect is that there are no gatekeepers, there nothing that the OSR as whole (if something like that is even possible) or segments or cliques can do to impend any projects from being released and distributed.

Do you mean that all this time I was been duped into believing there was a Taliban and a Pope, who defined the boundaries, castigated the unworthy, and maintained the purity of the Way?

/s

Quote from: Settembrini;959688Gronan is OSR, it's just for him, the "R" is neither revival, rennaissance, ruckus, rebellion nor revolution.

Rather: relic, remnant, remains, rescue, refuse, reject, religion, radical; rockerboy

How about just 'Reliably'?

Quote from: K Peterson;959698Do you mean that all this time I was been duped into believing there was a Taliban and a Pope, who defined the boundaries, castigated the unworthy, and maintained the purity of the Way?

/s

Careful, if people ever realize that there's no horde of people out there telling them that they can't enjoy what they enjoy(with any kind of authority), they won't get the visceral, Skinner box mental reward of both protecting their tribe and feeling like they are the one being picked on.

Quote from: Settembrini;959688Rather: relic, remnant, remains, rescue, refuse, reject, religion, radical; rockerboy

recalcitrant

Quote from: estar;959626I submit that we live in a second golden age of tabletop roleplaying and in some ways exceed the first age in the 70s. That if you ever find yourself wondering where everything went all you need to do is shift your perspective to another corner of the OSR. In the years since the release of Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy and Marshal and Finch's OSRIC the OSR has grown far and wide. There are forums, blogs, websites, kickstarters, paterons, Google Plus, Facebook, etc, etc.

Preach it, estar, for I am tired of people predicting the death of a hobby that keeps producing new games, and that has preserved a huge number of existing ones in what is, essentially, a form that would be nearly eternal as long as computers exist;)!

Quote from: Psikerlord;959667Open Game Content for the win. The more ideas we get to bend, stretch and twist (old & new) the better our hobby will grow to be.

Also, this:).

Quote from: estar;959705recalcitrant

And I don't know about Gronan, but I like "Old school recalcitrant":D!

Quote from: Spinachcat;959672I agree with Estar. It's a glorious mess.

A glorious mess indeed.

Quote from: Settembrini;959688Gronan is OSR, it's just for him, the "R" is neither revival, rennaissance, ruckus, rebellion nor revolution.

Rather: relic, remnant, remains, rescue, refuse, reject, religion, radical; rockerboy

You forgot rabid, recidivist, raging, romping, rowrbazzle.

Also, I wish there was a synonym for "flatulent" that began with R.

So once again Cupcake Binky comes into an old-school thread for the sole purpose of telling us all we're doing it wrong, and publicly shitting himself in the process.  For somebody who whines so much about other people telling him he's doing it wrong, he is always and invariably the first one to throw that phrase out there.

Quote from: estar;959684you don't really know jack shit

That's all you really needed to say.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959716You forgot rabid, recidivist, raging, romping, rowrbazzle.

Also, I wish there was a synonym for "flatulent" that began with R.

ripsaw?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959716You forgot rabid, recidivist, raging, romping, rowrbazzle.

Also, I wish there was a synonym for "flatulent" that began with R.

Rumbling... :-)

BTW, I don't resemble that remark at all.... my wife doesn't at all insist we keep a window open in the bedroom...

Quote from: estar;959684Freedom means Freedom. As long as that person isn't trying to use coercion via control of distribution or some other limited publishing resource I have no problem with them being an asshole about their preferences. And expression of one's opinion is not coercion despite some  folks belief in "mindshare", "meme", or some other group philosophy bullshit.

That's what I've been saying, but every time, someone comes in and whines about how the modern D&D scene is terrible or some such bullshit.

Quote from: estar;959684OK if it is nothing more than versions of D&D then make your next campaign core book only OD&D. Doesn't sound appealing? Wow! You have preferences. Some prefer classic editions, some 'as is' some kitbashed with various other mechanics, some like to use newer RPGs but run using the same setup, adventures, and elements of older editions. And some get enthusiastic about what they are doing.  Seriously are you actually critizing people for being enthusiastic about older edition?

I run 5e for WoTC's Adventure League, and I've got a Scarlet Heroes game going with a friend.  They're both D&D and they both fill a different 'need'.  I'm not sure what you're implying.  There's enthusiasm about a game and then there's bashing people because they like something newer or older than you.

Quote from: estar;959684The fact you are trying to paint the OSR with this just demonstrates that you don't really know jack shit about even how a small segment of it operates. I suggest you look up Goodman Games DCC RPG, Jeff Rients, Dan Proctor & Pacesetter Games, Blood & Treasure, Stars without Numbers before trying to make the argument that the OSR is mostly comprised of people who only have a narrow interest in older editions.

You know, in the 90's we would have called those 'D&D heartbreakers'. right?  And you know what makes OSR different?  Time and WoTC's 3e OGL.  Attitudes changed around that time, and people realized that they could reprint older editions their way.  And now we have a new subset of the edition wars!  Which never ended.

Quote from: estar;959684The same for people trying to "push" their fun onto you. Ever hear of the OD&D dicussion forum? Probably not given your demonstrated lack of knowledge about the OSR. It is noted for its friendly atmosphere that basically boils down to "Hey y'all come on over to the porch and lets talk some OD&D! Not your thing? That all right have a nice day."

You mean like this place?  When people automatically bash whatever edition they don't like, or isn't the edition they never stopped playing?  I hear a lot of people slamming 3.x for example, now admittedly, I have no real good thing to say about 3.x of late, but it did revitalize D&D for a while, so much so it effectively lasted through another edition.

It's clear you think that the OSR is some godsend and second coming of D&D, but a fair amount of just aren't seeing the reason why people like you need to hold on to it and whine about how the big companies are ruining D&D or some such tripe.

Estar never said a word about "big companies ruining D&D" and never bashed anyone else's favored edition or preferred D&D knockoff. The gist of what he wrote is, "These are great times for roleplaying games and the OSR has opened up a lot of options for us to enjoy." It's unclear what Christopher Brady is upset about as nothing he wrote is in response to anything Estar asserted.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959716You forgot rabid, recidivist, raging, romping, rowrbazzle.

Also, I wish there was a synonym for "flatulent" that began with R.

Roustabout, in the sense of being a natural gas worker.

Quote from: Baulderstone;959744Roustabout, in the sense of being a natural gas worker.

Clever one.

Quote from: Dumarest;959741It's unclear what Christopher Brady is upset about as nothing he wrote is in response to anything Estar asserted.

Don't worry, when it comes to anything even remotely on the topic of D&D before 2nd Edition, that's the pattern.  It's the Brady Curse (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35395-3d6-In-Order-or&p=926550&viewfull=1#post926550), not his fault, really.

Quote from: estar;959626So it is any surprise that we have the situation we have today?

This is just fake news. There is no situation.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959740That's what I've been saying, but every time, someone comes in and whines about how the modern D&D scene is terrible or some such bullshit.

Yes there are hobbyists that think that the modern D&D scene is terrible. But fuck em, doesn't impact your ability to publish, promote, or play the modern edition of your choice. And you have the benefit of being able to use the d20 SRD, Pathfinder PRD, 5e SRD, Fate, and several others directly if you want to put out material a modern D&D project. And they can't impede your ability to distribute your work through Onebookshelf, your website, Lulu, Createspace, etc.

So what exactly is the issue here?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959740I run 5e for WoTC's Adventure League, and I've got a Scarlet Heroes game going with a friend.  They're both D&D and they both fill a different 'need'.  I'm not sure what you're implying.  There's enthusiasm about a game and then there's bashing people because they like something newer or older than you.

Quote from: Christopher BradyPersonally, I'd rather share ideas from every edition than segregate myself from others.

This and other statements in the same post paints everybody who publishes, promotes, or plays classic editions with the same color. You don't clarify and say "well it is those assholes at Ye Olde Gaming Salon forum" or give any type of specifics. While I don't know everybody in the OSR, I am well aware of the segments that are friendly and the segments that are "difficult" to work with.

My general point is that with the IP situation, the technology situation that even the group that embodies your worse gaming nightmare has ZERO power over you.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959740You know, in the 90's we would have called those 'D&D heartbreakers'. right?

Absolutely, except an individual doesn't have to risk home and saving to put out their vision. And we are finding out that some "heartbreakers" are pretty decent. That some are uninteresting at first but the author works at it over the years and as a whole it turns out pretty good. And there are those that just plain crash and burn and never heard from again.

It a new age where a person can find it rewarding and profitable to release material for an audience in the low hundreds. The exact level of sales vs. effort depends on individual temperament. There are limitations of course, if you want to make it your livelihood then that requires planning, some capital investment, and some luck.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959740And you know what makes OSR different?  Time and WoTC's 3e OGL.  Attitudes changed around that time, and people realized that they could reprint older editions their way.  And now we have a new subset of the edition wars!  Which never ended.

Hate to break it to you but the edition wars were always there. Except nobody had a legal recourse to do anything about it. And it cost an arm and leg. Now they have an alternative and the cost is reduced to where it about how much time you are willing to invest and how willing you are to learn the nuts and bolts.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959740It's clear you think that the OSR is some godsend and second coming of D&D, but a fair amount of just aren't seeing the reason why people like you need to hold on to it and whine about how the big companies are ruining D&D or some such tripe.

Personally I am more of a GURPS fan myself. However thanks to the OSR I learned how to use classic D&D the way I like to run campaigns and find it a lot of fun. What the Second Coming for me is the use of open content to demolish WoTCs pretensions of what the fan ought to like. I am a big fan of the public domain, open source and open content.

Quote from: CRKrueger;959748Don't worry, when it comes to anything even remotely on the topic of D&D before 2nd Edition, that's the pattern.  It's the Brady Curse (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35395-3d6-In-Order-or&p=926550&viewfull=1#post926550), not his fault, really.

Nicest way to call someone an asshole that I've ever seen, CRK. :-)

I find all the energy of creators in the OSR inspiring. I see a lot of that excitement on the DM's Guild. If anything, that enthusiasm is creating TONS of great stuff that you can use in any D&D game of any edition. This is a super fun time to be a tabletop gamer!

I may be wrong, but the way I see it is there is more continuity than change in D&D since the early days.

The key philosophical ingredient of the OSR is that D&D is *your* game, to play your way, with your rules, the way you want, which is exactly what D&D was meant to be, and what it has (almost) always been.  Back in the "golden era," or whatever, every table, every GM, every group played differently and had its own take on the game.  There were efforts to standardize: tournament play, 3rd and 4th editions, etc. but D&D has always been dominated by the creativity and preferences of the local group.  It used to be that all of those interpretations just collected dust in forgotten notebooks, beer-stained character sheets, and half-drawn maps. What makes the OSR different is that the ubiquitous individual preferences and local creative projects that have always been central to D&D are now shared through new means of publishing and information networking.  That's it.  The OSR is just a loose community of different groups, playing D&D as they always have, and sharing their personal interpretations and ideas.  

So, yeah, what estar said.

There are those that think that the OSR is one-true-wai-ism (CB), but it is really the opposite.  The only one true way in D&D is your way, which is why the OSR is such a glorious mess.

It's cool to see people bringing in other literary fantasy influences in the OSR. I see a heavy science fantasy and in particular Clark Ashton Smith influence kicking in. I've seen a few say this is just obscurity for obscurity's sake but I think it is people just doing their thing and trying to keep things fresh.

Quote from: Voros;959775It's cool to see people bringing in other literary fantasy influences in the OSR. I see a heavy science fantasy and in particular Clark Ashton Smith influence kicking in. I've seen a few say this is just obscurity for obscurity's sake but I think it is people just doing their thing and trying to keep things fresh.

Evoking Clark Ashton Smith is never obscurity for obscurity's sake because he wrote some fantastic stuff that is easily applicable to Fantasy RPGs.

Obscurity can be a benefit when looking for RPG inspiration. Part of the fun of the fantastic is encountering something new and strange. Ripping off Clark Ashton Smith gives your players something weird enough to give them thrill of the strange, yet it isn't so far from RPG fantasy tropes that players can't relate to it.

Quote from: K Peterson;959698Do you mean that all this time I was been duped into believing there was a Taliban and a Pope, who defined the boundaries, castigated the unworthy, and maintained the purity of the Way?

The Pope got deposed years ago, when he failed to get Dwimmermount out... :D

I had no idea Clark Ashton Smith was considered obscure.

Of course, I'm at least one and possibly two generations older than a lot of the posters here, so a good deal of my reading happened before the mid-80s fantasy boom.

He's not. Of the Appendix N-style names, he probably isn't in the first couple that people think of (that would probably be Howard, Leiber, and Lovecraft, plus Vance because everyone has heard of how much Vance influenced things, edit: and Tolkein), but he's in no way obscure.

Clark Ashton Smith isn't obscure.

But his name isn't on the Appendix N list. That's separate issue. But the fact that some folks are invoking him specifically for D&D play is a new thing for publishing. (Not your home game. Not how your group has played for 45 years. But for publishing.)

Fair enough.  I'm glad he's being rediscovered.

Quote from: CRKrueger;959748Don't worry, when it comes to anything even remotely on the topic of D&D before 2nd Edition, that's the pattern.  It's the Brady Curse (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35395-3d6-In-Order-or&p=926550&viewfull=1#post926550), not his fault, really.

Self referencing?   How Justin of you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959820I had no idea Clark Ashton Smith was considered obscure.

Of course, I'm at least one and possibly two generations older than a lot of the posters here, so a good deal of my reading happened before the mid-80s fantasy boom.

I know you are desperate to be the 'old wise man' here, but your maths are off, again.

Quote from: estar;959705recalcitrant

 I was lost, but now am found...that's it.

Gronan is Old School Recalcitrant!

Quote from: Sommerjon;959836Self referencing?   How Justin of you.

Ok, you got me, that one was funny. :D

Quote from: Madprofessor;959763There are those that think that the OSR is one-true-wai-ism (CB), but it is really the opposite.  The only one true way in D&D is your way, which is why the OSR is such a glorious mess.

  Unfortunately, there were some unfortunate things said on all sides back when the OSR was getting started ("you only like that stuff because of nostalgia!" "Well, the stuff YOU like ruined D&D!"), and fannish communities of all sorts have a similarly unfortunate capacity for holding grudges.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;959850Unfortunately, there were some unfortunate things said on all sides back when the OSR was getting started ("you only like that stuff because of nostalgia!" "Well, the stuff YOU like ruined D&D!"), and fannish communities of all sorts have a similarly unfortunate capacity for holding grudges.

Agreed. Some of the OSR people back then had a lot to do with getting me away from gaming; their attitudes toward what we used to do back in the day struck me as odd - and annoying, too. On the other had, the whole 'consultantgate' flap did introduce me to Pundit and his work, and I got "Arrows of Indra" out of it. So, good things can come from bad.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;959850Unfortunately, there were some unfortunate things said on all sides back when the OSR was getting started ("you only like that stuff because of nostalgia!" "Well, the stuff YOU like ruined D&D!"), and fannish communities of all sorts have a similarly unfortunate capacity for holding grudges.

Everyone, on any side of any split in the community--be they movements, preferred editions, TSR-era vs. WotC, 3e vs. 4e vs. 5e, 1e vs. 2e, Gary vs. Dave, whether PHB default world should be GH, FR, Points of Light, Known World, etc. or anything else--can undoubtedly point to some time or another where someone backing another side said something both unfortunate and completely unfair.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;959850Unfortunately, there were some unfortunate things said on all sides back when the OSR was getting started ("you only like that stuff because of nostalgia!" "Well, the stuff YOU like ruined D&D!"), and fannish communities of all sorts have a similarly unfortunate capacity for holding grudges.

You say that as if no one does that anymore.  Sadly, it's still happening.

Quote from: S'mon;959795The Pope got deposed years ago, when he failed to get Dwimmermount out... :D

haha :D

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959908Agreed. Some of the OSR people back then had a lot to do with getting me away from gaming; their attitudes toward what we used to do back in the day struck me as odd - and annoying, too...

What exactly was odd and annoying about some of these people's attitude chirine? Just curious.

Quote from: Voros;959943What exactly was odd and annoying about some of these people's attitude chirine? Just curious.

Well, I'd get asked about Dave and Gary's play style and how they used the rules. I'd describe how they did things in the game sessions I had played in, and that they were a lot less 'crunch' and a lot more 'fluff' in their play. (Same for Phil, by the way.) People seemed to be very put out by the way all three didn't worry too much about the 'letter of the law' with the rules, and were much more about the 'spirit' of the game. "Too hand-wavy", "Too loosey-goosey" I was told, and that since they were the authors of The Rules then their play Must Have Been using every paragraph and sentence that they had written. When I pointed out that their game play tended to the opposite of this, the self-described OSR people I was talking too got very cranky and upset - I was challenging the established mythology of game play, I gathered.

And the subject of the use of miniatures in RPGs. Oh, my word! The news that Dave and Phil loved to use figures in their RPGs was a horrifying notion, especially as The Great God Gygax had, in The Sacred Scrolls of Lake Geneva, specifically decreed that miniatures were not to be used in games. Again, in short, I was challenging the established mythology. Being there in those games was of no account, I was told; I had been - and was still having, to this day - BadWrongFun. In short, my time in the game hobby had been a compete contradiction of what the OSR stood for, and under no circumstances would I be allowed to join the ranks of God's Elect. and how dare I presume to talk about my heresies on the Internet.

It got pretty old, frankly, and I kept wondering why I was spending the time and energy on the Internet. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I was better off closing out most - pretty much all, really - of my accounts and such. I have a lot more time for my hobby, and by being very selective about who I talk to and game with I have a much better time in it.

I suspect, from what I've seen and heard in the past five years, that I was unlucky enough to encounter some of the 'first wave' of the OSR, people who came across as self-centered, self-absorbed, and self-important folks who had very little idea about what the history of the hobby had been like for those of us who lived through it. 'Consultantgate', where some of them proclaimed themselves the gatekeepers of the hobby,  and who had the last word on what should be the moral tone of same, was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. A number of them are also the people behind things like Tor Books' series on the horrible people who provided the underpinnings and inspirations for our hobby, and which damned everything I happen to like along the way. (The thread on this forum about inspirational artwork is a good example of all they loathe.)

I don't mind them holding what positions they might have, but I do draw the line at them telling me what I must believe. As I say, it gets old, and I have other things I can be doing and other purposes I can put my resources to. I much prefer the people here - they may be opinionated and truculent, but they seem to me to be genuinely interested in and devoted to this hobby.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952Well, I'd get asked about Dave and Gary's play style and how they used the rules. I'd describe how they did things in the game sessions I had played in, and that they were a lot less 'crunch' and a lot more 'fluff' in their play. (Same for Phil, by the way.) People seemed to be very put out by the way all three didn't worry too much about the 'letter of the law' with the rules, and were much more about the 'spirit' of the game. "Too hand-wavy", "Too loosey-goosey" I was told, and that since they were the authors of The Rules then their play Must Have Been using every paragraph and sentence that they had written. When I pointed out that their game play tended to the opposite of this, the self-described OSR people I was talking too got very cranky and upset - I was challenging the established mythology of game play, I gathered.

And the subject of the use of miniatures in RPGs. Oh, my word! The news that Dave and Phil loved to use figures in their RPGs was a horrifying notion, especially as The Great God Gygax had, in The Sacred Scrolls of Lake Geneva, specifically decreed that miniatures were not to be used in games. Again, in short, I was challenging the established mythology. Being there in those games was of no account, I was told; I had been - and was still having, to this day - BadWrongFun. In short, my time in the game hobby had been a compete contradiction of what the OSR stood for, and under no circumstances would I be allowed to join the ranks of God's Elect. and how dare I presume to talk about my heresies on the Internet.

It got pretty old, frankly, and I kept wondering why I was spending the time and energy on the Internet. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I was better off closing out most - pretty much all, really - of my accounts and such. I have a lot more time for my hobby, and by being very selective about who I talk to and game with I have a much better time in it.

I suspect, from what I've seen and heard in the past five years, that I was unlucky enough to encounter some of the 'first wave' of the OSR, people who came across as self-centered, self-absorbed, and self-important folks who had very little idea about what the history of the hobby had been like for those of us who lived through it. 'Consultantgate', where some of them proclaimed themselves the gatekeepers of the hobby,  and who had the last word on what should be the moral tone of same, was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. A number of them are also the people behind things like Tor Books' series on the horrible people who provided the underpinnings and inspirations for our hobby, and which damned everything I happen to like along the way. (The thread on this forum about inspirational artwork is a good example of all they loathe.)

I don't mind them holding what positions they might have, but I do draw the line at them telling me what I must believe. As I say, it gets old, and I have other things I can be doing and other purposes I can put my resources to. I much prefer the people here - they may be opinionated and truculent, but they seem to me to be genuinely interested in and devoted to this hobby.

More things change...  I still see this stuff on this very site...

See, Chirine is more patient than I am.  I simply tell such people "You're an idiot.  Shut up."

Quote from: S'mon;959795The Pope got deposed years ago, when he failed to get Dwimmermount out... :D

   Although his bulls against things like Dragonlance certainly poisoned my view of the OSR for the longest time. The modules definitely have problems, and there are certainly reasons to be upset that the game's style changed. But it did change, those changes have a lot of fans, and claiming that those things were not only bad or not to your taste, but 'ruined' or 'destroyed' the game is going to come across as snobbery, One-True-Wayism or simply the grumbling of old men.

   The game has numerous different styles, and while the OSR may be truer in some ways to Gygax and/or Arneson's original intentions, the other styles have legitimate appeal and a place at the table. There are things I like about the OSR (the focus on lighter rules, actual play and customizability) and things where it's not to my taste (the disdain for mechanical differentiation between characters, the high lethality, and the general focus on the more gritty, grimy and lurid sides of fantasy).

Opinionated and truculent voices on this forum? I don't believe it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959955More things change...  I still see this stuff on this very site...

Again how does it impact your ability to promote, play, or publish in the manner that you see fit?

Quote from: estar;959984Again how does it impact your ability to promote, play, or publish in the manner that you see fit?

It causes arguments, creates discord and promotes edition warring at the table.

Instead of letting people play the game they want, and sharing ideas, we get people who stay entrenched and yelling at everyone who DARES suggest that another game could be fun too.  It bogs down discussion and discourse and mires it in pedantry and staunches the flow of creativity.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959992It causes arguments, creates discord and promotes edition warring at the table.

There goes one Irony-Meter.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959992Instead of letting people play the game they want, and sharing ideas, we get people who stay entrenched and yelling at everyone who DARES suggest that another game could be fun too.  It bogs down discussion and discourse and mires it in pedantry and staunches the flow of creativity.

Two Irony-Meters in one post, that's gotta be a record.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952A number of them are also the people behind things like Tor Books' series on the horrible people who provided the underpinnings and inspirations for our hobby, and which damned everything I happen to like along the way.

What was that about?
Do you have a sample link?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;959996What was that about?
Do you have a sample link?

http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/ (http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;959963Although [Grognardia's] bulls against things like Dragonlance certainly poisoned my view of the OSR for the longest time. The modules definitely have problems, and there are certainly reasons to be upset that the game's style changed. But it did change, those changes have a lot of fans, and claiming that those things were not only bad or not to your taste, but 'ruined' or 'destroyed' the game is going to come across as snobbery, One-True-Wayism or simply the grumbling of old men.

Also, in retrospect I wonder how much of this change was chicken, and how much was egg.

When Basic D&D got wider distribution (department stores) it also left the circles of wargamers.
The book trade distribution alone changed the audience from tactical, or simulation-minded people to those that were used to think in plots or stories, that came to the store for plots and stories. They came from a different angle, and looked for familiar elements to decipher what the game was "about".
And naturally those people applied for openings on the creator side of things.

Quote from: Dumarest;959741It's unclear what Christopher Brady is upset about...

On the contrary, it's quite well-established.
He's upset that the classical editions of D&D ever existed, that they spawnedmultiple clones, and worst of all, that the people who are fans of those have, at some point, told him that in their opinion, his game sucks:D!

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;959749This is just fake news. There is no situation.

Everything is a situation.;).

Quote from: AsenRG;960007He's upset that the classical editions of D&D ever existed, that they spawnedmultiple clones, and worst of all, that the people who are fans of those have, at some point, told him that in their opinion, his game sucks.

Indeed. He jests at scars that never felt a wound. Unless OSR barbarians are camped out outside his house on game night, trolling him through their watch fires. It is like he is annoyed they exist.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959992It causes arguments, creates discord and promotes edition warring at the table.

So you are saying that while you were at a game table running some Adventurer's League (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36792-What-everybody-forgets-about-the-OSR&p=959740&viewfull=1#post959740) and one of your players told you or another player that 5e sucked monkey balls? I am assuming here that the one gamer you running Scarlet Heroes didn't do that as well.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959992Instead of letting people play the game they want, and sharing ideas, we get people who stay entrenched and yelling at everyone who DARES suggest that another game could be fun too.  It bogs down discussion and discourse and mires it in pedantry and staunches the flow of creativity.

People have opinion, they have unwarranted opinions, they also give uninvited opinions. Some people ignore these kind of options, some respond with a one line witticism (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?36792-What-everybody-forgets-about-the-OSR&p=959962&viewfull=1#post959962). Others respond in kind, and so forth and so on. You are not going to change the people handing out these kind of opinions all you have control over is how you respond.

Personally I recommend learning how to chill (http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-Criticism) in regards to tabletop roleplaying. So far everything your response is about how YOU feel. Moreso with the Adventurer's League, you are refereeing in a public location with ANYBODY welcomed to your table. This is not something that I recommend that somebody sensitive to human ignorance be doing. For me for whatever reason how I respond to this situation as a challenge. I am a good enough referee so that anybody can have fun at my table even when I am shackled with the restrictions of the Adventurer's League, or a LARP, etc, etc. But not everybody like me nor should they be. There at lot of styles that work in this situation and a lot of styles that don't.  In the nearly 40 years I been involved in this hobby, people who are sensitive to criticism don't last long when it comes to public gaming. From what little you told me, I feel you are teetering on the edge because of your sensitivity to criticism.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952I suspect, from what I've seen and heard in the past five years, that I was unlucky enough to encounter some of the 'first wave' of the OSR, people who came across as self-centered, self-absorbed, and self-important folks who had very little idea about what the history of the hobby had been like for those of us who lived through it. 'Consultantgate', where some of them proclaimed themselves the gatekeepers of the hobby,  and who had the last word on what should be the moral tone of same, was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. A number of them are also the people behind things like Tor Books' series on the horrible people who provided the underpinnings and inspirations for our hobby, and which damned everything I happen to like along the way. (The thread on this forum about inspirational artwork is a good example of all they loathe.)

I don't mind them holding what positions they might have, but I do draw the line at them telling me what I must believe. As I say, it gets old, and I have other things I can be doing and other purposes I can put my resources to. I much prefer the people here - they may be opinionated and truculent, but they seem to me to be genuinely interested in and devoted to this hobby.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959998http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/ (http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/)

I am curious about what lead you to think that the folks you mentioned were part of the OSR. I do know that Erik Tenkar of Tenkar's Tavern has had harsh criticism of Zak S and the Pundit. And others also involved in publishing, promoting, and playing classic editions of D&D also have disputes with those two. However Consultantgate was largely driven by the run up to D&D 5e and the fact nearly everybody in the hobby weighed in not just the OSR. At least in my corner the reaction was best described as "Oh that nice." followed by returning to talk about classic D&D. All that the stuff that Wizards did with the re-release of various classic edition products built enough goodwill along with the details of 5e as it came out meant that it literally didn't get on the nerve of anybody I know. Basically the Wizards followed the same marketing path that Joseph Goodman did with the DCC RPG.

As for the Tor Book series, I looked up who Tim Callahan, and Mordicai Knode were as I did not recognize either name. And I see why I never heard of Tim as the stuff he did was not on my radar given his interest in the DCC RPG. My google search came up zilch for Mordicai Knode as far as any actual work other than commentary like his Tor articles.

This illustrate just how diverse the people are under the OSR label or for that matter playing, publishing, promoting classic editions and similar RPGs. How one's view of the OSR is greatly influenced by the particular "slice" in view at the time.

Personally I find this kind of thing interesting to dig in to see what happened when and where and trace it back. But I am well aware most just want to get on with gaming including yourself. One of the reason I wrote my post to loudly and strongly remind folks that regardless of what others say or do, the foundations of the classic editions no longer can be chained to anybody's vision no matter how hard they try or however wide their audience is.

Quote from: estar;960030blah, blah, blah.......In the nearly 40 years I been involved in this hobby, people who are sensitive to criticism don't last long when it comes to public gaming. From what little you told me, I feel you are teetering on the edge because of your sensitivity to criticism.

I wanna be on the couch.  I wanna be on the couch.

Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

I fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

I fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

Good..........Good.......... I can feel the hate swelling. Take up your blog post and strike down the memory of Gygax. Your journey to the new school will then be complete. :p

Quote from: estar;960035This illustrate just how diverse the people are under the OSR label or for that matter playing, publishing, promoting classic editions and similar RPGs. How one's view of the OSR is greatly influenced by the particular "slice" in view at the time...

I was going to say something similar yesterday, thought the better of it, and now, with your words, decided to add in.

I arrived to the OSR late. I began reading some of the blogs in 2010 or so I guess. I became intrigued. But I was busy with games like Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, Sorcerer, King Arthur Pendragon. But didn't buy anything (some LotFP products) until 2014 when I started digging into Classic Traveller (the original Little Black Books 1-3). I wanted to see how these earlier games worked. I ended up getting copies of Basic D&D, OD&D and so on.

I found out I really liked them!

But the key thing is the comments that Chirine ran into were not the comments I encountered. Every blog I read was all about being loosey-goosey with the rules. Miniatures were something either someone wanted to use or not use.

But keep in mind I haven't delved too deeply into the communities of many of the retro clones. I'm sure those kinds of comments Chirine mentions are out there somewhere. They're just not what I bumped into.

There were, of course, comments like "People only care about those older games because of nostalgia," which is nonsense of course. So I say, "Not true," explain it is a very different play style than games from the mid-80s on, and fun in-and-of itself. And then I move on. What am I going to do? Argue someone into submission?

And I'm sure there are people who really love OSR games and are annoying as all hell to other people. And the same holds... there are annoying people on the internet. They don't represent everyone. And you move on.

I've come to believe that the basic unit of the RPG is the players at the table. That's what matters and not much else. Conversations online can supplement that... but I don't take any of the anger seriously. Because it has no impact really on the basic unit of player at the table. As long as my players and I are having a good time we're all good. Angry or annoying people on the Internet are folks I can leave behind in a heartbeat.

Honestly I'm at a loss to understand why anyone gives a squirt what game someone else enjoys. I'm into Classic 1977 Traveller. I don't give a tinker's dam about whether someone else is using the 1981 edition a frolicking in the Third Imperium, or using Traveller: 2300 and the French are a dominant superpower in the galaxy, or the last edition I saw of Mongoose Traveller, wherein alien races are a given in the rulebook.

Seriously: why does anyone care? Come play The Fantasy Trip with me or don't. You go have fun playing GURPS Star Trek, she'll  play the heck out of FASA Trek, he'll play Last Unicorn Trek, and the cat will homebrew with bits from all three.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

I fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

Well, not to defend bitterness and such, but...just...you...wait, young one...just you wait...:-)

Quote from: AsenRG;960007On the contrary, it's quite well-established.
He's upset that the classical editions of D&D ever existed, that they spawnedmultiple clones, and worst of all, that the people who are fans of those have, at some point, told him that in their opinion, his game sucks:D!

Oh look another projection on what I said.  Given that I rather like some of the stuff from the older games and lift some of the ideas directly, I'd say you're wrong, but don't let that stop you from making stuff up.

What I don't like are the people promoting the OSR as if it's the greatest thing ever, and that everything that has come after it is garbage.  That there's only one true way to play (even if they try to subtly imply it and then hide behind 'That's not what I meant!')  You really want to rile those who think that their way is the best way, and all us 'kids' are stupid to think that newer editions are not as bad as they claim?

Just say that gaming has evolved.

Step back and look at them lose their minds. Very amusing.

And sadly, for them, it's true.  Gaming has changed, we have more games, more ideas, more people, and even more importantly, you (general, not personal) have changed.  Even if you're using the exact same three brown books that was forged by the Hand of God Gygax Himself, you're no longer that little kid at his table, and your experiences have changed the way you play.

But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.  No matter how many times people scream that it is.

Quote from: AsenRG;960007Everything is a situation.;).

Only if you let it be.

But then, the issue I have with threads like these is that someone feels the need to post one because they seem scared that unless you promote this little movement, it'll disappear and we won't see the old games anymore.  Like Wizards of The Coast will suddenly come into your house and take all the games that isn't the latest edition of D&D or something.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959998http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/ (http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/)

Been reading some of those entries. So far I have read the ones on Vance, Dunsany, Brackett, and Leiber, and they really enjoyed them all. I guess if I keep reading, I will hit some they didn't like, but I am not seeing anything like a systematic attack on Appendix N here.

Quote from: Baulderstone;960056Been reading some of those entries. So far I have read the ones on Vance, Dunsany, Brackett, and Leiber, and they really enjoyed them all. I guess if I keep reading, I will hit some they didn't like, but I am not seeing anything like a systematic attack on Appendix N here.

I just read the Poul Anderson one - one of those Unbelievers didn't like Three Hearts & Three Lions! :eek:

Disclaimer: S'mon has not read Three Hearts & Three Lions.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

I fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

I hate people who hate grognards.

I hate people who disparage anything old because it isn't new.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960048What I don't like are the people promoting the OSR as if it's the greatest thing ever, and that everything that has come after it is garbage.  That there's only one true way to play (even if they try to subtly imply it and then hide behind 'That's not what I meant!')  You really want to rile those who think that their way is the best way, and all us 'kids' are stupid to think that newer editions are not as bad as they claim?

And the reverse doesn't occur or it doesn't occur with regularity in regards to Shadowrun, Fate, Star Wars, GURPs, etc, etc? I can't think of a single RPG or editions hasn't been mocked or criticized in someway. Yet somehow you are specifically singling out the OSR, and you are implying that mocking newer editions of D&D is standard procedure within the OSR.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960048But then, the issue I have with threads like these is that someone feels the need to post one because they seem scared that unless you promote this little movement, it'll disappear and we won't see the old games anymore.  Like Wizards of The Coast will suddenly come into your house and take all the games that isn't the latest edition of D&D or something.

1) Why wouldn't I encourage people to make the material I like.
2) Somehow I get the feeling that the you are on the only thinking that my post was the work of somebody who is scared. The thing with open content that I didn't touch on is that it always there to be used. If and when interest in classic editions of D&D wanes the same pieces are still available for the next generation to be used in the ways they see fit.

I realize I'm guity of this myself but it would be nice if not every discussion regarding the OSR was a debate about the OSR and the worse reactionary elements in it, which I agree does exist and should be criticitzed.

