I have to admit: I don't get the OSR. There seem to be two kinds of D&D retro-clones: the first is one that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D and the second is one that only treats a TSR edition of D&D as a point of departure and goes far afield to something that is ultimately barely recognizable as D&D.
The latter is the most egregious to me... I'd rather put a gun in my mouth than sit and listen to someone's long list of house-rules for D&D. Why on earth would I waste time with a retro-clone? I'm a simple man... I want to play a game that is actually called D&D right there on the cover, not someone's motley collection of heartbreaker house-rules. In general, these retro-clones stink of the idea that "the rules will save you" and that the most entertaining thing about RPGs is the rules themselves, like the rules will give you a good experience. That is NOT my experience. In my experience, the only thing fun about an RPG is when it goes off the rails with funny/inappropriate jokes and other immature bullshit. Rules are only necessary to give the impression of a structure, but the memorable parts of a game session is when the structure goes out the window and hilarity and disaster ensue.
The first type of retro-clone also confuses me... if you are going to make a retro-clone that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D, why not just play a TSR edition of D&D? It is super easy to get the rules in digital format through any number of websites and you can even get the rules and supplements in print from places like DTRPG (although I admit the idea of giving royalties to WOTC is less than appealing). But the original versions have a lot of advantages over retro-clones... they have tons more nostalgia to them; they aren't written in the sterile, clinical style that is popular today; and most of all they are far, far, far more concise. Compare OSE to B/X, for example. The Moldvay Basic rulebook is something like 64 pages and OSE is something like 300 pages.
And that brings up another issue... why is so much of the OSR obsessed with B/X? B/X was not a standalone game, it wasn't a "separate" version of D&D... it was literally around for only a couple years and was replaced by BECMI, which did offer the full game. B/X strikes me as being for people who like shareware versions of software more than the full registered version... why base retro-clones on something that was never the full game in the first place?
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
It is super easy to get the rules in digital format through any number of websites
But that was not the case when many of the true clones were created.
I don't care for the OSR much at all because, while I enjoyed older versions of D&D, I enjoyed them despite their rules, not because of them. If more OSR writers/publishers could find a way to mix an "old school feel" (in varying degrees) along with more modern sets of rules (not just minor tweaks to the old rules), then I'd be likely to give them more of my attention.
Quote from: Zalman on June 17, 2021, 10:01:35 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
It is super easy to get the rules in digital format through any number of websites
But that was not the case when many of the true clones were created.
Well piracy has always existed and really deserves the credit for "saving" D&D and laying the groundwork for the OSR, but yes, there was indeed a time when retro-clones made sense because they were the easiest way to legally host homebrewed adventures for TSR editions of the game. I feel like the OSR has moved waaaaaay past that original mission, however.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I have to admit: I don't get the OSR. There seem to be two kinds of D&D retro-clones: the first is one that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D and the second is one that only treats a TSR edition of D&D as a point of departure and goes far afield to something that is ultimately barely recognizable as D&D.
Well, that's your opinion dude.
What's stoping you from playing whatever you want?
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 17, 2021, 10:01:44 AM
I don't care for the OSR much at all because, while I enjoyed older versions of D&D, I enjoyed them despite their rules, not because of them. If more OSR writers/publishers could find a way to mix old school fee (in varying degrees) l with more modern sets of rules, I'd be likely to give them more of my attention.
Honestly, all RPG rules are bad. Playing a game with a physical telephone book of rules is bad. Game mechanics and systems are not fun. TSR editions of D&D are just as wonky as anything else, from an outsider's perspective. There was a time when boardgames shipped with a page and a half of rules (now they ship with textbooks) and we've all decided that this "new normal" is just A-OK with us.
There needs to be just enough rules in an RPG for suspension of disbelief, to give players the impression that they aren't just BSing everything and playing make-believe. But the memorable parts of the game are when it all devolves and the DM starts to roll out all the "terrible life decisions" that the characters have just made and hilarious disaster ensues. That's the only thing that makes any of it any fun!
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 10:06:21 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I have to admit: I don't get the OSR. There seem to be two kinds of D&D retro-clones: the first is one that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D and the second is one that only treats a TSR edition of D&D as a point of departure and goes far afield to something that is ultimately barely recognizable as D&D.
Well, that's your opinion dude.
What's stoping you from playing whatever you want?
The gov'ment!
No, nothing, I wasn't asking for permission. I'm just venting... ain't this website my own personal group therapy session??
I mean, I guess I am
kinda curious about hearing a defense of the OSR, although I don't know if it will change my mind (but who knows?).
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:04:26 AM
there was indeed a time when retro-clones made sense because they were the easiest way to legally host homebrewed adventures for TSR editions of the game. I feel like the OSR has moved waaaaaay past that original mission, however.
"The OSR" sounds like a boogeyman to me. I get that a few people are into "the OSR" as a "movement" or something, which was perhaps an important catalyst for creativity when it started, and as you imply perhaps less useful now. But what I see in reality is just a bunch of people making games, some good, some bad. I have no need to categorize those games into "OSR" and "not-OSR", just as I have little need to judge via any ISM.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:09:15 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 10:06:21 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I have to admit: I don't get the OSR. There seem to be two kinds of D&D retro-clones: the first is one that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D and the second is one that only treats a TSR edition of D&D as a point of departure and goes far afield to something that is ultimately barely recognizable as D&D.
Well, that's your opinion dude.
What's stoping you from playing whatever you want?
The gov'ment!
No, nothing, I wasn't asking for permission. I'm just venting... ain't this website my own personal group therapy session??
I mean, I guess I am kinda curious about hearing a defense of the OSR, although I don't know if it will change my mind (but who knows?).
Yeah no, I don't feel the need to deffend my tastes to anybody.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:08:24 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 17, 2021, 10:01:44 AM
I don't care for the OSR much at all because, while I enjoyed older versions of D&D, I enjoyed them despite their rules, not because of them. If more OSR writers/publishers could find a way to mix old school fee (in varying degrees) l with more modern sets of rules, I'd be likely to give them more of my attention.
Honestly, all RPG rules are bad. Playing a game with a physical telephone book of rules is bad. Game mechanics and systems are not fun. TSR editions of D&D are just as wonky as anything else, from an outsider's perspective. There was a time when boardgames shipped with a page and a half of rules (now they ship with textbooks) and we've all decided that this "new normal" is just A-OK with us.
There needs to be just enough rules in an RPG for suspension of disbelief, to give players the impression that they aren't just BSing everything and playing make-believe. But the memorable parts of the game are when it all devolves and the DM starts to roll out all the "terrible life decisions" that the characters have just made and hilarious disaster ensues. That's the only thing that makes any of it any fun!
I can't agree with you here. I like rules with more substance and I find minimalist rulesets unsatisfying. However, I do have my limits (e.g., after trying out Federation Commander, I determined I'd never go back to Star Fleet Battles).
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:08:24 AM
There needs to be just enough rules in an RPG for suspension of disbelief
Isn't that a core tenet of "the OSR"?
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:09:15 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 10:06:21 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I have to admit: I don't get the OSR. There seem to be two kinds of D&D retro-clones: the first is one that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D and the second is one that only treats a TSR edition of D&D as a point of departure and goes far afield to something that is ultimately barely recognizable as D&D.
Well, that's your opinion dude.
What's stoping you from playing whatever you want?
The gov'ment!
No, nothing, I wasn't asking for permission. I'm just venting... ain't this website my own personal group therapy session??
I mean, I guess I am kinda curious about hearing a defense of the OSR, although I don't know if it will change my mind (but who knows?).
You want to play D&D, yet you hate those OSR games that most resemble D&D because they are D&D. And at the same time you also hate those OSR games that aren't.
I wonder if this isn't just an attempt at a flame war. Or like the kids today would say: Bait.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:09:15 AM
No, nothing, I wasn't asking for permission. I'm just venting... ain't this website my own personal group therapy session??
No, that's The Big Purple. We're the anti-snowflake blowtorch forum where ideas that can't be defended come to die in a fire.
Now, I'm not OSR, but my system started off as a retro-clone of 4E precisely because the GSL associated with it did NOT make it something that could just be cut-and-paste copied in the way the OGL allowed of other editions and if I was going to go to all that work I was at least going to fix some of the more glaring errors. There was also a potential market as many people in my circles felt quite alienated by 5e and its throwing of every good idea from 4E (contrary to what some people think it was not universally horrible) under the bus.
Similarly, the system had a LOT of bloat and the digital character builders were becoming unusable due to software compatibility issues so creating a consolidated document so players wouldn't need to reference dozens of documents just to find the option that let their character do what their concept needed also felt like a worthwhile goal.
The designer in me also remembered the 4E designers claiming they went into the project with the idea of questioning everything... no sacred cows. So, if I was intending to create a spiritual successor for the people who enjoyed 4E's innovations rather than 5e's nostalgia, then I too should follow that mantra and question every last assumption made in the design of 4E to see if there wasn't a better/more fun way to do things.
As a result, over several years of playtesting and player feedback the mechanics morphed significantly. The first to die because I didn't like it anyway was a lot of the narrative mechanics (ex. measuring durations by elements like "end of the encounter" or "once per encounter" was replaced with real time durations). Next to die because I trying to build mass combat rules into the system from the start was the insane quadratic scaling that 4E applied to everything such that something more than three levels above your party level was deadly and everything three or more levels below was a joke.
The net result of those two was a much more simulationist and sandbox-friendly system and also into a system that is perfectly tailored to the campaign setting I've linked to it... which once upon a time was the norm; each game having its own bespoke game system to go along with its unique setting; not trying to hammer the same mechanics into setting where they're much less of a good fit.
Anyway... I appreciate the OSR titles that swerve away from the base for what they are... a designers attempt to create their own perfect system to go with their settings.