Anyone reading James V. West's Black Pudding OSR zine? I think the second issue is excellent with a solid dungeon included. I prefer when he designs more NPCs, monsters and magic items than to the creation of more subclasses. It seems to me one of the strengths of B/X and BECMI is their limited range of classes, making the game simplier and more elegant.

I prefer when the OSR focuses more on the creation of content than endless tweaking of rules. I understand the attraction of coming up with one's variation on a rule or class for rule wonks but find it the least interesting element of the OSR.

In terms of bringing the OSR to a wider auidence what do you think has been the most effective, the free rules clones or the original content of LotFP and others? For me, it was the DCC modules and LotFP modules.

At first though I did ignore a lot of DCC because the retro trade dress made it look like a lot of second-rate amateur productions. The irony to me is how they always have that goofy blurb about 'remember the old days...dungeon crawls' but many of the DCC modules are far from conventional dungeon crawls. Not sure if they are still including that on the new stuff but I defintely think they should retire that reactionary blurb which often in no way reflects the actual content of their product, if it ever did.

Quote from: estar;960071... I can't think of a single RPG or editions hasn't been mocked or criticized in someway...

Agreed, didn't many wargaming grognards dismiss D&D itself when it appeared?

There's always going to be rearguard critics but I do think it is good to not allow them to dominate the conversation and I'm not convinced that Finch and the Pope were making productive contributions (although Finch made some decent, but not stellar, adventures).

Quote from: estar;960071And the reverse doesn't occur or it doesn't occur with regularity in regards to Shadowrun, Fate, Star Wars, GURPs, etc, etc? I can't think of a single RPG or editions hasn't been mocked or criticized in someway. Yet somehow you are specifically singling out the OSR, and you are implying that mocking newer editions of D&D is standard procedure within the OSR.




1) Why wouldn't I encourage people to make the material I like.
2) Somehow I get the feeling that the you are on the only thinking that my post was the work of somebody who is scared. The thing with open content that I didn't touch on is that it always there to be used. If and when interest in classic editions of D&D wanes the same pieces are still available for the next generation to be used in the ways they see fit.

You cannot reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.

Quote from: S'mon;960066I just read the Poul Anderson one - one of those Unbelievers didn't like Three Hearts & Three Lions! :eek:

Disclaimer: S'mon has not read Three Hearts & Three Lions.

That's okay. Poul Anderson got on whole "RPGs make people go crazy" train when it was fashionable in 1982, so fuck that guy anyway.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;960081You cannot reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/155445342/1o6pt1.jpg)

Quote from: Baulderstone;960084That's okay. Poul Anderson got on whole "RPGs make people go crazy" train when it was fashionable in 1982, so fuck that guy anyway.

To be fair, upon reading the debates on the various fora, he may not have been wrong. People argue about the damnedest things.

Quote from: Baulderstone;960056Been reading some of those entries. So far I have read the ones on Vance, Dunsany, Brackett, and Leiber, and they really enjoyed them all. I guess if I keep reading, I will hit some they didn't like, but I am not seeing anything like a systematic attack on Appendix N here.

It's the ones on the older authors that set my teeth on edge. Lovecraft and Howard, like some others, are viewed through the lens of modern sensibilities and political correctness.

Quote from: Dumarest;960101To be fair, upon reading the debates on the various fora, he may not have been wrong. People argue about the damnedest things.

Fine. Let's just say he was wrong about the way that RPGs drove people crazy. His story "The Saturn Game" is just the fake version of the Egbert story with roleplaying astronauts instead of college students and an alien world instead of steam tunnels. It somehow won a Hugo and Nebula.  

Quote from: chirine ba kal;960115It's the ones on the older authors that set my teeth on edge. Lovecraft and Howard, like some others, are viewed through the lens of modern sensibilities and political correctness.

That can get old,but overall, they did seem to be approaching the project with the intention of finding real inspiration, not just looking to crap on everything. I think they deserve at least partial credit.

Quote from: Baulderstone;960120That can get old,but overall, they did seem to be approaching the project with the intention of finding real inspiration, not just looking to crap on everything. I think they deserve at least partial credit.

Agreed. I'd like tho think so, too; as you say, the politics do get old.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959641Though I do not consider myself part of the OSR because I never stopped playing this sillyass game the way I always have, I am extremely grateful that the OSR has become a thing, because at least there are other people acknowledging that yeah, these games can be fun in their own right.

I'm kind of the same way. One of our campaigns is still running once in a while that I joined in '86. I used to play on and off in a BECMI/RC campaign during the same era, but the fellow who ran that converted to 5e, as his 20 something kids are very much into it. Mostly I play in a campaign which could be best described as Gonzo played straight. Over the years pretty much anything that used compatible rules was brought in at some point. Gamma World, Buck Rogers XXVc, a WWII German Unit from an old Dragon Magazine. I still have conversion notes from bringing Marvel Superheroes (which led to me rescaling and expanding Strength, using something like a linear progression based on the square root of two) in. Psionics from Will and the Way/Skills and Powers was hacked a lot for that.

Anyhow, back to the topic. We've always picked up material that we could use. When the OSR started coming around, all of a sudden there was all this material I could use. OSRIC meant I could go play 1e and just bring one book with me for reference because it's close enough. Labyrinth Lord and the Advanced Edition Companion impressed me enough that I pretty much went to Sentry Box and just pulled everything Goblinoid off the shelf. The first gaming kickstart thing was an Indigogo for Starships and Spacemen. Conveniently, I was able to buy Apes Victorious off of Lulu which has a facility in Canada so shipping is reasonable. Same thing with Stars without Number and related items. I have as much in print that I can get, and filled the rest with PDFs. Actually, I buy stuff most often on Lulu. I think I got Low Fantasy Roleplaying at the same time as Apes Victorious, and I picked up Dark Dungeons because it's BECMIish and I still have a soft spot for that.

The nice thing about the OSR is that it can bring in decades of innovation, and almost anyone can produce a product that's sharp and recognizable. I can flip through a book or look at an online preview and can tell right away if it's something I'd use, and I like that. Even if they aren't designed to be modular, OSRs by their definition are modular, being pieced together from existing rules sometimes in combination with new content. Everything is plug and play and print on demand means I don't have to walk blindly into Sentry Box or a used bookstore, hoping they have something I like, even if I still walk blindly into game and book stores. :D My FLGS does carry OSR stuff, though I do still order online. I prefer the brick and mortar store for newer material like Adventures in Middle Earth which would have ridiculous shipping costs if I ordered it online.

Another thing with the OSR. Each one is it's own monster. It lets you see the games you remember through someone else's looking glass. Everyone has a different ideas as what they think is essential to a game. You may or may not agree with it, but the nice thing is you only have to use the bits you like, unless you agreed to run the game on it's own rules as written which can be fun as well.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

I fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

That's actually the funny thing though. Most of the OSR doesn't hate D&D, they hate AD&D (1st Edition, they ignore 2e) and worship OD&D, especially White Box. The less Gygax the better, it seems, even though I'm not sure Dave Arneson ever actually wrote down a damn thing in his career, relying on others to actually do the grunt work of the writing.

Yet, OD&D is objectively broken in places. Is there any good reason that armor class starts at 9 instead of 10? It made sense with the chainmail combat system, but not in D&D. The experience progression is poorly balanced, which was largely corrected in AD&D (save the Druid). Is there any rational reason that the Cleric levels up twice as fast as other classes? 50,000 per level compared to 120,000 for the fighter or 100,000 for the MU? (and the poor thief  needs 125,000 the most of any class despite being the weakest, but this is apparently justified because the Thief is a heretical addition that disrupts the purity of the original game by the heretic Gygax, never mind he borrowed it from a group who felt they needed it in their game). And the original hit dice system of everyone having 1d6, but for some levels you don't get a full hit dice, just a +1 or +2. Does that really make any sense compared to the later one whole hit die per level of varying types? (But then to some in the OSR, polyhedral dice are heretical. Especially the d10. But not the d30 for some reason)

There are some big Gygax fans, at least at Dragonsfoot, but they aren't really even part of the OSR, they just like 1e and that's it.

While Grognards might stick with the same game they play warts and all, it's harder to explain people who not only embrace the warts of their favored game, but glorify and embrace them the way White Box fans have.

He said "objectively broken." Can't wait to hear the rebuttals. Or at least a link to the definitions of objective and subjective.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;960115It's the ones on the older authors that set my teeth on edge. Lovecraft and Howard, like some others, are viewed through the lens of modern sensibilities and political correctness.

I read the first one on "Red Nails" and couldn't continue. It felt like leftist student lunch hour.

First off The OD&D rules were a result of actual play with dozens of players for a year and a half. The rules were also written for the wargaming community of the early 70s which had a lot of shared experiences and assumptions. Not in the least of which is that the default mode of play was to think of something they want to wargame out first, and come up with the rules second. There were little to no published set of rules that the players could turn too. Instead there was a body of common knowledge as well as sources from libraries people knew to look for. This is state of the hobby when D&D was put together.

What OD&D served was as a framework to run a campaign of interlinked sessions where the focus was on players interacting with a setting as individual characters with their actions adjudicated by a referee using the OD&D rules as guideline. There was other kinds of campaigns being run at the time that were being adjudicated by referees most of which were focused on grand strategy of fighting out a war with the battles resolved by using miniatures.

Quote from: JeremyR;960130Yet, OD&D is objectively broken in places. Is there any good reason that armor class starts at 9 instead of 10?

There are eight categories of armor in OD&D. In one wargame article about archey (you can looked this up in the book Playing at the World) Gygax listed them them as 1 to 8. In D&D it got changed to 2 to 9. Gygax had a habit of using tables to show what to roll and win in Chainmail, Don't Give up the Ship and other games he authored or co-authored. So for some unknown reason he changed to 2 to 9. Better known is the shift from 9 to 10. In AD&D he added other armor types and decided the way to handle it was to make the lowest armor class 10 and work his way up from there. So in AD&D plate +shield is still AC 2 but no armor is now 10 to accommodate scale and ring mail.

Quote from: JeremyR;960130It made sense with the chainmail combat system, but not in D&D.

Chainmail didn't have armor class, it had armor type.

Quote from: JeremyR;960130The experience progression is poorly balanced, which was largely corrected in AD&D (save the Druid). Is there any rational reason that the Cleric levels up twice as fast as other classes?

Dave Fant.

The deal was this, from what I understand from reading everybody account that the Blackmoor campaign not only had players playing characters that are heroes but players playing the "bad guys" as well. While there was some NPCs run by Dave by and large the campaign was bout two opposing groups of players going at each other. One on the side of law and the other on the side of chaos. One players named Dave Fant became a Dracula style Vampire. Which at that time is one of the toughest monsters in the campaign. Well he started dominating and Dave figured that Fant needed a Van Helsing type to opposed. Added a dash a Charlesmagne Paladins, and some healing and you have the cleric.

Now Gygax runs his campaign and the vampire is still one of the tougher monsters. Plus the Cleric probably considered to be more of a support roll compared to the Conan style fighter and Merlin/Gandalf style Wizard. Who wanted to be Friar Tuck in the party? So my guess is that Gygax at one point made it attractive to play a cleric by having the class progress faster. But I have no anecdote or documentation to support that.

Quote from: JeremyR;9601305 And the original hit dice system of everyone having 1d6, but for some levels you don't get a full hit dice, just a +1 or +2. Does that really make any sense compared to the later one whole hit die per level of varying types? (But then to some in the OSR, polyhedral dice are heretical. Especially the d10. But not the d30 for some reason)

Well for one thing you have to remember that aside from the Fighter being able to wear armor. The Cleric being able to turn and have spells at higher levels, and the Wizard with his one spell. Low Level OD&D character are roughly equivalent in capability. In Chainmail combat both Magic User and Cleric fight as a regular warrior and Fighters get +1 to the 2d6 rolls. In the d20 alternative combat all three classes have the same to hit chances. Regardless of weapon they all did 1d6 damage. Not to say there no difference but compared to later editions and later supplement the difference were not that drastic.

Again from reading books and anecdotes the campaigns were more about using your wits to survives than the mechanics. In general you look at the situation as if you there as the character. Figured out something that could work given the character's capabilities, then tell the referee who would then tell you to roll such and such dice to see if you succeed.

In that sense OD&D isn't broken at all and work well 'as is'

Finally who gives a shit about the god damn rules. Read what I wrote more carefully. The deal with the open content is that is allow people more way to share what they do and make with ANY classic edition of D&D. That revolutionary, not debates over whether this edition is fucking broken or not. Moreso because the ways of sharing has opened up it easier for people can see how other folks use a particular edition in actual play. I don't know if you understand this but you and a lot of people don't seem to get that referee have and continue to make each and every edition of D&D work in a campaign including the "broken" OD&D.

If you wonder how OD&D can possibly work in a campaign, well we got one guy here who hasn't stopped playing it from even before it was published. You got me who been running OD&D campaigns since 2008. Or you do a google search and possibly find other folks who wrote up how they handled OD&D like this guy named Philotomy (http://www.grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf).

The rules are the least of your problems when running a tabletop campaign. You should be worrying about your damn setting and making sure it is something fun, that the rules work with it, and that your prepared to handle the things your players try to do that are not covered by the rules. Because if this doesn't happen then your players are not going to find the campaign fun.

Quote from: estar;960139... The rules were also written for the wargaming community of the early 70s which had a lot of shared experiences and assumptions...This is state of the hobby when D&D was put together.

I've seen this argument advanced before and it is true as far as it goes but I'm not sure what the point of it really is. Does that excuse obtusely written rules? While it is pointless to harp on about the original rules at this point I don't see much purpose in playing apologist for the lack of clarity and (relatively minor) flaws in design. Besides as you say soon after publication people from all kinds of background far beyond the wargaming community started to innovate and take the rules apart. Obsessing that daggers are OP in the early rules now seems pretty pointless.

OP, I agree. That's why I created Kaigaku. I wanted something that hit the same beats as L5R, without being L5R, which wasn't open content.

Quote from: estar;960139In that sense OD&D isn't broken at all and work well 'as is'

Exactly.  "I don't like/understand this" != "this is broken."

Quote from: cranebump;960013He jests at scars that never felt a wound.

Fabulous quote! Where's it from?

Quote from: Madprofessor;959763The only one true way in D&D is your way, which is why the OSR is such a glorious mess.

I absolutely agree.

All that really matters is what works at your own table.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959740You know, in the 90's we would have called those 'D&D heartbreakers'. right?  And you know what makes OSR different?  Time and WoTC's 3e OGL.

I agree.

Palladium Fantasy was among the first OSR games back in 1982!

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952People seemed to be very put out by the way all three didn't worry too much about the 'letter of the law' with the rules, and were much more about the 'spirit' of the game.

I only met Dave Arneson once, but after the game we grilled him like a cheese sandwich. I asked him why all the cool houserules he used in our game weren't in the original books, or in any of the many later books. His response? They assumed the players would figure it out.

I asked him if he had ever met human beings, because WTF??? Really??? The TSR crew put out hundreds of pages of rules from OD&D through AD&D and somehow a bunch of fun optional bits were just omitted. Plenty of pages for whackass grappling charts, but none for the stuff we experienced in Dave's game. It really was a super WTF moment.

But I know the real answer. They put meth in Wisconsin cheese.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952Too hand-wavy", "Too loosey-goosey" I was told, and that since they were the authors of The Rules then their play Must Have Been using every paragraph and sentence that they had written.

I've had the pleasure of gaming with several RPG authors and its hysterical how several don't use the damned rules they sold us. Never had that experience with the board game, card game and minis game designers, but those damn RPG authors just hand wave the shit they wrote.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952Oh, my word! The news that Dave and Phil loved to use figures in their RPGs was a horrifying notion,

WTF chirine!!! Are you trying to say people who played minis games, designed minis games and loved minis games would somehow involve their RPG playing with...minis??? Sacre merde!!

Somebody run this insane person out of town!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959962I simply tell such people "You're an idiot.  Shut up."

You forgot to mention your peehole.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040hey smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore.

1) Weapon vs. AC is a boogeyman. It wasn't used in actual play by any groups I knew back when. I really liked the idea and wrote up some weapon rules years ago for S&W:WB using concepts in those charts by analyzing the extremes.

2) Getting players for an OD&D game is stupid easy.

Quote from: DiscoSoup;960152That's why I created Kaigaku.

Start a thread and pimp Kaigaku! With links!

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

I fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

The most amusing part of this is that the comment that threw Bryce into a tizzy was made by someone who loves the OSR and is in no way a grog, but he presumed otherwise because clearly only a grog would say that the OSR is made up of people who want something other than D&D.

I only have two criticisms of the OSR, none of which cause me to look forward to the day when all of them die.

1. The purpose of a mark is to reduce confusion; "OSR" is only clear to those who are already intimately familiar with the gaming scene and understand the difference between DCC and LL and LOTFP, and what common thread winds through them.  For someone vaguely aware of it (and primarily in its first-gen incarnation that was much more traditional) the mark "OSR" on a product no longer reliably means the product is what they would expect it to mean.  It is essentially now something you already have to be a pretty die-hard gamer whose gaming boundaries extend beyond TSR D&D to reliably grok, which does have an element of counter-intuitiveness to it.  I couldn't, for example, tell someone who stopped playing 20 years ago that new product similar to what they liked previously could be reliably found by looking for an OSR mark.  Like things in RPGs have an unfortunate tendency to do, the mark has recurved into something primarily of use to those already immersed.

And bravo - it recurved because creative people used the mark on many products that they put on the market.  It was defined by what people did with it.  That doesn't mean a conversation of whether lumping traditional D&D in with it is value-added to traditional D&D from the standpoint of what a mark is supposed to do is badwrongconvo to have, although that conversation apparently upsets some people.


2.  It is thin-skinned - sensitive isn't a strong enough adjective - and hypocritical in certain ways.  People routinely say stuff that isn't like theirs sucks.  Only in RPGs is this met with true anger.  I have a brother who is a Cowboys fan, and another joint friend who is a 49ers fan.  They tell each other that their teams suck all the time, in much greater color than the groggiest grog has ever thrown at a game they didn't like.  (Although, to be fair, I don't recall either of them ever saying the world will be better when the opposing fandom all died).  Same with music, car companies - the list goes on and on.

This is different than saying these games have zero value.  A game can have great value to some and "suck" to others.  I hate pistachio ice cream.  It sucks.  It's in my freezer because other people feel differently.

Anyone reading this who spends much time on G+ surely has read multiple posts consistently voiced over years of very colorfully low opinion of forums and forum-goers; i.e., attacking the population and not their preferred game(s).  I have, and I don't even spend much time there.  Yet whenever someone on a forum is disparaging of them in any way they barge in and act like forum-goers are just awful because they don't try to get along.  Perhaps there is also a tinge of cowardice, as evidenced from saying on the others home court only that *ideas* should die, and then expanding that to the people themselves once a place of greater safety is presumed.

Whether or not the OSR mark as currently used is more useful than not for re-attracting lapsed gamers who have no clue of the internet scene, and who don't realize the games they used to play are reborn (and who probably aren't looking for Death Love Doom as the module to kick the tires with), is a valid conversation to have.

Quote from: EOTB;960161People routinely say stuff that isn't like theirs sucks.  Only in RPGs is this met with true anger.

May I introduce you to "football", also known as "soccer" to Americans?

The fans of opposing teams have been known to actually murder each other.

Not today's internet bitch "words equal harm", but old school real life stabby-stabby.

There is also a town called "Boston" where bars regularly erupt in brawls between fans of the same team.

RPGs fans are amateurs in the hate game. Call me when blood spills at GenCon.

The OSR doesn't hate AD&D (either 1e or 2e). There are plenty of fans of both. However, in actual play, many AD&Ders over the years streamlined their gameplay where B/X is probably a closer match to what they actually play.

Also, the mechanical differences from 0e to 2e are so minor in actual play. Major for forum wankery, but minor at the table.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960048What I don't like are the people promoting the OSR as if it's the greatest thing ever,

The OSR is the greatest thing ever for fans of TSR era D&D.

For non-fans? Its not aimed at them. There are plenty of other games and communities for them.  

...where they can weep and play their weak ass games! :eek:

Quote from: Voros;960076Anyone reading James V. West's Black Pudding OSR zine?

Please start a Review thread and post a link!

Quote from: JeremyR;960130While Grognards might stick with the same game they play warts and all, it's harder to explain people who not only embrace the warts of their favored game, but glorify and embrace them the way White Box fans have.

I'm a huge White Box fan.

The greatest gift the OSR gave me was returning to Cleric / Fighter / Mage as the character classes without the Thief. It was such a revelation and added tremendous fun to my OD&D play.

And I play Thieves / Rogues regularly.

But the C/F/M Only play has been an incredible boon for me and my players. It has added a unique dimension to our Sword & Sorcery gameplay and challenged players to approach D&D in a different manner. The "thief role" gets spread out across the party making them behave more like tomb robbers.

It's a big selling point for players returning to my table because it so unlike "standard" D&D.

The OSR is the greatest thing ever for those who want new content, and don't care to go grovelling to WotC or Paizo. I like those companies' games too, but all the true innovation in D&D seems to be coming from the OSR. Maybe not so much innovative mechanics, so much as new settings, monsters, and adventures.

Quote from: EOTB;9601611. The purpose of a mark is to reduce confusion; "OSR" is only clear to those who are already intimately familiar with the gaming scene and understand the difference between DCC and LL and LOTFP, and what common thread winds through them.

True but how it could have been otherwise given the use of open content and the creative differences that where there from the beginning? One reason why OSR term got traction is that there used to be an OSR storefront on lulu and it was pretty open as to what maintainer accepted. But that not the only factor. The use of OSR grew organically. I stated numerous times that I used it because I like it. It liked the idea of a Old School Renaissance and I like how it played on the old TSR abbreviation. The most of the community made logos felt right to me. So I use the term to refer to what I do.

But my identity as a publisher is based on my name Robert S. Conley and my publishing label Bat in the Attic Games. That what is on all my add and promotions. The same for the other OSR publishers. And I have advise other starting out that while the use of OSR is useful, you need to establish your own name. In the regard OSR publishers are no different than the rest of the hobby/industry.

In short OSR as mark is useful but you can't rely on it.

Quote from: EOTB;9601612.  It is thin-skinned - sensitive isn't a strong enough adjective - and hypocritical in certain ways.  People routinely say stuff that isn't like theirs sucks.  Only in RPGs is this met with true anger.

Name one edition or one RPG that hasn't attracted vehement vitriol. The OSR is no more better or worse than any other family of related RPGs. Doesn't mean there aren't differences between various OSR communities. AD&D fans are little more focused on playing the game 'as is' while fans of OD&D are more easy going about kitbashing whatever to make the campaign happen. The B/X and BECMI fans are in-between the two extermes. Part of that is founders effect caused by how the communities got started, part is about what the editions specifically focus on.

But it inches not the gulf that is exist in trying to deal with the differences between D&D, Runequest, GURPS, Hackmaster 5e, Fate, etc, etc.

Quote from: EOTB;960161Whether or not the OSR mark as currently used is more useful than not for re-attracting lapsed gamers who have no clue of the internet scene, and who don't realize the games they used to play are reborn (and who probably aren't looking for Death Love Doom as the module to kick the tires with), is a valid conversation to have.

The mark does nothing, what individuals do is what matters.  Some individuals are inspired by the OSR mark, some are indifferent, and other think is shit. My opinion is that it does nothing to hinder those who dislike it use because of the open content foundation and the ease of distributing and communicating over the internet. That because it inspires some to publish, play, or promote classic editions of D&D that overall it is a win.

Quote from: Spinachcat;960163The OSR doesn't hate AD&D (either 1e or 2e). There are plenty of fans of both. However, in actual play, many AD&Ders over the years streamlined their gameplay where B/X is probably a closer match to what they actually play.

Looking back to the late 70s and early 80s and my experience subsequent years , that when it comes AD&D 1st edition that most people use B/X combat/action resolution with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, spells, magic items, etc). And by most I mean what is likely when gaming with some random AD&D group.  It very possible to encounter by the book groups as well.

Count me as among the new players who found the OSR inspiring. I played a couple sessions of 2e in college, a very little bit of 3.5 in grad school, didn't even realize that Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights were based on D&D until years after playing them, and didn't really get playing D&D seriously until 4e.

The Peanut Gallery: Implying "4e" and "playing D&D seriously" can be used in the same sentence.

I switched to 5e about 6 months after it came out and discovered the TSR-era games and modules via the OSR. Since then, I've brought in lots of "new" (meaning "old") ideas into my 5e campaign that have really changed the feel and structure of the game. I even bring in occasional OSR modules and convert the to my heavily-house-ruled 5e. And no, the mark really isn't that confusing. It's pretty obvious from a product's description whether or not it belongs in my game.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;960208The Peanut Gallery: Implying "4e" and "playing D&D seriously" can be used in the same sentence.

Nothing wrong with D&D 4e as an RPG in my book. Did a great job of handling combat with a lot of tactical options in way that was approachable. It was just a complete break with prior editions.

I think the emphasis on organized play distorted things a bit in terms of what they could have done with it. I did run a short Majestic Wilderlands campaign and it was no better and no worse than any other non D&D rpg Fantasy Hero, GURPS that I used.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;960208I switched to 5e about 6 months after it came out and discovered the TSR-era games and modules via the OSR. Since then, I've brought in lots of "new" (meaning "old") ideas into my 5e campaign that have really changed the feel and structure of the game. I even bring in occasional OSR modules and convert the to my heavily-house-ruled 5e. And no, the mark really isn't that confusing. It's pretty obvious from a product's description whether or not it belongs in my game.

The great thing about D&D 5e that like the DCC RPG and Castles & Crusade it is own thing in using newer ideas for mechanics but the older material works very well with it. And it had some things that I swiped for my own OD&D campaign like advantage/disadvantage. The whole bounded accuracy thing made take a hard look at the different bonuses stuff had so I axed +4 and +5 magic items.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959998http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/ (http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/)

The obtuseness! It burns!

Quote from: estar;960211The great thing about D&D 5e that like the DCC RPG and Castles & Crusade it is own thing in using newer ideas for mechanics but the older material works very well with it. And it had some things that I swiped for my own OD&D campaign like advantage/disadvantage. The whole bounded accuracy thing made take a hard look at the different bonuses stuff had so I axed +4 and +5 magic items.

It seems to me that one of the core features of the "Old School" is that every table was run its own way. 5e admits this kind of play to a much larger degree than the past two editions. Since there's not a lot of RAW, I don't have to deal with much if any player resistance. If a fighter smashes a door, and I have the goblins on the other side roll Dexterity vs the fighter's Strength to see if they're surprised...who's to say I can't do that? I've brought in TotM rules from 13th Age, realm management, reactions, and morale from the Rules Cyclopedia, and a vaguely-inspired-by-1e set of rules for hiring henchmen.

If this were 3.5, I'd have to parse through a pile of RAW DCs and checks to conclude that no, although you are a tough-as-nails warrior, you actually can't kick in the door and throw a pair of hand axes at the first orc you see. You didn't put enough ranks in Destroy Object: Doors to pull that off.

Quote from: Spinachcat;960159Palladium Fantasy was among the first OSR games back in 1982!

Preach on brother!

Quote from: Spinachcat;960159Fabulous quote! Where's it from?

Romeo and Juliet. Romeo says it when Mercutio is mocking him for his last fleeting crush.

QuotePalladium Fantasy was among the first OSR games back in 1982!

As someone that loved that game in the mid-80s, I have been thinking the same thing for years! The rules may have been a little wonky, but that game oozed flavor. Book II: Old Ones might be one of the world's earliest LotFP negadungeons.

Quote2) Getting players for an OD&D game is stupid easy.

I've usually found it easy to get people to play whatever as long as the game is easy for the players to get started. It really doesn't get any easier than early D&D when it come to getting started as a player. The only times I have had players resist trying something is when I was already running another game and I wanted to push it aside and do something new, and honestly, I can't blame them for that.

I know from the Internet that there are vast numbers of people who play one variant of one system and refuse to do anything else, but I blessedly encounter them rarely in real life.

Quote from: Robyo;960185The OSR is the greatest thing ever for those who want new content, and don't care to go grovelling to WotC or Paizo. I like those companies' games too, but all the true innovation in D&D seems to be coming from the OSR. Maybe not so much innovative mechanics, so much as new settings, monsters, and adventures.

I was in a discussion recently where someone was wishing that WotC would start putting out new adventures for early editions again. That's fine if they want that, but I already can't keep up with the quality material that the OSR is already making for those systems. I don't know what WotC has to uniquely offer in that area. Apparently they can't even produce useful maps for their games.  (http://talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com/2017/04/your-maps-are-suck.html)

Quote from: Spinachcat;960162May I introduce you to "football", also known as "soccer" to Americans?

The fans of opposing teams have been known to actually murder each other.

Not today's internet bitch "words equal harm", but old school real life stabby-stabby.

There is also a town called "Boston" where bars regularly erupt in brawls between fans of the same team.

RPGs fans are amateurs in the hate game. Call me when blood spills at GenCon.

I deserve that for using the term "only".  

I should have excluded anything from Oakland, Boston and Philly.

I certainly agree with the OP that we are living in the golden age of D&D play. Moreso than the Gygax-TSR era ever was.

Quote from: RPGPundit;960454I certainly agree with the OP that we are living in the golden age of D&D play. Moreso than the Gygax-TSR era ever was.

I would expand that to RPGs in general.  We have it GOOD right now.  If this ISN'T the Golden Age, we're damn close.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;960225It seems to me that one of the core features of the "Old School" is that every table was run its own way.

Not 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.

Hell, Pathfinder is a prime example of that.  People who didn't want to let go of their edition, went on a whining rampage and thankfully to some serious mismanagement in the hands of WoTC got their edition remade into something that they can claim is still 'going'.  WHich brings up another thing, this belief that because your game is no longer in print, it's dead and must be revived.  The books don't disappear.  Unless of course, you have mice, which eat some of them to the point of permanent damage.

Now, here's the thing.  If you don't want to move on from whatever game edition, that's really none of my business.  Even if I find it stultifying and somewhat sad, that's just me.  What really gets me is the assumption that everyone else is 'doing it wrong'.  There's no right way, there is no wrong, there's YOUR way.  That's it.

Palladium Fantasy RPG...so good, especially the combat rules.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960463I would expand that to RPGs in general.  We have it GOOD right now.  If this ISN'T the Golden Age, we're damn close.
...
Now, here's the thing.  If you don't want to move on from whatever game edition, that's really none of my business.  Even if I find it stultifying and somewhat sad, that's just me.  What really gets me is the assumption that everyone else is 'doing it wrong'.  There's no right way, there is no wrong, there's YOUR way.  That's it.

Yup, there is more good stuff coming out now than at any other time. There are very few products from the earlier eras that can hang with the best stuff being produced today.

Doing it wrong, combined with group attacks. It can't be " I prefer X", it has to be "teh OSR hates Gygax!", personifying everything and everyone in to the enemy. It can't be that that one due, Bob, posted something about not liking Gygax. It's everyone.

I find the unwillingness to look at new things sad. You don't have to worship them, but to not have an open mind at all seems like a depressing life. You don't have to stop liking what you like to also look at what else is going on, especially in a scene as diverse and exciting as the OSR.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960463Now, here's the thing.  If you don't want to move on from whatever game edition, that's really none of my business.  Even if I find it stultifying and somewhat sad, that's just me.  What really gets me is the assumption that everyone else is 'doing it wrong'.  There's no right way, there is no wrong, there's YOUR way.  That's it.

It happens, deal with it and stop being a hypocrite. Because just now you told everybody that they are doing it wrong. Just because you think you are taking a more broad and inclusive view doesn't make them wrong to focus on a particular edition and think the rest is shit. Especially considering this is a very optional leisure activity.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960489Yup, there is more good stuff coming out now than at any other time. There are very few products from the earlier eras that can hang with the best stuff being produced today.

Doing it wrong, combined with group attacks. It can't be " I prefer X", it has to be "teh OSR hates Gygax!", personifying everything and everyone in to the enemy. It can't be that that one due, Bob, posted something about not liking Gygax. It's everyone.

I find the unwillingness to look at new things sad. You don't have to worship them, but to not have an open mind at all seems like a depressing life. You don't have to stop liking what you like to also look at what else is going on, especially in a scene as diverse and exciting as the OSR.

I used to try to buy every new RPG product, well, I never really did, but it seemed like it back in the late 70s and early 80s. The reality is I never had the time to look at everything.

These days, I get 2-3 hours of Google Hangouts gaming a week, and some number of hours of web surfing, and a budget that allows for an occasional purchase, and an occasional splurge.

So I've cut my core RPG interests down to Original D&D (the box of little brown books first published in 1974, mine is a Original Collectors Edition, 6th printing I think), Classic Traveller (mine is the box of little black books from 1977), RuneQuest (with a very strong preference for the original 1978 edition, but willing to use the 2nd edition, and have mined the Avalon Hill edition), and Burning Wheel Gold (guess what, there's a relatively new game there!). Now my shelves have a variety of other games, though other than the Gold edition of Burning Wheel, pretty much no RPG rules newer than 2007 (ok, Torchbearer is in there also...), with a small handful of inspiring other newer products (mostly OSR since they support my interests).

But I'm not going to rain on anyone else's parade. I think various new RPGs made changes in game play that lead a direction I'm no longer interested in (or never was interested in), but I don't have to attack those who are interested in them, in exchange, I'd appreciate folks not disparaging my interests (and calling it sad that I won't buy the latest craze game is disparaging my interests).

I'd also be perfectly comfortable if the commercial world for gaming products suddenly ended. As long as I could find fellow players, I'd be happy with what I've got now (and in fact, I've even actually packed a briefcase with a minimal set of gaming materials that I could easily live with, and it includes all four of the games in my core interest).

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;960499I'd also be perfectly comfortable if the commercial world for gaming products suddenly ended

This.

Joking aside, this is probably the biggest reason I don't consider myself part of the OSR; I have no desire to write and publish a game, no real desire to write and publish non rule game material, and certainly no desire to buy anything.  I have a game that works for me; I don't NEED to buy an OSR clone, or simulacrum, or new game.  I'm not on the market to buy, and I'm not in the market to sell.  I buy a few things from the smaller dealers at GaryCon just because I know how heartbreaking it is to trog all that shit around from convention to convention.

If I ever get my lazy ass in gear and finish that silly little portfolio of tall tales about D&D, fine.  But if I don't, that's fine too.

Quote from: estar;960492It happens, deal with it and stop being a hypocrite. Because just now you told everybody that they are doing it wrong.

Well, yes, but that's been Laughing Boy's modus operandi since day 1; come into an old school thread and shoot his mouth off, in the process demonstrate a huge lack of understanding, tell everybody that old rules are bad based on a bunch of stuff that exists only in his fevered little brain, and then complain people are being mean to him when everybody tells him he's full of shit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;960511Joking aside, this is probably the biggest reason I don't consider myself part of the OSR; I have no desire to write and publish a game, no real desire to write and publish non rule game material, and certainly no desire to buy anything.  

True, but your bag of razor sharp one-line witticisms does a decent job of promoting OD&D and old school gaming. As far I am concerned people talking about classic editions is just more grist for the mill to keep them alive and thriving.

Fair enough.  If it helps, I"m glad; I certainly have no issue with anybody else doing those things.

As I said upthread, I'm happy that people are looking at older games in their own right.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

That's fucking retarded. The OSR guys love D&D.
What they probably don't like is the way you think it should be played. So yes, they'd probably hate your game and think you're doing it wrong... if they were to ever learn about your game, and then if they were to spend any emotions on it. Most of them would probably fail even the first condition;).

QuoteI fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

New grognards appear every day. In all likelihood, you will die before you see the last grognard's death:).

Quote(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

I play Weapon vs AC games just fine, thank you.
I can't even pretend to care who sucked Gygax off and who didn't, though.

Quote from: Dumarest;960133He said "objectively broken." Can't wait to hear the rebuttals. Or at least a link to the definitions of objective and subjective.

Nah, not worth the time.
Why did AC start at 9? Probably because it gave you a certain to hit probability that was deemed desirable, duh:D!
And so on.

... everybody forgets the Spanish Inquisition?  :confused:  No, wait, that's 'suspects'!

Quote from: Opaopajr;960846... everybody forgets the Spanish Inquisition?  :confused:  No, wait, that's 'suspects'!

No, it's NO ONE EXPECTS! :D

Quote from: Dumarest;960849No, it's NO ONE EXPECTS! :D

No, it's noBODY expects!  :D

Quote from: ndervish;960937no, it's nobody expects!  :d

dammit!:d

:cool: My work here is done. /transcends

Quote from: RPGPundit;960454I certainly agree with the OP that we are living in the golden age of D&D play. Moreso than the Gygax-TSR era ever was.

I'm with you in spirit here, though I would say instead that the OSR movement and its various spin-offs have restored the core value of the hobby. It is amazing to see the quality and diversity of material published in this genre over the last several years, and the best of it would have been award-winning at any time. On the other hand, the hobby as a whole was pretty boss ca. 1978-1980.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960463Even if I find it stultifying and somewhat sad, that's just me.  What really gets me is the assumption that everyone else is 'doing it wrong'.  There's no right way, there is no wrong, there's YOUR way.  That's it.

It's cool to tell people their older game or the way they play is "stultifying" and "sad", but god forbid you even have an opinion on a newer game or playstyle, then you're telling everyone they're doing it "wrong" which somehow is completely different and over the line.

I need to buy stock futures in Irony Meters, I could retire on this thread alone.

Quote from: CRKrueger;960963It's cool to tell people their older game or the way they play is "stultifying" and "sad", but god forbid you even have an opinion on a newer game or playstyle, then you're telling everyone they're doing it "wrong" which somehow is completely different and over the line.

I need to buy stock futures in Irony Meters, I could retire on this thread alone.

He did say it was his opinion and taste not an objective truth which is something allot of people don't. I think that was his point.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960463I would expand that to RPGs in general.  We have it GOOD right now.  If this ISN'T the Golden Age, we're damn close.



Not 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.

Hell, Pathfinder is a prime example of that.  People who didn't want to let go of their edition, went on a whining rampage and thankfully to some serious mismanagement in the hands of WoTC got their edition remade into something that they can claim is still 'going'.  WHich brings up another thing, this belief that because your game is no longer in print, it's dead and must be revived.  The books don't disappear.  Unless of course, you have mice, which eat some of them to the point of permanent damage.

Now, here's the thing.  If you don't want to move on from whatever game edition, that's really none of my business.  Even if I find it stultifying and somewhat sad, that's just me.  What really gets me is the assumption that everyone else is 'doing it wrong'.  There's no right way, there is no wrong, there's YOUR way.  That's it.

Where are these demonic monkeys that torture you so?

I am seriously curious!

While I am limited in the number of sites I have been to, I have read a lot of OSR blogs and have been to a few OSR focused forums. And I have never seen the kind of behavior you are describing -- or rather I have seen a few people dramatic in their preferences, but nothing that could possible invoke the night terrors that haunt you.

Can you point me to any quotes, threads, posts? I am not saying what you say does not exist. But I really haven't seen it. All I see is you going on a constant -- and a mean constant -- tear and rage completely out of proportion to statements I have seen others make.

Dude, please, give me a clue. Point me to the source of your pain.

Quote from: Larsdangly;960961I'm with you in spirit here, though I would say instead that the OSR movement and its various spin-offs have restored the core value of the hobby. It is amazing to see the quality and diversity of material published in this genre over the last several years, and the best of it would have been award-winning at any time. On the other hand, the hobby as a whole was pretty boss ca. 1978-1980.

Oh I gots to hear what this core value is,  please do tell.

Quote from: CRKrueger;960963It's cool to tell people their older game or the way they play is "stultifying" and "sad", but god forbid you even have an opinion on a newer game or playstyle, then you're telling everyone they're doing it "wrong" which somehow is completely different and over the line.

Not 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: ChristopherKubasik;960968Where are these demonic monkeys that torture you so?

I am seriously curious!

While I am limited in the number of sites I have been to, I have read a lot of OSR blogs and have been to a few OSR focused forums. And I have never seen the kind of behavior you are describing -- or rather I have seen a few people dramatic in their preferences, but nothing that could possible invoke the night terrors that haunt you.

Can you point me to any quotes, threads, posts? I am not saying what you say does not exist. But I really haven't seen it. All I see is you going on a constant -- and a mean constant -- tear and rage completely out of proportion to statements I have seen others make.

Dude, please, give me a clue. Point me to the source of your pain.

If you read enough of his posts, it goes back to when he was like a 10 year old kid and was forced to play a PC with all 8's or something.  He's referenced it multiple times.  Never got over it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;960976Not according to the proponents. There was only ONE way to play D&D, and it's their way.

Again I ask where are all these proponents? Where is all this bashing? Can you point me to it?

Quote from: Sommerjon;960976Not 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.

I don't deny if you go to Knights and Knaves Alehouse or Dragonsfoot that you'll find some grumpy old bastages.  However, if I'm a Checkers fan, am I really going to find a warm welcome on a Chess forum?  Or if I go to that forum and talk about the complexity of Go am I going to get people who really grok what I'm saying?

If you to a topical forum, by definition, you're going to find people who like that topic and find other topics less interesting.  Storygames go over well on story-games.com, here not so much.  At what point does expressing an opinion about something you don't like become objectively declaring it inferior and denigrating those who like it?

The web is becoming more and more a binary medium where you either 100% support an idea or 100% oppose it.  There's no way to discuss likes and dislikes without throwing on a team jersey.

The crusty old fatbearded salty dog who's never tried another game in his life and never will is an internet stereotype.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;960968Where are these demonic monkeys that torture you so?

I am seriously curious!

While I am limited in the number of sites I have been to, I have read a lot of OSR blogs and have been to a few OSR focused forums. And I have never seen the kind of behavior you are describing -- or rather I have seen a few people dramatic in their preferences, but nothing that could possible invoke the night terrors that haunt you.

Can you point me to any quotes, threads, posts? I am not saying what you say does not exist. But I really haven't seen it. All I see is you going on a constant -- and a mean constant -- tear and rage completely out of proportion to statements I have seen others make.

Dude, please, give me a clue. Point me to the source of your pain.

Hold on a sec.

You've been here since Jan 2009?  You've never seen the editions wars?

Yeah, there is a ton of "irony" in this thread.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;960983Again I ask where are all these proponents? Where is all this bashing? Can you point me to it?

Hmmm, nope don't think I can.

I can usually point peeps in the right direction, but when I encounter a deliberately clueless person, it's easier to nod and carry on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;960986I don't deny if you go to Knights and Knaves Alehouse or Dragonsfoot that you'll find some grumpy old bastages.  However, if I'm a Checkers fan, am I really going to find a warm welcome on a Chess forum?  Or if I go to that forum and talk about the complexity of Go am I going to get people who really grok what I'm saying?

If you to a topical forum, by definition, you're going to find people who like that topic and find other topics less interesting.  Storygames go over well on story-games.com, here not so much.  At what point does expressing an opinion about something you don't like become objectively declaring it inferior and denigrating those who like it?

The web is becoming more and more a binary medium where you either 100% support an idea or 100% oppose it.  There's no way to discuss likes and dislikes without throwing on a team jersey.

The crusty old fatbearded salty dog who's never tried another game in his life and never will is an internet stereotype.

Coming from one of the top 3 you're playing wrong posters here, this is fucking hilarious.

Quote from: Sommerjon;960996Coming from one of the top 3 you're playing wrong posters here, this is fucking hilarious.

Gotta love it when someone proves your point for you.  Thanks. :D

Quote from: Sommerjon;960976Not 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.

Or some of us have a game and enjoy it and see no reason to spend money in a new version either way. I don't follow the industry or visit game stores much so 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. And when I found out, I still didn't care. Want to guess whether I care about 5th edition D&D in the least? Play what you want instead of whining on the Internet that somebody doesn't care about your favorite games. Almost no one I have met is interested in The Fantasy Trip and it's really holding me back...

Quote from: Dumarest;961001Or some of us have a game and enjoy it and see no reason to spend money in a new version either way. I don't follow the industry or visit game stores much so 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. And when I found out, I still didn't care. Want to guess whether I care about 5th edition D&D in the least? Play what you want instead of whining on the Internet that somebody doesn't care about your favorite games. Almost no one I have met is interested in The Fantasy Trip and it's really holding me back...

Bullshit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;961000Gotta love it when someone proves your point for you.  Thanks. :D

NP.  Just sad.

Quote from: Sommerjon;961009Bullshit.

If 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.

Quote from: Dumarest;961023So glad to have the Ignore tool to ignore tools like you.

Sommerjon might be a tool, but nothing's bitchier than Ignore List Announcements.  Just sayin'.

Quote from: Sommerjon;960996Hmmm, nope don't think I can.

I can usually point peeps in the right direction, but when I encounter a deliberately clueless person, it's easier to nod and carry on.
Coming from one of the top 3 you're playing wrong posters here, this is fucking hilarious.

I know of Gronan and Krueger, whose the third?

Quote from: CRKrueger;960986If you to a topical forum, by definition, you're going to find people who like that topic and find other topics less interesting.  Storygames go over well on story-games.com, here not so much.  At what point does expressing an opinion about something you don't like become objectively declaring it inferior and denigrating those who like it?

   Probably at the point where people start tossing around phrases like "objectively superior/inferior", "no reason to play it other than nostalgia/neophilia", "[X] ruined the game (full stop)" and other terms that suggest a lack of any positive or negative qualities to the game in question.

Quote from: CRKrueger;961026Sommerjon might be a tool, but nothing's bitchier than Ignore List Announcements.  Just sayin'.

Which is why I put him on my Tongue My Pee Hole List instead.  :D

Actually, I should change the name.  I should call it my Not Worth The Moments It Takes To Read list.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;961032Probably at the point where people start tossing around phrases like "objectively superior/inferior", "no reason to play it other than nostalgia/neophilia", "[X] ruined the game (full stop)" and other terms that suggest a lack of any positive or negative qualities to the game in question.

Which 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.

Quote from: Sommerjon;960990Hold on a sec.

You've been here since Jan 2009?  You've never seen the editions wars?

No.

I find edition wars ridiculous. Why would I care someone doesn't like an RPG I don't like? How can it affect me? How can it matter? I play with the people I play with. What does some guy on the internet or some gaming group 1,800 miles away (or wherever) have to do with my fun?

Also, I hadn't played D&D for years. Had no stake in any edition wars about D&D. A few decades ago I was writing material and working on games for FASA, WEG, Mayfair and my focus got moved to the games I was working on. Then I took a break from RPGs for several years. Then in 2000 I started digging into lots of indie games (Sorcerer, Primetime Adventures, Burning Wheel, Hero Wars, and others) as well as games I had loved in years past (like King Arthur Pendragon) and had a blast with them. And then a few years ago I realized something interesting was happening with this Old School thing I had been hearing about and I dug into that. I'm currently running Lamentations of the Flame Princess and looking forward to running Classic Traveller.

Edition wars mean nothing to me.

I do know that in the early 00's when I tried to talk about the indie games I was playing and loving over at RPG.net there was an unexpected resistance to even having anyone post about them. What I learned was that many people take it as a personal attack upon them or what the game like if someone speaks with enthusiasm about something a game they don't know or don't like. Why this is the case, I don't know.

Frankly, when I go to blog posts or forums to look for information about games or play styles my focus is on how to play the games and play them well, or finding more tips about how other people do this. Hanging around on threads where people knock other games seems weird to me. So this is where I might be -- "deliberately clueless" -- as you put it. But I really don't see any loss on my part for this way of interacting with the Internet.

All I can say, regarding this particular thread, is that when I started digging into the OSR I read lots of blogs and forum sites about Old School play. Again, what I found was a lot of specific information about a kind of play that I am currently enjoying. I somehow missed all the hatred you and others are focused on.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know what I like. (Though clearly from the games listed above I can like lots of different kinds of things.) So I can tell you why I prefer the rules of Classic Traveller to those of MegaTraveller and I have no particular need or desire to give MegaTraveller (as an example) equal attention in my life or to be "nice" to it just to be nice. But I also bear MegaTraveller no ill-will. It produces, through the rules, a kind of play that I'm not interested in... and so I don't care about it. Which isn't at all like attacking it, or hating it, or declaring that playing it is wrong, or ruining anything.

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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;961026Sommerjon might be a tool, but nothing's bitchier than Ignore List Announcements.  Just sayin'.

Thanks for the etiquette tip. I see Sommerjon is not the only one unaware of the irony in his own postings. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;960986I don't deny if you go to Knights and Knaves Alehouse or Dragonsfoot that you'll find some grumpy old bastages.  However, if I'm a Checkers fan, am I really going to find a warm welcome on a Chess forum?  Or if I go to that forum and talk about the complexity of Go am I going to get people who really grok what I'm saying?

Damn I been saying that for years, I concur wholeheartly.

I will only add that the use of open content and digital technology means that no matter how proactive any of these groups they lack the means to hinder anybody to realizing their projects for classic D&D. Or for that matter any other RPG with open content. So let the chess club be the chess club and quit mailing them checker games.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;961038All I can say, regarding this particular thread, is that when I started digging into the OSR I read lots of blogs and forum sites about Old School play. Again, what I found was a lot of specific information about a kind of play that I am currently enjoying. I somehow missed all the hatred you and others are focused on.

I 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.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;961038No.

I find edition wars ridiculous.

I agree with all of this post, including the parts I skipped. But I cut all the rest, because I think that line nicely sums up everything;).

OTOH, using "edition wars rhetoric" makes for a nice joke:D!

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg) 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.

Pre-emptive disclaimer: I am by no means an OSR expert.

Quote from: Voros;961234I 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?  

I suspect that there are certain simplicities that B/X has compared to od&d that are relatively arbitrary (e.g. A 6th level wizard has 6d4 hd instead of 3d6+1 hd, a cleric has their own attack matrices instead of fighting 'as a [fighting man level title]' that are just plain easier to put into your own words. So if it's relatively arbitrary, why not go with the B/X version? As to the feel of various OSR games, I'd say they often split the difference between od&d and B/X (or the BE portion of BECMI).

Quote from: Baulderstone;961263I 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.

I think a lot of us had that happen. Advanced was better because it was advanced.

Quote from: JRT;961278One 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.

I have no evidence one way or the other, but I somehow doubt it. EGG changed his preferences many times in his life, so 'what Gary prefers' I wouldn't think would have any particular cachet.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;961280Looking 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.

Really? I see some LoFTP, Black Hack, Hydra Cooperative, DCC and Godbound in the most popular lists.

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.

Oh, so you're familiar with the David "Zeb" Cook Q&A are you? I ask because Cook himself never made any such claim and one poster asked him in person what was going on. Cook's response: He's very busy and has little spare time. If you had read the thread (as you pretend) then you would know this.

You're just a motherfucking liar.

Quote from: Sommerjon;961184gronan on the list?  Come on CB, gronan has been Chester all his life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNHcob3oJg) It was amusing to watch chirine come here and gronan immediately roll and show his belly.

I think not, but that's from my personal perspective of over forty years. I defer to Gronan on matters that he's the more informed about, and he defers to me on mine. Since the 'Questioning Chirine ba Kal' thread is mostly about a subject I'm described as being the expert on, I'm the dominant one there; in threads on D&D, he is. You've never seen us game, and I think you'd have a very different viewpoint if you had.

All this OSR stuff can be reduced to its simplest form: "Buy my home-brewed rules."

Anything else is just setting material.

Quote from: Elfdart;962341You're just a motherfucking liar.

Thanks for the balanced response. Is everyone on this forum off their meds?

I read the David Cook thread years ago because I'm a fan. There was some definite 2e bitching and one moron who kept asking him minutiae like why a throwing axe did more damage than a whateverthefuck (was that you sunshine?).

I assumed that nonsense would have driven any sane individual off the internet permanently. But I guess Mr. Cook is a saint, no doubt inured to the OCD questions and nerdrage you have so ably demonstrated in your pathetic overreaction.

Amazing I know to consider that some would not want to converse with such well balanced individuals like yourself.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;962358All this OSR stuff can be reduced to its simplest form: "Buy my home-brewed rules."

Anything else is just setting material.

And if you're going to tart up D&D with your own house rules to make a "new" game, why bother with AD&D?  OD&D is a simple chassis that you can fairly easily add onto. What makes AD&D unique is a web of Byzantine systems and fiddly tables that I certainly wouldn't be interested in trying to build on.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;962358All this OSR stuff can be reduced to its simplest form: "Buy my home-brewed rules."

Anything else is just setting material.

Yup and you happen to have bought  Matt Sprange's home-brewed rules for Traveller twice.

In case you haven't noticed the entire industry is founded on people buying other people's home-brewed rules.

Quote from: estar;962398Yup and you happen to have bought  Matt Sprange's home-brewed rules for Traveller twice.

In case you haven't noticed the entire industry is founded on people being other people's home-brewed rules.

But Estar, don't you understand? PROFESSIONAL game designs are made with SCIENCE!!!

Here's what most people really forget about the OSR:  That's it's just D&D at the end of the day.  And if you have fun playing any version, any edition, don't let others (including me) dissuade you from enjoying it, or trying out other versions.  That's it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962417Here's what most people really forget about the OSR:  That's it's just D&D at the end of the day.  And if you have fun playing any version, any edition, don't let others (including me) dissuade you from enjoying it, or trying out other versions.  That's it.

I would add that is also about using the rules in the way you see fit as well. Not just about playing OD&D but using the OD&D in the matter you find enjoyable which may be 'as is' or kitbashed with other stuff from other RPGs. One of the reason why the use of open content is prevalent.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;962406But Estar, don't you understand? PROFESSIONAL game designs are made with SCIENCE!!!

Dang, so I been doing it wrong for 40 years. Just to think I could have had a V-8.

Quote from: estar;962419Dang, so I been doing it wrong for 40 years. Just to think I could have had a V-8.

Oh, man...talk about a dated pop culture reference...worse, I was THERE for it! I can't believe I ate the WHOLE THING!:-)

Quote from: cranebump;962439Oh, man...talk about a dated pop culture reference...worse, I was THERE for it! I can't believe I ate the WHOLE THING!:-)

When I've fallen and can't get up I often wonder where the beef is.

Quote from: Krimson;962440When I've fallen and can't get up I often wonder where the beef is.

I now have to explain when I say "that fart was like a Wendy's hamburger" that it means "hot and juicy."

[ATTACH=CONFIG]959[/ATTACH]

"No, I said BUD light."

Quote from: Krimson;962440When I've fallen and can't get up I often wonder where the beef is.

Its cranebump, he hates everything.

Quote from: Nexus;962454Its cranebump, he hates everything.

Ha!  Niiiice...

Quote from: Voros;962370Is everyone on this forum off their meds?

Fuck the meds! I'm on the sauce!

Quote from: estar;962398In case you haven't noticed the entire industry is founded on people buying other people's home-brewed rules.

So true.

Just a little dab will do ya.

Quote from: estar;962398In case you haven't noticed the entire industry is founded on people buying other people's home-brewed rules.

Home-brewed? No! These are all designed in large corporate offices, right? right? :p

Quote from: Willie the Duck;962520Home-brewed? No! These are all designed in large corporate offices, right? right? :p

You might say so, since most people that write RPG rules presumably do so in the same room they use as an office, too:D!

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;962358All this OSR stuff can be reduced to its simplest form: "Buy my home-brewed rules."

Anything else is just setting material.

Except the 3rd wave of the OSR is all about combining setting with rules. Making radically new settings, and adapting the D&D rules to fit those settings.

Quote from: RPGPundit;963178Except the 3rd wave of the OSR is all about combining setting with rules. Making radically new settings, and adapting the D&D rules to fit those settings.

Is there like a list somewhere that explains what these waves are for those of us who aren't in the know?

Quote from: Krimson;963208Is there like a list somewhere that explains what these waves are for those of us who aren't in the know?

I seem to recall RPG Pundit wrote it up on his blog a while back.

Quote from: Dumarest;963223I seem to recall RPG Pundit wrote it up on his blog a while back.

Neat. I've seen it mentioned before but I really don't know much about it. I have a bunch of OSR books, but I just buy them because they are D&D books with the serial numbers filed off. I do recall something about Setting embedded in the rules and that is kind of neat. I have something I am working on and one possible setting is a fantasy version of Beringia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia) and another being a Science Fiction Exploration/Colonization/Suvival (because you crashed) thing, and the system could certainly take a different direction in either one. It would be interesting to read just for the sake of reading it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;963178Except the 3rd wave of the OSR is all about combining setting with rules. Making radically new settings, and adapting the D&D rules to fit those settings.

I disagree that at this point there are any kind of waves in the OSR. It diversified to the point where many niches have multiple authors and works supporting it. Including where D&D rules are adapted to a very different setting. You see a third wave because you are looking for stuff that fits how you define it and there more of it. But there more of other kinds of things as well.

The real story is the continuing use of open content and leveraging digital technology to realize the vision of a diverse group of authors.

Case in point, while not 100% of what been published for D&D is in PDF yet it getting pretty high.

RPGNow lists over 1,188 official D&D product (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=45323_0_0_0_0) in PDF form.

RPGNow lists over 7,818 third party D&D products  (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=45322_0_0_0_0)produced from open content across all editions.

Let's look at the OSR

There are 125 products for AD&D 1st
382 products for AD&D 2nd
96 products for OD&D/BX/BECMI

RPGNow lists over 2659 products produced (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1300_0_0_0_0) using open content to support classic editions. Even if you aggressively cull that list is still dwarfs 603 official products produced for classic D&D.

And it is not happening just with the OSR. Let's look at Traveller

The site lists 337 products under GDW and Traveller (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/4/Game-Designers-Workshop-GDW?filters=10134_0_0_0_0). Which thanks to the efforts of Marc Miller and crew includes many older third party Traveller products.
For Mongoose and Traveller it lists  217 products (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/45/Mongoose?filters=10134_0_0_0_0).

Now Mongoose screwed up their third party program the Traveller Aid Society with 2nd edition Mongoose Traveller. As a consequence the Cephesus Game Engine was released. Within a year it has 146 products (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=45550_0_0_0_0). Nearly five times the number that the TAS program has (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse/pub/45/Mongoose/subcategory/161_25550/Travellers-Aid-Society) and starting to reach the numbers that Mongoose has released.

Again the big story isn't there is any kind of wave the big story is open content unleashed a  tsunami.

I'm a little 'rules'd out' - the OSR has a ton of incredibly creative, fun material, but the rules per se are nothing special, particularly when you get out of the white-room rpg philosophizing and just play them. Honestly, I think 99% of the good things made for OSR fantasy games could have just been written explicitly for 1E and they would have been just as good (and in most respects no different).

Quote from: Larsdangly;963244I'm a little 'rules'd out' - the OSR has a ton of incredibly creative, fun material, but the rules per se are nothing special, particularly when you get out of the white-room rpg philosophizing and just play them. Honestly, I think 99% of the good things made for OSR fantasy games could have just been written explicitly for 1E and they would have been just as good (and in most respects no different).

I agree. D&D can be viewed as the lingua franca for creative new settings and modules. The stats in products from TSR, LotFP, Goodman, Frog God, Troll Lord, or others are compatible to such a high degree, that it comes down to choosing your prefered "dialect" to play them.

The only OSR fantasy rules that I've seen that go beyond just being cribnotes of B/X and 1e are The White Hack and The Black Hack. The White Hack is really impressively designed, so much so that it only resembles D&D in the most basic ways.

Quote from: Larsdangly;963244I'm a little 'rules'd out' - the OSR has a ton of incredibly creative, fun material, but the rules per se are nothing special, particularly when you get out of the white-room rpg philosophizing and just play them. Honestly, I think 99% of the good things made for OSR fantasy games could have just been written explicitly for 1E and they would have been just as good (and in most respects no different).

Games like DCC, for example, would need to rewrite the rules so much that the rulebook would probably be just as big as it is now.

Quote from: Krimson;963208Is there like a list somewhere that explains what these waves are for those of us who aren't in the know?

I wrote about it a couple of times, here's one of them (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2015/10/dark-albion-and-third-wave-in-osr.html).

Quote from: Krimson;963208Is there like a list somewhere that explains what these waves are for those of us who aren't in the know?

It's something Pundit made up. Many people don't buy into it. Just like Grognardia Maliszewski coined the so-called Golden and Silver Age for RPGs on arbitrary metrics, that basically came down to personal taste.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;963838It's something Pundit made up. Many people don't buy into it. Just like Grognardia Maliszewski coined the so-called Golden and Silver Age for RPGs on arbitrary metrics, that basically came down to personal taste.

They're not waves in the sense of trends that follow and replace each other, but I find it an useful way to distinguish between the different OSR games.

Quote from: Voros;963263The only OSR fantasy rules that I've seen that go beyond just being cribnotes of B/X and 1e are The White Hack and The Black Hack. The White Hack is really impressively designed, so much so that it only resembles D&D in the most basic ways.

Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures takes a D&D framework and builds on it in ways that move beyond a B/X crib sheet. But I am not sure that I would characterise it as OSR or particularly "old school", in many ways it is a thoroughly modern game.

The OSR per se does little to interest me, I still have my 0e, B/X and AD&D book when I want to play that sort of game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;963831I wrote about it a couple of times, here's one of them (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2015/10/dark-albion-and-third-wave-in-osr.html).

It is a distinction without meaning given how the OSR operates. A commentator can pick any arbitrary segment of the OSR with a with more than a handful of publishers behind it and say it is a wave. The only accurate statement is that the OSR is increasing in diversity which includes various types of hybrids RPGs and supplements.

Here are the 30 newest self-labeled OSR releases on RPGNow. You would have to monitor this for a month or so to get a sense of what people are actually making.

1. The Dungeon of Trials
2. What Has it Got in its Pocketses, Eh?
3. The Nephilim
4. Dungeon of the Selenian Conclave
5. Book of Fantasy Races (Labyrinth Lord)
6. Purple Mountain: Temple of the Locust Lord (DCC)
7. Mageblade! Zero
8. Marvels & Malisons
9. Hit Points, Ammo Or Whatever Tracker
10. Light City #1 - The Brawler
11. Generic Monster Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord
12. Monster Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord Volume 2
13. Monster Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord
14. Castle of the Mad Archmage (OSR) Digital Bundle [BUNDLE]
15. Wheelies For Advanced Labyrinth Lord Players
16. Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord Players
17. Sanctum Secorum - Episode #24 Companion
18. Castles & Crusades Codex Classicum
19. Perfectorium Of The Golden Tentacle: An OSR Adventure
20. L'Arsenale della Principessa Guerriera
21. S2 Delver's Delights
22. Monkey Business (Digital Edition)
23.The Lost Lands: Bard's Gate - The Riot Act (SW)
24. The Lost Lands: Bard's Gate Players' Guide
25.The Lost Lands: Bard's Gate Swords and Wizardry Edition
26. BF2 Crypt of Bones (CnC)
27. BF2 Crypt of Bones (DCC)
28.Dwarves of Copper Gulch a Swords and Wizardry Compatible Adventure
29. Swords & Wizardry Compatibility Logo
30. Dungeon Crawl Classics #93: Moon-Slaves of the Cannibal Kingdom

Understand, I am in your camp and think that Arrows of Indra and Dark Albion like my own a Majestic Wilderlands a strong way to go for an OSR publisher. I am under no delusion that what I do is part of any type of larger wave other than the one where people take advantage of digital technology and open content to publish content that works with or similairly to out of print RPGs.

Quote from: estar;963241The real story is the continuing use of open content and leveraging digital technology to realize the vision of a diverse group of authors.

Case in point, while not 100% of what been published for D&D is in PDF yet it getting pretty high.

RPGNow lists over 1,188 official D&D product (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=45323_0_0_0_0) in PDF form.

RPGNow lists over 7,818 third party D&D products  (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=45322_0_0_0_0)produced from open content across all editions.

Let's look at the OSR

There are 125 products for AD&D 1st
382 products for AD&D 2nd
96 products for OD&D/BX/BECMI

RPGNow lists over 2659 products produced (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=1300_0_0_0_0) using open content to support classic editions. Even if you aggressively cull that list is still dwarfs 603 official products produced for classic D&D.

Again the big story isn't there is any kind of wave the big story is open content unleashed a  tsunami.

And those numbers probably just list products that are tagged with the appropriate search term on OBS.  I am pretty sure there are more, both on OBS and off.  I know that using different searches, rules system, game title, etc, turns up different products and different numbers of products when looking for what a human would call the "same thing".

These numbers also do no include LULU only products, Amazon only products, and other products not on OBS.

Quote from: Larsdangly;963244I'm a little 'rules'd out' - the OSR has a ton of incredibly creative, fun material, but the rules per se are nothing special, particularly when you get out of the white-room rpg philosophizing and just play them. Honestly, I think 99% of the good things made for OSR fantasy games could have just been written explicitly for 1E and they would have been just as good (and in most respects no different).

I don't really do D&D so most of the OSR material doesn't interest me unless is it rules neutral. I prefer a book like Lionheart that I can use with any rules I want. But I do find it baffling that there are so many D&D knockoffs out there these days. I got a couple of them out of curiosity (they were free and legal) and the ones I saw were simply rewrites of D&D with slight rephrasing to avoid copyright infringements, but nothing new contributed to make it better or even different. I'd love to see a list of all the D&D clones with  what the differences actually are between rules sets. I'd rather see adventures than yet another rewrite of D&D, or at least give me some novelty in your version of D&D.

I should add that an OBS search for D&D will pull up things, like starship deck plans, that at least to me have precious little to do with D&D. But someone tagged them with "D&D".

Quote from: DavetheLost;963947I should add that an OBS search for D&D will pull up things, like starship deck plans, that at least to me have precious little to do with D&D. But someone tagged them with "D&D".

Well, we are all playing D&D right? :-)

Thinking of how some folks are really confused by RPGs and label it all "D&D"...

I've always wanted a way to categorize things where you would have a trust circle of folks who are like minded to you in categorizing things whose "votes" would tip the scales. So if a well trusted person says LotFP is in category D&D and you search for category D&D you see LotFP, but you don't see Traveller because despite hundreds of folks categorizing it D&D, no one you trust does.

Quote from: DavetheLost;963947I should add that an OBS search for D&D will pull up things, like starship deck plans, that at least to me have precious little to do with D&D. But someone tagged them with "D&D".

Every category is like that. But it better now than it was a few years ago. Also are you using the search or clicking on the categories to the upper left like I did? Because if you are using the search it going to be inaccurate.

Quote from: DavetheLost;963882And those numbers probably just list products that are tagged with the appropriate search term on OBS.  I am pretty sure there are more, both on OBS and off.  I know that using different searches, rules system, game title, etc, turns up different products and different numbers of products when looking for what a human would call the "same thing".

These numbers also do no include LULU only products, Amazon only products, and other products not on OBS.

First off the lists I created it used by clicking on the categories on the upper left. The official D&D tag can't be used by anybody other than Wizards. Search terms are more inaccurate compared to the tags on the OBS

Also RPGNow/DrivethruRPG dwarfs all other sources when it comes to digital products. Yes there are Lulu only, print only, and amazon only products. But RPGNow list serves as a useful barometer to illustrate my point. Which is that the OSR is far too diverse to say there any kind of wave going on. And it has been since around 2010-2011.

I agree with more work one could uses searches and editorial oversight to produce something with academic rigor. But the Pundit's assertion of a third wave isn't backed up by any evidence even at the level I did.

The reason I hammer on this point and similar points, the because the use of open content and digital content is the real story here. Sure segments of the group of the people playing, publishing, and promoting classic editions have very specific ideas about designing and playing RPGs. But none of them represent the OSR as a whole.

Once Marshall, Gonnerman, and Finch figured out how to replicate the classic editions using open content the cat was out of the bag so to speak. People been taking advantage of this revive a segment of the hobby and industry long thought dead.

The cost barriers are down to the point where it about to how much time and interest are you willing to put into your idea for classic D&D.

And not just classic D&D either, just today Marc Miller authorized a Cepheus Engine sub forum over on travellerrpg.com. Runequest has a small but vibrant third party hobby and industry around open content. Whether you like or dislike Fate there is no denying that they also built a strong open content community around that RPG.
Then there are the juggernaunts of Pathfinder and D&D 5e both with their own open content.

So tell me what more likely the "thing" regarding the OSR a third wave of rules tied tightly to the setting? Or the use of open content to realize a multitude of diverse products?

Quote from: RPGPundit;963831I wrote about it a couple of times, here's one of them (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2015/10/dark-albion-and-third-wave-in-osr.html).

Thanks Pundit. I'll read that soon!

EDIT: Ah, short article. Concise and useful. Thanks again for the link.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;963838It's something Pundit made up. Many people don't buy into it. Just like Grognardia Maliszewski coined the so-called Golden and Silver Age for RPGs on arbitrary metrics, that basically came down to personal taste.

Well yes, I know that it's just made up. It's all just made up. That doesn't invalidate Pundit's opinion because it's his perspective. The thing is, Pundit has invested a lot of time in the OSR. He may be opinionated and make generalizations, but when it comes to the OSR that works because he he makes informed opinions. I certainly don't agree with everything he says but when it comes to game stuff his remarks are a great source of data for me.

Quote from: AsenRG;963851They're not waves in the sense of trends that follow and replace each other, but I find it an useful way to distinguish between the different OSR games.