And the thing is... that's how D&D started too. It started out as just "someone's long list of house-rules" for the Chainmail wargame. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e were all just "someone's long list of house-rules" for OD&D. Palladium Fantasy got its start as Kevin's "long list of hose-rules" for early D&D. Pathfinder was just "someone's long list of house-rules" for 3.5e.
Your argument is basically, McDonalds was the first fast food place, so why would anyone ever want to create a fast food place with a different menu? Why would anyone go to any other fast food burger place when there's a McDonalds you can go to instead?
Because sometimes McDonalds isn't what you're looking for.
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 17, 2021, 10:15:48 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:08:24 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 17, 2021, 10:01:44 AM
I don't care for the OSR much at all because, while I enjoyed older versions of D&D, I enjoyed them despite their rules, not because of them. If more OSR writers/publishers could find a way to mix old school fee (in varying degrees) l with more modern sets of rules, I'd be likely to give them more of my attention.
Honestly, all RPG rules are bad. Playing a game with a physical telephone book of rules is bad. Game mechanics and systems are not fun. TSR editions of D&D are just as wonky as anything else, from an outsider's perspective. There was a time when boardgames shipped with a page and a half of rules (now they ship with textbooks) and we've all decided that this "new normal" is just A-OK with us.
There needs to be just enough rules in an RPG for suspension of disbelief, to give players the impression that they aren't just BSing everything and playing make-believe. But the memorable parts of the game are when it all devolves and the DM starts to roll out all the "terrible life decisions" that the characters have just made and hilarious disaster ensues. That's the only thing that makes any of it any fun!
I can't agree with you here. I like rules with more substance and I find minimalist rulesets unsatisfying. However, I do have my limits (e.g., after trying out Federation Commander, I determined I'd never go back to Star Fleet Battles).
To be clear, I wouldn't consider the 64 pages of rules in Moldvay Basic (mentioned in the OP) to be "rules minimalist." When I run D&D I tend to ignore a lot of stuff in the rules: I fudge time and torches, I leave encumbrance up to "common sense," and I make all sorts of ad hoc rulings mainly because I don't want to have to open up a 64 page rulebook when the game is going on... I certainly don't even want a 300 page rulebook to even be at the table, let alone something the players will expect to be applied to the game.
A good game session is like skipping a stone over a lake. The rules are the water and the stone is the game... it needs to skip off those rules every now and again, but it is the parts where the stone is flying free through the air that make the session a memorable one.
Quote from: Zalman on June 17, 2021, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:08:24 AM
There needs to be just enough rules in an RPG for suspension of disbelief
Isn't that a core tenet of "the OSR"?
You'd think, but like I said, more than half of all retro-clones are little more than someone's house rules document that they published with some budget artwork. You'd think if games needed less rules to get in the way, they would stop adding them to the game. Then there is the other kind of retro-clone, which largely reprints the original rules but more often than not manages to balloon the page count to some ungodly number of pages, as if what D&D really needed was clearer rules. What a D&D session needs is good friends who have good rapport and know how to laugh and have a good time (which is basically antithetical to the overly-educated thin-skinned players of today).
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
And that brings up another issue... why is so much of the OSR obsessed with B/X? B/X was not a standalone game, it wasn't a "separate" version of D&D... it was literally around for only a couple years and was replaced by BECMI, which did offer the full game. B/X strikes me as being for people who like shareware versions of software more than the full registered version... why base retro-clones on something that was never the full game in the first place?
I actually agree with a lot of what you're on about but this statement is factually wrong. Basic & Expert were absolutely a separate D&D game.
Basic and Expert D&D are two halves of the same whole, Expert D&D takes the character created in Basic D&D all the way through 20th+ level - I have the Tom Moldvay/Dave Cook edited Expert rules (as well as the Basic predecessor) right here. Are you perhaps thinking of the Introductory rules edited by J. Eric Holmes which did not have an official TSR "Expert" edition (actually, they did: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons).
You can start and play a character in Basic & Expert all the way through retirement level at 20th+. It has high level spells and monsters and magical items that are more apropos for high level characters, the works. That TSR kept reinventing the wheel on that front doesn't negate it.
Quote from: Zalman on June 17, 2021, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:08:24 AM
There needs to be just enough rules in an RPG for suspension of disbelief
Isn't that a core tenet of "the OSR"?
Given that the movement started with OSRIC? Probably not.
But there's a number of valid reasons for the OSR. First and foremost because someone wanted to do it and frankly that's a good enough reason. People are creative and put effort into stuff but they can't sell it using the Dungeons & Dragons trademark, but with the advent of the OGL they can write down what they like. Also, there has been a market for it which means other people like the idea and are willing to pay for it. The original poster isn't part of that market but that doesn't mean the demand isn't there. Personally the biggest thing is people being tired of being told how to play by big companies that don't really give a shit what any given individual wants from the game. They are a corporation and they want to sell as many books as they can at the best margin they can get. Lastly, the past four editions of D&D have been utterly shit garbage and why anyone would give WOTC a dime for game design and art at this point is beyond me.
Quote from: thedungeondelver on June 17, 2021, 10:38:27 AM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
And that brings up another issue... why is so much of the OSR obsessed with B/X? B/X was not a standalone game, it wasn't a "separate" version of D&D... it was literally around for only a couple years and was replaced by BECMI, which did offer the full game. B/X strikes me as being for people who like shareware versions of software more than the full registered version... why base retro-clones on something that was never the full game in the first place?
I actually agree with a lot of what you're on about but this statement is factually wrong. Basic & Expert were absolutely a separate D&D game.
Basic and Expert D&D are two halves of the same whole, Expert D&D takes the character created in Basic D&D all the way through 20th+ level - I have the Tom Moldvay/Dave Cook edited Expert rules (as well as the Basic predecessor) right here. Are you perhaps thinking of the Introductory rules edited by J. Eric Holmes which did not have an official TSR "Expert" edition (actually, they did: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons).
You can start and play a character in Basic & Expert all the way through retirement level at 20th+. It has high level spells and monsters and magical items that are more apropos for high level characters, the works. That TSR kept reinventing the wheel on that front doesn't negate it.
It is clear that TSR did not see or even intend B/X as a terminal product... if X hadn't been retitled as E, it would have just been BXCMI. But that's all besides the point—Cook Expert clearly refers to future products, like referring to the Companion set on page 8 (which did come out shortly after the last print of Cook Expert) and admits that it doesn't fully support play higher than level 14 (for example, no spells higher than 5th/6th level). This idea that B/X is somehow a complete game is a perverse conceit of fans, not reality.
If people want to just play B/X, then mazel tov, enjoy yourself. You're not forced to buy the Companion set and you can end your campaign whenever you like. Feel free to ignore CMI for the purposes of your own gaming. Ignoring the actual-factual history of the development of the game, however, is just some sort of weird historical revisionism.
I think retro-clones and the OSR are two separate things.
I always thought the purpose of retro-clones was to mimic the early versions of the game so additional material could be created which would point to a free (or cheap) and readily available ruleset, that people were free to create content for. I cannot create an adventure and officially advertise it is for AD&D, I can for OSRIC.
The OSR is a runaway train and a mess of a concept to try to define. However, in all of that mess, staying super faithful to exact rules, or cloning, barely registers. Perhaps compatibility did at one point, but ideology seems to be the primary driver today.
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 11:00:05 AM
I think retro-clones and the OSR are two separate things.
I always thought the purpose of retro-clones was to mimic the early versions of the game so additional material could be created which would point to a free (or cheap) and readily available ruleset, that people were free to create content for. I cannot create an adventure and officially advertise it is for AD&D, I can for OSRIC.
The OSR is a runaway train and a mess of a concept to try to define. However, in all of that mess, staying super faithful to exact rules, or cloning, barely registers. Perhaps compatibility did at one point, but ideology seems to be the primary driver today.
Ok that is legitimately the first interesting thing I've read here... can you tell me more about what that "ideology" is?
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:55:48 AM
It is clear that TSR did not see or even intend B/X as a terminal product... if X hadn't been retitled as E, it would have just been BXCMI. But that's all besides the point—Cook Expert clearly refers to future products, like referring to the Companion set on page 8 (which did come out shortly after the last print of Cook Expert) and admits that it doesn't fully support play higher than level 14 (for example, no spells higher than 5th/6th level). This idea that B/X is somehow a complete game is a perverse conceit of fans, not reality.
AH, Ok, I got you now. You're just trolling. 7/10 - you got me! Carry on, then.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 11:02:57 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 11:00:05 AM
I think retro-clones and the OSR are two separate things.
I always thought the purpose of retro-clones was to mimic the early versions of the game so additional material could be created which would point to a free (or cheap) and readily available ruleset, that people were free to create content for. I cannot create an adventure and officially advertise it is for AD&D, I can for OSRIC.
The OSR is a runaway train and a mess of a concept to try to define. However, in all of that mess, staying super faithful to exact rules, or cloning, barely registers. Perhaps compatibility did at one point, but ideology seems to be the primary driver today.
Ok that is legitimately the first interesting thing I've read here... can you tell me more about what that "ideology" is?
Sure. So let's say I played BECMI in the 80's or OD&D even earlier than that. The ideology I am talking about could be me zooming in on a particular aspect of that gaming experience and deciding that my game would use that as a principle tenet. Or perhaps I worship Matt Finch's primer, and I build a game based on a couple of the principles he mentions. Those items, important to me but not necessarily important to others, fits under the OSR umbrella.
For example, Into the Odd was created by an independent game maker. The word 'Odd' in the title was originally a play on OD&D. The actual game keeps very little from OD&D but it expands upon interesting elements, from the perspective of creator. There are no classes, traditional levels, wilderness rules, etc. tying it back to the original, only ideological connections from the perspective of the designer.