This. Exactly this. Pundit made some generalizations, and in the context of the article I think they work. Sure, the OSR may not map out that way chronologically but that doesn't matter. I don't care about splitting hairs over definitions, it's the data that I am after because the data is going to give me a perspective on taking something I enjoy and (hopefully) turn it into something other people enjoy.

Quote from: DavetheLost;963880Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures takes a D&D framework and builds on it in ways that move beyond a B/X crib sheet. But I am not sure that I would characterise it as OSR or particularly "old school", in many ways it is a thoroughly modern game.

The OSR per se does little to interest me, I still have my 0e, B/X and AD&D book when I want to play that sort of game.

I agree to a degree, I love BtW and consider it the best system/setting one could claim as OSR. But I think it stays much closer to B/X mechanics than the White or Black Hack. Regardless I think all three are good systems which is what matters.

Quote from: estar;963958And not just classic D&D either, just today Marc Miller authorized a Cepheus Engine sub forum over on travellerrpg.com. Runequest has a small but vibrant third party hobby and industry around open content. Whether you like or dislike Fate there is no denying that they also built a strong open content community around that RPG.
Then there are the juggernaunts of Pathfinder and D&D 5e both with their own open content.

Don't forget PbtA which has an explosive number of hacks out there. Some I actually prefer to AW and DW.

Quote from: Voros;964027Don't forget PbtA which has an explosive number of hacks out there. Some I actually prefer to AW and DW.

Well, DW isn't exactly the most stellar incarnation of that mechanic;).

True, it seems a bit convoluted and unwieldy in its attempt to bridge PbtA and D&D.

Quote from: estar;963881It is a distinction without meaning given how the OSR operates. A commentator can pick any arbitrary segment of the OSR with a with more than a handful of publishers behind it and say it is a wave. The only accurate statement is that the OSR is increasing in diversity which includes various types of hybrids RPGs and supplements.

Here are the 30 newest self-labeled OSR releases on RPGNow. You would have to monitor this for a month or so to get a sense of what people are actually making.

1. The Dungeon of Trials
2. What Has it Got in its Pocketses, Eh?
3. The Nephilim
4. Dungeon of the Selenian Conclave
5. Book of Fantasy Races (Labyrinth Lord)
6. Purple Mountain: Temple of the Locust Lord (DCC)
7. Mageblade! Zero
8. Marvels & Malisons
9. Hit Points, Ammo Or Whatever Tracker
10. Light City #1 - The Brawler
11. Generic Monster Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord
12. Monster Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord Volume 2
13. Monster Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord
14. Castle of the Mad Archmage (OSR) Digital Bundle [BUNDLE]
15. Wheelies For Advanced Labyrinth Lord Players
16. Wheelies For Labyrinth Lord Players
17. Sanctum Secorum - Episode #24 Companion
18. Castles & Crusades Codex Classicum
19. Perfectorium Of The Golden Tentacle: An OSR Adventure
20. L'Arsenale della Principessa Guerriera
21. S2 Delver's Delights
22. Monkey Business (Digital Edition)
23.The Lost Lands: Bard's Gate - The Riot Act (SW)
24. The Lost Lands: Bard's Gate Players' Guide
25.The Lost Lands: Bard's Gate Swords and Wizardry Edition
26. BF2 Crypt of Bones (CnC)
27. BF2 Crypt of Bones (DCC)
28.Dwarves of Copper Gulch a Swords and Wizardry Compatible Adventure
29. Swords & Wizardry Compatibility Logo
30. Dungeon Crawl Classics #93: Moon-Slaves of the Cannibal Kingdom

Understand, I am in your camp and think that Arrows of Indra and Dark Albion like my own a Majestic Wilderlands a strong way to go for an OSR publisher. I am under no delusion that what I do is part of any type of larger wave other than the one where people take advantage of digital technology and open content to publish content that works with or similairly to out of print RPGs.

First, most of those products will only sell a few copies, and will not likely be representative of any greater trend.  Second, some of them are clearly series of long-running stuff.  All three waves of the OSR will still produce things, there's still people out there creating what are essentially Clone Games just very slightly different from other long-running Clone games.

The wave designation does not indicate that everything that came before is just 'over' or something. It does suggest that there's new layers of development in the OSR.  If I'd done Arrows of Indra in 2009, people would have claimed it was "not OSR".  Today, it's not even close to the limits of what is defined as "within the OSR".

Quote from: estar;963958First off the lists I created it used by clicking on the categories on the upper left. The official D&D tag can't be used by anybody other than Wizards. Search terms are more inaccurate compared to the tags on the OBS

Note that Wizards just used the "OSR tag".  They've made a huge sale of TSR/Mystara products under the header "OSR Extravaganza".  That's pretty obvious evidence of our influence. Of course, me being hired for 5e instead of certain other people was evidence enough.

QuoteSo tell me what more likely the "thing" regarding the OSR a third wave of rules tied tightly to the setting? Or the use of open content to realize a multitude of diverse products?

Those are not mutually exclusive things.  They can both be "things".

People don't talk about "module PTSR332 Lair of the Tomb of Imitation Horrors", even if in fact it might make significant sales on RPGnow.  They talk about Dark Albion, Yoon Suin, Narcosa, Maze of the Blue Medusa, Stars Without Number, etc etc.  So you have to consider what's in the intellectual vanguard of the movement as well; what people are excited about.  Because over time that defines in which directions the movement goes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;964436Note that Wizards just used the "OSR tag".  They've made a huge sale of TSR/Mystara products under the header "OSR Extravaganza".  That's pretty obvious evidence of our influence. Of course, me being hired for 5e instead of certain other people was evidence enough.

I am talking about the technical feature of OBS website where a publish can tag their product as belonging to specific categories setup by OBS. Wizards is particpating in the OSR sale so yes in a colloquial sense they have tagged themselves as part of the OSR. But their products are not tagged using the OBS feature, rather they use the Official D&D tag that OBS provides.

I pointed this out so people can see for themselves the relative number of products in each category and that the OSR tag doesn't not include Official release and vice versa. As a further note, OBS cracked down on publishers trying to check every category two years and cleaned it up considerably.

Quote from: RPGPundit;964436Those are not mutually exclusive things.  They can both be "things".

Sure that possible, but I disagree with you that is the case and about their significance. The use of open content and digital technology is pervasive and dominates every segment of the OSR including your own works. Products that adapt classic edition mechanics to specific setting like Arrows, Spears at Dawn, Majestic Wilderlands, and Dark Albion is a just a sliver.

Quote from: RPGPundit;964436People don't talk about "module PTSR332 Lair of the Tomb of Imitation Horrors", even if in fact it might make significant sales on RPGnow.  They talk about Dark Albion, Yoon Suin, Narcosa, Maze of the Blue Medusa, Stars Without Number, etc etc.  So you have to consider what's in the intellectual vanguard of the movement as well; what people are excited about.  Because over time that defines in which directions the movement goes.

I agree it has an impact but it pales with the creative freedom that accompanies open content and the low barriers to distribute and profit off one's creative works. How much do you follow what going on with the world of the DCC RPG and Gonzo fantasy. Or what happening with the weird horror side of things as exemplified by James Raggi. Or what been going on with various Zines, Pateron, and so forth and so on.

And to complicate the picture, you are right in a sense about the "intellectual vanguard" having importance because a segment of the OSR has had an obvious impact on the leading RPG in the industry and hobby, D&D 5e. However is the reverse true, did D&D 5e incorporating OSR ideas have an appreciable impact on OSR. I argue no. It had an impact on specific author like myself who borrowed things like advantage/disadvantage. But overall what still drive the OSR is freedom granted by open content and the low barriers to distribution.

Open content in general it not just about the nuts and bolts of sharing works but also about an ideal that our cultural heritage is something that should be freely shared. So again I disagree as to the significance of any individual author or group of author within the OSR as Third Wave, New Wave or whatever wave.

There's an intellectual vanguard in roleplaying games? :rolleyes:

Quote from: estar;964475I agree it has an impact but it pales with the creative freedom that accompanies open content and the low barriers to distribute and profit off one's creative works. How much do you follow what going on with the world of the DCC RPG and Gonzo fantasy. Or what happening with the weird horror side of things as exemplified by James Raggi. Or what been going on with various Zines, Pateron, and so forth and so on.

DCC and most of the Gonzo Fantasy are 3rd Wave OSR.  They are making rules intended to fit a specific genre and in many cases a specific setting.

Raggi's stuff was originally definitely 2nd wave (being created as a set of rules meant to be a kind of edgier weirder-fantasy D&D), but as time went on he became more and more obsessed with making his game fit a 17th-century Earth mold, essentially adapting to become 3rd wave. It's maybe one of the best examples of how important the 3rd-wave concept is.


RPGPundit

@Pundit
I don't want to be a dick about this, but is it happenstance that this whole wave idea neatly fits your own output of D&D-derived game products? Except for the first wave of course, whose arbiters you have mixed feelings for, because they didn't consider you "pure" enough.

Quote from: RPGPundit;964822DCC and most of the Gonzo Fantasy are 3rd Wave OSR.  They are making rules intended to fit a specific genre and in many cases a specific setting.

Raggi's stuff was originally definitely 2nd wave (being created as a set of rules meant to be a kind of edgier weirder-fantasy D&D), but as time went on he became more and more obsessed with making his game fit a 17th-century Earth mold, essentially adapting to become 3rd wave. It's maybe one of the best examples of how important the 3rd-wave concept is.


RPGPundit

The new releases on RPGNow (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=45582_0_0_0_0&test_epoch=0&page=1&sort=4a) doesn't support your thesis. Rather they show that a scattershot potpourri is being released. I guess driven by the interest of their respective authors.

Looking at the new releases
An Adventure
A OSR RPG using 2d6 as the primary dice mechanc
A zine for White Star a science fiction version of OD&D.
A set of paper miniatures with White Star in mine
A Dice rolling utility in PDF form
An Adventure
A set of random tables
A monster product
An Adventure
A books of character races
An Adventure
A OSR RPG with a d20 roll under mechanic
A new magic system variant
Superhero roleplaying for S&W Light
A monster creation aid for Labyrinth Lord
A monster creation aid for Labyrinth Lord
A monster creation aid for Labyrinth Lord
An adventure
Player options aid for Labyrinth Lord
Player options aid for Labyrinth Lord
A zine supporting a old school podcast
A supplement for C&C adapting classical mythology and historical info
An adventure
An adventure in Spanish?
An adventure collection
An adventure
An Adventure

By using the toolbar on the left you can break down the 1400+ releases on RPGNow into separate categories and see what is what.

For example this for core books (http://www.rpgnow.com/browse.php?filters=45582_2140_0_0_0&sort=4a).

Overall looking this over I see little difference between what was being released in 2010 except everything has more in it. For example Stars without Numbers was released in 2010 and now seven years later there many more science fiction adaptations of classic D&D. Mutant Future was released in 2008.

By all means celebrate but the fact is that the OSR as whole been diversifying since the beginning. There only been one wave and that the one been driven by the use of open content to present one's vision. ANYONE who has the interest and drive to create and distribute their work.

Well, if the following model is correct:

First people made content of Type A
Later they made content of Type B
Even Later they made content of Type C

Then once people started making Type C, that doesn't mean people can't or won't make Type A or Type B content.  "Wave" is just a Type, not a defined era or exclusive window.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965343Well, if the following model is correct:

First people made content of Type A
Later they made content of Type B
Even Later they made content of Type C

Then once people started making Type C, that doesn't mean people can't or won't make Type A or Type B content.  "Wave" is just a Type, not a defined era or exclusive window.

Sure, however my experience is that A was made then within a very short amount of time over three dozen people were producing a wide variety of material including myself doing what Pundit called Wave 3. There were already people making classic D&D material on a small scale or doing the "wink wink nudge nudge" deal. But once fans became aware of what happened with OSRIC and Basic Fantasy, a enough of them switched over to using open content to jump start the OSR so that by 2009 it was getting hard to track everything that was being done with classic D&D.

There was never a time when the retro-clones were the only game in town or the main focus. Right from get go there was criticism of their originality and these critics turning around using open content to produce supplemental product and adventures. (but never a retro-clone oh no).

By the time Stuart Marshall set off the Pundit with his crack about Forward the Adventure!, the OSR was well beyond any type of discernible wave than the the fact it was diversifying fast due to the use of open content.

Well, Pundit what do you consider the first Wave 3 OSR product and Estar, do you have examples of that type of product that occurred earlier?

Among the OSRIC crowd on K&K there seems to be some goofy resentent of 'millenials' and their supposed snowflakery that has led them to embrace heretics like Zak and Patrick Stuart who are supposedly 'not-Gygaxian.'

Putting aside the criticism of DCO for being amateurish (suspectly so, perhaps even punkish in intent!) it seems to me that Zak, Kowloski and in particular Stuart are trying to recapture the strangeness D&D had early on, particularly in Gygax's modules like Shrine of Kuo-Toa, Vault of the Drow, Land Beyond the Magic Mirror and Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. And Gygax's particular talent for creating unique and odd magical items is a clear inspiration as well.

One can criticize them for how succesful they are but to criticize because they are trying to do something different, are making people excited about D&D and the OSR and attracting a smidgen of outside attention seems self-defeating.

Even more bizarre is the claim that it is all built around personality-worship. This from people who attack others for not being sufficently 'Gygaxian'!!

Quote from: CRKrueger;965343QUOTE=CRKrueger;965350]Well, Pundit what do you consider the first Wave 3 OSR product and Estar, do you have examples of that type of product that occurred earlier?

If the third wave is "Innovation of Setting.  Games where the interesting part was less about what rules were being changed as how the D&D-type rules were being applied to fit radically different settings" then I propose that the third wave began with The Empire of the Petal Throne in 1975.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965350Well, Pundit what do you consider the first Wave 3 OSR product and Estar, do you have examples of that type of product that occurred earlier?

Here are some of what I remember
Carcosa 2008
Mutant Future 2008
Ruins & Ronin 2009
Age of Conan 2009
Majestic Wilderlands 2009
Warriors of Mars 2010
Stars without Number 2011

There is RPGNow sorted by release date and Hoard and Hordes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0) that can be used as references.

The thing to remember is that people focused on adventures more than anything else.

Quote from: Voros;965393Among the OSRIC crowd on K&K there seems to be some goofy resentent of 'millenials' and their supposed snowflakery that has led them to embrace heretics like Zak and Patrick Stuart who are supposedly 'not-Gygaxian.'

Putting aside the criticism of DCO for being amateurish (suspectly so, perhaps even punkish in intent!) it seems to me that Zak, Kowloski and in particular Stuart are trying to recapture the strangeness D&D had early on, particularly in Gygax's modules like Shrine of Kuo-Toa, Vault of the Drow, Land Beyond the Magic Mirror and Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. And Gygax's particular talent for creating unique and odd magical items is a clear inspiration as well.

One can criticize them for how succesful they are but to criticize because they are trying to do something different, are making people excited about D&D and the OSR and attracting a smidgen of outside attention seems self-defeating.

Even more bizarre is the claim that it is all built around personality-worship. This from people who attack others for not being sufficently 'Gygaxian'!!

No one ever accused K&KA of ecumenism.

I don't expect what I'm about to say to change your mind (and I am not a representative of K&KA, only a member), but I would settle for being disliked for accurate reasons.

K&KA does not worship Gygax's personality in any way.  Most of what Gygax wrote (or had ghostwritten), for example, in partnership with the Troll Lords is considered simply bad.  It was not well-reviewed by the membership.  Gygax is also generally considered to be extremely poor at perhaps the most important function of an executive - building a team compatible with your vision.  He hired people based on whether or not he liked them - he apparently couldn't conceive, as an example, that hiring a bunch of people who admitted what they really wanted was to become successful fantasy novelists would result in a bunch of modules that looked like bad fantasy novels.  Nepotism isn't a major sin if you've got the money, but it didn't help the company in any meaningful way.  

Personality worship would be ZOMG YOU MUST BUY GYGAX'S WORLD BUILDER LINE IT IS AMAZING AND CHANGED MY GAME FOR HTE BETTER!!!!k

There are quite a few members with personal connections to Gygax, either through meeting or corresponding with him, but starry-eyed is not applicable.  As far as personality conflicts with some people, sure.  But the RPG community is rife with personality conflicts so at worst I suppose one could say that K&KA is no better or different in that regard.  If that is the stone to be thrown, let them without sin do the casting.

It would be accurate to say that K&KA discards most of what dedicated RPG consumers find interesting about RPGs.  This is where "Gygaxian" comes into play, because it is used in the sense of extolling the implicit setting and encouraged play style in the 1E core books - even more than the rules themselves.  The rules are neutral, as evidenced by mid- to late-1E products that (apart from the rules used to express them) resulted in play very different from that discussed in those books.  It would also be accurate to say that K&KA largely believes that the "Gygaxian" version of the game probably received very little official support compared against all the other styles of play D&D has encouraged through support products.  I think a case can be made that this is directly a result of Gygax's poor sense of who to hire as designers supporting the rule set he put out.  We basically went straight from the books being published, to tourney modules (including some excellent classics, granted), and then to the frustrated novelist line of game supplements.  But not much stuff that made the implicit setting easier to run.  The Greyhawk campaign set, probably, but even higher level modules were similar in structure to lower-level modules.  

So certainly, just in the dismissal of other sorts of play as something worth time and effort, it's understandable that K&KA would be disliked for this view by those feeling dismissed.  But that's still different than what you express.

No one at K&KA wants "orcs in a hole".  Bringing back the strange, as you put it, gathers no disdain there.  A big part of the difference is - I suspect - simply lies in different goals.  I think a lot of K&KA members would like to get AD&D products out to support people already running AD&D and looking for support products, or, to encourage people who aren't actively playing AD&D (and weren't dedicated hobbyist RPGers per se) to pick it back up again.   But the players of other later published games I don't think (my opinion only) were ever targeted to entice back.  We're interested in what a game can do, or adding new rules to a game, than endlessly re-addressing rules that otherwise work for variety.  That is more of a desire for RPG hobbyists who enjoy crunch for crunch's sake.  62 types of darkness probably is interesting to an RPG hobbyist in ways that would be unwelcome for a guy who wants to buy something applying the rules already in the books he pulled out of his attic; and while conversion of minor details is no big issue for a hobbyist RPGer, the attic-guy isn't necessarily interested in any extra overhead for their re-entry adventure.  

Convincing people who either entered into D&D through later editions to try a more original general approach to RPGs, or left TSR editions for later editions to return, is, on reflection, a worthwhile approach for some people - but I think all concerned would agree it isn't particularly preservationist of the original games themselves except as honored ancestors directly connected in varying degrees.  For some that is not really of great consequence so long as a certain spirit of play is honored in some way in the new offerings, but for others that isn't going to hit the sweet spot.  Rather than griping over a label's boundaries, I say let's just recognize each other as near-but-different and move forward doing the exact thing we wish to do without putting claims in on each other's POV.  

Because one fair critique that could be offered of K&KA is that it hasn't produced what it desires in large quantities, which I think is changing soon and I'm excited about that.  Certainly there's been a lot of drama kicked up over the last few months - I've been a part of that as well, admittedly.  But in the end I think it's good.  There's no need to squabble.  But neither should there be some insistence that our aims are the same, and that what others produce does in fact meet the goals of a group like K&KA.  Why fight over whether or not a banner means this or that, or insist that if K&KA doesn't see itself particularly aligned with the OSR, it is, in fact, aligned whether we desire it or not?  Or that if some traditional D&D players say "hey, product X diverges to the point we no longer find it as useful as we expected for TSR D&D" that they are horrible grogs because they notice that?  WTF is that?  We are preservationists, others prefer to draw inspiration for something sort of different in some way.  Great.  I don't think we're really competing for the same eyeballs since many preservationists don't concern themselves the part of the RPG scene which plays lots of different RPGs, so who cares?  The bizarre insistence that I was in the OSR whether I liked it or not was the straw that broke this camel's back, personally.  Don't lump me in with something that is not doing what I am trying to do, or tell me there's no difference between us.  Allow preservationists to differentiate themselves in a way which makes clear that their output is purposefully designed to not materially vary from what TSR D&D already covered, but instead is creative within that framework or extends it.

Sounds reasonable enough. I think lots of people would be interested in checking out modules in a more 'traditional' mode so as Estar says the best response is for the Grogs to produce what they advocate and distribute it, either paid or free.

Even after reading loads of spiel on Appendix N (a lot of which I've read and think has little to do with early D&D), Grognardia, Dragonsfoot and K&KA I'm not really sure what anyone means by 'traditional' D&D if most of Gygax's own modules don't even meet the bill? Location based adventures? Okay, that is an OSR cliche at this point that probably needs to be challenged but it can also be evergreen in the right hands. High lethality? Gold for XP? As I recall there's a fair bit about urban adventuring in the DMG but many proclaim that city adventures are yet another perverse deviation. What exactly is it that makes something 'traditional'? Honest question.

I think traditional is a better starting point than Gygaxian though not only because that odd adjective has been seriously abused but I find it hard to find much of a common thread through his best module work which is rather more varied than he is often given credit for.

PS. Is there really any evidence anyone Gygax hired 'admitted' they 'really' wanted to be successful fantasy novelist? That sounds like a predictable disparagment by implication of the rather talented Tracy Hickman, favourite whipping boy of the Pope and a lot of OSR types who couldn't design a Ravenloft if their life depended on it.

And let's not forget the often excessive fictional details in Gygax's Hommlet, Shrine and Vault not to mention that post-TSR it seems he himself was more than a bit interested in becoming a successful fantasy novelist.

On a practical level, having listened to a podcast with former-wargamer and early TSR module writer Douglas Niles, I think any expression of interest in novel writing could just as easily come from a desire to make a decent living as it often pays better than being an RPG designer. We've lost most of the great designers of the past to novels, video games or teaching game design because of the poor financial rewards of a career in TTRPGs.

Quote from: estar;965548Here are some of what I remember
Stars without Number 2011

Can you unpack this for me? SWN keeps getting referenced at a "setting." But it isn't a setting in any manner that I have seen the term "setting" used.

There is the slightest conceit for a setting in the SWN rulebook -- Once Upon a Time there was an interstellar civilization, and then it collapsed, and now people are exploring again. That justifies the sandbox style Crawford builds for the game... and then he leaves all the setting details up to the Referee. Everything from rolling up the subsector map and building words. If there's any setting there, it is built by the Referee.

I may be missing something, but other than the collapse of the interstellar civilization there is nothing concrete or specific about any setting a Referee or Players might be exploring in the game -- making it wholly different (as far as I tell) than the other setting books and games referenced in this thread.

But I might be missing something!

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;965797But I might be missing something!

Pundit stated that the third wave is about different setting AND different genres using classic D&D mechanics. Stars without Numbers is an example of the latter. Although later, the DCC RPG is a similar example.

Quote from: estar;965798Pundit stated that the third wave is about different setting AND different genres using classic D&D mechanics. Stars without Numbers is an example of the latter. Although later, the DCC RPG is a similar example.

Huh.
Okay. Thanks!

As for me, I don't really care about the number of waves as much as the quality of the surfing.

Quote from: Dumarest;965824As for me, I don't really care about the number of waves as much as the quality of the surfing.

Can you really judge the quality of an RPG product without an abstract model of the industry to measure it by?

Quote from: estar;965798Pundit stated that the third wave is about different setting AND different genres using classic D&D mechanics.

Does the OSR, even in this third wave, still require D&D mechanics? I thought stuff like Runequest or Metamorphosis Alpha were part of the OSR.

Quote from: Baulderstone;965828Can you really judge the quality of an RPG product without an abstract model of the industry to measure it by?

Well, I'll hire a pundit to measure the quality for me.
;)

Quote from: hedgehobbit;965831Does the OSR, even in this third wave, still require D&D mechanics? I thought stuff like Runequest or Metamorphosis Alpha were part of the OSR.

They are, but estar focuses on D&D and its derivations in these posts. Sadly that is true on every forum I've seen.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;965831Does the OSR, even in this third wave, still require D&D mechanics? I thought stuff like Runequest or Metamorphosis Alpha were part of the OSR.

The Old School Renaissance is focused on the playing, promotion, and publishing of material for classic editions of Dungeons & Dragons, it part of a larger old school renaissance involving a revival of interest in older RPGs in general.

The deal is this, there is a group of hobbyist who like to play, promote, and publish for classic D&D editions. Circa 2008, for a variety of reasons the label Old School Renaissance gained widespread currency as a shorthand for this group of hobbyist. Promptly one week later people were already saying shit about how a bunch of D&D gamers were stealing the term old school to mean only D&D when there are so many other worthy older games out there. It been used as a club ever since.

One reason, out of many, Old School Renaissance got stuck to the D&D gamers first, is that two of more popular older RPGs, Runequest and Traveller, never had a break in continuity like classic D&D did. Circa 2004, Chaosium was publishing material for Basic Roleplaying, and the Traveller community had it own unique thing going with the Third Imperium and multiple successive editions. And many of the RPGs originating the mid 80s still had some kind of support going on like GURPS and Hero System.

Hence my "fussy" "all caps" OSR  is focus on classic D&D but is part of a larger "small cap" osr.

Finally to have to keep in mind that the OSR "all caps" is built on a foundation of open content and uses digital technology like print on demand for distribution. The biggest barrier to anybody showing how the rest of the OSR is doing it wrong it the amount of interest and time you are willing to put into a projects. The side effect of this is that the all caps OSR is a kaleidoscope of small to medium size publishers all marching to the tune of their own drummer, including myself.

Enough of us have adopted OSR to make it a semi-useful label but it not commonly used in serious marketing. For that we rely on promoting our name which for me is Bat in the Attic Games. If somebody is trying to pull off a multi-publisher effort like the current OBS sales, or the loot crate subscription that Erik Tenkar is trying to develop then you will see the use of OSR.

For me, and probably others, I don't really care about the use of Old School Renaissance, but I think it is neat how it works into the acronym OSR. Which of course alludes to TSR and lends itself to a similar style logo. Just a fun bit of nostalgia to use as a part of what everybody is doing.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1019[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1020[/ATTACH]

I do like the map logo OSR.

Quote from: Voros;965720Even after reading loads of spiel on Appendix N (a lot of which I've read and think has little to do with early D&D), Grognardia, Dragonsfoot and K&KA I'm not really sure what anyone means by 'traditional' D&D if most of Gygax's own modules don't even meet the bill? Location based adventures? Okay, that is an OSR cliche at this point that probably needs to be challenged but it can also be evergreen in the right hands. High lethality? Gold for XP? As I recall there's a fair bit about urban adventuring in the DMG but many proclaim that city adventures are yet another perverse deviation. What exactly is it that makes something 'traditional'? Honest question.

I think traditional is a better starting point than Gygaxian though not only because that odd adjective has been seriously abused but I find it hard to find much of a common thread through his best module work which is rather more varied than he is often given credit for.

I'm not saying that Gygax's modules aren't traditional or Gygaxian, I'm saying that the episodic module campaign that became the de facto D&D standard was an unplanned consequence of releasing a lot of tournament modules but not a lot of meat and potatoes world-building stuff.  Gygax's modules are great - his low level stuff (B2 and T1) set good foundations for world building, which the DM is then directed to do (in B2) on the presumption that after this primer the DM is ready to go (or in the case of "T2", follow-up material didn't get published for years).  But I think most DMs didn't build out the world from that point - they went and bought another module with a usable level range.  And so D&D became for many people a sort of hurky-jerky affair where the players finish an adventure, the DM provides some bridge to the start of the next module, and off they go.

I don't like "traditional" because immediately you get people who say "I never played that way so it wasn't MY tradition".  And they're right.  All of the people who've played D&D for 30+ years were at one time bunched into the same rules and so used those rules as they pleased from day 1.  There was never a period of broad agreement on how D&D was "best played".  Which is why I prefer the term "implicit game/world".  I don't care how anyone used the game, there is an underlying philosophy of the author there to be found for those who would be interested in playing AD&D that way.  

I also would like to emphasize I am not saying "everyone should play this way", to head off any butt hurt posts from that Brady dude.  The idea that everyone would want the same things out of RPGs is laughable.  So if you or anyone else reads this and think all or part sucks, I simply ask that you remember I am not saying "you should play this way because Gygax advocated it".  I am instead explaining how I play, why, and things I would like to see in products using D&D/AD&D rules/mechanics.

The elements I see in the implicit game break out like so.  Note that I am not claiming this as a K&KA manifesto of design principles.  They are my thoughts.  I'm probably forgetting another half-dozen or so because these are mostly off the top of my head.  I'm separating them into world stuff and DM-to-DM advice or general game principles stuff.

It is not as if these are all completely unaddressed in OSR material which often takes these general themes and further adapts them.  But in terms of addressing the whole

Game Play Style Presumptions Implicit in the Core AD&D books

AD&D is a roleplaying game, but the roleplaying is merely an element.  It is a game first and foremost.  Roleplaying bends to the needs of the game not the other way around.  Roleplaying is not the overriding sole point of playing the game.  

Quote from: Gygax, Realms of Roleplaying, Dragon #102There was a long period of time when action, rather than role playing, was the major focus of gaming, and this was especially true with respect to tournament scenarios at conventions. Thus, an AD&D game scenario would typically stress combat with monsters to achieve the goal set before the characters. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way — much emphasis is being placed on how well the player takes on the role of his or her character. Personification and acting are replacing action of the more direct and forceful type — be it sword swinging, spell casting, or anything else.

Before this trend goes too far, it is time to consider what the typical role-playing game is all about. First, it is important to remember that "role-playing" is a modifier of the noun "game." We are dealing with a game which is based on role playing, but it is first and foremost a game. Games are not plays, although role-playing games should have some of the theatre included in their play. To put undue stress upon mere role-playing places the cart before the horse. Role playing is a necessary part of the game, but it is by no means the whole of the matter.

The term "skilled player", "player skill" or some variation occurs countless times (my PDF software doesn't provide a total count, but perhaps others do) in the PHB and DMG.  Character acting to the point of refusing to simply burn the troll because the character is not considered to know what the player knows is an example of this core concept being essentially lost.  The player was expected to get better and apply their experience to each character they ever made from that character's first level, not establish in-game some acceptable reason for their player knowledge.  "Metagaming" is just "gaming", and was thoroughly and completely expected; celebrated.  T.Foster related a story on his blog (https://mystical-trash-heap.blogspot.com/2017/05/my-games-with-gary-part-2.html) yesterday about playing with Gygax as a 13 year-old, and what I found interesting about it was the following:

QuoteMost DMs I had played under to that point, especially the RPGA DMs, drew a pretty firm line between "in-character" and "out-of-character" communication, and tended to discourage the latter. The tone was pretty dry and formal and the idea seemed to be that when you were playing you were in the game. Gary's game wasn't like that at all. Except when he was reading boxed text, he was totally informal, very chatty, very prone to OOC and off-topic digressions. He also gave tons of ongoing feedback to us about how well or poorly he thought we were doing, and what would have happened (better or worse) if we'd done things differently. Effectively, after each encounter he'd go "behind the scenes" and tell us about it from the DM perspective. This was totally different than anything I'd ever experienced before - pretty much every other DM I'd ever played with tried to maintain as much of a poker face as possible and to give out as little info as possible - but it both made the game much more engaging - none of our attention ever wavered - and gave us a much better idea of how the adventure "worked" and what was expected of us, which helped us to improve our performance. The game wasn't a confrontation, it was more like a conversation.

Continuing, centralizing playacting as the main point of AD&D gaming subtly but materially makes it less likely for casual participants (i.e., people who do not make RPGs a primary focus of their free time and fun money) to play AD&D games, instead concentrating the pool of players among the much smaller minority of people who greatly enjoy playacting.  Gygax clearly thought/hoped AD&D would break into the same sort of cultural mainstay status as monopoly; I don't think this was because he thought the majority of the culture would share the current RPG hobbyist's play priorities and assumptions.

Likewise, the word "story" occurs precisely zero times in the PHB, and only once in the DMG - in the foreward written by Mike Carr.  And even then, the context of Carr's use is not one of the DM basing adventures around a plot.  AD&D is not a game conceived around the concepts of the DM coming up with plotted arcs.  Tournament modules were loosely pre-plotted as a necessity for grading multiple players on a level field; but contextual necessity evolved into an underlying standard.  This is where location-based adventures differ from, say, A1-4.  Putting such a burden on the DM subtly but materially makes it less likely for casual participants (i.e., people who do not make RPGs a primary focus of their free time and fun money) to run AD&D games, instead concentrating the DM role among those who are creative in this specific regard.  

Lastly, in regards to story in AD&D, I'll quote P&P in this regard, because I agree with him:

Quote"The role of a superior DM is NOT to tell a story to his or her players. The DM need only provide an interesting and challenging environment for the players to explore and then administer that environment totally impartially. Superior players will be able to create a character-driven, interactive story from these raw materials, and neither the players nor the GM can tell where the story is headed."

- The Gospel of Papers&Paychecks

Leading out of that, the game is built around campaign play, which is a process.  None of the process is meant to be skipped.  Location based adventures are most useful to this because the how/why of character interaction with the location, and reason for exiting the location are completely player-determined.   "Adventures" are the central element of campaign play but the entire process is equally important, and the boundary between "pre-adventure", adventure, and "post-adventure" is fuzzy.  All of these should be enjoyable and exciting, albeit in differnt ways.  All are equally important and meant to be played through, not mostly hand-waived.  I believe this one reason why the DMG emphasizes that it is critical to keep track of the passage of time, as that plays into making pre- and post- activities meaningful.  More game materials that aren't meant to be ohmygodsocreative are needed for meat and potatoes grunt work replacement for DMs who would like to run a more organic and "whole" campaign world, but simply don't have the additional time necessary.

When it comes to the game world's geography, physics, societies, etc., the DM is fully in control.  He is also in control for the overall atmosphere of the game location - the literal room/area/table where the people come together, and should permit no asshattery out of any person towards other people.  When it comes to the goals, actions, motivations and interaction between the players and their characters - the DM is not involved.  (As an example, re-read the section of the DMG for assigning XP).   The players should drive the day-to-day activity of the campaign after zero-day.  The players have a responsibility to conceive of personal goals for their characters and interact with the game world in ways the player hopes will achieve them - not just show up on Thursday night and expect to passively toss dice and basically ride the ride someone else put all the effort into conceiving.  Likewise, the DM have a responsibility to run the world independent of the players, so that it is a moving breathing thing that is interesting to interact with and gives the players plenty of ideas.  Again harkening back to the section on time in the DMG, the DM's game world is presumed to have multiple groups of players operating in the same continuity.  This is, in my view, where DM creativity is pegged into the red zone.  It is not in coming up with what the players do next, it is in coming up with everything the players are not doing.

Point blank, impartial refereeing results in dead characters.  The DM should pull no punches with characters in the moment.  That doesn't help them become skilled players.  Likewise, the DMG encourages a merciful DM who allows do-overs from simple hit point death (most basic combats) through raise dead to be "no great matter".  The DM needs to have the ability to walk the middle path where the world is uncaring, but the gods aren't indifferent.  Many DMs get pedantically caught up with (they consider) maximum verisimilitude to the point where they punish the player by saying it doesn't make sense that player breaks such as raise dead, or wish, are opportunities commonly available.  