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 11:00:05 AM
I always thought the purpose of retro-clones was to mimic the early versions of the game so additional material could be created which would point to a free (or cheap) and readily available ruleset, that people were free to create content for. I cannot create an adventure and officially advertise it is for AD&D, I can for OSRIC.
The OSR is a runaway train and a mess of a concept to try to define. However, in all of that mess, staying super faithful to exact rules, or cloning, barely registers. Perhaps compatibility did at one point, but ideology seems to be the primary driver today.
This is correct. The original goal of OSRIC was to create a trademark that publishers with a wink wink nudge nudge could use to show their products were compatible with AD&D 1st first edition. That's why OSRIC first edition wasn't a complete game. They wanted publishers to be able to write modules without referencing their first edition books, so they only included the rules modules needed to interface with. You weren't supposed to use OSRIC as a stand-alone game. You were supposed to play AD&D 1st edition with the DMG and PH, using modules with the word "OSRIC" on the cover. OSRIC was initially just a legal shield that allowed people to publish material for first edition. This isn't a guess, or speculation. That was the explicit, stated goal of the project.
That changed with second edition. A lot of people were interested in playing OSRIC directly, so they expanded it into a complete game. Later clones like Labyrinth Lord were created from the ground up to be independent games.
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 11:26:14 AMSure. So let's say I played BECMI in the 80's or OD&D even earlier than that. The ideology I am talking about could be me zooming in on a particular aspect of that gaming experience and deciding that my game would use that as a principle tenet. Or perhaps I worship Matt Finch's primer, and I build a game based on a couple of the principles he mentions. Those items, important to me but not necessarily important to others, fits under the OSR umbrella.
Ok this makes sense to me... but it also shows how artificial the "old school" is. There was no one "school of thought" about how to play D&D back in the day... everyone did it a little differently. It seems like the "old school" is an artificial and largely myopic effort to distill some "philosophy" from older games, even when those various old games were written very differently and played in any number of ways in actual practice.
Of course, I don't particularly run different games in vastly different ways... in broad strokes, when I run TMNT & Other Strangeness it is largely the same as when I run BECMI or anything else. The set-up for the games are different (1980's NYC vs fantasy medieval land) so the scenarios and complications play out differently, but my style for GMing doesn't change all that much. And a GM's style is always pretty idiosyncratic. It would be difficult and really quite pointless to distill it for others to emulate.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 11:53:05 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 11:26:14 AMSure. So let's say I played BECMI in the 80's or OD&D even earlier than that. The ideology I am talking about could be me zooming in on a particular aspect of that gaming experience and deciding that my game would use that as a principle tenet. Or perhaps I worship Matt Finch's primer, and I build a game based on a couple of the principles he mentions. Those items, important to me but not necessarily important to others, fits under the OSR umbrella.
Ok this makes sense to me... but it also shows how artificial the "old school" is. There was no one "school of thought" about how to play D&D back in the day... everyone did it a little differently. It seems like the "old school" is an artificial and largely myopic effort to distill some "philosophy" from older games, even when those various old games were written very differently and played in any number of ways in actual practice.
Of course, I don't particularly run different games in vastly different ways... in broad strokes, when I run TMNT & Other Strangeness it is largely the same as when I run BECMI or anything else. The set-up for the games are different (1980's NYC vs fantasy medieval land) so the scenarios and complications play out differently, but my style for GMing doesn't change all that much. And a GM's style is always pretty idiosyncratic. It would be difficult and really quite pointless to distill it for others to emulate.
Okay, close shop, everybody go home, there's no point in this myopic effort because some rando anonimous troll said so in the internet...
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 12:26:28 PMrando anonimous troll
You spelled two of these three words incorrectly. I'll let you figure out which!
One obvious point is that I cannot write and sell a D&D adventure (or module, bestiary, etc.), but I can write something for S&W, and I can reference the OSE SRD online without needing a PDF, all my players cna get OSRIC for free (or cheap, if physical) etc.
I can even legally put together my own version with my favorite stock artists, get it printed on demand, etc.
If you like D&D the way it is, you don't need anyone's house rules. But then again you wouldn't need Unearthed Arcana, Skills & Powers, Tasha's Cauldron, or even Blackmoor and greyhawk. You could be playing "pure" D&D without those pesky thieves!
Or course, I happen to LIKE my own house rules better than most versions of D&D, so I created my own retroclone, modules, etc.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 11:53:05 AM
Ok this makes sense to me... but it also shows how artificial the "old school" is.
Not at all. There is huge variation with the OSR. After all, it's been around for 15 years, and become quite popular. And it's always been a grass roots movement. Anyone can claim anything is OSR. But there are core philosophies as well.
One of the original principles of the OSR was an attempt to rediscover the original playstyle. And by original, I mean original. I'm not talking about the broader West or East Coast scenes in the 1970s. I'm talking about two(three?) cities, Lake Geneva and the Twin Cities. And more specifically, two tables, and two campaigns: Greyhawk and Blackmoor. Or just Greyhawk. That's the style promoted in things like Matt Finch's Primer. In the early years, the OSR was very heavily focused on that very specific playstyle. It was about figuring out how the rules were supposed to be used, by the people who created them, instead of the many diverse ways they ended up being used, by all the people who picked up the game later. It was also very specifically focused on the three little brown booklets of OD&D, and maybe (maybe) the supplements, though some even considered Supplement I: Greyhawk (the very first supplement published for any any RPG) to be a step too far. (To be fair, it did radically change the game.)
There was also a more general focus on the wild and woolly days of the 1970s. Not just Gygax and Greyhawk, but things like Arduin, Alarums and Excursions, and all the Judges Guild products. It was admiration for that huge surge of creativity and wild experimentation, but not an an attempt to copy anything in specific. Instead, they wanted to recreate that flowering of ideas. This led to things like Fight On!, Santicore, all the weird little zines, and even the blogosphere's obsession with random tables. It very much promoted the idea of self-publishing, genre mixing, sword & sorcery and weird fiction influences, and more.
There were other influences as well. Despite it's obvious connection to the first and most influential clone, OSRIC, AD&D 1st edition has always been weirdly marginalized. A lot of that has to do with the communities. The original OSR crowd were people who were dissatisfied D&D third edition, tried Castles & Crusades, and then had a falling out and created OSRIC. They were (mostly) distinct from the people who never stopped playing AD&D1e. The latter group were significant, but underrepresented on the web. One of their few hangouts was Dragonsfoot. So there was more focus on OD&D than AD&D.
B/X also became very popular, though that was a newer trend (not too new; this was still the mid to late aughts). OD&D is purer and more wide open, but B/X is tighter and more concise, and an easier entry point. For those who were less interested in capturing the original playstyle but still liked old school games, it became the default. Labyrinth Lord prospered, and newer games that weren't really clones but were old school inspired, like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, most commonly used it as a base. It kind of became the Rosetta Stone of systems.
There's also a persistent reverence for the original players. Not just Gygax and Arneson, but also people like Mike Mornard, Robert Kunst, and Tim Kask. This is strongly associated with the attempt to recreate the Greyhawk/Gygaxian playstyle, and while it exists, its importance is typically overstated by people critical of the OSR. If was a driving force, then Robert Kunst would have made more money than James Raggi, but that's clearly not the case.
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 12:26:28 PMrando anonimous troll
You spelled two of these three words incorrectly. I'll let you figure out which!
Sick burn! Especially since English isn't my mother tongue.
You're still a rando, anonymous troll. Your opening post was and still is rage bait, and your latter posts confirm this facts.
TROLL.
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 11:00:05 AM
I think retro-clones and the OSR are two separate things.
I always thought the purpose of retro-clones was to mimic the early versions of the game so additional material could be created which would point to a free (or cheap) and readily available ruleset, that people were free to create content for. I cannot create an adventure and officially advertise it is for AD&D, I can for OSRIC.
The OSR is a runaway train and a mess of a concept to try to define. However, in all of that mess, staying super faithful to exact rules, or cloning, barely registers. Perhaps compatibility did at one point, but ideology seems to be the primary driver today.
Yes; the OSR is a runaway train, and i like it. Some good points have been made in this thread.
In my opinion, there are two main reasons for Retroclones.
1. To make out of print rules playable again without having to chase after increasingly scarce rulebooks. Quite often the rule explanations are laid out and explained better to make them more accessible to newer players. This can allow a new generation to experience the way things were in an older edition of the rules. My ur example of this would be Old School Essentials, which is a ruleset that is still very much the original OD&D but explains the rules far better than the original White Box or B/X sets ever did.
2. To create a "fork" of an earlier version of a ruleset. Let's face it, quite often when a new edition of a game comes out many people are unhappy with the direction the new edition has taken. There may be radical changes to the rules which alter the flow of the game. This is especially true of major edition changes like the change from AD&D to D&D 3.5. A good example to return to the OD&D example is Swords and Wizardry. S&W takes a look at Basic DnD with fresh eyes and re-imagines and changes the rules advancing the OD&D's design in a different direction.
Quote from: Pat on June 17, 2021, 12:54:54 PM
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.
Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.
In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.
Nothing wrong with retroclones.
My principal disagreement (and it's not even a huge one) is I dislike the 'race as class' bit ported from BECMI. I don't think that's an unreasonable complaint, but it applies to 'the good old stuff' as well as the new stuff.
Other than that, go nuts.
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 17, 2021, 12:54:54 PM
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.
Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.
In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.
And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 17, 2021, 12:54:54 PM
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.
Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.
In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.
And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!
That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.
Quote from: RandyB on June 17, 2021, 03:17:34 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 17, 2021, 12:54:54 PM
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.
Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.
In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.
And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!
That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.
Greetings!
Damn right, my friend! ACKS is very well-detailed, has excellent depth, and is simply outstanding.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The point is that these games are no longer in print and this keeps them alive with updates sometimes in order to improve upon them slightly and such.