Leading out of that, AD&D is a game, not a fantasy world reality simulation.  Just like role-playing, where either the game or the fantasy world reality simulation must bend - don't bend the game to the fantasy world to the detriment of the players out of slavish devotion to indifferent consistency.  We're here to enjoy each other's time, and no one is going to have "God damn he could design a flawless fantasy physics system and build worlds that seemed more real than ours" chiseled on their tombstone.  Examples of this would be (IMO) DMs who keep players in perpetual starvation mode; skin flints who hand out magic items rarely because they believe even a +1 sword should be special, or that finding a pot of silver should be incredible.  Now if you have players who want that, sure, go ahead.  But AD&D was designed around the tropes of casual fantasy fiction, and most people think of that when they think of an adventure game; not the desires of the minority who thinks HARN was the greatest world/system ever written.

If you're the DM, see the game as both a solo game and a shared game.  The solo DM game is creating for creation's sake.  It may, or may not, ever be experienced by the players.  You as DM create locations, spells, magic items, tricks, traps, dungeon levels, NPCs, etc., for the same reason a writer writes - because you are driven to regardless of potential audience.  DMs who feel that if they spent time creating it, that the PCs must run through it or the DMs time was wasted are placing their own personal gratification above player agency, and that diminishes the ceiling of possibility in their campaign.


Game World Presumptions implicit in Core AD&D Books

AD&D is really a western in medieval drag.  The civilized east coast types are moving (back?) to settle the frontier.  The player characters are either white/black/grey hats interacting with this macro process in different roles depending upon their choices.  They will explore past the known edge of the frontier; recover treasures which fuel the process; contend with the dangerous elements both inhumanely monstrous as well as competing humanoid; and eventually carve their own ruled areas out of the pacified area, contributing to the DM's evolving world in the process.  Higher level play introduces contending armies controlled by PCs into the campaign.  When the PCs aren't exploring dungeons or clearing the marches, their activities will often lead them into cities where 1) agents of the cosmic entities discussed below often operate; 2) contain stuff they need available nowhere else; 3) house political actors and guilds they may become enmeshed in, requiring player action.

Fighters are the dominant actor-class, even considering the power individual spellcasters can potentially bring to bear at any time.  (Most of the fiddly bits lots of people dropped out of the AD&D combat engine directly penalize magic-users and make them easier to disrupt/kill).  

There is at least one, and probably several, tentpole megadungeon(s) which start out heavily used, decreasing in use as character power allows greater variety, but always present challenge and wealth to the players.

The dungeon is where players have somewhat greater control of their risk as it is stratified.  The wilderness has no stratification so choose your time of entry at your own peril.  In-between the wilderness and the core civilized lands are the marches which are dangerous, but heavily weighted towards understandable factors (bandits, pirates, raiders, etc.)

Alignment is real.  The cosmic conflict underpins everything.  The world the PCs walk around on is the asset which will tip the playing field in favor of one or another of the cosmic factions, and sees frequent interaction with powers.  This interaction may be mostly indirect due to constraints, but it is continual, planned, and heavily contested.  Evil especially seeks to open up ways to more directly manifest and gain control.  

Law seeks to impose order (which I see as reducing/eliminating magic, eventually, as natural law grows strong enough to refuse the possibility of supernatural warping).  Chaos seeks the primal disordered landscape of unconstrained persons, action, and also magical forces.  Neutrality is either "cosmic" or "selfish".  Cosmic neutrality seeks to maintain the present balance (i.e., the world depicted in the AD&D materials) between the two (e.g., Circle of Eight).  Selfish neutrality really doesn't care about all that and doesn't necessarily get their jollies off of suffering, but wants easy wealth and doesn't feel overly inhibited in how it gets it (e.g., the neutral AD&D bandit from the monster manual).  Most humans are selfish neutrals.

Good seeks to make the world safe for the least of these, prosperous to the point of eliminating want, and beneficient.  Evil enjoys the suffering of others and seeks a world where power is used as the powerful see fit, to their own personal benefit.  Neutrality is as above.

Shit was really weird in the recent past.  Civilization receded but weathered the storm.  Alien and bizarre stuff is all over the place, hidden in corners.  But these are palate cleansers within the game world, not the focus of the game world.  The majority of the game world resembles recognizable human myth and themes passed down throughout the ages, not only stuff Weird Fantasy authors from 1900 forward came up with.  (This also broadens the points of connection to the game which non-hobbyists will have.  It's much easier to get people to play a game if they are familiar with big parts of it conceptually.)

Humanity has the initiative and the edge.  But it can lose that initiative.  Unless its destiny is disrupted in some way, all other elements in the world will wane as humanity waxes and extends its control.  Demi-humans are allies mostly, but elements of them likely resent their lesser role.

Quote from: Voros;965720PS. Is there really any evidence anyone Gygax hired 'admitted' they 'really' wanted to be successful fantasy novelist? That sounds like a predictable disparagment by implication of the rather talented Tracy Hickman, favourite whipping boy of the Pope and a lot of OSR types who couldn't design a Ravenloft if their life depended on it.

And let's not forget the often excessive fictional details in Gygax's Hommlet, Shrine and Vault not to mention that post-TSR it seems he himself was more than a bit interested in becoming a successful fantasy novelist.

On a practical level, having listened to a podcast with former-wargamer and early TSR module writer Douglas Niles, I think any expression of interest in novel writing could just as easily come from a desire to make a decent living as it often pays better than being an RPG designer. We've lost most of the great designers of the past to novels, video games or teaching game design because of the poor financial rewards of a career in TTRPGs.

On this one, I know that there are interviews out there.  I can't recall where I saw them, whether it was interviews on blogs, TSR alumni threads at DF, or somewhere else.  But I've seen the sentiment in multiple places from people who were contemporary employees that a lot of the 2nd/3rd wave of hired designers after 1980 were open about taking jobs designing with TSR because they though it would give them a leg up on getting books published, and being an author was their primary goal.  That isn't a Hickman-specific knock, although I am in no way a Hickman fan.  I don't wish him bad juju or anything, but his products don't make me want to play D&D.

Gygax certainly wanted to get in on the gravy train of TSR novels when he saw the popularity of Dragonlance.  I don't know if he was interested in being an author more than a game designer, though.  Once he lost control of TSR he used his novels to kill off Greyhawk's universe in a statement, and I don't think he wrote much after that.  So not a writer's writer.  (On an aside, the Gord novels may be marginal works of fiction, but they are excellent quasi-campaign journals, and give a lot of insight/detail into how Gygax envisioned the implicit setting as I discuss above.  I think they're worthwhile reading to a DM for game-related reasons).

I can understand not taking this as gospel if you want to see a cite first, I just don't have the time to dig up where I read it.  So disregard what I said seems preposterous; it wasn't a main point.

Quote from: EOTB;965863I don't like "traditional" because immediately you get people who say "I never played that way so it wasn't MY tradition".  And they're right.  All of the people who've played D&D for 30+ years were at one time bunched into the same rules and so used those rules as they pleased from day 1.  There was never a period of broad agreement on how D&D was "best played".  Which is why I prefer the term "implicit game/world".  I don't care how anyone used the game, there is an underlying philosophy of the author there to be found for those who would be interested in playing AD&D that way.  

Thanks for the extensive and reasoned response.

I'm going to read it all but just wanted to respond immediately to this and say this is an excellent point I hadn't considered in terms of the issue with the use of 'traditional.'

I certainly have responded in a similar way to claims of authority based on 'how the game use to be played.' It is a fatal flaw in Finch's Primer which otherwise has good advice for DMs but presents a faulty idealized narrative of how people supposedly played in the past.

And no worries about digging up a citation for the novelists claim. Even if true for the reason I gave above about financial viability I wouldn't find it a damning statement anyway. I'm just leery of certain 'truisms' repeated on forums with no sourcing. Like the long standing claim that Williams held gamers in contempt, a claim that no one outside of the tighest Gygax camp (Mentzer, Kask), in other words those with a very big axe to grind, has ever confirmed.

Quote from: Voros;965720Sounds reasonable enough. I think lots of people would be interested in checking out modules in a more 'traditional' mode so as Estar says the best response is for the Grogs to produce what they advocate and distribute it, either paid or free.

Even after reading loads of spiel on Appendix N (a lot of which I've read and think has little to do with early D&D), Grognardia, Dragonsfoot and K&KA I'm not really sure what anyone means by 'traditional' D&D if most of Gygax's own modules don't even meet the bill? Location based adventures? Okay, that is an OSR cliche at this point that probably needs to be challenged but it can also be evergreen in the right hands. High lethality? Gold for XP? As I recall there's a fair bit about urban adventuring in the DMG but many proclaim that city adventures are yet another perverse deviation. What exactly is it that makes something 'traditional'? Honest question.

I think traditional is a better starting point than Gygaxian though not only because that odd adjective has been seriously abused but I find it hard to find much of a common thread through his best module work which is rather more varied than he is often given credit for.

PS. Is there really any evidence anyone Gygax hired 'admitted' they 'really' wanted to be successful fantasy novelist? That sounds like a predictable disparagment by implication of the rather talented Tracy Hickman, favourite whipping boy of the Pope and a lot of OSR types who couldn't design a Ravenloft if their life depended on it.

And let's not forget the often excessive fictional details in Gygax's Hommlet, Shrine and Vault not to mention that post-TSR it seems he himself was more than a bit interested in becoming a successful fantasy novelist.

On a practical level, having listened to a podcast with former-wargamer and early TSR module writer Douglas Niles, I think any expression of interest in novel writing could just as easily come from a desire to make a decent living as it often pays better than being an RPG designer. We've lost most of the great designers of the past to novels, video games or teaching game design because of the poor financial rewards of a career in TTRPGs.

A traditional D&D module, as I see it, is blueprinted beautifully on page B51 of the D&D Moldvay Basic Rulebook. It is very straightforward and simple, yet seems to have been forgotten by most adventure writers today.

A. Choose a Scenario

B. Choose a Setting

C. Decide on Special Monsters to be Used.

D. Draw a Map of the Dungeon

E. Stock the Dungeon

Not exactly rocket science is it? The very first part is, I think, an art that has been largely forgotten. A scenario isn't a largely completed story merely requiring a few protagonists to roll some dice at certain points before concluding at the grand finale. A scenario is not a sketch of a novel, or movie or play when the scenario is intended to support actual game play.

Definition of scenario
plural scenarios
1
a :  an outline or synopsis of a play; especially :  a plot outline used by actors of the commedia dell'arte
b :  the libretto of an opera
2
a :  screenplay
b :  shooting script
3
:  a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially :  an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events

Definition 1a makes a boring as fuck railroad of a role playing game. Definition 3 is far more applicable to adventure design that isn't scripted. A proper scenario as the focus of play does not assume or script in anything regarding the participants.

Module B2 The Keep on the Borderlands is a great example of a scenario based adventure. The scenario involves the folks at the keep needing assistance with the marauding humanoids in the nearby Caves of Chaos.

This is usually met with disdain by whiny story-wanking bitches complaining about a lack of plot. They are dead wrong of course but that doesn't stop the crying and complaining. There are things going on and relationships that can be exploited. It is only a simple hack & slash fest for those who either just want beer & pretzels action or those too dumb to pick up on things. Players are not led by the nose from plot point to plot point. The module and the game as a whole was written for people that supposedly enjoyed using their imaginations. There are so many outcomes possible depending on where the players go and what they do. A good playable scenario always allows for that. A poorly scripted railroad does not.

The issue with that defintion is it comes close to restricting all 'traditional' or Gygaxian play to dungeon or hex crawls only. Its also more constructive when creating a definition to not build it on a strawman representation of the 'wrong way' to play as you have. Defining something by what it is NOT is lazy and often reactionary.

I think your point about scenarios as a rough outline that the PCs and DM (it is always a collaborative process) can take and run with is very useful and insightful, if perhaps a little intimidating for new DMs.

As I already noted the DMG has a lot of material on urban adventuring and the Vault of the Drow is far from a dungeon. I think EOTB's defintion of a role of a city in such a campaign is more useful:

"...their activities will often lead them into cities where 1) agents of the cosmic entities discussed below often operate; 2) contain stuff they need available nowhere else; 3) house political actors and guilds they may become enmeshed in, requiring player action."

That third point is particularly true of a place like Erelhei-Cinlu and the scheming of a city like that will almost naturally drive the game to be heavier on the role-playing element.

A bit OT but if there's one phrase that needs to die (and I believe like a lot of OSR stupidity it was coined by the Pope) it is the ridiculous one of 'Gygaxian naturalism.' The last thing most Gygax adventures are is naturalistic. Sure, in some dungeons he tried to apply some basics of ecology and logic of how the monsters would interact but to apply the term naturalism to the nonsensical setup of the Caves of Chaos or Lost Caverns of Tsojanth is silly, not to mention his taste for the outright surreal in the Dungeonland/Land Beyond the Magic Mirror modules. Gygax's greatest strength was his  often wild imagination not his occasional and often half-hearted attempts at verisimillitude. To focus on the latter over the former is almost perverse.

Quote from: EOTB;965863Game Play Style Presumptions Implicit in the Core AD&D books

While I personally would start with the assumptions behind OD&D (as they vary slightly from AD&D), I do think it's much more productive to talk about gaming on this level than arguing about minor mechanical differences.

I always thought that the OSR was based on the mantra "rulings not rules", but it appears that the rules are the most important part of the equation after all. That a game could be part of the OSR if its to-hit roll is d20 based on a chart but not OSR if the roll is d100 under a skill, even though their play styles are identical.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;965831Does the OSR, even in this third wave, still require D&D mechanics? I thought stuff like Runequest or Metamorphosis Alpha were part of the OSR.

Runequest was never out of print was it? Like CoC it is a game that has endured with more or less the same mechanics for decades.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;965900I always thought that the OSR was based on the mantra "rulings not rules", but it appears that the rules are the most important part of the equation after all.

The dirty secret of the OSR is that 'mantra' is borrowed from 'storygames' in concept if not exact wording. In fact that are several modern ideas of gaming promoted throughout the OSR and in Finch's Primer.

Quote from: Voros;965899The issue with that defintion is it comes close to restricting all 'traditional' or Gygaxian play to dungeon or hex crawls only. Its also more constructive when creating a definition to not build it on a strawman representation of the 'wrong way' to play as you have. Defining something by what it is NOT is lazy and often reactionary.

I think your point about scenarios as a rough outline that the PCs and DM (it is always a collaborative process) can take and run with is very useful and insightful, if perhaps a little intimidating for new DMs.

As I already noted the DMG has a lot of material on urban adventuring and the Vault of the Drow is far from a dungeon. I think EOTB's defintion of a role of a city in such a campaign is more useful:

"...their activities will often lead them into cities where 1) agents of the cosmic entities discussed below often operate; 2) contain stuff they need available nowhere else; 3) house political actors and guilds they may become enmeshed in, requiring player action."

That third point is particularly true of a place

" Dungeon" is a rather generic term as far as scenario design is concerned. Read " the dungeon" as "the adventure setting". In this regard, dungeon is very similar to monster. Anyone or thing that is not a player character is a monster. The orc with his pie, the shopkeeper down the street, and the smartass minstrel singing in the tavern are all "monsters".

When you think about it, a city is much like a dungeon. The streets are corridors, the buildings are rooms and the general population constantly going about their business is an endless stream of wandering monsters. The city is a fascinating place to adventure being at once a little safer and also far more dangerous than a dungeon.

As far as Gygaxian naturalism is concerned, I may be mistaken but it appears to be more concerned with letting play produce results organically rather than nudging things in the direction of a particular narrative. D&D never has had a sensible ecology. With monsters based on plastic toys roaming around at random, a "normal" ecology isn't even a consideration.

Quote from: Voros;965904The dirty secret of the OSR is that 'mantra' is borrowed from 'storygames' in concept if not exact wording. In fact that are several modern ideas of gaming promoted throughout the OSR and in Finch's Primer.

It's like how right and left wing ideologies loop around at the extreme ends to be identical forms of totalitarianism. It works the same with OSR and Storygame extremists. ;)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;965923As far as Gygaxian naturalism is concerned, I may be mistaken but it appears to be more concerned with letting play produce results organically rather than nudging things in the direction of a particular narrative. D&D never has had a sensible ecology. With monsters based on plastic toys roaming around at random, a "normal" ecology isn't even a consideration.

Here is the blog post (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html) where he defines Gygaxian naturalism. I don't think he builds a particularly compelling argument that what he is describing is all that Gygaxian in nature. But hey, attaching "Gygaxian" to something makes it sound more authentic.

Quote from: Voros;965891Thanks for the extensive and reasoned response.

No problem, glad you found some usefulness in it.

Quote from: Voros;965899As I already noted the DMG has a lot of material on urban adventuring and the Vault of the Drow is far from a dungeon. I think EOTB's defintion of a role of a city in such a campaign is more useful:

"...their activities will often lead them into cities where 1) agents of the cosmic entities discussed below often operate; 2) contain stuff they need available nowhere else; 3) house political actors and guilds they may become enmeshed in, requiring player action."

That third point is particularly true of a place like Erelhei-Cinlu and the scheming of a city like that will almost naturally drive the game to be heavier on the role-playing element.

Cities are very much important, and a lot of time will be spent there.  The "adventure" is different, certainly, since "shoot first ask questions later" can have more immediate consequences than outside of a political jurisdiction.  I enjoy city adventuring.  I suspect DMs emphasize it less because a city's size/scope makes it more difficult to detail or channel the PCs away from what's explicitly prepared.  Cities require a lot more comfort with winging it than a dungeon, or a hex that believably only contains what the DM has placed.

I came up with some tables for politics, current events, and "people frequently sought" in cities a while back.  I can post those up in a separate thread in case anyone would find them helpful to generate activity in towns/cities which PCs are staying in or passing through.  The goal of the tables was to quickly generate interesting stuff to make each area unique, could be easily winged if players ended up involved and built out later, but (since little time investment was made by the DM) could be abandoned without regret if players didn't want a distraction from whatever they were already doing.  

Quote from: hedgehobbit;965900While I personally would start with the assumptions behind OD&D (as they vary slightly from AD&D), I do think it's much more productive to talk about gaming on this level than arguing about minor mechanical differences.

Yeah, OD&D is different (and very fun).  Arguing about minor mechanical differences is its own DM bloodsport.  It can be fun.  It's akin to pit masters arguing about regional BBQ (Pork! Beef! Carolina mustard! Texas Style!).  Nobody but the chefs care what made the meal taste good, but that doesn't stop them from doing it.  But the more I indulge it, the less time goes into gaming.  I know I'll end up in another one of those threads though.  The flesh is weak.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;965900I always thought that the OSR was based on the mantra "rulings not rules", but it appears that the rules are the most important part of the equation after all. That a game could be part of the OSR if its to-hit roll is d20 based on a chart but not OSR if the roll is d100 under a skill, even though their play styles are identical.

I guess I would say that the first impression always makes the biggest mark.  "OSR", the term, was as near as anyone can tell, was first articulated on Dragonsfoot in 2006 (and was clearly discussing an upsurge in TSR editions in comparison to the valley of a few years prior).  So while it certainly has grown way beyond that, and the original use isn't particularly defining anymore, it was the original frame of reference and so for better or worse tied the term to the D&D rulesets conceptually.
 

Quote from: Voros;965904The dirty secret of the OSR is that 'mantra' is borrowed from 'storygames' in concept if not exact wording. In fact that are several modern ideas of gaming promoted throughout the OSR and in Finch's Primer.

For full disclosure, I consider Matt a friend, so bias and all that.  The only factor I would add to the conversation which I'm not sure is already considered, is that Matt's primer was actually envisioning a specific sort of player and trying to speak to that player - someone who came into gaming in the 3E era and conceptually had limited understanding that the player was encouraged to do things not specifically granted by their character sheet.  And that the DM was also encouraged to not worry about whether there was in fact a mechanical system specifically designed to resolve the situation in question.  (Swords and Wizardry did include little touches to make itself more familiar to later-edition players.)

I don't think Matt even had the story games Pundit discusses on his mental radar.  Or that he expected it to speak to every gamer or describe the blind spots every player of later editions would inherently have.  He was just trying to write something that would address specific situations he had encountered DMing players new to OD&D style rule sets.  A lot of people have said that it did speak to them and help them conceptually according to his intent.  I suspect that if you ran into him and somehow in conversation it came out that you didn't really need what the primer discussed because you had learned those things playing story games (or anything else), he would be happy as a clam.

Quote from: Baulderstone;965933Here is the blog post (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html) where he defines Gygaxian naturalism. I don't think he builds a particularly compelling argument that what he is describing is all that Gygaxian in nature. But hey, attaching "Gygaxian" to something makes it sound more authentic.

Not Gygaxian, of course not.  I mean just look at all those RPG gameworlds that came before OD&D... :p

Jmal had a good point, but of course, can't help being a pretentious shitbird at the same time.

The killshot: "to remove it, is very likely to have the effect of creating a different game entirely -- certainly a different one that what has been called D&D for most of the game's existence." Wonder what he could have been referring to? :D

Quote from: Voros;965902Runequest was never out of print was it? Like CoC it is a game that has endured with more or less the same mechanics for decades.

Runequest was out of print for a good decade after third edition ('94 to 2006). CoC has a better track record in that regard. But I fail to see the relevance of that considering D&D has been in print with largely the same mechanics continuously for 40 years.

Quote from: Voros;965904The dirty secret of the OSR is that 'mantra' is borrowed from 'storygames' in concept if not exact wording. In fact that are several modern ideas of gaming promoted throughout the OSR and in Finch's Primer.

Is it a "modern" idea of gaming if the concept comes from the wargaming roots of the hobby and has been there all along?  Kind of hard to borrow something from someone that's been yours since before they were born, isn't it?

FWIW, I've noticed a marked difference in the classic modules I've been running and modern modules. The biggest difference is that, while you may have sequences of areas, the areas tend to be points of interest rather than sequences themselves, and the other thing is there's not a lot of effort to balance monster lairs in the sense of "A party of four should be able to murder their way through these rooms in a single day."

Quote from: Voros;965902Runequest was never out of print was it? Like CoC it is a game that has endured with more or less the same mechanics for decades.

Runequest in the form of Basic Roleplaying never been out of print. However the Glorantha setting was return to Greg Stafford who did his own thing with it separate with Chaosium until recently.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965950Not Gygaxian, of course not.  I mean just look at all those RPG gameworlds that came before OD&D... :p

That wasn't what I said at all. I just find it reductive to label Gygax's style as Gygaxian naturalism.

Quote from: estar;966000Runequest in the form of Basic Roleplaying never been out of print. However the Glorantha setting was return to Greg Stafford who did his own thing with it separate with Chaosium until recently.

You really can't consider Call of Cthulhu to be RuneQuest though. There underlying systems that are the same, but there are significant mechanical differences there. I started with Call of Cthulhu, and picked up RuneQuest thinking it would have the same degree of lightness, and I was very wrong. You can have the same core skill system and still build very different games on top of them.

Even within RuneQuest, you are going to find significant issues with conversion. You can't just pick up an RQ2 adventure and run it with RQ6/Mythras.

Quote from: Baulderstone;966005You really can't consider Call of Cthulhu to be RuneQuest though. There underlying systems that are the same, but there are significant mechanical differences there. I started with Call of Cthulhu, and picked up RuneQuest thinking it would have the same degree of lightness, and I was very wrong. You can have the same core skill system and still build very different games on top of them.

Basic Roleplaying has been a standalone product separate from Call of Cthulu and other Chaosium RPGs and has had support for the fantasy genre for a long time.

Quote from: Baulderstone;966005Even within RuneQuest, you are going to find significant issues with conversion. You can't just pick up an RQ2 adventure and run it with RQ6/Mythras.

Everybody realizes this. The point is that the fans of Basic Roleplaying in all its forms has enjoyed unbroken support from the parent company.

Hell, King Arthur Pendragon is a Basic Roleplaying derivative. It uses a d20 instead of d%, but the same character attributes, and the same basic mechanics, just at a coarser grain.

So, yes, BRP based games have been continually in print, but not always the same ones. CoC is probably the game that has changed least over the various editions, at least until the current one.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965343Well, if the following model is correct:

First people made content of Type A
Later they made content of Type B
Even Later they made content of Type C

Then once people started making Type C, that doesn't mean people can't or won't make Type A or Type B content.  "Wave" is just a Type, not a defined era or exclusive window.

Correct.

Quote from: estar;965346There was never a time when the retro-clones were the only game in town or the main focus.

In my experience, there certainly was a time when they (and adventures for those clones) were definitely the main focus. There was a time when all anyone talked about related to the OSR were the clones.

QuoteBy the time Stuart Marshall set off the Pundit with his crack about Forward the Adventure!, the OSR was well beyond any type of discernible wave than the the fact it was diversifying fast due to the use of open content.

Except it was very clear that even by that time, there was a sense that anything that wasn't "pure" enough was dismissed by the "in crowd" of the OSR-taliban.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965350Well, Pundit what do you consider the first Wave 3 OSR product and Estar, do you have examples of that type of product that occurred earlier?

Probably Red Tide.

Quote from: estar;965548Here are some of what I remember
Carcosa 2008

Drivel.

QuoteMutant Future 2008

Gamma World Clone

QuoteRuins & Ronin 2009

Oriental Adventures clone.

QuoteAge of Conan 2009

Haven't actually looked at this one, so I can't judge.

QuoteMajestic Wilderlands 2009

2nd Wave. Very interesting new classes and rules, but entirely superficial coverage of the setting (because of course the setting itself is an old-school product).

QuoteWarriors of Mars 2010

I had to look this one up. All I found was what's allegedly a TSR miniatures wargame from 1974?

QuoteStars without Number 2011

2nd Wave. Not actually a clone, as such, but set up as OD&D in space, with all the focus on rules. Setting is almost entirely implicit.

Quote from: Baulderstone;965933. But hey, attaching "Gygaxian" to something makes it sound more authentic.

Appropriating Gygax's name as some kind of sacred call to his own utterly undeserved authority was Maliszewski's only play. He was a fraud and poison to the OSR.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966248

QuoteWarriors of Mars

I had to look this one up. All I found was what's allegedly a TSR miniatures wargame from 1974?

I think Estar meant Warriors of the Red Planet (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/171363/Warriors-of-the-Red-Planet). It is OD&D rebuilt as planetary romance -- and kind of neat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966246In my experience, there certainly was a time when they (and adventures for those clones) were definitely the main focus. There was a time when all anyone talked about related to the OSR were the clones.

Talked about sure, publishing stuff not so much.

Much of the attention focused on OSRIC in the beginning were focused on debates over its legality. Shortly after it release Clark Peterson of Necormancer Games made a very negative comment about it legality that fueled a widespread debate for a half of a year.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966246Except it was very clear that even by that time, there was a sense that anything that wasn't "pure" enough was dismissed by the "in crowd" of the OSR-taliban.

Nice story except other than Stuart Marshall levying a personal insult at your work, you have demonstrated any thing concrete that resulted from the fact one group liked to play, publish, and promote AD&D above all else. And your focus on OSR-taliban show your ignorance over the one attempt at having an organized effort within the OSR which was TARGA (https://traditionalgaming.wordpress.com/). Which promptly  fell apart (http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2014/06/remember-targa.html) over how "kids friendly" the OSR should be.

As "dramatic" as it all sounds TARGA, OSRIC, or any other type of clone never had a chance of exerting any type of creative control. As due to the use of open content and digital distribution there is no lever one can move to prevent wide spread distribution of one's work.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;966279I think Estar meant Warriors of the Red Planet (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/171363/Warriors-of-the-Red-Planet). It is OD&D rebuilt as planetary romance -- and kind of neat.

No this by Jason Vey (http://www.grey-elf.com/barsoom.pdf) what I was talking about.

Red Planet was in active development early on. I thought planetary romance would be the next big thing around 2009 and 2010. But it took a while before it was released and I quickly released the big thing was everybody doing everything one can do with classic D&D mechanics. Afterwards I quit trying to predict where the OSR will go.

Oh, my! I wonder how Jason Vey gets away with that cover? Pretty sure he doesn't have permission from the Frazetta estate to use that painting..., Or Hasbro to use the TSR logo and Dungeons&Dragons trade dress.

If you really want Planetary Romance check out Marcus Roland's "Forgotten Futures"  or Under the Moons of Zoon which is more than just another Barsoom clone. Zoon actually feels like an old school RPG from back in the 70s.

Quote from: DavetheLost;966452Oh, my! I wonder how Jason Vey gets away with that cover? Pretty sure he doesn't have permission from the Frazetta estate to use that painting..., Or Hasbro to use the TSR logo and Dungeons&Dragons trade dress.

Probably flies under Wizards's radar notice it presented as a fan download rather something he trying to sell. Doesn't make a difference as far copyright goes. However it is representative of the interest in planetary romances around the time and not everything was clone this and clone that as Pundit makes it out to be.

Quote from: estar;966441No this by Jason Vey (http://www.grey-elf.com/barsoom.pdf) what I was talking about.

Red Planet was in active development early on. I thought planetary romance would be the next big thing around 2009 and 2010. But it took a while before it was released and I quickly released the big thing was everybody doing everything one can do with classic D&D mechanics. Afterwards I quit trying to predict where the OSR will go.

Thanks for the info on the game! That Honor system looks keen.

I did snag a copy of this supplement. I do love me some Barsoom.

Regardless, it was so influential that no one on this thread except Estar ever heard of it.

In reference to the thread title, I guess everybody "forgot" about it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;966855Regardless, it was so influential that no one on this thread except Estar ever heard of it.

Jason Vey is the author of Spellcraft and Swordplay a Silver seller on both OBS sites. The webpage where he hosts Warriors of Mars has a number of well known OSR resources. Now well known in the OSR is a relative term. Anything specific to the OSR is in inherently obscure to the larger hobby. Majestic Wilderlands is an electrum seller on RPGNow putting it in the top 2% of sales and it is obscure.

So the fact that you and other in this thread haven't heard of it or Jason Vey isn't surprising. But it had it day day being discussed and then it faded away. To get a handle on it impact you will have to ask Jason what his download numbers are.

I'm not certain that download numbers would provide an accurate measure of impact.  I have more than a few RPG files that I have downloaded and never read, much less played. I also have a non-zero number of print RPG products that fall in that category.

So there were sales, and downloads that had no impact on my gaming. I would be shocked if I were the only one who has done this.

Quote from: DavetheLost;966898I'm not certain that download numbers would provide an accurate measure of impact.  I have more than a few RPG files that I have downloaded and never read, much less played. I also have a non-zero number of print RPG products that fall in that category.

So there were sales, and downloads that had no impact on my gaming. I would be shocked if I were the only one who has done this.

Sure, but it not nothing either. There is a point where you have to say through all the smoke there a fire somewhere. For example My How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox blog post has 90,000 pages view, combined with the reddit posts, forums posts, and comments i get through email occasionally I know people are using it.

My Blackmarsh has over 7,000 downloads and there is not a day goes by on a OBS storefront where a least one person doesn't download it. I am sure many of them are just like you said, look at it once and that it. From from talking to other OSR author with free products, those numbers are not typical. Again the occasional comments and emails I get leads me to think people are using it.

So if Jason said "yeah there is only a couple hundred of downloads" since 2010 that indicative of it didn't get very far. But if he said 10,000 download well that something different. Not earth shattering but not nothing either.

Also keep in my point in my debate with the Pundit is that from the get go there were no wave, no discernible pattern other than leveraging digital content and open content to play, promote, and publisher for classic editions. That a lot of other things got roped in because they interested an author who had a lot of view or sales within the OSR.

That while it picked up steam with the release of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy, there were people producing a variety of classic edition material mostly as fan material. With OSRIC and Basic Fantasy there was aha moment and it started shifting to commercial releases on Lulu and RPGnow/DriveThruRPG. The fan material got better as people started to do more knowing what was covered by the use of open content and what wasn't.

I brought Jason Vey as somebody who was trying to do something different than yet another medieval fantasy clone of D&D (although he wrote one of those as well). He not one of the most popular authors, just a guy who did solid work good enough to get him up to the silver sales level on the OBS store front. Which by the way is the same level most of Pundit's works are at.

If you notice i keep relying with specific, Pundit shoots down without offering counter examples of his own. When I bring stuff like Hoards and Hordes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0) where a guy when it out of his way to document the various releases with links. It ignored in favor of the idea it was all about the retro-clone when Fullerton's spreadsheet clearly show even when you limited it to what he call Gygaxian D&D the number of rulesets are dwarfed by the all the other projects people released. There are 1,500 items in that list most with links to their original sites.

So I am not buying what Pundit is selling when he claims there were waves or there is a OSR taliban that controlled what was published in the mid 2000s. Especially for the later when it documented that his vitriol didn't occur until after Stuart Marshall insulted Pundit's work with Forward to Adventure!

I am probably going a bit overboard. I am passionate about open content and the use of digital technology to enable anybody who is interested to get their work out there. While I have my interests, if somebody wants tip to write an adventure that uses AD&D 'as is' I am willing to give some tips. The same if somebody wants to mash up OD&D, Cthulu, with massive Rolemaster crit tables.

I do agree with you that it is the combination of legally open source material and digital publishing are what has made the OSR possible.

I know the arguments that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, only specific written expressions, but few if any small time RPG writers have the resources or desire to be the test case in court... The OGL and Creative Commons, etc, make it very easy to know what you are allowed to use as a basis for your own work, and it is easier to do that than creating ex nihil.

Once the d20 SRD was released under the OGL the genie was well and truly out of the bottle.

Quote from: estar;966440Nice story except other than Stuart Marshall levying a personal insult at your work,

Quote from: estar;966914Especially for the later when it documented that his vitriol didn't occur until after Stuart Marshall insulted Pundit's work with Forward to Adventure!

Where did that happen?
Apparently my Google-fu is weak...

Quote from: Voros;965904The dirty secret of the OSR is that 'mantra' is borrowed from 'storygames' in concept if not exact wording. In fact that are several modern ideas of gaming promoted throughout the OSR and in Finch's Primer.

Ok, I'll bite.

What storygame is built around the concept of 'rulings not rules'?

Most storygames try to have explicit (even if light) rules that ought to be followed, and claim that following those rules will produce a specific, ideal 'story' as a result.
A GM doing a ruling is antithetical to this. (Provided the game even has a GM...)

Oft-cited criticism (especially on this site) against storygames is that the GM is stripped of authority, including his capability to make a ruling.

Actually that 'storygames' are crafted to create railroady stories is a misnomer. At least if one defines Apocaplypse World, Monsterhearts, Spirit of 77' and all its offspring/hacks as 'storygames.' The entire system is based on very loose rules that are only to be used when needed to resolve something in the game but never bog down the game itself. This idea is so omnipresent in 'Indy' games, Vince Baker didn't invent it but he has done a lot to promote it.