Take a look at the James Bond 007 retro clone, Classified. It is excellent. So is the FASERIP retro clone for Marvel Superheroes.
Quote from: RandyB on June 17, 2021, 03:17:34 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 17, 2021, 12:54:54 PM
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.
Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.
In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.
And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!
That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.
Never said that was ALL that ACKS had to offer did I?
I would rather play in somebody's house rules, setting, and made up adventures than a published adventure or setting because I like rpg's and games that encourage players to do those things. This d&d orthodox mentality just drives me nuts. It's like players these days like playing in a straight jacket and there is shame in creativity for many gamers. It's like a competitive sport to some where rules mastery is the pinnacle of play. Grognards can be the same way. But that playstyle was not common back then. Adherence to Rules were loosie goosie.
Quote from: Arnwolf666 on June 17, 2021, 05:25:42 PM
I would rather play in somebody's house rules, setting, and made up adventures than a published adventure or setting because I like rpg's and games that encourage players to do those things. This d&d orthodox mentality just drives me nuts. It's like players these days like playing in a straight jacket and there is shame in creativity for many gamers. It's like a competitive sport to some where rules mastery is the pinnacle of play. Grognards can be the same way. But that playstyle was not common back then. Adherence to Rules were loosie goosie.
It didn't feel like a competitive sport or anything, but we played by and referenced the rules all the time. This idea that things were loosie goosie is something I have only heard about for the last decade or so, but it does not match what I experienced growing up and playing throughout the 80's and into the 90's.
Quote from: thedungeondelver on June 17, 2021, 10:38:27 AM
Basic and Expert D&D are two halves of the same whole, Expert D&D takes the character created in Basic D&D all the way through 20th+ level - I have the Tom Moldvay/Dave Cook edited Expert rules (as well as the Basic predecessor) right here. Are you perhaps thinking of the Introductory rules edited by J. Eric Holmes which did not have an official TSR "Expert" edition (actually, they did: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons).
Actually most of the X caps were round 14, not 20. With the demi-humans ranging from 8 to12. The rules mention going to level 32. But aside from some suggestions, those rules would have been in the C book that never came to be in the BX series.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: RandyB on June 17, 2021, 03:17:34 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 17, 2021, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 01:52:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on June 17, 2021, 12:54:54 PM
Since then, the OSR has gone in many, many other directions. It's become very hard to define. But understanding a bit about its origins and where it came from, and the major trends, can help get a handle on it.
Great assessment. I've noticed in general that the OSR has evolved around two different "old school" virtues. There are those for whom the virtue of old-school was its attitude towards rules (minimalism, GM judgments) and its attitude towards ongoing campaigns (domains, sandboxes, etc.) A rulebook like 1E Oriental Adventures shows the difference between the two attitudes. If you're an OSR minimalist, Oriental Adventures is kind of pointless. A samurai is just a fighter and a wu-jen is just a wizard; why make up new classes? Honor is something the GM handles, not another hit point track. On the other hand, if you're interested in OSR-as-ongoing-campaign, Oriental Adventures is amazing. Honor becomes a campaign attribute, the tables of random events are great, the proficiencies add downtime activities, OA1 Swords of the Daimyo is one of TSR's best published sandbox gazetteers.
In the case of ACKS, it's definitely the latter. It's not minimalist at all. What I wanted to do was re-capture that (brief) moment in time when RPGs and wargames weren't as cleanly differentiated as they are now, and where there was the implicit possibility that your RPG character could become your Chainmail commander, etc. I also reached backwards a bit in time to Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign, and then forward to BECMI, which had brought the domain game forward again. So ACKS is inspired by the 1960s to early 1980s attitudes. But it's definitely NOT inspired by the Finch/Arneson style of play, or the contemporary "rules light" approach that has spawned so many games lately.
And even if you are quite happy with your current ruleset ACKS is worth buying because it has many, many changes and those domain rules!
That's only the beginning of what ACKS has to offer. And all of it is good.
Never said that was ALL that ACKS had to offer did I?
No, you didn't. :)
Quote from: Batjon on June 17, 2021, 04:43:19 PM
The point is that these games are no longer in print and this keeps them alive with updates sometimes in order to improve upon them slightly and such.
Take a look at the James Bond 007 retro clone, Classified. It is excellent. So is the FASERIP retro clone for Marvel Superheroes.
That era was a GOLDEN AGE for chart-based RPGs. Both FASERIP and James Bond 007 were glorious, along with Conan/ZEFRS and MEGs. I know there were a few others from that era but I can't remember them now. One of the things I wanted to do in Ascendant was remind people how great chart-based RPGs could be. Not every game needs to be based on weird dice tricks; you can do amazing things using charts by building the math behind the scenes.
Bond also was the first RPG I know that introduced Hero Points, bidding, and it was ahead of its time with its perks, drawbacks, etc. And the seduction rules! Chase rules! Masterful.
Am I alone in my love for 007 and other games that use One Table To Rule Them All?
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 05:45:56 PM
Quote from: Arnwolf666 on June 17, 2021, 05:25:42 PM
I would rather play in somebody's house rules, setting, and made up adventures than a published adventure or setting because I like rpg's and games that encourage players to do those things. This d&d orthodox mentality just drives me nuts. It's like players these days like playing in a straight jacket and there is shame in creativity for many gamers. It's like a competitive sport to some where rules mastery is the pinnacle of play. Grognards can be the same way. But that playstyle was not common back then. Adherence to Rules were loosie goosie.
It didn't feel like a competitive sport or anything, but we played by and referenced the rules all the time. This idea that things were loosie goosie is something I have only heard about for the last decade or so, but it does not match what I experienced growing up and playing throughout the 80's and into the 90's.
Greetings!
I agree, FingerRod. Both now, and as well as back in the early years, I would characterize a majority of DM's and players played by the rules and expected to, as well, but there was a sizeable minority that tended to be very "Loosey Goosey" with the rules applications. Of course, most every DM and campaign would typically have at least a few house rules, player additions, special races, and so on. Players and DM's alike loved greatly citing rules, after all. Some of the game-session arguments were epic, too, arguing over various interpretations, which was usually hilarious. It was all in good fun. Of course, also, most of the time, the players ultimately would submit to whatever the DM ruled--but there was some element of good-natured rules lawyering and debate, just to see how far a DM would allow you to exploit some rule interpretation, or some rule that was somewhat obscure in detailing its parameters.
Such debates were usually fun and interesting, and I must say, done so much of the time with genuine enthusiasm and real intent, as far as discussing problems, weird cases, applications and so on. there were more than a few such debates and discussions that resulted in some considerable campaign rules-changes, often adopted by more than one DM in coordination with other DM's in the groups involved. Crossbow damage, spells, whatever, that often did present realism conflicts, historical chomping, or other logical inconsistencies that had often bothered many people, but who seldom argued about it. Then, you'd have a player or two in the group say, "Yeah! What about this here, DM? A, B, and C!"--and oftentimes, the DM too had harboured their own doubts about whatever. So, a lot of the debates were actually constructive and worthwhile, while also most people held a strong degree of respect for sticking to the rules. changing the rules was done, though often accompanied by considerable thought as well as debate. It was usually very good to get three or four different people chewing on the same problem, beyond the DM. I know as a DM myself, so often, I usually learned a lot, and appreciated both the efforts to change rules interpretations, but also the basic respect for the DM, and the integrity of the game rules themselves.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thanks for the kind words on ACKS. We're working on a second edition, woot woot.
ACKS: Spreadsheet Edition
Now With 11 Years More Math
May need to work on the marketing hook though
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 07:03:34 PM
Thanks for the kind words on ACKS. We're working on a second edition, woot woot.
ACKS: Spreadsheet Edition
Now With 11 Years More Math
May need to work on the marketing hook though
As long as I don't have to do all the math...
Quote from: FingerRod on June 17, 2021, 05:45:56 PM
It didn't feel like a competitive sport or anything, but we played by and referenced the rules all the time. This idea that things were loosie goosie is something I have only heard about for the last decade or so, but it does not match what I experienced growing up and playing throughout the 80's and into the 90's.
Probably a generational thing. The original gamers were fully mature adults and experienced wargamers, of course they tweaked everything. When they started, you had to make everything from scratch, so of course they had no problem just coming up with their own stuff. But when D&D became a fad, the new wave of players were mostly kids, who tended to take the rules a lot more seriously, and were more beholden to authority. This was also the time when Gygax started to become more authoritative and one true wayist.
I'm not an OSR guy myself, but from the outside looking in it appears that they're trying to make games with the feel of original D&D, but better rules. There's wild disagreement on what makes rules better, but with decades of experience we ought to be able to improve on those original rules. Doing that and keeping the D&D feel seems like a challenge though.
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
That era was a GOLDEN AGE for chart-based RPGs. Both FASERIP and James Bond 007 were glorious, along with Conan/ZEFRS and MEGs. I know there were a few others from that era but I can't remember them now. One of the things I wanted to do in Ascendant was remind people how great chart-based RPGs could be. Not every game needs to be based on weird dice tricks; you can do amazing things using charts by building the math behind the scenes.
Bond also was the first RPG I know that introduced Hero Points, bidding, and it was ahead of its time with its perks, drawbacks, etc. And the seduction rules! Chase rules! Masterful.
Am I alone in my love for 007 and other games that use One Table To Rule Them All?
Not at all. I never could get a 007 game off the ground, but I thought it read incredible. It has one of my favorite examples of play with the side-by-side session vs. fictional narrative of the car chase/interrogation scene from Goldfinger.
I never had a problem with chart games. They were a simple look up. YMMV and all that. I know the Gamma World 3 folks weren't happy with them, and Zebulon's Guide is still hated by many folks in the Star Frontiers scene.
To understand why B/X it's necessary to understand what has happened with the OSR and how it has developed.
For various reasons, the OSR is not just a recreation of old school play, it's very much a selective recreation of old school play. It's also in some sense about the road not travelled - ie. going back in order to go forward in a different direction to what was taken in the past.
B/X is convenient for the OSR, because what it does have leaves out a lot of stuff, many parts of the OSR have found extraneous. 1e with it's races and classes implies much more 'world' than the basic game which doesn't have Rangers and Paladins and Druids etc, which eventually evolved into the D&D as supposedly it's own genre mess that we get today (and also notably a lot of AD&D intellectual property stuff is not covered by the SRD anyway). For this reason B/X tends to be preferred over the more complete BECMI because that completeness is not what is wanted. The Rules Cyclopedia again brings in a lot more world and a lot more cosmology.
In terms of publishing adventures B/X is good also, as people can always add in Rangers and Paladins and the like if they want to (it's mostly player stuff anyway). The higher levels of BECMI are unnecessary because writing adventures for those levels requires a high degree of masochism for little reward - they're hard to do well and people aren't likely to buy them anway.
Quote from: Tristan on June 18, 2021, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
That era was a GOLDEN AGE for chart-based RPGs. Both FASERIP and James Bond 007 were glorious, along with Conan/ZEFRS and MEGs. I know there were a few others from that era but I can't remember them now. One of the things I wanted to do in Ascendant was remind people how great chart-based RPGs could be. Not every game needs to be based on weird dice tricks; you can do amazing things using charts by building the math behind the scenes.
Bond also was the first RPG I know that introduced Hero Points, bidding, and it was ahead of its time with its perks, drawbacks, etc. And the seduction rules! Chase rules! Masterful.
Am I alone in my love for 007 and other games that use One Table To Rule Them All?
Not at all. I never could get a 007 game off the ground, but I thought it read incredible. It has one of my favorite examples of play with the side-by-side session vs. fictional narrative of the car chase/interrogation scene from Goldfinger.
I never had a problem with chart games. They were a simple look up. YMMV and all that. I know the Gamma World 3 folks weren't happy with them, and Zebulon's Guide is still hated by many folks in the Star Frontiers scene.
Gamma World 3 is a weird hybrid, the chart was way too complex, and it was so badly edited they literally forgot the equipment list. Zeb's Guide took the core rules of Star Frontiers, and for no good reason, just replaced them. The negative reactions to both were understandable, and had little to do with the charts.
On the other hand, the charts in Marvel Superheroes and the Conan RPG were very well received, and in fact inspired the charts in the previous two games. Do it well, and people were fine with it.
While I understand the appeal and enjoyment of the OSR versions of D&D. I remain with the originals versions which for myself do the job well enough.
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 07:02:40 PM
Am I alone in my love for 007 and other games that use One Table To Rule Them All?
For me it was Dragon Quest (same author and practically the same system as 007, albeit an earlier, more esoteric version of that system).
I didn't exactly dislike charts from the beginning. Even my first exposure to D&D was of the variety where the character sheet was a sheet of notebook paper and you copied the relevant slice of the attack matrix to the sheet. And of course, so many war games of that period were chart central. But strangely enough, I like such games more now than I did then--because now it is a lot easier to just print out a copy of the chart for a player, maybe even highlighting the relevant sections or even cutting it down to only what they need.
There's one really great thing about charts when the math isn't too complicated. You get broadly three kinds of players: The players that freak about about numbers in general. The players that are much more comfortable with comparisons than repeated math (no matter how simple). They can do simple math but they don't like it and it is relatively slow. And then the players that really don't mind how the math works or even enjoy it.
The first group isn't happy with the chart. They'd rather you just did all the mechanics for them. But the chart is something they can grudgingly accept and learn to use. The second group eats up the chart (or a dice mechanic based on comparisons). The third group finds the chart a little off-putting at first. However, very quickly they will derive the math from the chart and just do that in their heads instead of using the chart. Of course, that doesn't work if the math of the chart is complicated.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I'm a simple man... I want to play a game that is actually called D&D right there on the cover
Then 5e is the game for you.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I have to admit: I don't get the OSR. There seem to be two kinds of D&D retro-clones: the first is one that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D and the second is one that only treats a TSR edition of D&D as a point of departure and goes far afield to something that is ultimately barely recognizable as D&D.
I'll answer these at face value.
What the OSR brings to the hobby:
First:
"...close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D..."WOTC's embrace of current year critical theory is turning some people off to that point that they don't want to give WOTC their money.
The OSR serves a vital function in allowing people to play the version of D&D that they like, and also support people who don't hate them.
This is a good thing.
Second:
"...only treats a TSR edition of D&D as a point of departure..."You say that like it is a bad thing!
The fact is that even within the OSR design box there is room for innovation in the game that people have yet to fully explore.
From the way levels and advancement work to how spellcasting is done, much of the OSR is still very much in a rut of:
"Clone D&D system x"I think there is room for innovation on both fronts while still having a d20 game that is both recognizable and accessible to D&D players.
Lion and Dragon is one example of this. And I think that there is room for more.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 17, 2021, 02:02:30 PM
...
My principal disagreement (and it's not even a huge one) is I dislike the 'race as class' bit ported from BECMI. I don't think that's an unreasonable complaint, but it applies to 'the good old stuff' as well as the new stuff.
...
"Race as Class" is a point where D&D dropped the ball.
By not going far enough!
Demi-humans Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc., should not have the same classes as humans because their cultures should be different.
Giving them access to the same classes is what watered them down and has just made them humans with cosmetics.
If anything, each demi-human race should have 2-3 additional classes reflecting their culture.
Quote from: amacris on June 17, 2021, 07:03:34 PM
Thanks for the kind words on ACKS. We're working on a second edition, woot woot.
ACKS: Spreadsheet Edition
Now With 11 Years More Math
...
I would be very interested in a 2nd edition.
Please, I beg, Ditch the attack throw value, and have it use conventional Ascending AC like everything else.
That would make it more compatible with other OSR stuff and more accessible to people used to the ascending AC standard like me as well.
I've been funning MSH (FASERIP) since it dropped, and it's my current weekly even today. And the weird thing is this... on this forum which has a lot of fans of the OSR, some call MSH an OSR game...
when in reality it has a TON of mechanics that are purely meta (Hello Karma) that are really integral to the system. It gets a pass. I'm not trying to shit on my own favorite game or anything, I'm using it to illustrate my own general ignorance of what the OSR *really* means other than games not bogged down by shit we don't like.
And by this standard I'm not an OSR guy, I should be, by dint of my age. I started with Holmes then went to AD&D from the first drop and never looked back. Yet, while I'm a huge fan of the content of OSR games, I'm not a big fan of the systems. I don't hate them or anything, but anything going back to Basic-era rules loses me. I'm somewhere in the middle. As a movement in the gaming industry - I have nothing but respect for the OSR folks.
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:41:10 AM
I've been funning MSH (FASERIP) since it dropped, and it's my current weekly even today. And the weird thing is this... on this forum which has a lot of fans of the OSR, some call MSH an OSR game...
when in reality it has a TON of mechanics that are purely meta (Hello Karma) that are really integral to the system. It gets a pass. I'm not trying to shit on my own favorite game or anything, I'm using it to illustrate my own general ignorance of what the OSR *really* means other than games not bogged down by shit we don't like.
And by this standard I'm not an OSR guy, I should be, by dint of my age. I started with Holmes then went to AD&D from the first drop and never looked back. Yet, while I'm a huge fan of the content of OSR games, I'm not a big fan of the systems. I don't hate them or anything, but anything going back to Basic-era rules loses me. I'm somewhere in the middle. As a movement in the gaming industry - I have nothing but respect for the OSR folks.
Well, I have heard (read really) many OSR guys say all games from the 80'ish and back fall into it. So Cepheus Engine (Traveller), Star Frontiers, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Advanced Fighting Fantasy, WEG Star Wars, Gamma World among others. But I have also read many say only certain D&D editions count.
It certainly started with the OGL.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2021, 12:00:02 PM
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:41:10 AM
I've been funning MSH (FASERIP) since it dropped, and it's my current weekly even today. And the weird thing is this... on this forum which has a lot of fans of the OSR, some call MSH an OSR game...
when in reality it has a TON of mechanics that are purely meta (Hello Karma) that are really integral to the system. It gets a pass. I'm not trying to shit on my own favorite game or anything, I'm using it to illustrate my own general ignorance of what the OSR *really* means other than games not bogged down by shit we don't like.
And by this standard I'm not an OSR guy, I should be, by dint of my age. I started with Holmes then went to AD&D from the first drop and never looked back. Yet, while I'm a huge fan of the content of OSR games, I'm not a big fan of the systems. I don't hate them or anything, but anything going back to Basic-era rules loses me. I'm somewhere in the middle. As a movement in the gaming industry - I have nothing but respect for the OSR folks.
Well, I have heard (read really) many OSR guys say all games from the 80'ish and back fall into it. So Cepheus Engine (Traveller), Star Frontiers, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Advanced Fighting Fantasy, WEG Star Wars, Gamma World among others. But I have also read many say only certain D&D editions count.
It certainly started with the OGL.
So here's an honest question I don't see a lot of OSR folks talk about - or maybe it's never been asked? Is the OSR more of an ideological thing than a design-conceit? Because it's *strange* to me to categorically put a stake in the sand based on a date, and then go to war on design concepts that are prevalent beyond that date... when they existed before that date.
This is not to say that people that enjoy those pre-date demarcations are all SJW's. No one in their right mind would call me an SJW but as I've casually watched the OSR movement from the outside, their general definitions of Narrative Games and the transitive properties of Evil inherent to those games cast upon their players, at first in the early days had me going "YEAH!!!! So Evul!" then I looked back at my MSH game and... I had those Black Adder (https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU) flashbacks.