The GM doesn't craft a 'story' with a beginning, middle, end they present the players with a situation and PCs make decisions that drive the game forward and may or may not create what we consider a story. The idea is 'you're this character, in this setting, here's a conflict, what do you do?' and go from there. Nothing more radical than what you see in an improv D&D session, in fact the entire playstyle was probably inspired from those kind of sessions.

A lot of criticism of storygames are against phantom strawmen instead of any actual system of rules. Actually read Baker's ideas in AW and you'll see the common criticisms have nothing to do with what he actually says. A GM in a PbtA game has lots of 'authority' in some ways greater than in D&D, they're just supposed to share it with the players by letting them make decisons, which is pretty much what happens in many idealized sandboxy D&D games. The difference most often is that D&D is location based whereas PbtA games are situation based. And that's not even true in games like DW or Freebooters of the Frontier.

Quote from: Voros;967501Actually that 'storygames' are crafted to create railroady stories is a misnomer. At least if one defines Apocaplypse World, Monsterhearts, Spirit of 77' and all its offspring/hacks as 'storygames.' The entire system is based on very loose rules that are only to be used when needed to resolve something in the game but never bog down the game itself. This idea is so omnipresent in 'Indy' games, Vince Baker didn't invent it but he has done a lot to promote it.

The GM doesn't craft a 'story' with a beginning, middle, end they present the players with a situation and PCs make decisions that drive the game forward and may or may not create what we consider a story. The idea is 'you're this character, in this setting, here's a conflict, what do you do?' and go from there. Nothing more radical than what you see in an improv D&D session, in fact the entire playstyle was probably inspired from those kind of sessions.

A lot of criticism of storygames are against phantom strawmen instead of any actual system of rules. Actually read Baker's ideas in AW and you'll see the common criticisms have nothing to do with what he actually says. A GM in a PbtA game has lots of 'authority' in some ways greater than in D&D, they're just supposed to share it with the players by letting them make decisions, which is pretty much what happens in many idealized sandboxy D&D games. The difference most often is that D&D is location based whereas PbtA games are situation based. And that's not even true in games like DW or Freebooters of the Frontier.

The Storygame/Role Playing game divide (or perceived divide) still puzzles me. It seems to clump allot of dissimilar games together, particular on the "story game" side. Much of the negative opinion seems directed at games like Fiasco, Slasher Flick and others that are more collective story creation driven as opposed to the Apoc  and Cortex games which aside from some different focus and way of handling things are pretty much like more 'traditional' games.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;967497Where did that happen?
Apparently my Google-fu is weak...

Neener, neener (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck/page17&p=282499#post282499).

There are actually a bunch of threads where Pundejo rails against the OSR and gets shit for it because everyone knew it was just him lashing out that FtA! was filed under 'games no one cares about.'

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967556Neener, neener (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck/page17&p=282499#post282499).

There are actually a bunch of threads where Pundejo rails against the OSR and gets shit for it because everyone knew it was just him lashing out that FtA! was filed under 'games no one cares about.'

Thank Black Vulmea. And it when downhill from there.  Pundit being offended and argumentative is reasonable. Ranting about the OSR Taliban for eight years is and making up a inaccurate story about how the OSR was back in the beginning is not.

Crom's hairy nutsack, if I'd never played Original D&D all the OSR threads in this dump would chase me away from it, just from the sheer shitstorm every one turns into.

Elf games is SEERIOUS BIDNEZZ!!!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;967570Crom's hairy nutsack, if I'd never played Original D&D all the OSR threads in this dump would chase me away from it, just from the sheer shitstorm every one turns into.

Elf games is SEERIOUS BIDNEZZ!!!

Yep. Welcome to gaming here on the Internet in the 21st century. Where's my flying car?

You dern kids, get off my lawn!

Quote from: Nexus;967547The Storygame/Role Playing game divide (or perceived divide) still puzzles me. It seems to clump allot of dissimilar games together, particular on the "story game" side. Much of the negative opinion seems directed at games like Fiasco, Slasher Flick and others that are more collective story creation driven as opposed to the Apoc  and Cortex games which aside from some different focus and way of handling things are pretty much like more 'traditional' games.

Yeah I just read that Clinton Nixon may have coined the term but a lot of dis-similar games are definitely dumped under the title. Fiasco and Meg Baker's 1001 Nights probably come close to what people mean when they say 'storygames' but neither of those, particularly 1001 Nights, fit any meaningful defintion of 'railroad.' Unless that Fiasco must end in disaster is considered a railroad which I don't think it is anymore tham CoC's design driving your PCs to death and madness is a railroad.

Quote from: Voros;967613Yeah I just read that Cynthia Nixon may have coined the term but a lot of dis-similar games are definitely dumped under the title. Fiasco and Meg Baker's 1001 Nights probably come close to what people mean when they say 'storygames' but neither of those, particularly 1001 Nights, fit any meaningful defintion of 'railroad.' Unless that Fiasco must end in disaster is considered a railroad which I don't think it is anymore tham CoC's design driving your PCs to death and madness is a railroad.

Yeah, that's the funniest thing about people's view of "storygames".  If you have a type of game where the players go OOC to gain more control over the narrative of their characters than strictly from an IC perspective, that by definition, makes a railroad GM and playstyle absolutely anathema to them.

Quote from: Voros;967613Yeah I just read that Cynthia Nixon may have coined the term but a lot of dis-similar games are definitely dumped under the title. Fiasco and Meg Baker's 1001 Nights probably come close to what people mean when they say 'storygames' but neither of those, particularly 1001 Nights, fit any meaningful defintion of 'railroad.' Unless that Fiasco must end in disaster is considered a railroad which I don't think it is anymore tham CoC's design driving your PCs to death and madness is a railroad.

Thing is, some people do. The definition of "railroad" has suffered as much drift as any other where some call any game that isn't 100% free wheeling sandbox free of any premise including genre a "railroad" at the extreme end while some define railroad as a strictly in play situation where the players choices are either or don't actually matter. Some don't think of it a pejorative And I'm sure many others. It can make discussions about this subject difficult particularly with how passionate some of are about the subject.

Cynthia Nixon?!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1046[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967556Neener, neener (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck/page17&p=282499#post282499).

There are actually a bunch of threads where Pundejo rails against the OSR and gets shit for it because everyone knew it was just him lashing out that FtA! was filed under 'games no one cares about.'

Just when you think the grogs can't get any "groggier" then surprise you yet again.

What the actual fuck was that?

Quote from: Willmark;967800Just when you think the grogs can't get any "groggier" then surprise you yet again.

What the actual fuck was that?

What it says on the tin. Since that exchange, Pundit started railing against the OSR Taliban.

What is the "OSR Taliban"?

Quote from: Nexus;967842What is the "OSR Taliban"?

They are the ones that shot that little girl in the head just because she wanted to go to a school that taught 5th Edition.

Quote from: Nexus;967842What is the "OSR Taliban"?

   I'm not entirely sure, given Pundit's ... idiosyncratic approaches and definitions, but based on his behavior, I'm pretty sure it includes James Maliszewski. ;)

   (Grognardia put me off the OSR, but I actually do own one of JMal's books ... BESM Space Fantasy. :) Turns out he contributed to the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook for Star Wars d20 as well.)

Quote from: Nexus;967842What is the "OSR Taliban"?

Something just as real as the Illuminati.

Quote from: Nexus;967842What is the "OSR Taliban"?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;967844I'm not entirely sure, given Pundit's ... idiosyncratic approaches and definitions, but based on his behavior, I'm pretty sure it includes James Maliszewski. ;)

   (Grognardia put me off the OSR, but I actually do own one of JMal's books ... BESM Space Fantasy. :) Turns out he contributed to the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook for Star Wars d20 as well.)

We've got a thread going on that right now. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37059-How-Some-Factions-of-the-OSR-Actually-Erase-the-Past-They-Claim-to-Treasure/page1) So far we have personal beefs combined with random people no one can name or point to leading to a idiotically overblown stereotype that doesn't actually exist outside of Jmal.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967851We've got a thread going on that right now. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37059-How-Some-Factions-of-the-OSR-Actually-Erase-the-Past-They-Claim-to-Treasure/page1) So far we have personal beefs combined with random people no one can name or point to leading to a idiotically overblown stereotype that doesn't actually exist outside of Jmal.

  Well, part of my point was that the Pundit seems to have an irrational animus against Maliszewski. But perhaps the OSR Taliban doesn't exist, at least not any more, and the things that gave people the impression it did were a combination of converts' initial zeal, the general harshness of ephemeral forum discussions, and the hostility of the Edition Wars (2007-2015).

Fortunately for me I don't frequent Grognardia, and am not at all sure I have any of Maliszewski's works.

My sanity seems the better for it.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;967855Well, part of my point was that the Pundit seems to have an irrational animus against Maliszewski. But perhaps the OSR Taliban doesn't exist, at least not any more, and the things that gave people the impression it did were a combination of converts' initial zeal, the general harshness of ephemeral forum discussions, and the hostility of the Edition Wars (2007-2015).

It still exists as a stereotype, as a mythical strawman one can trot out to demonize and criticize a whole group of people who do not meet the definition.  Look at  the Appendix N thread.  Supposedly, there's this group of people out there who "worship" Appendix N like it's their Holy Text, or subject it to "Talmudic" study, like they are you or Gronan, who actually have spent years studying real Holy Texts as an academic and spiritual endeavor.  The idea is idiotic and ludicrous on its face.

But "we all know people like that are out there ;)" - bullshit.  There's no one like that out there.  Jmal hasn't made a Grognardia post for five years, and even when he was, he was challenged on his own blog.

If I started calling BoxCrayonTales or FVB a "Narrative Nazi" or Jay Little the "Forgian KKK Grand Wizard" people would look at me like I was nuts, and they'd be right, because it's crazytalk.  Yet someone says "OSR Taliban" and people just say "Oh yeah, one of those" as if those people actually exist.

The only one treating the term with the level of absolute mockery it deserves is Baulderstone.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967556Neener, neener (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?13342-Old-school-Rocks-Retro-clones-Suck/page17&p=282499#post282499).

There are actually a bunch of threads where Pundejo rails against the OSR and gets shit for it because everyone knew it was just him lashing out that FtA! was filed under 'games no one cares about.'

Quote from: estar;967568Thank Black Vulmea. And it when downhill from there.  Pundit being offended and argumentative is reasonable. Ranting about the OSR Taliban for eight years is and making up a inaccurate story about how the OSR was back in the beginning is not.

And are take away is supposed to be what exactly???? other then there's A bunch of people in that thread that don't really post here any more I assume cuz they lack the guts to put up with pun pun.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967858The only one treating the term with the level of absolute mockery it deserves is Baulderstone.

Fair enough. You've convinced me that despite some scattered intemperate statements in the past, the 'OSR Taliban' is essentially the mirror image of 'the Swine.'

Quote from: estar;967839What it says on the tin. Since that exchange, Pundit started railing against the OSR Taliban.

Pundit really needs to learn to let things go...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;967881Pundit really needs to learn to let things go...

Hey look something we can agree on!

Quote from: Dumarest;967759Cynthia Nixon?!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1046[/ATTACH]

Haha I meant Clinton Nixon.

Quote from: kosmos1214;967867And are take away is supposed to be what exactly???? other then there's A bunch of people in that thread that don't really post here any more I assume cuz they lack the guts to put up with pun pun.

That in this regard Pundit doesn't know what he is talking about.  There are other far more plausible reasons for the craziness that is the OSR and where it going i.e. open content and low barrier enabled by digital technology.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967851We've got a thread going on that right now. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37059-How-Some-Factions-of-the-OSR-Actually-Erase-the-Past-They-Claim-to-Treasure/page1) So far we have personal beefs combined with random people no one can name or point to leading to a idiotically overblown stereotype that doesn't actually exist outside of Jmal.

I think most of us have been avoiding names to prevent too much internet drama but since you insist: T. Foster, the dude who stepped out of a time machine to proclaim B/X a 'watered down version for kids' lol, Oakes Spaulding, AxeMental, Landifarne, Francisca, T. Foster, DungeonDelver, Gene Weigel who pretended to know everything ever about the beginnings of the game and TSR cause he hung out with Gygax POST-TSR until he was exposed for the compulsive bullshitter he was by an actual TSR employee.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967858Supposedly, there's this group of people out there who "worship" Appendix N like it's their Holy Text, or subject it to "Talmudic" study, like they are you or Gronan, who actually have spent years studying real Holy Texts as an academic and spiritual endeavor.  The idea is idiotic and ludicrous on its face.

Except we have a far-right blogger who has treated Appendix N to exactly that kind of rambling 'talmudic' reading and just published it as a book: Jeffro Johnson.

Quote from: Voros;967895I think most of us have been avoiding names to prevent too much internet drama but since you insist: T. Foster, the dude who stepped out of a time machine to proclaim B/X a 'watered down version for kids' lol, Oakes Spaulding, AxeMental, Landifarne, Francisca, T. Foster, DungeonDelver, Gene Weigel who pretended to know everything ever about the beginnings of the game and TSR cause he hung out with Gygax POST-TSR until he was exposed for the compulsive bullshitter he was by an actual TSR employee.

Tying this back to what Pundit is contending. What impact they had on the growth and content of the OSR i.e people, playing, publishing, and promoting classic edition of D&D?

Well exactly, I've said their impact is probably minimal. Although Landifarne 'questioning the integrity' of reviewers like Bryan Lynch and Gus L. arguably could have an impact as all libel can. Weigel oddly is still treated like an authority by some on DF.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;965923As far as Gygaxian naturalism is concerned, I may be mistaken but it appears to be more concerned with letting play produce results organically rather than nudging things in the direction of a particular narrative. D&D never has had a sensible ecology. With monsters based on plastic toys roaming around at random, a "normal" ecology isn't even a consideration.

AIR Gygaxian Naturalism was about running with the implications of monster descriptions in the Monster Manual. Eg that orcs have families and societies, they aren't House on the Borderland unknowable pig-man horrors. That lamiae and harpies and sphinxes and manticores and medusae and countless other critters are biological entities that feed, reproduce etc, rather than physically incorporated spirits/petty gods/one-off monsters as you would tend to see in mythology. That the world runs along naturalistic principles, not mythic principles (unlike eg Runequest/Glorantha). Ironically it's the exact opposite of the 'Dungeon as Mythic Underworld' backstrapolation (an idea imposed by later writers using the non-expressed implications of the Dungeon/Underworld rules in OD&D).

I think JMal put much more thought into it than Gygax ever did. In my case his Talmudic studies were useful though, they helped me identify what I always thought was wrong with all those "Ecology of the Manticore/Gelatinous Cube/etc" Silver Age articles in Dragon Magazine and reject 'Naturalism' wherever I felt it didn't fit with what I wanted. Likewise the opposite Mythic Underworld idea can be used or rejected. In both cases I find having the concepts clarified does help my GMing, though.

Edit: Just reread JMal's Gygaxian Naturalism linked post at http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html , seems to fit my recollection.

Quote from: Voros;967896Except we have a far-right blogger who has treated Appendix N to exactly that kind of rambling 'talmudic' reading and just published it as a book: Jeffro Johnson.

Is he really 'far-right' BTW, or just a right-libertarian Castalia House type? As far as I can see there is a lot of clear blue water between Varg Vikernes and what I see on http://www.castaliahouse.com/ (I see he's the top post on their blog today) - Are you just using 'far right' to mean these anti-SJW types, which would seem to pretty much cover RPGPundit too? Or is he a National Socialist racial purity type?

Quote from: Voros;967896Except we have a far-right blogger who has treated Appendix N to exactly that kind of rambling 'talmudic' reading and just published it as a book: Jeffro Johnson.

I had never heard of Jeffro before and was thinking about picking up that Appendix N book just due to the subject matter, but man... he runs in some pretty creepazoid circles.

Thanks for warning me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967851We've got a thread going on that right now. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37059-How-Some-Factions-of-the-OSR-Actually-Erase-the-Past-They-Claim-to-Treasure/page1) So far we have personal beefs combined with random people no one can name or point to leading to a idiotically overblown stereotype that doesn't actually exist outside of Jmal.

It's like a mean girls convention where mean girls complain about other mean girls.

Quote from: Voros;967885Haha I meant Clinton Nixon.

Darn.

Quote from: S'mon;967915AIR Gygaxian Naturalism was about running with the implications of monster descriptions in the Monster Manual. Eg that orcs have families and societies, they aren't House on the Borderland unknowable pig-man horrors. That lamiae and harpies and sphinxes and manticores and medusae and countless other critters are biological entities that feed, reproduce etc, rather than physically incorporated spirits/petty gods/one-off monsters as you would tend to see in mythology. That the world runs along naturalistic principles, not mythic principles (unlike eg Runequest/Glorantha). Ironically it's the exact opposite of the 'Dungeon as Mythic Underworld' backstrapolation (an idea imposed by later writers using the non-expressed implications of the Dungeon/Underworld rules in OD&D).

I think JMal put much more thought into it than Gygax ever did. In my case his Talmudic studies were useful though, they helped me identify what I always thought was wrong with all those "Ecology of the Manticore/Gelatinous Cube/etc" Silver Age articles in Dragon Magazine and reject 'Naturalism' wherever I felt it didn't fit with what I wanted. Likewise the opposite Mythic Underworld idea can be used or rejected. In both cases I find having the concepts clarified does help my GMing, though.

Edit: Just reread JMal's Gygaxian Naturalism linked post at http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html , seems to fit my recollection.

Based on what I've read so far, it seems to me that a more accurate term than Gygaxian Naturalism would be Gygaxian Makeshitupasyougoism.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;967959Based on what I've read so far, it seems to me that a more accurate term than Gygaxian Naturalism would be Gygaxian Makeshitupasyougoism.

That's certainly closer to what Gygax was doing, and the style he advocated for (more or less). JMal 'Gygaxian Naturalism' is a result of Talmudic (well, really more Catholic Scholastic) study of the 1e Monster Manual as if it were a serious treatise.

Quote from: S'mon;967962That's certainly closer to what Gygax was doing, and the style he advocated for (more or less). JMal 'Gygaxian Naturalism' is a result of Talmudic (well, really more Catholic Scholastic) study of the 1e Monster Manual as if it were a serious treatise.

Spot on, and I would extend this observation as an accurate description of the root of all brouhahas sprouting up on forums (and otherwise) everywhere, concerning our silly elf games.

Quote from: Dumarest;967850Something just as real as the Illuminati.

Your Internets, sir.

Quote from: S'mon;967915In my case his Talmudic studies were useful though, they helped me identify what I always thought was wrong with all those "Ecology of the Manticore/Gelatinous Cube/etc" Silver Age articles in Dragon Magazine and reject 'Naturalism' wherever I felt it didn't fit with what I wanted.

I listened to a podcast where Gygaxian Naturalism came up as a topic. They kept going back to those "The Ecology of..." as the purist example. It bugged me as I couldn't recall Gygax ever having written any or anything particularly like them. The concept of naturalism vs. a mythic feel is useful to consider when starting a campaign. It just bugs me that Gygax's name gets attached to the naturalism side when his approach is more varied.

There's this foolish tendency in geekdom to treat our favorite fiction as though it came into being the way reality does, as the outworking of self-consistent fundamental laws. The laws of physics don't get revised for game balance, we can't retcon the 15th century to leave Anatolia unconquered by the Turks, and we can't add an interesting backstory for some random gewgaw that we later decided should be central to the plot.

It's pretty obvious as you read D&D stuff in historical order that people were throwing shit together and making it up as they went along. Somewhere in there, Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson or someone decided to have the players fight a chimera and statted it up for game night, and then probably Gary decided to throw it on a random table to have the chance of wandering into one, and then he probably figured it would be neat if when you rolled one up, you put it in a lair or whatever, and somehow all that got smushed together in the AD&D books.

If you play D&D like that, throwing shit together that seems fun and writing stuff up as it emerges, you're probably getting closer to the gaming world of the 1970s than you are by spending a few weeks doing scholastic exegesis of a book of pretend monsters with an amateurish painting on the front.

By George, I think he's got it!

And a lot of the ideas that became rules were hatched in the course of a bunch of friends bullshitting about stuff for the game, some of which Dave or Gary liked enough to write down later.

Quote from: Voros;967895I think most of us have been avoiding names to prevent too much internet drama but since you insist: T. Foster, the dude who stepped out of a time machine to proclaim B/X a 'watered down version for kids' lol

Here's Tom Moldvay, editor of the 1981 D&D Basic Set, talking about it in Dragon #52 (August 1981):

Quotethe market has changed since the earlier rules edition. The first D&D market was made up of game buffs and college students. Today, the majority of D&D players are high-school and junior-high students. The new rules edition takes into account the younger readership in its style of writing.

Well, one thing I think people need to get a grip on is that identifying elements of Appendix N fiction as the source of certain D&D assumptions is NOT...
1. Declaring these texts to be the only influence.
2. Declaring that playing a certain way is Right or Wrong.
3. Worshipping those texts or Gary Gygax in any way, shape or form.
4. Saying that if you've never read them, you can't possibly understand D&D.

I'm not saying Jmal, Jeffro or whoever else didn't say these things.  I'm saying that looking up an author's influences to see to what extent they influenced their works is hardly rare, in fact it's pretty standard...except if it's Gygax and Appendix N, in which case you're automatically this obsessed One True Wayist.

Gimme a fucking break.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968010Gimme a fucking break.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1055[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Dumarest;968012[ATTACH=CONFIG]1055[/ATTACH]

Shh! Pundit will hear you and post links to weird articles.

Quote from: Krimson;968014Shh! Pundit will hear you and post links to weird articles.

Heaven forfend! I don't think I can take another article about "real magick."

Quote from: CRKrueger;9680102. Declaring that playing a certain way is Right or Wrong.

I'm a believer in understanding how Gygax ran his tables.  But a big part of that is understanding how the rules evolved around that style of gameplay so that you can - get this - be better informed about which rules should be changed or removed if you're *not* playing that way.

Quote from: robiswrong;968030I'm a believer in understanding how Gygax ran his tables.  But a big part of that is understanding how the rules evolved around that style of gameplay so that you can - get this - be better informed about which rules should be changed or removed if you're *not* playing that way.

In my considered opinion after reading everything I could get my hands on, is that what it all boils down to play like folks did back in the late 60s and early 70s is to simply define the setting and what you want to focus on. Then come up with the rules to make that happen. For example "I want to refight the Battle of Waterloo", "Let run a bunch of Gladiatorial Ludus and compete against each other." "OK lets have a German town in the middle of the Napoleonic War with a bunch of factions with their own agenda." "OK lets pretended to be fighter or wizards in a fantasy setting with a bunch of things going on including an invasion of some bad guys".

I get why people love to know the specifics of the rules they used back in the day but I think that focus is missing the point if you really desire to recreate the experience. Gronan pegged it with "We made up some shit that we thought was fun."

Quote from: estar;968038...if you really desire to recreate the experience.

It's fruitless to try. It's interesting to read about what it was like in those days, but you really can't recreate an experience like that. You know too much and can't approach it with the same naïveté and freshness as someone making it up as he goes. It's like the mid-90s "Cool Britannia" and "Britpop" fad trying to recreate to Swinging London and Beatlemania.

Quote from: T. Foster;968008Here's Tom Moldvay, editor of the 1981 D&D Basic Set, talking about it in Dragon #52 (August 1981):

The article in question lists four goals on the new edition, and simpler language was just the third one. Simpler language doesn't automatically suggest a dumbed-down game. The other goals were to create a more organized book for people new to gaming as well as to take into account years of playtesting and answering questions. The other goal was to provide a set that would smoothly lead into the expert rules.

Simpler language in a rule books seems an admirable goal to me and not a sign of dumbing something down.

Quote from: Dumarest;968041It's fruitless to try. It's interesting to read about what it was like in those days, but you really can't recreate an experience like that. You know too much and can't approach it with the same naïveté and freshness as someone making it up as he goes. It's like the mid-90s "Cool Britannia" and "Britpop" fad trying to recreate to Swinging London and Beatlemania.

I think Estar's point was that rather than trying to bend your game to do what Gary wanted to do with it, you should bend rules to do what you want out of a game. It's hard to get freshness is you are trying to rebuild Castle Greyhawk in exacting detail, but you can get a fresh result if you just work with whatever literary and cinematic obsessions you have bubbling in your head at the moment.

Quote from: S'mon;967962That's certainly closer to what Gygax was doing, and the style he advocated for (more or less). JMal 'Gygaxian Naturalism' is a result of Talmudic (well, really more Catholic Scholastic) study of the 1e Monster Manual as if it were a serious treatise.

   Hmm...got any good examples? I don't know much about Gygaxian Naturalism, but I do know Scholasticism. :) The OSR is actually like the Renaissance or the Reformation in its emphasis on 'back to the sources'.

   Personally, I think if you want to get the equivalent to Scholasticism in an RPG, you go to the HERO System, but I may be biased. :)

Quote from: Baulderstone;968047I think Estar's point was that rather than trying to bend your game to do what Gary wanted to do with it, you should bend rules to do what you want out of a game. It's hard to get freshness is you are trying to rebuild Castle Greyhawk in exacting detail, but you can get a fresh result if you just work with whatever literary and cinematic obsessions you have bubbling in your head at the moment.

Yup pretty much this but applied more generally. Define what it is you want to focus on for your campaign first, then figure out the rules second.

I will add that if one has a favorite set of rules by all means use it as the base to make a campaign happen. But it still campaign first, rules second.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;968048Personally, I think if you want to get the equivalent to Scholasticism in an RPG, you go to the HERO System...

Is that fancy talk for falling asleep at your desk?

Quote from: Baulderstone;968047I think Estar's point was that rather than trying to bend your game to do what Gary wanted to do with it, you should bend rules to do what you want out of a game. It's hard to get freshness is you are trying to rebuild Castle Greyhawk in exacting detail, but you can get a fresh result if you just work with whatever literary and cinematic obsessions you have bubbling in your head at the moment.

That may have been what he meant but it's not what he wrote. ;)

Quote from: Baulderstone;968043The article in question lists four goals on the new edition, and simpler language was just the third one. Simpler language doesn't automatically suggest a dumbed-down game. The other goals were to create a more organized book for people new to gaming as well as to take into account years of playtesting and answering questions. The other goal was to provide a set that would smoothly lead into the expert rules.

Simpler language in a rule books seems an admirable goal to me and not a sign of dumbing something down.

Simplifying the game to be more appealing and comprehensible to younger audiences wasn't the only goal of the revision (I never claimed otherwise), but it was absolutely a goal. So me referring to B/X D&D as "the watered-down version for kids" (and note also that I said "watered-down," which isn't the same thing as "dumbed-down") doesn't tell the whole story, but the part of the story it does tell is unquestionably true.

Also, why should anybody care what I - somebody you don't know, and will almost certainly never meet - think of the version of D&D you choose to play? What possible harm does it do you that I don't really like your favorite version? This quote has turned up several times in the past couple months as "proof" that I'm some kind of spite-filled monster out to ruin everybody else's fun and the literal poster-child of everything wrong with 1E AD&D fans, which is just utterly bizarre to me. Yeah, I like my preferred version better than your preferred version. So fucking what?

Quote from: T. Foster;968057I like my preferred version better than your preferred version. So fucking what?

Everybody has to like exactly what I like. If they don't, then I have to start calling them names and distorting their statements to mean what I want them to mean. That's the first two rules of debating RPGs online. :D

Quote from: Baulderstone;968047I think Estar's point was that rather than trying to bend your game to do what Gary wanted to do with it, you should bend rules to do what you want out of a game. It's hard to get freshness is you are trying to rebuild Castle Greyhawk in exacting detail, but you can get a fresh result if you just work with whatever literary and cinematic obsessions you have bubbling in your head at the moment.

The problem is that runs counter to what a lot of the OSR books I've picked up claim.  They seem to believe you can some how catch the lightning in the bottle.  But as was stated, the game has evolved, we know more, too much, to make it happen like was.

Quote from: T. Foster;968057Yeah, I like my preferred version better than your preferred version. So fucking what?

Then you couldn't have threads or even games like these.  And where's the fun in that?  I think that's the point?  I don't get it.  It's all D&D in the end, right?  And I'll repeat myself:  This is what everyone forgets about this OSR, it's just D&D.  Have fun your way, that's what's most important.

Quote from: T. Foster;968057Simplifying the game to be more appealing and comprehensible to younger audiences wasn't the only goal of the revision (I never claimed otherwise), but it was absolutely a goal. So me referring to B/X D&D as "the watered-down version for kids" (and note also that I said "watered-down," which isn't the same thing as "dumbed-down") doesn't tell the whole story, but the part of the story it does tell is unquestionably true.

Also, why should anybody care what I - somebody you don't know, and will almost certainly never meet - think of the version of D&D you choose to play? What possible harm does it do you that I don't really like your favorite version? This quote has turned up several times in the past couple months as "proof" that I'm some kind of spite-filled monster out to ruin everybody else's fun and the literal poster-child of everything wrong with 1E AD&D fans, which is just utterly bizarre to me. Yeah, I like my preferred version better than your preferred version. So fucking what?

You are welcome not to like B/X. I thought we were just having a conversation about games in a game forum. You said you thing. I said mine. I'm not in the least bit mad at you.

I can understand you being pissed off if this quote is following you around the Internet, but it wasn't my intention to pile on. I'm not really an AD&D hater either. I like using B/X just because it is simple base that I can use with various house rules and things taken from AD&D.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968070You are welcome not to like B/X. I thought we were just having a conversation about games in a game forum. You said you thing. I said mine. I'm not in the least bit mad at you.

I can understand you being pissed off if this quote is following you around the Internet, but it wasn't my intention to pile on. I'm not really an AD&D hater either. I like using B/X just because it is simple base that I can use with various house rules and things taken from AD&D.

OK, we're cool then. And yeah, it's very weird and annoying to me that something I wrote literally as a parenthetical aside (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?p=228355#p228355) in a post about something else has now been brought up several times in several different places, always by people I've had no prior interaction with, as proof that I'm the embodiment of the "OSR Taliban" or - as somebody on another site wrote (http://ruinsofmurkhill.proboards.com/post/14642/thread) - that I'm "consumed with hate," "sad and pathetic," "one of the worst," "ignorant and hate filled," "the self-proclaimed expert and gatekeeper of what old school is," etc.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;968048Hmm...got any good examples? I don't know much about Gygaxian Naturalism, but I do know Scholasticism. :) The OSR is actually like the Renaissance or the Reformation in its emphasis on 'back to the sources'.

   Personally, I think if you want to get the equivalent to Scholasticism in an RPG, you go to the HERO System, but I may be biased. :)

Sorry, I was just poking at old JMal because (a) AFAIK he's a pretty devout Catholic (b) Talmudic to me implies more disputatious rather than JMal's "Pope of the OSR" pronouncements ex cathedra and (c) I think Scholasticism was quite influential in the Renaissance though that is heresy for Protestants such as myself. :D

Quote from: S'mon;968077Sorry, I was just poking at old JMal because (a) AFAIK he's a pretty devout Catholic

  True.

Quote(b) Talmudic to me implies more disputatious rather than JMal's "Pope of the OSR" pronouncements ex cathedra

   Pronouncements of dogma may be more Catholic, but Scholasticism is very disputatious. :)

Quoteand (c) I think Scholasticism was quite influential in the Renaissance though that is heresy for Protestants such as myself. :D

  It depends on how you define 'Renaissance' and 'Scholasticism', but generally, Renaissance Humanism and the Reformation are seen as in part reactions against Scholasticism.

Quote from: S'mon;967919Is he really 'far-right' BTW, or just a right-libertarian Castalia House type? As far as I can see there is a lot of clear blue water between Varg Vikernes and what I see on http://www.castaliahouse.com/ (I see he's the top post on their blog today) - Are you just using 'far right' to mean these anti-SJW types, which would seem to pretty much cover RPGPundit too? Or is he a National Socialist racial purity type?

Let's see if I can address this without derailing the thread. There's neo-Nazis POS like Varg and then extremist reactionaries like Johnson. One is beyond the pale whereas the other is a bit of a bore who projects his politics onto talented pulp writers like Brackett. I mentioned Johnson's politics because like a 50s Marxist he insists on dragging it into his analysis and oftentimes profoundly distorts the writers he discusses. That's judging from his blog posts but to his credit he does seem to occasionally put aside his own politics and discuss a subversive and overtly leftie writer like Margaret St Clair fairly. I just don't know if I want to slog through all the pop culture rambling and politicing for the occasional gem.

As to whether the Pundit is far right...

Quote from: T. Foster;968008Here's Tom Moldvay, editor of the 1981 D&D Basic Set, talking about it in Dragon #52 (August 1981):

Everyone knows that B/X and BECMI were developed for kids and newbies. You use that as a slur and claim it was 'watered down.' We all heard that disparagement back in the 80s but many now believe from experience at the table that there were significant advantages to the stripped down approach of those versions.  

And its not just in retrospect, Imagine magazine carried a review of the Red Box that praised its simplier rules and superior presentation for newbies.

Just because it was made simplier (or perhaps more accurately not made pointlessly complicated) and 'for kids' is no more a measure of quality than the fact that Through the Looking Glass and Treasure Island were written for children makes them inferior to The Da Vinci Code or 50 Shades of Gray.

You have a right to prefer AD&D but you don't have a right to shoot your mouth off on the net and not have people disagree with you. Seems like many on the net you can dish it out but not take it.

Quote from: robiswrong;968030I'm a believer in understanding how Gygax ran his tables.  But a big part of that is understanding how the rules evolved around that style of gameplay so that you can - get this - be better informed about which rules should be changed or removed if you're *not* playing that way.

Exactly.

The weirdass thing is that people assume Gygax's old rules don't work, rather than they are perfectly functional but for a different style of play.  Which baffles the fuck out of me.  Nobody writes rules that don't work, and especially nobody writes rules that don't work and then go from a standing start to a million dollar company in less than five years.

Assume that Gygax wasn't a complete moron, and assume that the rules work as intended.  You don't have to like that play style, but don't be an utter fuckwit.

Quote from: Voros;968091Just because it was made simplier and 'for kids' is no more a measure of quality than the fact that Through the Looking Glass and Treasure Island were written for children makes them inferior to The Da Vinci Code or 50 Shades of Gray.

Using the words "inferior to" before "The Da Vinci Code" and "Fifty Shades of Grey" must be some sort of oxymoron. And comparing those to "Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There" and "Treasure Island" is the literary equivalent of a hate crime or at least tantamount to treason.

Quote from: estar;967888That in this regard Pundit doesn't know what he is talking about.  There are other far more plausible reasons for the craziness that is the OSR and where it going i.e. open content and low barrier enabled by digital technology.

And if i thought this thread had started for any other reason then your need to show off your epenis I might even care.
(http://rs89.pbsrc.com/albums/k235/pyrachick/Avatars/Dark/6935761-2.gif~c200)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Nazriel7/Random/giveadamn.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/tJLfGmr.gif)

Quote from: robiswrong;968030I'm a believer in understanding how Gygax ran his tables.  But a big part of that is understanding how the rules evolved around that style of gameplay so that you can - get this - be better informed about which rules should be changed or removed if you're *not* playing that way.

Personally I find it interesting to listen to but don't care if I ever recapture that at my table what I care about is what works at my table.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968092Exactly.

The weirdass thing is that people assume Gygax's old rules don't work, rather than they are perfectly functional but for a different style of play.  Which baffles the fuck out of me.  Nobody writes rules that don't work, and especially nobody writes rules that don't work and then go from a standing start to a million dollar company in less than five years.

Assume that Gygax wasn't a complete moron, and assume that the rules work as intended.  You don't have to like that play style, but don't be an utter fuckwit.

I agree with you wholly on this he pretty much started are hobby as we know it single handed that means no mater what you think he did something right.

Quote from: Dumarest;968095Using the words "inferior to" before "The Da Vinci Code" and "Fifty Shades of Grey" must be some sort of oxymoron. And comparing those to "Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There" and "Treasure Island" is the literary equivalent of a hate crime or at least tantamount to treason.

:D Extreme examples to make my point.

And let's not forget all the other fantasy and sf classics written for children. Many of them appear on Gygax's Appendix N for...gasp...AD&D!

Not only Norton, Tolkien and Williamson but also one of the finest books on the list, Bellairs' masterful Face in the Frost. And of course many of the readers of Zelazny, Moorcock, Brackett and Howard were kids.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968092Exactly.

The weirdass thing is that people assume Gygax's old rules don't work, rather than they are perfectly functional but for a different style of play.  Which baffles the fuck out of me.  Nobody writes rules that don't work, and especially nobody writes rules that don't work and then go from a standing start to a million dollar company in less than five years.

Assume that Gygax wasn't a complete moron, and assume that the rules work as intended.  You don't have to like that play style, but don't be an utter fuckwit.

It's interesting that you put it this way, because you grew up on the same literature that Gygax did.  Someone who entered the hobby in the 90s, most likely did not.  That Johnson guy people are talking about specifically says one of the reasons he went back to Appendix N was that the AD&D rules didn't work for the playstyles he knew and the fantasy he had read, and he didn't assume Gary was a complete moron, he assumed there might be something he was missing.  So where to look?  Gary's literary inspirations he drew upon when creating that playstyle.  He started reading Appendix N, and shit started making sense to him.  So that of course makes him a Talmudic Terrorist. :rolleyes:

I have no idea how Jack Williamson, who wrote time-travelling space operas, kid-friendly sf and one excellent adult werewolf novel, has anything to do with D&D. His inclusion on the list backs up the idea that this was a 'off the top of my head' list from Gygax.

Quote from: Voros;968116I have no idea how Jack Williamson, who wrote time-travelling space operas, kid-friendly sf and one excellent adult werewolf novel, has anything to do with D&D. His inclusion on the list bscks up the idea that his was a 'off the top of my head' list from Gygax.

So therefore the rest have nothing to do with it either, huh?  Poul Anderson doesn't count either I guess. :rolleyes:

"Why does the idea that Gygax got specific ideas for D&D from specific sources, and that these can be identified, seem to offend some people?” - Some guy I just read

That's a dodge that avoids my question.

In fact you'd be hard pressed to turn Three Hearts and Three Lions or The Broken Sword into a D&D campaign.

Look at what Gygax himself said:

"The following authors were of particular inspiration to me. In some cases I cite specific works, in others, I simply recommend all of their fantasy writing to you. From such sources, as well as any other imaginative writing or screenplay, you will be able to pluck kernels from which will grow the fruits of exciting campaigns. Good reading!
...
 The most immediate influences upon AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, R. E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, H. P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt; but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game. For this reason, and for the hours of reading enjoyment, I heartily recommend the works of these fine authors to you."

'Pluck kernels from which the fruits...' Gygax's talent was for magpie invention not Zolaist Naturalism.

PS. Please explain how Williamson's pulp sf is reflected in D&D.

Realize what the money quote is..."pluck kernels from which will grow the fruits of exciting campaigns".  That's what Leiber and Howard, Sword & Sorcery, pulp sci-fi and fantasy had...a myriad of adventures, not just Save the World over and over and over and over again.  There's a dynamism to that earlier fiction - of genres not yet set, and defined, and marketed.  A free-wheeling set of adventures from across the globe or the cosmos, ie. Sandbox Not Plot Arc.  It's worldbuilding every bit as vital as Tolkien's but from a micro level, from the individual up, not from the macro, from the Myth down.

Estar's pretty much right when he says all "Naturalism" really is about is making a believable world to have adventures in and let the characters drive what happens.  That's not what you get if your diet of fantasy literature starts in 1988.

How many people have to read Howard, Lieber and Vance for the first time and say "Oh, that's what the hell Gary was talking about." for people to get it?

Quote from: Voros;968119PS. Please explain how Williamson's pulp sf is reflected in D&D.

There's 50 some books there, have you read every single one?

"all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game." - Gary Gygax
I choose to simply take the man at his word.
You choose to make him out to be a liar because...that's the part I haven't figured out yet.

You obviously care about this, to spend more time on KKA and DF than the mods do, so why don't you ask his kids, they're still alive.

A cursory glance of Williamson tells me the Cosmeteers could have been part of the inspiration for all the Psionic creatures that attack from the Ethereal and Astral Planes, oh and Wall of Force. :D

I've actually read some Jack Williamson and would count myself a fan of his but I think further discussion of Appendix N is probably best done on the already existing thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37051-Appendix-N-is-the-Most-Useless-DMG-Appendix&p=968123#post968123) The Legion of Space/Time books are much more clearly an influence on Star Wars and modernist space opera than D&D.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968120Realize what the money quote is..."pluck kernels from which will grow the fruits of exciting campaigns".  That's what Leiber and Howard, Sword & Sorcery, pulp sci-fi and fantasy had...a myriad of adventures, not just Save the World over and over and over and over again.  There's a dynamism to that earlier fiction - of genres not yet set, and defined, and marketed.  A free-wheeling set of adventures from across the globe or the cosmos, ie. Sandbox Not Plot Arc.  It's worldbuilding every bit as vital as Tolkien's but from a micro level, from the individual up, not from the macro, from the Myth down.

Estar's pretty much right when he says all "Naturalism" really is about is making a believable world to have adventures in and let the characters drive what happens.  That's not what you get if your diet of fantasy literature starts in 1988.

How many people have to read Howard, Lieber and Vance for the first time and say "Oh, that's what the hell Gary was talking about." for people to get it?

Sorry but in Lieber the world-building is not a sand-box. The vast majority of his Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are rooted in character, not setting. Vance is a masterful world builder but his extreme use of distancing language and his love of satire and irony produce something completely unlike D&D. Vance is as far from Naturalism as it is possible for a writer to be, his baroque style is reminscent of the French decadents who inspired Clark Ashton Smith or even the French New Novelists of the 60s.

To read these authors via D&D is to reduce them significantly.

Quote from: Voros;968128Sorry but in Lieber the world-building is not a sand-box. The vast majority of his Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are rooted in character, not setting. Vance is a masterful world builder but his extreme use of distancing language and his love of satire and irony produce something completely unlike D&D. Vance is as far from Naturalism as it is possible for a writer to be, his baroque style is reminscent of the French decadents who inspired Clark Ashton Smith or even the French New Novelists of the 60s.

To read these authors via D&D is to reduce them significantly.

It would if you look past the surface.  But if you simply look at the top layer of all the stories, the shallowest cut of them, D&D steals effectively.  There's no level of academic searching required here.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968131It would if you look past the surface.  But if you simply look at the top layer of all the stories, the shallowest cut of them, D&D steals effectively.  There's no level of academic searching required here.

Says the guy who's never played any of the versions of D&D we're talking about. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968131It would if you look past the surface.  But if you simply look at the top layer of all the stories, the shallowest cut of them, D&D steals effectively.  There's no level of academic searching required here.

I know what you're saying but there's no D&D adventure I know that has even the surface of Ill Met in Lankhmar or Lean Times in Lankhmar. To even attempt that kind of adventure would be considered some kind of storygamer heresy by some.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968133Says the guy who's never played any of the versions of D&D we're talking about. :rolleyes:

Oh come on.

Taking a look at Conan's adventures, if you ignore the fact that the locations are just vehicles for the adventures, and that it's all about Conan, you see things like a Romanesque empire, situated beside a country that's like a romanticized version of the 15th century knight-kingdoms, where across the river is a Renaissance Italy wannabe and far south is an ancient evil Egyptian empire.  Pretty much what Greyhawk and most other settings turn out to be, originally.

But if you actually look deeper, you realize that the locations in the short stories mean very little, other than to have Conan prove that the 'Barbarian' way of life is the right way, that all the trappings of what we call civilization is corrupt or foolish, and will be washed away by the brutal, murderous honesty of the Cimmerian path, or some such bullocks.  And Conan proves it by surviving every adventure, even to the point of saving the girl (should there be one, and she's not 'evil', like the Frost Giant's Daughter, or Salome.)

Fritz Leiber's Lanhkmar is a cosmopolitan city where humans, demons and monsters live together in a somewhat cohesive whole, again, sole purpose is to prove a backdrop for Fafrd and the Grey Mouser to have adventures, not to make too much sense, and no D&D city does, because it works on a similar theme.

Hell, even the elves and dwarves of fantasy, that Gygax hated to the point of wanting to punish players for choosing them, by capping their levels and limit their class choices for really arbitrary reasons, because he didn't like Lord of The Rings were just thrown in hodge podge with no real indepth look as to how Tolkien justified it in LoTR.

There's nothing deep here.  Just a shallow scoop of flavours that Gygax and Arneson thought was cool and tossed into the bucket that turns out to be the most famous RPG in all of history.

And let me be clear here, there's nothing wrong with any of this.  It's how it's pretty much is.

Quote from: Voros;968089Let's see if I can address this without derailing the thread. There's neo-Nazis POS like Varg and then extremist reactionaries like Johnson. One is beyond the pale whereas the other is a bit of a bore who projects his politics onto talented pulp writers like Brackett. I mentioned Johnson's politics because like a 50s Marxist he insists on dragging it into his analysis and oftentimes profoundly distorts the writers he discusses. That's judging from his blog posts but to his credit he does seem to occasionally put aside his own politics and discuss a subversive and overtly leftie writer like Margaret St Clair fairly. I just don't know if I want to slog through all the pop culture rambling and politicing for the occasional gem.

As to whether the Pundit is far right...

OK thanks. I'm fine with patronising what I think count as 'extremist reactionary' types in your words, but I'm not fine with Neo-Nazism, which is what 'far right' is usually used to imply I think. Maybe it's commonly used to include right-libertarians now, judging by the Antifa attacks on people wearing MAGA hats, but I prefer to keep these concepts distinct.

Edit: Agree that excessive bringing of politics into unrelated matters can get annoying. :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968092Nobody writes rules that don't work

Most RPG authors write rules that don't work, IME. Or they provide only a partial game (as Justin Alexander insightfully pointed out) - often just chargen & task resolution and handwave the rest, notably the big issue of What Do We Actually Do?. Understanding that Gygax created a complete game that is loads of fun, and why the various systems are in there that are often discarded in newer games (eg wandering monsters, random treasure generation, reaction & morale checks, monsters by dungeon level, evasion rules, the XP & Level system), what their purpose is, and why they make the game fun, is worthwhile I think.

I can put up with an extremist reactionary if they're talented. Not seeing many Celines or Malapartes out there these days.

Quote from: Voros;968158I can put up with an extremist reactionary if they're talented. Not seeing many Celines or Malapartes out there these days.

LOL :D

Quote from: Voros;968118In fact you'd be hard pressed to turn Three Hearts and Three Lions or The Broken Sword into a D&D campaign.

Three Hearts and Three Lions reads like the sort of D&D campaign we used to have. Very much so.  It also is clearly the inspiration behind Trolls, Alignment, and Paladins at the very least.

Quote from: Voros;968128Sorry but in Lieber the world-building is not a sand-box. The vast majority of his Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are rooted in character, not setting. Vance is a masterful world builder but his extreme use of distancing language and his love of satire and irony produce something completely unlike D&D. Vance is as far from Naturalism as it is possible for a writer to be, his baroque style is reminscent of the French decadents who inspired Clark Ashton Smith or even the French New Novelists of the 60s.

To read these authors via D&D is to reduce them significantly.

Vance's Turjan stories are very D&D, as are the Cugel ones. Not to mention something like the Dragon Masters.

D&D can also be character based like Fafhrd and the Mouser. Certainly I have played in adventures that were like Ill Met In Lankmahr and Lean Times In Lankmahr.   Maybe there isn't a published adventure like that.
I have never really considered D&D to be about the published settings and modules, for me it has always been roll your own.  When I started there was no Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk set to pick up. No Dragonlance, and we couldn't get many modules in our neck of the woods. So we just assumed that of course you would make everything up for your game. That included much pilfering from Apendix N, much of which we had read. If you were a fantasy fan that was fantasy. I feel sad for todays gamers who instead get D&D influence fantasy.

Quote from: Voros;968116I have no idea how Jack Williamson, who wrote time-travelling space operas, kid-friendly sf and one excellent adult werewolf novel, has anything to do with D&D. His inclusion on the list backs up the idea that this was a 'off the top of my head' list from Gygax.

I don't find it all unlikely that Gygax used elements of Williamson at the game table. The guy wrote two whole modules based on Lewis Carroll's works.

D&D eventually stagnated into being a set IP and turned "vanilla", but it wasn't like that in the '70s or the early '80s. I felt a lot more free to put whatever I wanted into my D&D game. One of my favorite things about the OSR is that it has allowed the game to expand in any strange direction it wants to.

Quote from: Voros;968116I have no idea how Jack Williamson, who wrote time-travelling space operas, kid-friendly sf and one excellent adult werewolf novel, has anything to do with D&D. His inclusion on the list backs up the idea that this was a 'off the top of my head' list from Gygax.

He also wrote a book called The Reign of Wizardry, which a swords & sorcery-flavored retelling of the Theseus myth. It's pretty much a Howard pastiche and has some bits when Theseus is in the Labyrinth that feel vaguely D&Dish. I get it sort of mixed up in my mind with the Prester John novels by Norvell Page, which were written around the same time (published in magazines in the late 30s-early 40s; reissued in paperback in the 60s) and which I read around the same time (early 00s). That's probably the book Gary (or Tim Kask, who collaborated with Gary on the list, which originally appeared in an issue of The Dragon c. 1977) had in mind, but he/they couldn't recall the title so they just left the author's name hanging loose.

Same deal with Stanley G. Weinbaum. He's remembered nowadays for hard SF stories that don't seem much of anything like D&D, but when asked about it at ENWorld Gary said he was specifically thinking of a novel (The Black Flame) that was sort of an A. Merritt-pastiche. Probably the same deal with Fredric Brown, too. The stuff he's remembered for - ironic and satirical SF like Martians Go Home and pulp-noir novels like The Fabulous Clipjoint - isn't at all D&Dish, but there's probably at least one novel or story out there that had some element that Gary or Tim recalled as feeling D&Dish. Maybe the story "Arena" (that got adapted into a Star Trek episode) - that's the kind of situation that could arise in a D&D game, I suppose.

Quote from: Voros;968091Everyone knows that B/X and BECMI were developed for kids and newbies. You use that as a slur and claim it was 'watered down.' We all heard that disparagement back in the 80s but many now believe from experience at the table that there were significant advantages to the stripped down approach of those versions.  

And its not just in retrospect, Imagine magazine carried a review of the Red Box that praised its simplier rules and superior presentation for newbies.

Just because it was made simplier (or perhaps more accurately not made pointlessly complicated) and 'for kids' is no more a measure of quality than the fact that Through the Looking Glass and Treasure Island were written for children makes them inferior to The Da Vinci Code or 50 Shades of Gray.

You have a right to prefer AD&D but you don't have a right to shoot your mouth off on the net and not have people disagree with you. Seems like many on the net you can dish it out but not take it.

By "watered-down" I mean deliberately simplified. Things like melding race and class together, or changing the order of operations in combat from overlapping phases to "side A goes then side B goes," or deleting a lot of the stuff about in-town activities, or various other things (not to mention simplifying the language). All of those changes make the game simpler and more streamlined and more easily accessible and understandable by newbies and kids but, at least to me, they also dilute the flavor that I find appealing about the original game and AD&D, thus "watered down." I don't think the B/X sets are bad. I think they're probably the best version for newbies and kids, and I had a lot of fun with them for about 6 months (when I was both a newbie and a kid) before I started yearning for more options and more depth, both of which I got from AD&D.

How that position makes me a sinister "gatekeeper" who's trying to define what is and isn't old-school and how people should be allowed to play the game (which is the context in which you brought me up - people were asking who actually advocated that straw-man position, you volunteered my name) is still beyond me. I don't know you. I literally don't care at all how you choose to play D&D. I like to talk about the way I like to play, which sometimes includes why I prefer my version to other options. That's apparently really offensive to some people. Whatever.

The "Appendix N" list came into being because Gary and Tim Kask realized that a lot of their fanbase (presumably people going to GenCon and writing letters to TSR and/or The Dragon) hadn't read a lot of the books that were Gary and Tim's favorites and that influenced the content and shape of D&D, and they wanted to encourage people to read them. So they sat down and pulled together a list of authors and titles and published it in The Dragon. A couple years later, an expanded version of that list was included in the DMG.

If you read the books, for most of them (some exceptions noted 2 posts above) it's pretty obvious why Gary (and/or Tim) liked them and what they drew from them for D&D. Sometimes it's some specific monster or spell or character-type (and, it's worth noting, there are also plenty of D&D monsters, spells, and character types that come from sources not cited in Appendix N). Other times it's just the general "vibe" of the work - they're usually short, fast-moving, action-packed, not too serious; they're often set in a fictional world, there's usually some supernatural element, there's often at least one bit where the hero is in some sort of underworld maze, there's usually at least one part where the hero has to use his (or her, but it's pretty much always his) wits to overcome some trap or obstacle, and there's almost always a healthy dose of hand-to-hand combat. By reading these books (especially reading a lot of them - reading just one or two will probably lead you to try to overthink it and draw too-close parallels, but when you've read a dozen or so of them you can more easily grasp the general trend) you get a feeling for the headspace Gary (et al.) were in when designing D&D, and the sort of feel and tone they expected D&D adventures to have - pulpy, fast-moving, action-packed, straight-faced but not really serious. H.P. Lovecraft is an exception to pretty much all of those trends, but is nonetheless considered one of the "main" influences. Presumably it's for his language - eldritch, squamous, etc. - and the weird vibe of the Cthulhu Mythos (though a lot of what people claim as Lovecraftian elements in D&D seem to me to come more from A. Merritt), and the fact that Rob Kuntz included a bunch of Lovecraft monsters in his adventures in the Greyhawk Campaign.

There's no need to read any more into it than that. Appendix N isn't the Rosetta Stone or the Da Vinci Code. It's not "the key to really understanding D&D." But if all you've ever read is Terry Brooks and David Eddings and you're frustrated that D&D doesn't really feel much like that, reading some of these books will help you to understand why that is - and, perhaps, help you decide what changes to make to D&D if you do want it to feel more like those other books.

Quote from: Voros;968119PS. Please explain how Williamson's pulp sf is reflected in D&D.

Jesus H. tapdaincing Christ on a surfboard, HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?

Appendix N is a list of books Gary liked that were more or less fantastic.  Reading anything more than that into them is utter bullshit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968252Appendix N is a list of books Gary liked that were more or less fantastic.  Reading anything more than that into them is utter bullshit.

Imagine if Gary had had the page count and recall to list all the 'countless hundreds of comic books,' and horror movies, and Grimm fairy tales as well. One certainly hopes we wouldn't then have to analyze each one and ferret out what they each have to do with D&D.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968252Jesus H. tapdaincing Christ on a surfboard, HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?

Appendix N is a list of books Gary liked that were more or less fantastic.  Reading anything more than that into them is utter bullshit.

You aren't fooling anyone, Gronan. You just want the secret grognard treasure that Gary hid in Appendix N all to yourself. I'm going to keep digging.

Quote from: T. Foster;968242There's no need to read any more into it than that. Appendix N isn't the Rosetta Stone or the Da Vinci Code. It's not "the key to really understanding D&D." But if all you've ever read is Terry Brooks and David Eddings and you're frustrated that D&D doesn't really feel much like that, reading some of these books will help you to understand why that is - and, perhaps, help you decide what changes to make to D&D if you do want it to feel more like those other books.

Exactly. And always remember D&D did not set out to directly recreate Appendix N in game form. For one thing it couldn't, the material is too diverse. For another the idea that an RPG had to stick to one source exclusively had not been invented yet.

Influences and inspirations. Not copied perfectly.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968268You aren't fooling anyone, Gronan. You just want the secret grognard treasure that Gary hid in Appendix N all to yourself. I'm going to keep digging.

Now we just need to figure out which of these appendix N author's graves is where Gary secretly buried the One True D&D, with which one could win all gaming debates if one ever read.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;968286Now we just need to figure out which of these appendix N author's graves is where Gary secretly buried the One True D&D, with which one could win all gaming debates if one ever read.

WTF is this, The Gygax Code?  Are we going to see some assassins chasing after us that deliberately walk on d4s to prove their faith or something?

Quote from: robiswrong;968306WTF is this, The Gygax Code?  Are we going to see some assassins chasing after us that deliberately walk on d4s to prove their faith or something?

Yes. Meanwhile you will be chasing around Podunks in the Midwest to piece together the clues of the D&D Codex.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968252Jesus H. tapdaincing Christ on a surfboard, HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?

Appendix N is a list of books Gary liked that were more or less fantastic.  Reading anything more than that into them is utter bullshit.

That's my point actually, maybe try and keep up ol'man. ;):D

Quote from: Voros;968347That's my point actually, maybe try and keep up ol'man. ;):D

If you were being ironic, my apologies and I owe you a beer.

Okay, seriously, does anybody -- not just here, but anybody anywhere over the age of 14 -- actually think that Appendix N was anything other than "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books"?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;968286Now we just need to figure out which of these appendix N author's graves is where Gary secretly buried the One True D&D, with which one could win all gaming debates if one ever read.

Got really drunk and tried to dig up HP Lovecraft, was tentacle-sodomized by a chthonian.


Hold on. might be mixing that up with a Halloween party in college.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968372Okay, seriously, does anybody -- not just here, but anybody anywhere over the age of 14 -- actually think that Appendix N was anything other than "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books"?

Fuck yes.  How do you think the Forge got created or that silly manifesto that's been passed around and promptly debunked.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968372Okay, seriously, does anybody -- not just here, but anybody anywhere over the age of 14 -- actually think that Appendix N was anything other than "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books"?

Apparently you do...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968244Which is my whole point, which I enumerate in one of the other damn OSR threads around here.  Old D&D looks different through the lens of different literature.

You think Appendix N is a lens you can use to see Old D&D differently.  Which is pretty much the reason these people accused of doing "talmudic" studies are looking at Appendix N in the first place.

It's exactly because they are "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books" that they can be that lens, and that's why they are referenced.  I don't know what mystical textology process you think these people are doing with the books, or how reading books to understand Gary's frame of reference is considered "talmudic" but you really need to make up your fucking mind.

Will reading these books possibly let you see Old D&D in a different light, yes or no?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968372Okay, seriously, does anybody -- not just here, but anybody anywhere over the age of 14 -- actually think that Appendix N was anything other than "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books"?

I'm only vaguely aware of what Appendix N is so.... maybe?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968372Okay, seriously, does anybody -- not just here, but anybody anywhere over the age of 14 -- actually think that Appendix N was anything other than "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books"?

I think that CRKrueger has it right that people are looking to capture the mindset and framework Gary had going into creating the game to maybe understand a little more of the how and why it ended up as it did, rather than any other possible outcome. It's still navel gazing, but it's not people older than 14 thinking there's a sacred mystery tied up in it or anything (for the most part, I'm sure someone will come up with a counter-example).

Quote from: Baulderstone;968268You aren't fooling anyone, Gronan. You just want the secret grognard treasure that Gary hid in Appendix N all to yourself. I'm going to keep digging.

The hundred Gs are under the big W.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968433Apparently you do...

You think Appendix N is a lens you can use to see Old D&D differently.  Which is pretty much the reason these people accused of doing "talmudic" studies are looking at Appendix N in the first place.

It's exactly because they are "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books" that they can be that lens, and that's why they are referenced.  I don't know what mystical textology process you think these people are doing with the books, or how reading books to understand Gary's frame of reference is considered "talmudic" but you really need to make up your fucking mind.

Will reading these books possibly let you see Old D&D in a different light, yes or no?

Saying "these books possibly will let you see Old D&D in a different light" is not the same as "each book in this list has been used to write the rules of D&D, and elements of the rules appear in each book," which, according to some in this thread, is a prevailing attitude somewhere.

And of course "Gary's favorite fantasyish books" are going to influence a fantasy game he writes.

And statements like "In fact you'd be hard pressed to turn Three Hearts and Three Lions or The Broken Sword into a D&D campaign" sounds a hell of a lot to me like expecting more from the books than just "this is the kind of fantasy Gary liked, of course it influenced how he thought about the game."

I less disagree with you than wonder if I'm reading a different thread.

Gary Gygax made a game that has been a lot of fun for a lot of people for 43+ years now. I'm not sure what else people are hoping to discover by parsing phrases with a fine-tooth comb.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968528Saying "these books possibly will let you see Old D&D in a different light" is not the same as "each book in this list has been used to write the rules of D&D, and elements of the rules appear in each book," which, according to some in this thread, is a prevailing attitude somewhere.

And of course "Gary's favorite fantasyish books" are going to influence a fantasy game he writes.

And statements like "In fact you'd be hard pressed to turn Three Hearts and Three Lions or The Broken Sword into a D&D campaign" sounds a hell of a lot to me like expecting more from the books than just "this is the kind of fantasy Gary liked, of course it influenced how he thought about the game."

I less disagree with you than wonder if I'm reading a different thread.

See here's the problem...

You probably think something like "Of course having Gary's literary background would help you understand his frame of reference better and therefore understand his game better."  It's kind of obvious, right, almost axiomatic.

People who "study" Appendix N are doing that for that very reason.

Then there's the "Boy who cries Talmud" crowd.  They are saying that these people aren't looking into Appendix N.  They are doing some form of Talmudic Exegesis, {insert the most overblown, hyperbolic and idiotic academic word you can find here}.

So naturally you say "What a bunch of idiots."

The problem is NO ONE IS ACTUALLY DOING THAT.

Maybe Jmal got close, and sure, he had sycophants, he's been off the blog for 5 fucking years.

Yeah, Goodman's got an Appendix N vibe going, they also have guys with afros and bell bottoms, it's a gonzo retro marketing gag.

Is this Jeffro Johnson guy some pseudo-academic idiot?  Who knows?  People don't have to actually read his book to make accusations about the content, only if they want to factcheck themselves (yeah right).

Jmal - there's one.
Jeffro - someone actually reads his book, maybe we can call him two.
Anyone have an actual name of the rest of these Talmudic, colon-gazing Exegetic Textologists?  According to the way the name gets thrown around, you shouldn't be able to swing a dice bag without hitting 20 of them.

I'm probably going to be accused of being one of them because a dozen or so years ago on Dragonsfoot when people were wondering why D&D's elves weren't more like Tolkien's I recommended reading Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, and probably made various other similar statements over the years.

When I started playing D&D as a kid in the early 80s, most of the popular fantasy books on the shelf at my local Waldenbooks was stuff like Terry Brooks and David Eddings and Stephen R. Donaldson and Katharine Kurtz, none of which felt very D&Dish. Because I really liked D&D and wanted to read books that had a similar vibe to it I was drawn to the list of books and authors in the back of the DMG. And sure enough, reading those felt much closer to D&D - they were faster-moving and had more action and "adventurer" heroes who felt more like D&D PCs, and so on. And every once in a while you'd come across something like the troll in Three Hearts and Three Lions or the magicians in The Dying Earth that felt like it had been ported over directly into D&D, which was fun and kind of cool. So I kept reading them (when I could find them - not too easy in the 80s when many of them were out-of-print, easier when ebay and amazon came along) and eventually I read almost all of them. Not because I felt like I needed to in order to fully grok Gygaxian D&D, or because I thought doing so would uncover hidden insights, but because I enjoyed reading them (most of them, at least), and they're generally pretty short and easy to read, and once I'd read a big chunk of them, the idea of first acquiring and then reading all of them became a fun personal goal - sort of like deciding to read all of the Hugo winners, or the entire Ballantine Adult Fantasy series, or whatever.

Do I think you need to read all, or any, of the books on the Appendix N list to "really understand" D&D? Nope. Do I think "real D&D" only draws from those influences and not from anything else? Absolutely not. That entire idea is totally stupid. But do I think most fans of Gygax-flavored D&D would enjoy reading stuff like Farmer's "World of Tiers" series and Fred Saberhagen's "Empire of the East" series and A. Merritt's books, and might get some good ideas for their games from them the same way Gary did, and that it made sense for Gary to recommend them to readers who might not otherwise have been aware of them and kept pestering him with letters about why D&D wasn't more accurate to Lord of the Rings? Absolutely.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968619See here's the problem...

You probably think something like "Of course having Gary's literary background would help you understand his frame of reference better and therefore understand his game better."  It's kind of obvious, right, almost axiomatic.

People who "study" Appendix N are doing that for that very reason.

Then there's the "Boy who cries Talmud" crowd.  They are saying that these people aren't looking into Appendix N.  They are doing some form of Talmudic Exegesis, {insert the most overblown, hyperbolic and idiotic academic word you can find here}.

So naturally you say "What a bunch of idiots."

The problem is NO ONE IS ACTUALLY DOING THAT.

Maybe Jmal got close, and sure, he had sycophants, he's been off the blog for 5 fucking years.

Yeah, Goodman's got an Appendix N vibe going, they also have guys with afros and bell bottoms, it's a gonzo retro marketing gag.

Is this Jeffro Johnson guy some pseudo-academic idiot?  Who knows?  People don't have to actually read his book to make accusations about the content, only if they want to factcheck themselves (yeah right).

Jmal - there's one.
Jeffro - someone actually reads his book, maybe we can call him two.
Anyone have an actual name of the rest of these Talmudic, colon-gazing Exegetic Textologists?  According to the way the name gets thrown around, you shouldn't be able to swing a dice bag without hitting 20 of them.

Actually, now that I think about it.... I have seen one person do the "Talmudic dissection" of Appendix N.  As in, "each book maps directly to some rule in D&D."  Nobody took him seriously, but he was as noisy as hell for a while.  don't remember which forum.

I have seen more of the "search for ur-D&D in the rulebooks", especially over at ODD74.  Again, though, it's a fairly small group even there, and again the biggest problem is they add to the background noise.

I don't hang around on the Tekumel forums any more, but there is also some of that in the "search for the real Tekumel."  But Tekumel fandom is so small that they are the batshit insane lunatic fringe of a batshit insane lunatic fringe.

I have used the phrase "like a bunch of drunk high school students doing Midrash."  So they exist but I don't think anybody actually takes them seriously.  I suppose those who continue to rail against them like to use them as a strawman to whip up indignation.

I get more pissed off by people's poor reading comprehension.  CHAINMAIL is a prime example of this.  People try to make that game WAY too fucking complicated, and then ignore the plain written word.  It's a game about lining up two little armies and fighting a battle.

For instance, somebody actually said "The turn order says that movement occurs and then melee is after all movement.  Does that mean that you don't do melee until both sides have moved their figures"?   Um... what the fuck?  As Tim Kask once said, "If you can't understand CHAINMAIL, you need to improve your reading comprehension."

My particular ire goes to a small but noisy subgroup that plays "definition shuffle."

For some reason, especially strange considering his sesquipedalian tendencies elsewhere, that in OD&D Gary didn't disambiguate terms very well; "level" has at least four meanings, and "hit dice" means both "dice needed to score a hit" and "dice rolled to determine how many hit points you have."

Usually, this thing called "context" covers it.  But it's the people who refuse to acknowledge context that piss me off.  For instance, in the combat section it says that trolls, having 6 + 3 hd, get 6 attacks against normal men and the sixth gets a +3 on the "hit dice."  From context it seems obvious that it's +3 to hit.  But there are dark corners of the grease trap of the internet where people insist that an equally valid interpretation is that the troll gets three more hit points when attacking the sixth figure.  And they insist the negative must be proved; "we don't know that that isn't the way he meant it."

It's annoying, and they tend to be loud and persistant.  It's a fucking game; if one interpretation of the rules works and/or is clear, and the other interpretation of the rules doesn't work and/or makes no fucking sense at all, go with the one that works.

This is the origin of my phrase "assume Gygax wasn't an utter fucking imbecile."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968789...people's poor reading comprehension.  

We appreciate your patience. :p

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968789It's a fucking game; if one interpretation of the rules works and/or is clear, and the other interpretation of the rules doesn't work and/or makes no fucking sense at all, go with the one that works.

This is the origin of my phrase "assume Gygax wasn't an utter fucking imbecile."

And if both interpretations work, pick which ever one you like and play your game. Most of us really don't give a shit how you play your elfgames at home.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968619Jeffro - someone actually reads his book, maybe we can call him two.

Hey if you want to buy it for me I'll struggle throught it and let you know what I think. :D

When it comes to books on D&D I'm saving my pennies for this one:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1067[/ATTACH] (http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520284920)

Quote from: Voros;968945Hey if you want to buy it for me I'll struggle throught it and let you know what I think. :D

When it comes to books on D&D I'm saving my pennies for this one:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1067[/ATTACH] (http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520284920)

Why? What do you know about it?

Have you read it? I'm interested in D&D, the Satanic Panic and religion so this looks like a good book to me. Also looks to be properly researched.

Quote from: Voros;969314Have you read it? I'm interested in D&D, the Satanic Panic and religion so this looks like a good book to me. Also looks to be properly researched.

No, I haven't read it, from your post I assumed it was forthcoming. I thought maybe you knew something to recommend it.

It is out but since it is from an academic press it is a bit pricey as an ebook so I'll probably just order the hardcover. I did download a sample to my Kindle and it is written in clear English, it also has an interesting premise about the similarity between religion and rpgs as imaginative spaces that I'm intrigued enough about to check out.

Quote from: Voros;969338It is out but since it is from an academic press it is a bit pricey as an ebook so I'll probably just order the hardcover. I did download a sample to my Kindle and it is written in clear English, it also has an interesting premise about the similarity between religion and rpgs as imaginative spaces that I'm intrigued enough about to check out.