I'm still not sure how these things quite square. Or are we just saying the proclivity of SJW to play "narrative" systems are what define OSR? Because it suddenly feels weird for me to be an MSH super-fan, and be part of a group I know very little about and don't consider myself a member since my conception of it seems to be quite different from the multiple examples I'm presented with.
To me OSR was pretty much Basic D&D and its Retroclones AND the style in which content for those systems were made. The moment I started hearing the OSR Umbrella started to cover 1e, and 2e, then other game systems from that era... things got weird for me.
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2021, 12:00:02 PM
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:41:10 AM
I've been funning MSH (FASERIP) since it dropped, and it's my current weekly even today. And the weird thing is this... on this forum which has a lot of fans of the OSR, some call MSH an OSR game...
when in reality it has a TON of mechanics that are purely meta (Hello Karma) that are really integral to the system. It gets a pass. I'm not trying to shit on my own favorite game or anything, I'm using it to illustrate my own general ignorance of what the OSR *really* means other than games not bogged down by shit we don't like.
And by this standard I'm not an OSR guy, I should be, by dint of my age. I started with Holmes then went to AD&D from the first drop and never looked back. Yet, while I'm a huge fan of the content of OSR games, I'm not a big fan of the systems. I don't hate them or anything, but anything going back to Basic-era rules loses me. I'm somewhere in the middle. As a movement in the gaming industry - I have nothing but respect for the OSR folks.
Well, I have heard (read really) many OSR guys say all games from the 80'ish and back fall into it. So Cepheus Engine (Traveller), Star Frontiers, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Advanced Fighting Fantasy, WEG Star Wars, Gamma World among others. But I have also read many say only certain D&D editions count.
It certainly started with the OGL.
So here's an honest question I don't see a lot of OSR folks talk about - or maybe it's never been asked? Is the OSR more of an ideological thing than a design-conceit? Because it's *strange* to me to categorically put a stake in the sand based on a date, and then go to war on design concepts that are prevalent beyond that date... when they existed before that date.
This is not to say that people that enjoy those pre-date demarcations are all SJW's. No one in their right mind would call me an SJW but as I've casually watched the OSR movement from the outside, their general definitions of Narrative Games and the transitive properties of Evil inherent to those games cast upon their players, at first in the early days had me going "YEAH!!!! So Evul!" then I looked back at my MSH game and... I had those Black Adder (https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU) flashbacks.
I'm still not sure how these things quite square. Or are we just saying the proclivity of SJW to play "narrative" systems are what define OSR? Because it suddenly feels weird for me to be an MSH super-fan, and be part of a group I know very little about and don't consider myself a member since my conception of it seems to be quite different from the multiple examples I'm presented with.
To me OSR was pretty much Basic D&D and its Retroclones AND the style in which content for those systems were made. The moment I started hearing the OSR Umbrella started to cover 1e, and 2e, then other game systems from that era... things got weird for me.
I'm not the one you should be asking that. But IMHO the OSR isn't defined by oppossition to the SJWs.
An SJW is someone who holds extreme views and wants to destroy you for not agreeing 100% on everything their ever changing ideology says you should believe. So, you can have ppl Like Grim Jim who is a fucking socialist and isn't an SJW.
I've never played MSH so I can't say if it's a narrative game or not.
White Box is regarded by everybody as OSR, and yet it includes ascending AC, one single ST number per class.
All I was saying is that I have seen ppl argue both points. Only "Basic D&D and its Retroclones AND the style in which content for those systems were made" and it also includes "newer" D&D editions and even other games not related.
DCC is also regarded as OSR, and yet it's sooo different from D&D.
So, if someone would want to draw a line in the sand that someone needs a very objective definition that includes DCC among other games.
IMHO it's a useless discusion.
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.
There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.
The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.
And the proper answer should be, 'No.'
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2021, 04:09:05 PM
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 19, 2021, 12:00:02 PM
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:41:10 AM
I've been funning MSH (FASERIP) since it dropped, and it's my current weekly even today. And the weird thing is this... on this forum which has a lot of fans of the OSR, some call MSH an OSR game...
when in reality it has a TON of mechanics that are purely meta (Hello Karma) that are really integral to the system. It gets a pass. I'm not trying to shit on my own favorite game or anything, I'm using it to illustrate my own general ignorance of what the OSR *really* means other than games not bogged down by shit we don't like.
And by this standard I'm not an OSR guy, I should be, by dint of my age. I started with Holmes then went to AD&D from the first drop and never looked back. Yet, while I'm a huge fan of the content of OSR games, I'm not a big fan of the systems. I don't hate them or anything, but anything going back to Basic-era rules loses me. I'm somewhere in the middle. As a movement in the gaming industry - I have nothing but respect for the OSR folks.
Well, I have heard (read really) many OSR guys say all games from the 80'ish and back fall into it. So Cepheus Engine (Traveller), Star Frontiers, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Advanced Fighting Fantasy, WEG Star Wars, Gamma World among others. But I have also read many say only certain D&D editions count.
It certainly started with the OGL.
So here's an honest question I don't see a lot of OSR folks talk about - or maybe it's never been asked? Is the OSR more of an ideological thing than a design-conceit? Because it's *strange* to me to categorically put a stake in the sand based on a date, and then go to war on design concepts that are prevalent beyond that date... when they existed before that date.
This is not to say that people that enjoy those pre-date demarcations are all SJW's. No one in their right mind would call me an SJW but as I've casually watched the OSR movement from the outside, their general definitions of Narrative Games and the transitive properties of Evil inherent to those games cast upon their players, at first in the early days had me going "YEAH!!!! So Evul!" then I looked back at my MSH game and... I had those Black Adder (https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU) flashbacks.
I'm still not sure how these things quite square. Or are we just saying the proclivity of SJW to play "narrative" systems are what define OSR? Because it suddenly feels weird for me to be an MSH super-fan, and be part of a group I know very little about and don't consider myself a member since my conception of it seems to be quite different from the multiple examples I'm presented with.
To me OSR was pretty much Basic D&D and its Retroclones AND the style in which content for those systems were made. The moment I started hearing the OSR Umbrella started to cover 1e, and 2e, then other game systems from that era... things got weird for me.
I'm not the one you should be asking that. But IMHO the OSR isn't defined by oppossition to the SJWs.
An SJW is someone who holds extreme views and wants to destroy you for not agreeing 100% on everything their ever changing ideology says you should believe. So, you can have ppl Like Grim Jim who is a fucking socialist and isn't an SJW.
I've never played MSH so I can't say if it's a narrative game or not.
White Box is regarded by everybody as OSR, and yet it includes ascending AC, one single ST number per class.
All I was saying is that I have seen ppl argue both points. Only "Basic D&D and its Retroclones AND the style in which content for those systems were made" and it also includes "newer" D&D editions and even other games not related.
DCC is also regarded as OSR, and yet it's sooo different from D&D.
So, if someone would want to draw a line in the sand that someone needs a very objective definition that includes DCC among other games.
IMHO it's a useless discusion.
The OSR is a many splendored thing. Near reprints of old games, fun riffing on old games, and wild takes on the general experience found in old games. The OSR is a big tent.
Quote from: tenbones on June 19, 2021, 03:57:09 PM
So here's an honest question I don't see a lot of OSR folks talk about - or maybe it's never been asked? Is the OSR more of an ideological thing than a design-conceit? Because it's *strange* to me to categorically put a stake in the sand based on a date, and then go to war on design concepts that are prevalent beyond that date... when they existed before that date.
This is not to say that people that enjoy those pre-date demarcations are all SJW's. No one in their right mind would call me an SJW but as I've casually watched the OSR movement from the outside, their general definitions of Narrative Games and the transitive properties of Evil inherent to those games cast upon their players, at first in the early days had me going "YEAH!!!! So Evul!" then I looked back at my MSH game and... I had those Black Adder (https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU) flashbacks.
I'm still not sure how these things quite square. Or are we just saying the proclivity of SJW to play "narrative" systems are what define OSR? Because it suddenly feels weird for me to be an MSH super-fan, and be part of a group I know very little about and don't consider myself a member since my conception of it seems to be quite different from the multiple examples I'm presented with.
To me OSR was pretty much Basic D&D and its Retroclones AND the style in which content for those systems were made. The moment I started hearing the OSR Umbrella started to cover 1e, and 2e, then other game systems from that era... things got weird for me.
When the OSR came into being, it did not define itself in relation (or, if you prefer, opposition) to Narrative/GNS/Forge games. It defined itself in opposition to new-school D&D, more specifically the WotC editions. It was "there are the new versions of D&D with their set of sensibilities, and here are the
other versions, with a different set of sensibilities, that
we play". Whatever the OSR "thinks" about narrative games is incidential. If the OSR hates those games, it's merely because the OSR already had a working self-definition, and
then it looked at narrative games and saw that they represented something incompatible with that. The OSR did not, however
create its self-definition based on what it saw and hated in narrative games.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I'd rather put a gun in my mouth than sit and listen to someone's long list of house-rules for D&D.
Yeah, I'm pretty much with you on that. I have my own "BTB D&D + house rules," so a game that is someone else's approach to the same thing doesn't have much appeal.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AMThe first type of retro-clone also confuses me... if you are going to make a retro-clone that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D, why not just play a TSR edition of D&D?
Well, that's what I do (i.e., play my TSR edition of choice). That said, when the first batch of such retro-clones came out (e.g, OSRIC, etc.), it wasn't true that you could easily (and legally) obtain PDFs of those rules. And at that time, the intent of the retro-clone wasn't so much to publish a game, but to provide a set of rules that people could use to publish adventures and supplements that were compatible with the TSR rules. (That later grew into complete games, which was largely driven by public demand.)