Maybe you could post a review (hint, hint).

Will do, it's on order!

I went to Catholic School in the 80s, and we certainly were not allowed to play D&D at school. So we played Marvel Superheroes. It's funny because the group I ended up playing with for 30 years came about when they had people from the local Boy's and Girls club come to the school and tell us about D&D night. So yeah, D&D in Catholic School bad. Inviting people from outside the school to tell us about D&D was somehow okay.

I also went to Catholic school in the early 80s and nobody cared a whit whether we played D&D or not. I'm always curious about where this "Satanic Panic" happened, as it never seemed to be anywhere I was. Was it a rural thing?

Quote from: Dumarest;969897I also went to Catholic school in the early 80s and nobody cared a whit whether we played D&D or not. I'm always curious about where this "Satanic Panic" happened, as it never seemed to be anywhere I was. Was it a rural thing?

It was mostly the same people who had all that free time to listen to rock albums backwards. You never heard that rhetoric from people who actually worked for a living.

Quote from: Krimson;969900It was mostly the same people who had all that free time to listen to rock albums backwards. You never heard that rhetoric from people who actually worked for a living.

Tipper Gore?

What I meant was, I was in the D.C. metro area and then San Diego and never encountered this "D&D = Satanism" stuff at all. Maybe because I've always been in large cities? Was it a small-town Bible-thumping hellfire-and-brimstone Baptist thing?

Quote from: Dumarest;969906Tipper Gore?

What I meant was, I was in the D.C. metro area and then San Diego and never encountered this "D&D = Satanism" stuff at all. Maybe because I've always been in large cities? Was it a small-town Bible-thumping hellfire-and-brimstone Baptist thing?

As I recall the local Baptists were the most vocal about it, but for the most part we Catholics weren't having any of their heresy. :D For the record, the two kids who taught me to play D&D were Mormon, and we were encouraged to play by their Father and his Mennonite girlfriend (who my family rented the house from). Honestly, it was a few kooks who were doing most of the screaming, though those kooks had names like Jack Chick and Pat Robertson. The problem was that consensual belief systems are consensual, and they had equally kooky followers who would regurgitate whatever they were fed. But really, you didn't hear from it too much, though I did hear it enough times to know that if you are going to stand your ground in a religion, then you have to learn Scripture and how to weaponize it so you can fight them on their own terms.

My parents and grandparents saw D&D as something that got kids to read and exercise their imaginations and do math voluntarily on weekends, therefore they thought it was a Good Thing. They were also liberal-minded (in the old sense of the word) so the artwork never bothered them. I was lucky that way with games and comic books and genre fiction.

Quote from: Dumarest;969906Tipper Gore?

What I meant was, I was in the D.C. metro area and then San Diego and never encountered this "D&D = Satanism" stuff at all. Maybe because I've always been in large cities? Was it a small-town Bible-thumping hellfire-and-brimstone Baptist thing?

In my neck of the woods, it was a "small town but not too small" thing, and very hodge podge even then.  Essentially, it was usually a travelling outrage gambit, by someone that wanted to get people riled up, so that they could build up a reputation and get invited to the next gig.  Rural areas typically didn't have big enough churches to attract that sort of thing, though every now and then one nearby would get a trial run.  A slice of the Baptists (which I am) would get a bit more than their fair share because of the way Baptists are organized (or rather, not all that organized compared to even Methodists).  Crazy travelling guy wouldn't have gotten invited to local churches in our area because not only were we too small but also because the Baptists were the D&D players there.  We got our travelling guy on other subjects, and being so small, usually someone more honestly motivated. Most of them were just fine (not crazy), and it really only depended upon how interested you were in what they had to say whether it was worth attending or not.

Interestingly, the only pushback I ever encountered of that nature, until the Panic was mostly over and I was grown (but that's a different crazy travelling guy story)--was school and city librarians.  It wasn't a religious thing, but apparently that D&D somehow offended their pedagogical views.  I never did understand exactly why, when they were trying to get people to read, and the D&D players were more bookish than average.

Quote from: Dumarest;969897I also went to Catholic school in the early 80s and nobody cared a whit whether we played D&D or not. I'm always curious about where this "Satanic Panic" happened, as it never seemed to be anywhere I was. Was it a rural thing?

They weren't too happy at my Protestant boarding school in Belfast, ca 1985. It was just the matrons though, the Masters (teachers) didn't know or care. But it was a few years later I met a boy I GM'd a session for whose parents really believed that stuff. (He was so happy when his 14th level Barbarian killed a ghoul - ok saving the world maybe wasn't the best intro adventure)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;969944D&D players were more bookish than average.

I hereby present to you the Understatement of the Century Award for Excellence and Achievements in the Presentation of Something as Being Less Than It Actually Is. :D

Quote from: Dumarest;969906Tipper Gore?

What I meant was, I was in the D.C. metro area and then San Diego and never encountered this "D&D = Satanism" stuff at all. Maybe because I've always been in large cities? Was it a small-town Bible-thumping hellfire-and-brimstone Baptist thing?

Yes. In Britain it was the more conservative & rural places like Northern Ireland, east Anglia, parts of Scotland. Mostly same places that believed in Satanic Child Abuse AIR.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;969944Interestingly, the only pushback I ever encountered of that nature, until the Panic was mostly over and I was grown (but that's a different crazy travelling guy story)--was school and city librarians.  It wasn't a religious thing, but apparently that D&D somehow offended their pedagogical views.  I never did understand exactly why, when they were trying to get people to read, and the D&D players were more bookish than average.

A few years back I provoked extreme outrage from the ex-military bag-checker at the entrance to the Imperial War Museum. He took grave offence to the D&D books in my bag. Why, I have no idea.

Quote from: S'mon;969956A few years back I provoked extreme outrage from the ex-military bag-checker at the entrance to the Imperial War Museum. He took grave offence to the D&D books in my bag. Why, I have no idea.

I would love to know what he found objectionable. Which books were they?

Quote from: S'mon;969955Yes. In Britain it was the more conservative & rural places like Northern Ireland, east Anglia, parts of Scotland. Mostly same places that believed in Satanic Child Abuse AIR.

AIR = ?

Quote from: Dumarest;969954I hereby present to you the Understatement of the Century Award for Excellence and Achievements in the Presentation of Something as Being Less Than It Actually Is. :D

I'm glad you liked it.  Now consider that the tone of the entire post was consistent to that level, including when I used "crazy".  :eek:  And I'd never even heard of "Satanic Child Abuse" before.

Quote from: Dumarest;969897I also went to Catholic school in the early 80s and nobody cared a whit whether we played D&D or not. I'm always curious about where this "Satanic Panic" happened, as it never seemed to be anywhere I was. Was it a rural thing?

I knew Catholic school kids in my area (SW Ohio) and they never experienced any pushback on D&D. It was just the Evangelical types that were an issue. My impression is that the Catholic Church didn't give a damn about it, but is communities were the controversy existed, some local churches might have just tagged along.

Our school D&D club was a victim of Satanic Panic, but the school never actually banned it. We still played during recess and toted our books around openly.

Quote from: S'mon;969956A few years back I provoked extreme outrage from the ex-military bag-checker at the entrance to the Imperial War Museum. He took grave offence to the D&D books in my bag. Why, I have no idea.

Totally unrelated, but I want to pass along a story provoking outrage with D&D in an inadvertent fashion. Back before I could print hex paper off the Internet, I was looking to get some. There was a stationary store I passed on the way to work, so I thought I might give it a shot. As I browsed the man working asked if he could help. I told him offhandedly that I was looking for hex paper. He turned cold with anger and said he did not carry such things in his store.

His reaction seemed really weird, but I left. It wasn't until I was half a block away that it occurred to me "hex paper" wasn't common terminology, and they guy seemed to read it as having something to do with "hexing", like I was buying some ingredient for witchcraft.

Quote from: Baulderstone;969968Back before I could print hex paper off the Internet, I was looking to get some. There was a stationary store I passed on the way to work, so I thought I might give it a shot. As I browsed the man working asked if he could help. I told him offhandedly that I was looking for hex paper. He turned cold with anger and said he did not carry such things in his store.

His reaction seemed really weird, but I left. It wasn't until I was half a block away that it occurred to me "hex paper" wasn't common terminology, and they guy seemed to read it as having something to do with "hexing", like I was buying some ingredient for witchcraft.

You'd think he's ask what kind first. Or maybe he thought you asked for sex paper. In which case he should definitely have asked what you meant.

Quote from: Dumarest;969958I would love to know what he found objectionable. Which books were they?

Mmm, probably 3e I guess, might have been 4e (this would be ca 2010 around the time I switched). Pretty sure it was the words "Dungeons & Dragons" he objected to, so I'm guessing he'd had a sermon on it.

Quote from: Willmark;967800Just when you think the grogs can't get any "groggier" then surprise you yet again.

What the actual fuck was that?

That was a man who never actually wrote an RPG claiming his rpg was more popular than mine.

The thread as a whole was also proof of the OSR Taliban. The attitude Estar keeps trying to pretend never existed.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;967844(Grognardia put me off the OSR

Yes, it did that for a TON OF PEOPLE who would otherwise have been natural allies of the OSR. But the Taliban didn't give a fuck because they were too busy sucking his cock while he told them how sophisticated and special they were being for doing so.

He was Swine who despises them, and they fell for it like the naive nerd suckers they've been all their lives.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967858It still exists as a stereotype, as a mythical strawman one can trot out to demonize and criticize a whole group of people who do not meet the definition.  Look at  the Appendix N thread.  Supposedly, there's this group of people out there who "worship" Appendix N like it's their Holy Text, or subject it to "Talmudic" study, like they are you or Gronan, who actually have spent years studying real Holy Texts as an academic and spiritual endeavor.  The idea is idiotic and ludicrous on its face.

Appendix N is currently literally being used by radical sociocon-reactionary elements of the anti-SJW Right to make an elaborate argument that all Sci-fi and Fantasy written after 1960 is Stupid and Degenerate.

QuoteJmal hasn't made a Grognardia post for five years, because he stole tens of thousands of dollars from his own cocksucking fans and even when he was, he was challenged on his own blog.

Fixed your omission.

QuoteIf I started calling BoxCrayonTales or FVB a "Narrative Nazi" or Jay Little the "Forgian KKK Grand Wizard" people would look at me like I was nuts, and they'd be right, because it's crazytalk.  Yet someone says "OSR Taliban" and people just say "Oh yeah, one of those" as if those people actually exist.

That should tell you something.

Quote from: estar;967884Hey look something we can agree on!

I'd agree with letting things go as soon as the losing side agrees the things they did wrong Actually Happened.

Quote from: estar;967899Tying this back to what Pundit is contending. What impact they had on the growth and content of the OSR i.e people, playing, publishing, and promoting classic edition of D&D?

Everyone on the very well-researched list by Voros served to retard the OSR's maturation into an actual fucking design movement and not a nostalgic movement of Gygax Worship and Purity-Seeking.

Quote from: S'mon;967919Is he really 'far-right' BTW, or just a right-libertarian Castalia House type? As far as I can see there is a lot of clear blue water between Varg Vikernes and what I see on http://www.castaliahouse.com/ (I see he's the top post on their blog today) - Are you just using 'far right' to mean these anti-SJW types, which would seem to pretty much cover RPGPundit too? Or is he a National Socialist racial purity type?

"Far Right" is a useless term at this point. He is, like most of Castalia House, a New-Right non-religious Socio-Conservative who happens to believe in Free Speech (at least, in terms of his track record thus far, while it is unclear whether he would continue to believe so if he and his friends were the ones in power).

Jeffro is absolutely not a Neo-nazi as far as I've ever seen.

He spends way too much time talking about degenerate art or the importance of traditional male/female roles, for me to really feel like I could call him a Libertarian.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968010Well, one thing I think people need to get a grip on is that identifying elements of Appendix N fiction as the source of certain D&D assumptions is NOT...
1. Declaring these texts to be the only influence.
2. Declaring that playing a certain way is Right or Wrong.
3. Worshipping those texts or Gary Gygax in any way, shape or form.
4. Saying that if you've never read them, you can't possibly understand D&D.

I'm not saying Jmal, Jeffro or whoever else didn't say these things.  I'm saying that looking up an author's influences to see to what extent they influenced their works is hardly rare, in fact it's pretty standard...except if it's Gygax and Appendix N, in which case you're automatically this obsessed One True Wayist.

Gimme a fucking break.

But that's the point: it was never meant to be anything but a recommended reading list. In terms of gameability, it was probably the LEAST IMPORTANT (certainly one of the  least) of all the appendices in the DMG.

These assholes turned it into the Dead Sea Scrolls and demanded everyone listen to their retarded ideas about what this means about how we have to play. EVEN THOSE OF US WHO (UNLIKE JMAL) WERE ACTUALLY FUCKING THERE. We were told, some of us who had actually been Old-School gamers, that we "weren't REAL Old School Gamers" because we weren't doing it the way Jmal said Appendix N said we had to do it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968372Okay, seriously, does anybody -- not just here, but anybody anywhere over the age of 14 -- actually think that Appendix N was anything other than "some of Gary's favorite fantasyish books"?

Yes. I've spoken to several of the OSR-taliban types who have insisted it was a precise and carefully crafted list that was intended for every gamer to understand the secret details of the OSR.  It wasn't just "books Gygax liked", they insist, but rather every single book on the list is there for an instructive reason, and any book absent from that list has nothing whatsoever to reveal about D&D.


So, you know, morons.

Quote from: Dumarest;968540Gary Gygax made a game that has been a lot of fun for a lot of people for 43+ years now. I'm not sure what else people are hoping to discover by parsing phrases with a fine-tooth comb.

Their own sense of self-importance.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970428Appendix N is currently literally being used by radical sociocon-reactionary elements of the anti-SJW Right to make an elaborate argument that all Sci-fi and Fantasy written after 1960 is Stupid and Degenerate.

Whereas moderates put the cut-off ca 1980. Maybe sometime in the '80s for a few he's-not-dead-yet classic authors.

You must admit something pretty appalling has happened to literary sf, certainly since 1990 or so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970433He spends way too much time talking about degenerate art or the importance of traditional male/female roles, for me to really feel like I could call him a Libertarian.

Well Lauren Southern called herself a "Libertarian Nationalist" when Rubin asked her to name her ideology. She had a recent video on the importance of gender roles. That seems to fit a lot of these people (and me to some extent). The Alt-Right call them the Alt-Lite. They're clearly distinct from Bill Maher style Left-Libertarians. You seem to be in the middle, supporting Trump but generally closer to Maher.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970426Yes, it did that for a TON OF PEOPLE who would otherwise have been natural allies of the OSR.

  In fairness,
  1) No one with my Hickmanist sympathies was ever going to be a natural ally of the OSR,
   2) If you had been my first encounter, especially around 2014, I probably would have been even more alienated, not only from the OSR, but from D&D in general. Even as it was, I stated several times that your involvement and enthusiasm about 5E were points against it for me.

Quote from: S'mon;970448Whereas moderates put the cut-off ca 1980. Maybe sometime in the '80s for a few he's-not-dead-yet classic authors.

You must admit something pretty appalling has happened to literary sf, certainly since 1990 or so.

Robert Heinlein published his strange tale of how a man came back from Mars in order to start a nudist scientologist orgy cult in 1961...so...

Quote from: RPGPundit;970441Yes. I've spoken to several of the OSR-taliban types who have insisted it was a precise and carefully crafted list that was intended for every gamer to understand the secret details of the OSR.  It wasn't just "books Gygax liked", they insist, but rather every single book on the list is there for an instructive reason, and any book absent from that list has nothing whatsoever to reveal about D&D.

Jesus wept.

Quote from: RPGPundit;970441So, you know, morons.

Bonus points for Blazing Saddles reference.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;970473Robert Heinlein published his strange tale of how a man came back from Mars in order to start a nudist scientologist orgy cult in 1961...so...

I'm sure Castalia are fine with that.

Heinlein was actually one of those not-yet-dead-in-84 authors I was thinking about, I recall a book by him (Friday, I think) being panned in White Dwarf around then. Also Arthur C Clarke, who turned out to be a bit of a homosexual paedophile, but did very little to push that in his fiction.

Quote from: S'mon;970477I'm sure Castalia are fine with that.

   Depends on who you talk to. John C. Wright, one of their headliners, has had some less than laudatory things to say about Heinlein, (http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/10/fooled-by-heinlein-for-40-years-golden-oldie/) even in his pre-conversion days.

Quote from: Krimson;969890I went to Catholic School in the 80s, and we certainly were not allowed to play D&D at school. So we played Marvel Superheroes. It's funny because the group I ended up playing with for 30 years came about when they had people from the local Boy's and Girls club come to the school and tell us about D&D night. So yeah, D&D in Catholic School bad. Inviting people from outside the school to tell us about D&D was somehow okay.

Quote from: Dumarest;969897I also went to Catholic school in the early 80s and nobody cared a whit whether we played D&D or not. I'm always curious about where this "Satanic Panic" happened, as it never seemed to be anywhere I was. Was it a rural thing?

Not in the least was it only rural. My mother would have been living in Milwaukee (yes that city from happy days) during the 80s and she sure as shit bought that crap till I set her straight.

Quote from: S'mon;970448Whereas moderates put the cut-off ca 1980. Maybe sometime in the '80s for a few he's-not-dead-yet classic authors.

You must admit something pretty appalling has happened to literary sf, certainly since 1990 or so.

Personally I find that the whole "new sci-fi is bad" shtick to be over blown drivel. After all the idea that "all sci fi must be deeps"(exaggerated for effect) is crap its completely contrary to the idea of genre fiction after all lets be honest Alice in wonder land, The princess and the goblin, red wall, and the lord of the rings  are all fantasy but vastly different forms and styles to that end I'd say sci-fi is the same.
That also means while some story's are about deeper human, psychological, moral and social issues some aren't some are simply entertainment for enjoyment and shouldn't be taken as any more nor should they be magically called "bad sci-fi"(again exaggerated) simply because they don't fit someone's predigested notion of what science fiction should or should not be.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;970473Robert Heinlein published his strange tale of how a man came back from Mars in order to start a nudist scientologist orgy cult in 1961...so...

Mind if I ask what the hell the name of this book is as I am unfamiliar with it.

Stranger in a Strange Land. Great premise, mediocre book. Like Starship Troopers it had a huge cult following, particularly with the hippies in the 60s/70s. I much prefer Heinlein's novellas and juveniles: The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, Universe, By His Bootstraps, Red Planet, Time for the Stars, Farmer in the Sky and Starman Jones are all excellent (you almost can't go wrong with any of his juvenile novels).

Quote from: S'mon;970477Also Arthur C Clarke, who turned out to be a bit of a homosexual paedophile, but did very little to push that in his fiction.

Maybe it helped that he was living the dream in Ceylon. He didn't need to to use his books as an outlet for his proclivities like Piers Anthony.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970518Personally I find that the whole "new sci-fi is bad" shtick to be over blown drivel.

Fiction from the past is always better because time has filtered out the dross. I've read a lot of actual sci-fi magazines and collections from the 40s and 50s, and there is a lot of crap there alongside those gems that everyone remembers.

It's also just that as one gets older, it gets harder to find things as mindblowing as you once did. No story published this year is going to melt my brain like reading Neuromancer when I was 14, or discovering Jack Vance and Philip K. Dick a couple of years later. I still like sci-fi, but I get the impression some people expect it to give them the same rush forever, and that isn't going to happen.

Lots of great scifi in the 80s. That cut off point excludes the best work of Gregory Benford, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch and Paul Park, some of the best literary sf writers the genre has ever had in English. And I assume we're distinguishing between fantasy and sf here as Vance wrote his best novel, Lyonesse in the 80s, not to mention all the great fantasy novels by McKinely, Tepper and others.

Quote from: Voros;970531Lots of great scifi in the 80s. That cut off point excludes the best work of Gregory Benford, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch and Paul Park, some of the best literary sf writers the genre has ever had in English. And I assume we're distinguishing between fantasy and sf here as Vance wrote his best novel, Lyonesse in the 80s, not to mention all the great fantasy novels by McKinely, Tepper and others.

My point was that as a teen I was reading the books of the '80s (Benford, Wolfe and Disch, but Paul Park passed me by) at the same time I was exploring back into earlier decades. It means that everything from the '80s and before had a level of novelty to it because it was all new. "Scanners Live in Vain" by Cordwainer Smith from 1945 was as exciting and new as Across the Sea of Suns by Benford. And reading "The Sentinel" by Clarke was exciting as I saw the clear influence it had on Benford. They were all part of my honeymoon period with sci-fi. So when I spoke of Vance, I was referring to his sci-fi, but looking backwards. I believe the first Vance story I ever read was "The New Prime".

I'd forgotten about about Tepper. She could be a bit heavy-handed, but she was a good enough writer that I didn't mind.

Tepper's sf is heavy handed, her early fantasy has many of hte same concerns but deals with them much better I think.

And I certainly do know what you mean, as they say 'the golden age of sf is 12.' I actually didn't really get into the genre heavily until my early 20s when I discovered the New Wave writers of the 60s, before then I was a haphazard reader of 'serious' literature, spy novels, horror, sf and a bit of fantasy.

Quote from: Voros;970542Tepper's sf is heavy handed, her early fantasy has many of hte same concerns but deals with them much better I think.

And I certainly do know what you mean, as they say 'the golden age of sf is 12.' I actually didn't really get into the genre heavily until my early 20s when I discovered the New Wave writers of the 60s, before then I was a haphazard reader of 'serious' literature, spy novels, horror, sf and a bit of fantasy.

I mostly read science-fiction as a teen. I started strong with fantasy, going from Blyton to Lewis to Tolkien to Moorcock, but then I entered I hit a phase of Dragonlance and Shannara books and the like. I enjoyed them, but I began to feel fantasy was a bit samey. Science-fiction seems to have more variety, so I concentrated my attention there. I never turned my back on fantasy, but I was wary of anything in a trilogy.

With horror, I started mostly with King, Straub, Barker and then, being a gamer, I moved to Lovecraft. Eventually, Lovecraft led me to Lord Dunsany and Clark Ashton Smith, and I realized that maybe there was a lot more interesting fantasy out there than I had realized. Around that time, I started picking those Years Best Fantasy and Horror volumes that Datlow and Windling did.

I got into crime and spy novels starting in my 20s with Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett, which remains one of my favorites.

Straub's best work, Julia, Koko and Shadowland from what I've read, is top drawer stuff. His reputation should be much higher than it is I think.

Like Wolfe he is a major writer who doesn't get the attention he deserves, I believe because he has been pigeonholed as a genre writer. Supposedly the literary mainstream is above such genre ghettos but they're very random about who they let in the clubhouse and who is kept outside (King is now okay, but not Straub? Philip K Dick went from underrated and cult to mainstream and overrated but Wolf and Disch are still relatively unknown).

Got to love that Continental Op.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970528Maybe it helped that he was living the dream in Ceylon. He didn't need to to use his books as an outlet for his proclivities like Piers Anthony.



Fiction from the past is always better because time has filtered out the dross. I've read a lot of actual sci-fi magazines and collections from the 40s and 50s, and there is a lot of crap there alongside those gems that everyone remembers.

It's also just that as one gets older, it gets harder to find things as mindblowing as you once did. No story published this year is going to melt my brain like reading Neuromancer when I was 14, or discovering Jack Vance and Philip K. Dick a couple of years later. I still like sci-fi, but I get the impression some people expect it to give them the same rush forever, and that isn't going to happen.

Exactly thank you.
For me I grew up with sci-fi and fantasy all around me from the start and it has effected my view point on them heavily.  Hence I tend to look at A book or video game / what have you independently rather then getting caught up in who wrote it or when it was made. Though I do point out when certain styles of things where popular that I enjoy.

Quote from: Voros;970527Stranger in a Strange Land. Great premise, mediocre book. Like Starship Troopers it had a huge cult following, particularly with the hippies in the 60s/70s. I much prefer Heinlein's novellas and juveniles: The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, Universe, By His Bootstraps, Red Planet, Time for the Stars, Farmer in the Sky and Starman Jones are all excellent (you almost can't go wrong with any of his juvenile novels).

Ah okay I read that in high school my take away was A little different on the premise (I felt it was more A look at the idea of what is religion) though I do agree that it was under done I distinctly remember thinking that while I did enjoy the book I wasn't sure I'd call it A good book

Quote from: Dumarest;970554Got to love that Continental Op.

That I do. I have a battered copy of the The Big Knockover that gets reread on a regular basis as well.

Quote from: Voros;970552Straub's best work, Julia, Koko and Shadowland from what I've read, is top drawer stuff. His reputation should be much higher than it is I think.

I feel the same. King's books are more flat-out entertaining, but Straub's best stuff was more haunting and stayed with me. I'd put him in the same category as Algernon Blackwood.

QuoteLike Wolfe he is a major writer who doesn't get the attention he deserves, I believe because he has been pigeonholed as a genre writer. Supposedly the literary mainstream is above such genre ghettos but they're very random about who they let in the clubhouse and who is kept outside (King is now okay, but not Straub? Philip K Dick went from underrated and cult to mainstream and overrated but Wolf and Disch are still relatively unknown).

Wolfe is a writer who is never going to be popular. He makes you work hard, and for me, that is part of the pleasure. He really does deserve a place in literature and think he actually will get it in time. Wolfe lends itself to analysis in a way that is very appealing to academics.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970558Exactly thank you.
For me I grew up with sci-fi and fantasy all around me from the start and it has effected my view point on them heavily.  Hence I tend to look at A book or video game / what have you independently rather then getting caught up in who wrote it or when it was made. Though I do point out when certain styles of things where popular that I enjoy.

It is good to just take a story at face value when you first read. I still like to get into the context in which a story was written. Back when I was first getting into sci-fi and fantasy, finding the next truly good story and using one good story to find another was part of the game. Obviously, you could look at other stories by the same author, but I'd also like to find out what writers were part of their circle, and who their literary heroes were.

One of the more interesting paths was discovering that Vance's favorite writers were Clark Ashton Smith, Dashiell Hammett, and P.G. Woodhouse. It's an unlikely combination, but having read all three, their presence in Vance is obvious.

QuoteAh okay I read that in high school my take away was A little different on the premise (I felt it was more A look at the idea of what is religion) though I do agree that it was under done I distinctly remember thinking that while I did enjoy the book I wasn't sure I'd call it A good book

I haven't read that since the '80s. I remember it having a great beginning and then just falling apart halfway through.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970558Exactly thank you.
For me I grew up with sci-fi and fantasy all around me from the start and it has effected my view point on them heavily.  Hence I tend to look at A book or video game / what have you independently rather then getting caught up in who wrote it or when it was made. Though I do point out when certain styles of things where popular that I enjoy.

Ah okay I read that in high school my take away was A little different on the premise (I felt it was more A look at the idea of what is religion) though I do agree that it was under done I distinctly remember thinking that while I did enjoy the book I wasn't sure I'd call it A good book

BTW the Martians in Stranger in a Strange Land make their first appearance in Red Planet, which is just about a note perfect adventure story, until Heinlein went back years later and restored OT rants about gun rights and women. They're short enough that they don't spoil the book though. I was pretty stoked to find a hardcover first edition from the 50s that was a library remainder with that nonsense cut out and the excellent illustrations.

It kinda breaks my heart to checkout the sf section in most stores and find his later uneven 'adult' books like Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land there instead of Farmer in the Sky or Starman Jones. Imagine if you could only find Kipling's adult novels and not The Jungle Book?

Quote from: Voros;970531Lots of great scifi in the 80s. That cut off point excludes the best work of Gregory Benford, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch and Paul Park, some of the best literary sf writers the genre has ever had in English. And I assume we're distinguishing between fantasy and sf here as Vance wrote his best novel, Lyonesse in the 80s, not to mention all the great fantasy novels by McKinely, Tepper and others.

Yeah, I would agree - looking back over the book reviews section in '80s White Dwarf, tons of good stuff was still coming out regularly.
But I do think the beginning of first wave Political Correctness in 1990 marked a phase shift, and that there is a problem with what gets marketed as sf now. Or if not a problem, at least a shift in the target audience - it used to be primarily a men's genre. Now what I've seen (& I've not read much recently) seems more books for women/girls, with a light sf patina.
I did enjoy the Hunger Games trilogy though - great for bed time reading to my son. :) A female friend mocked me for enjoying a trilogy about "a young girl's sexual awakening" though! :D

Quote from: Baulderstone;970568I feel the same. King's books are more flat-out entertaining, but Straub's best stuff was more haunting and stayed with me. I'd put him in the same category as Algernon Blackwood.



Wolfe is a writer who is never going to be popular. He makes you work hard, and for me, that is part of the pleasure. He really does deserve a place in literature and think he actually will get it in time. Wolfe lends itself to analysis in a way that is very appealing to academics.



It is good to just take a story at face value when you first read. I still like to get into the context in which a story was written. Back when I was first getting into sci-fi and fantasy, finding the next truly good story and using one good story to find another was part of the game. Obviously, you could look at other stories by the same author, but I'd also like to find out what writers were part of their circle, and who their literary heroes were.

One of the more interesting paths was discovering that Vance's favorite writers were Clark Ashton Smith, Dashiell Hammett, and P.G. Woodhouse. It's an unlikely combination, but having read all three, their presence in Vance is obvious.



I haven't read that since the '80s. I remember it having a great beginning and then just falling apart halfway through.

Hmm I think it depends A little I'd say its more 2/3rds ish of the way not because it stops being entertaining but because it starts to drag on A bit to much.
Personally I think he books biggest problem was that the main character could have been more interesting I found him to be A bit to dissident and hard to understand and relate to as A person hence I barely remember him. On the other hand I remember most of the supporting cast quite well and in no small detail. Particularly Jubal E. Harshaw (and I just found 3 books I need to read looking up how to spell that).
Also I do agree learning about who A writer was influenced by and what the back round that effected the book in question can very much be A journey unto it self. And it is nice to know i'm not the only one who enjoys working when I read. I read Beowulf at 13 or so in the old English though the fact I had to work so hard to read it did take its toll as I dont remember the book very well.  Thats likely A large part of the reason I keep telling my self I need to reread it.
by the way I found in interesting excerpt from Wikipedia on stranger.

QuoteHeinlein got the idea for the novel when he and his wife Virginia were brainstorming one evening in 1948. She suggested a new version of Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book (1894), but with a child raised by Martians instead of wolves. He decided to go further with the idea and worked on the story on and off for more than a decade.[13] His editors at Putnam then required him to cut its 220,000-word length down to 160,067 words before publication. In 1962, it received the Hugo Award for Best Novel.[14]

Stranger in a Strange Land was written in part as a deliberate attempt to challenge social mores. In the course of the story, Heinlein uses Smith's open-mindedness to reevaluate such institutions as religion, money, monogamy, and the fear of death. Heinlein completed writing it ten years after he had plotted it out in detail. He later wrote, "I had been in no hurry to finish it, as that story could not be published commercially until the public mores changed. I could see them changing and it turned out that I had timed it right."[15]

The book was dedicated in part to science fiction author Philip José Farmer, who had explored sexual themes in science fictional works such as The Lovers (1952). It was also influenced by the satiric fantasies of James Branch Cabell.

Heinlein was surprised that some readers thought the book described how he believed society should be organized, explaining: "I was not giving answers. I was trying to shake the reader loose from some preconceptions and induce him to think for himself, along new and fresh lines. In consequence, each reader gets something different out of that book because he himself supplies the answers ... It is an invitation to think – not to believe."[7]
Influence

Quote from: Voros;970590BTW the Martians in Stranger in a Strange Land make their first appearance in Red Planet, which is just about a note perfect adventure story, until Heinlein went back years later and restored OT rants about gun rights and women. They're short enough that they don't spoil the book though. I was pretty stoked to find a hardcover first edition from the 50s that was a library remainder with that nonsense cut out and the excellent illustrations.

It kinda breaks my heart to checkout the sf section in most stores and find his later uneven 'adult' books like Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land there instead of Farmer in the Sky or Starman Jones. Imagine if you could only find Kipling's adult novels and not The Jungle Book?

I was Unaware of that I'm frankly not to familiar with his work as my mother was defiantly not A fan of his.
I do agree with you though that there are A large number of books that are unfairly hard to find while I am only vaguely familiar with Kipling. Though I will say with the advent of the internet it has actually gotten easier to find meany of the older under printed books one may want.

Quote from: Voros;970590It kinda breaks my heart to checkout the sf section in most stores and find his later uneven 'adult' books like Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land there instead of Farmer in the Sky or Starman Jones. Imagine if you could only find Kipling's adult novels and not The Jungle Book?

At least ebooks are getting around that problem. All of Heinlein's juveniles are available on Amazon as ebooks.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970780Hmm I think it depends A little I'd say its more 2/3rds ish of the way not because it stops being entertaining but because it starts to drag on A bit to much.

It has been 30 years since I read it, so my "half" comment is a very rough estimate of when the book goes bad. It could easily be 2/3.

QuoteAlso I do agree learning about who A writer was influenced by and what the back round that effected the book in question can very much be A journey unto it self. And it is nice to know i'm not the only one who enjoys working when I read. I read Beowulf at 13 or so in the old English though the fact I had to work so hard to read it did take its toll as I dont remember the book very well.  Thats likely A large part of the reason I keep telling my self I need to reread it.

Working through a book like that is satisfying, but I definitely recommend a reread. I read Lord of the Rings when I was in 4th grade. It was the summer I moved to Kuwait. I didn't know anyone, and it was too fucking hot to go outside, so I read the whole damn thing. I did get the gist of it, but a lot was lost on me, and like you with Beowulf, I didn't remember much. For years though, I was convinced it was a book I had already read and didn't need to revisit.

Then in my mid-20, the Middle Earth CCG came out, and a friend of mine picked it up. I was looking through the cards and was largely clueless about most of the people, places and artifacts on these cards. I went home, pulled my copy off the shelf and actually read the thing as an adult and realized how much I missed.

I'd take anything you read about Heinlein on Wikipedia with a boatload of salt. His entry is guarded by a group of true believers who are fantatical about excluding facts about their hero they don't like.

Quote from: Voros;970868I'd take anything you read about Heinlein on Wikipedia with a boatload of salt. His entry is guarded by a group of true believers who are fantatical about excluding facts about their hero they don't like.

Let's just copy & paste this into any Wikipedia article about anyone ever. Every teenybopper musician article, for instance, is written as though the subject is the most popular, cleverest, most talented person ever to walk the earth.

Quote from: Dumarest;970923Let's just copy & paste this into any Wikipedia article about anyone ever. Every teenybopper musician article, for instance, is written as though the subject is the most popular, cleverest, most talented person ever to walk the earth.

I don't think it's likely for someone to edit a Wikipedia entry for someone they have no interest in.

And again, this thread has spent the last several pages veering off of any of its original subject, and into territory that is not really about RPGs at all. Closed.