Personally, I think that's the real value of the "close to the original" retro-clones: a means to publish supplemental material that is compatible with the original games. For example, when I'm running a 1e game I don't run OSRIC, I run AD&D. But I'm happy to use OSRIC adventures and supplements in my AD&D game.
QuoteAnd that brings up another issue... why is so much of the OSR obsessed with B/X?
I don't know for certain, but I'd guess there are multiple factors. B/X is easier to clone than AD&D. Also, since it has fewer rules, it offers a less "cluttered" foundation for house rules and variations, if the author is wanting to go that route. And apparently there's a significant segment of TSR D&D players that ran their games more like B/X than AD&D, even when using the AD&D rules. There's also a bit of an appeal to nostalgia, since many TSR D&D players started with one of the Basic boxed sets. So if you're "going back," there might be some tug towards that. I'm not certain that "nostalgia" factor is terribly significant, but it might be present.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.
There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.
The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.
And the proper answer should be, 'No.'
To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.
Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?
Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."
That sort of thing
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM
To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.
Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?
The problem with race is there isn't a good alternative. Species? Despite the earlier root of the word, that brings Linnean nomenclature and the shadow of Darwinism into fantasy, which isn't the best fit for many games. Origin, background, ancestry, heritage? That doesn't say anything. It's just taking a random general word and slapping onto a specific concept that was previous embodied by race. And on and on.
Race works for two reasons: One, it's pretty vague in real life, but it's also somewhat specific. Calling a warforged a "species" makes little sense, but race is sloppy enough that it kind of half works. And secondly and more importantly, it's tradition. Race has been used for fantasy races long enough that even if there are some problems with the mapping, people know what you're talking about, and it's not immersion destroying.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM
Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment."f Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."
That sort of thing
It would also also help to say what "no judgment" implies. Talk about how having only a few races is a good way to make a world unique and interesting, while worlds where every race is an option can end up feeling somewhat samey. Talk about the humans with bumpy foreheads phenomenon, and how race can sometimes be a substitute for developing a character, leading to more superficial games. But how that can also be an advantage, especially with new or more introverted players, for the exact same reason. Make it clear these aren't moral judgments. They're just different ways of playing the game. Each has a different set strengths and weaknesses, and people will have different preferences. And while it's okay to want to play games that reflect your preferences, it's also a group experience, and other people have difference preferences, so try to be flexible, and don't draw hard lines.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.
There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.
The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.
And the proper answer should be, 'No.'
To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.
Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?
Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."
That sort of thing
Except their ideas aren't those, their ideas are that: Orcs = Black People, Dwarves and Goblins = Jews, and so on. Because they say so.
I myself have said Race doesn't fit and Species is a "better" word for what it is. And In MY games it has been so for a long while, but then again I don't allow a lot of species and never a Half-X.
Drow, Orcs, etc have been PCs for a long time before the woke appeared, but it was never "sold" as if you don't allow them as heroes you're a racist.
So, no, their ideas are always wrong AND bad.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2021, 10:26:16 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.
There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.
The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.
And the proper answer should be, 'No.'
To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.
Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?
Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."
That sort of thing
Except their ideas aren't those, their ideas are that: Orcs = Black People, Dwarves and Goblins = Jews, and so on. Because they say so.
I myself have said Race doesn't fit and Species is a "better" word for what it is. And In MY games it has been so for a long while, but then again I don't allow a lot of species and never a Half-X.
Drow, Orcs, etc have been PCs for a long time before the woke appeared, but it was never "sold" as if you don't allow them as heroes you're a racist.
So, no, their ideas are always wrong AND bad.
Well, fantasy dwarves have been coded as Irish and Jewish for years now. Of course, they're considered a standard heroic archetype, so according to SJW rhetoric this coding would cause people to consider Irish Jews to be more heroic. Or something.
But It doesn't. Those groups still experience discrimination. Often from leftists.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 09:20:57 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2021, 10:26:16 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.
There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.
The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.
And the proper answer should be, 'No.'
To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.
Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?
Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."
That sort of thing
Except their ideas aren't those, their ideas are that: Orcs = Black People, Dwarves and Goblins = Jews, and so on. Because they say so.
I myself have said Race doesn't fit and Species is a "better" word for what it is. And In MY games it has been so for a long while, but then again I don't allow a lot of species and never a Half-X.
Drow, Orcs, etc have been PCs for a long time before the woke appeared, but it was never "sold" as if you don't allow them as heroes you're a racist.
So, no, their ideas are always wrong AND bad.
Well, fantasy dwarves have been coded as Irish and Jewish for years now. Of course, they're considered a standard heroic archetype, so according to SJW rhetoric this coding would cause people to consider Irish Jews to be more heroic. Or something.
But It doesn't. Those groups still experience discrimination. Often from leftists.
Have they been coded like that tho? Most Dwarven illustrations are a mix of Germanic and Irish tropes, tropes are ways to tell a story, there's nothing inherently bad in them. Where is the Jewish part? They like jewels and gold and so on? Well, that's a racist trope, and if you see any character that likes those things and think Jew it's on you (the general you and not YOU in particular) and not the writer/artist.
Always from leftists.
Also, they are self confesed racists, why should WE normal ppl take any advice from a racist as to how build a non-racist society?
IMHO that makes exactly zero sense.
The Jewish Dwarves thing actually comes from Tolkien. In The Hobbit, they are a diaspora who have lost their ancestral homeland (the Lonely Mountain). In Tolkien's works in general, they are a standoffish people who have their own secret language they only use among themselves, they have their own names in that language alongside the ones they use in outside society, they're an ancient culture and they do have an affinity with goldsmithing and gem-cutting, which in some parts of Europe were typical Jewish occupations. Also, Tolkien himself explicity stated in a letter that Khuzdul grammar was based on semitic languages. In fact, IIRC, he even stated that yes, his dwarves are based on the Jews.
Quote from: Premier on June 22, 2021, 11:26:28 AM
The Jewish Dwarves thing actually comes from Tolkien. In The Hobbit, they are a diaspora who have lost their ancestral homeland (the Lonely Mountain). In Tolkien's works in general, they are a standoffish people who have their own secret language they only use among themselves, they have their own names in that language alongside the ones they use in outside society, they're an ancient culture and they do have an affinity with goldsmithing and gem-cutting, which in some parts of Europe were typical Jewish occupations. Also, Tolkien himself explicity stated in a letter that Khuzdul grammar was based on semitic languages. In fact, IIRC, he even stated that yes, his dwarves are based on the Jews.
So, the man who hated allegory and metaphor was indeed using both... Sources? Trust me bro won't cut it. Basing a grammar of of something doesn't make a fictional race a stand in of that something, also any proof that he did say that?
Wait...you're saying dwarves are often a blend of Jewish and Irish tropes? Why then have I always thought they were usually a blend of Jewish and Scottish tropes?
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 22, 2021, 11:33:43 AM
Wait...you're saying dwarves are often a blend of Jewish and Irish tropes? Why then have I always thought they were usually a blend of Jewish and Scottish tropes?
Well, ambiguously Celtic. It's not like anybody who isn't Scottish or Irish can tell the difference. Racists. /sarcasm
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 11:57:22 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on June 22, 2021, 11:33:43 AM
Wait...you're saying dwarves are often a blend of Jewish and Irish tropes? Why then have I always thought they were usually a blend of Jewish and Scottish tropes?
Well, ambiguously Celtic. It's not like anybody who isn't Scottish or Irish can tell the difference. Racists. /sarcasm
From now on, all my dwarves will wear little green suits with shamrocks on their hats.
I'll just comment that you miss option #3: play the original games. AD&D is still in print through POD, so there's not really any good excuse not to.
B/X was actually around for a lot longer than you imply, and was available coterminously with AD&D all the way up through the final boxed set editions. It was easier to figure out than AD&D at every step and was often the only edition easily attained in many corners of the country. When I got B/X D&D in 1981 I played it briefly then picked up AD&D, but I never got rid of the B/X rules because when I couldn't figure out what the hell Gygax was going on about in the DMG (and trust me at age 10 the AD&D combat mechanics were sometimes inscrutable) I simply picked up the Basic book and used that. I ended up running a hybrid of the two systems for a good couple years, using Basic rules for simple stuff mechanically and AD&D for the class/race combos, monsters, spells and magic items.
Anyway, the net result is that even though I only really used B/X rules for about a year or two before I finally grokked AD&D for what it was, that was enough to leave a lasting impression on me. Returning to B/X after decades passed left me with a greater appreciation for how important that ruleset was to D&D's general accessibility back then.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2021, 11:30:26 AM
So, the man who hated allegory and metaphor was indeed using both... Sources? Trust me bro won't cut it. Basing a grammar of of something doesn't make a fictional race a stand in of that something, also any proof that he did say that?
One, I
did not say "allegory", "metaphor" or "stand-in". Don't try putting words in my mouth. Tolkien was
influenced by Jews in his depiction of the Dwarves, which is very different thing from both allegory and metaphor.
Two:
BBC interview with Dennus Gueroult, recorded in 1964, broadcast 1965:
"The Dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."
Also, cut from the interview but surviving in transcript:
"a tremendous love of the artefact, and of course the immense warlike capacity of the Jews, which we tend to forget nowadays."
Letter to W.R. Mathews, 1964:
"The language of the Dwarves . . . is Semitic in cast, leaning phonetically to Hebrew
(as suits the Dwarvish character)." (Emphasis mine.)
Letter from September 1947:
"Now Dwarves have their secret language, but like Jews and Gypsies use the language of the country"
Letter from December 1955:
"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their native tongue"
I prefer retroclones over the original rules because of better organization.
OSE is formatted way better than original B/X ever was.
The OP seems to conflate all OSR with retroclones. Games like Worlds Without Number are OSR and derived mainly from B/X, but is by no means a retroclone.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:09:15 AM
I'm just venting... ain't this website my own personal group therapy session??
We need more scum like this dude on this forum!
Quote from: Theros link=topic=43655.msg1176532#msg1176532
I mean, I guess I am kinda curious about hearing a defense of the OSR, although I don't know if it will change my mind (but who knows?).
I love the OSR. Freaking-mofo-love it.
And I wasn't originally a fan of the idea for EXACTLY your listed reasons, plus some more concerns about how the OSR would drain creativity away from new game development.
Here's where the OSR shines:
1) People like new shit.
I love vintage stuff and new stuff, but most people want new stuff, even if its just the old stuff repackaged.
Publishing houses know this. It's why every decade, they roll out Lovecraft or Conan or Winnie the Pooh with a fresh, new cover.
2) The OSR is really, really freaking creative.
I'd argue the most creative ideas for settings and adventures have come out of the OSR for whatever reason - PERHAPS because of everyone working off a semi-common ruleset that is so minimal.
Wander through the link in this thread. Just tons of creativity.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/mork-borg-free-content-worth-at-look-for-any-fantasy-gamer/ (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/mork-borg-free-content-worth-at-look-for-any-fantasy-gamer/)
3) The OSR is very actual-play centric.
Most OSR stuff is written to be used swiftly at the table. AKA, its reactionary to the main RPG publishers who make giant pretty books for collectors.
The general concensus among most OSR publishers is even if you don't play the game, you'll get value out of the product
at your table. Kevin Crawford of Sine Nomine who made Stars Without Number is probably the champ here. His SWN is the best Traveller supplement in the past 3 decades and his Silent Legions OSR-horror RPG is the best CoC supplement hands down.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
The first type of retro-clone also confuses me... if you are going to make a retro-clone that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D, why not just play a TSR edition of D&D?
It boils down to logistics. I can't publish an adventure or supplement for a TSR edition of D&D without getting an IP lawyer involved to make sure I don't cross the lines of fair use and copyright. Otherwise I exposing myself and my assets.
However luckily there is open content free for anybody to use that happen to contain all the terms and many of the mechanics I need to in order to support a classic edition 'as is', the D20 SRD. However in its original form it hard to use for classic edition because it all wrapped up in 3.X material.
Since you are free to alter the D20 SRD, there is no reason why some enterprising group can't strip out the newer stuff and present it as a reference or even as a RPG very close to a particular classic edition. Which is what happened with the Basic Fantasy RPG.
And if you happen to have some lawyer friends who happened to be roleplayers then you can use IP law in conjunction with the open content to get even closer which is what happened with OSRIC.
And with those out there, people went "Oh shit I see how that can work now." Combined with a preference or love for the classic editions of D&D it lead to what you saw unfold from 2006 onwards. Picking up speed a few years later when it obvious that Wizards wasn't going to sue or C&D these efforts into oblivion.
Because it was built on the open content of the D20 that means most ideas folks had could done in the form they want it done. Provided they were willing to put the time.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
The latter is the most egregious to me... I'd rather put a gun in my mouth than sit and listen to someone's long list of house-rules for D&D. Why on earth would I waste time with a retro-clone?
First off the latter is not necessarily a retro-clone which is in its strictest sense a clone of some edition with a different layout or wording. If there are house rules they are kept short and to the minimum because the point of those project is produce a specific edition.
But I think you are referring to works like my own Majestic Fantasy RPG, Blood & Treasure, Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyberboria, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, etc. All of these are their own RPGs that happen to be compatible with one or more classic edition, my own, Majestic Fantasy RPG is compatible with Swords & Wizardry, Core Rule which is a retro-clone of the 3 LBBs + some rules from the first supplement.
As for why I wrote the Majestic Fantasy RPG, the primary reason that when I try to sell my adventures and setting at a game store or convention, Swords & Wizardry is often not avaliable. The guys at Frog God Games try to help but there is only so much they can do. So I wrote my own set of core rules to sell alongside my adventures and setting supplements. But it not just a reprint of the Swords & Wizardry Core Rules, it also folds in the house rules that I used and refined for the past decade, some of which originated back in the early 80s when I ran AD&D 1e. I had a good response on my blog and various forums post so I felt there would folks interested them.
Also like most of the successful OSR Publisher I am under no illusion that somehow my work is THE version to use. It is a version crafted to fit how I run my campaigns. Released into a niche of the hobby where the norm is to kitbash the rules one uses for a classic edition campaign. Drawing mostly from a specific edition but adding bits and pieces from other editions and other RPGs.
So I deliberately wrote my Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG with that in mind. Making sure things were organized in a way that made kitbashing easy. And changes from Swords & Wizardry, Core were mostly additions not modifying core concepts like Armor Class, or Hit Points.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I'm a simple man... I want to play a game that is actually called D&D right there on the cover, not someone's motley collection of heartbreaker house-rules. In general, these retro-clones stink of the idea that "the rules will save you" and that the most entertaining thing about RPGs is the rules themselves, like the rules will give you a good experience.
Sorry but that bullshit, if you want to debate then cite a specific author and a specific set of rules that does this. Just about every OSR Publisher I dealt with is well aware what whatever they do is not like the original including the clones themselves.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
That is NOT my experience. In my experience, the only thing fun about an RPG is when it goes off the rails with funny/inappropriate jokes and other immature bullshit. Rules are only necessary to give the impression of a structure, but the memorable parts of a game session is when the structure goes out the window and hilarity and disaster ensue.
Here the thing everybody has different taste. I know for most the response to that is "Of Course" but it one thing to intellectually understand it is another to see actually in action. The OSR as you describe it is exactly what happens when folks are free to share what they like in the form they like. Your ownly effective response is to share what you like in the form you like. If you do that, you will find that there are more than a few folks who feel exactly like you. All thanks to the efficiency of communications over the Internet.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
But the original versions have a lot of advantages over retro-clones... they have tons more nostalgia to them; they aren't written in the sterile, clinical style that is popular today; and most of all they are far, far, far more concise. Compare OSE to B/X, for example. The Moldvay Basic rulebook is something like 64 pages and OSE is something like 300 pages.
You are not looking at the history of OSE. It started out not much bigger than B/X and then grew from there. There is a reason why each volume exists in the series and it largely because of feedback the author got. If you don't believe email him and ask.
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
And that brings up another issue... why is so much of the OSR obsessed with B/X? B/X was not a standalone game, it wasn't a "separate" version of D&D... it was literally around for only a couple years and was replaced by BECMI, which did offer the full game. B/X strikes me as being for people who like shareware versions of software more than the full registered version... why base retro-clones on something that was never the full game in the first place?
The two books of B/X is the closest thing to an ur-D&D that classic edition have. Everything that makes D&D D&D is found in those two books stated in a way that it is close to is simplist form. With B/X as a base for one's campaign it is easy to see how to tack on additional things like the AD&D classes to get the exact form of classic D&D one likes to play. You get this by using the 3 LBBs of OD&D plus supplements but it is not as concise and well organized as B/X.
As for complete, it is rare for campaigns to reach the 12th to 14th level range. Numerous anecdotes from back in the day and the present bears this out.
I get your frustration but for my part, I don't care. I know that sounds callous but I am free to peruse my interests in the classic edition in the manner I best see fit. And I respect the fact that you are free to pursue your interest in your own way. Just I respect the OSRIC folks to do the same, along with James Raggi, the folks at Frog God Games, etc.
The reason for my lengthy reply to make you aware that what you like is out there. Everything you see going on is "In addition to" not "In lieu of".
It sounds like you like a more gonzo style. So I recommend anything by Jeff Rients like his blog or his work Broodmother Skyfortress.
http://jrients.blogspot.com/
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/199568/Broodmother-SkyFortress
I recommend Operation Unfathomable and anything else by the Hydra Cooperative.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/233145/Operation-Unfathomable#:~:text=OPERATION%20UNFATHOMABLE%20is%20a%20108,guessing%20as%20well%20as%20players.
Hope this helps.
Quote from: Spinachcat on June 23, 2021, 10:48:34 PM
Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 10:09:15 AM
I'm just venting... ain't this website my own personal group therapy session??
We need more scum like this dude on this forum!
Quote from: Theros link=topic=43655.msg1176532#msg1176532
I mean, I guess I am kinda curious about hearing a defense of the OSR, although I don't know if it will change my mind (but who knows?).
I love the OSR. Freaking-mofo-love it.
And I wasn't originally a fan of the idea for EXACTLY your listed reasons, plus some more concerns about how the OSR would drain creativity away from new game development.
Here's where the OSR shines:
1) People like new shit.
I love vintage stuff and new stuff, but most people want new stuff, even if its just the old stuff repackaged.
Publishing houses know this. It's why every decade, they roll out Lovecraft or Conan or Winnie the Pooh with a fresh, new cover.
2) The OSR is really, really freaking creative.
I'd argue the most creative ideas for settings and adventures have come out of the OSR for whatever reason - PERHAPS because of everyone working off a semi-common ruleset that is so minimal.
Wander through the link in this thread. Just tons of creativity.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/mork-borg-free-content-worth-at-look-for-any-fantasy-gamer/ (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/mork-borg-free-content-worth-at-look-for-any-fantasy-gamer/)
3) The OSR is very actual-play centric.
Most OSR stuff is written to be used swiftly at the table. AKA, its reactionary to the main RPG publishers who make giant pretty books for collectors.
The general concensus among most OSR publishers is even if you don't play the game, you'll get value out of the product at your table. Kevin Crawford of Sine Nomine who made Stars Without Number is probably the champ here. His SWN is the best Traveller supplement in the past 3 decades and his Silent Legions OSR-horror RPG is the best CoC supplement hands down.
Yes. OSR stuff is written to be used. It's not just a bunch of coffee table books. It's useful, usable content.