It may be earlier than you think.
#dnd #ttrpg #osr
2e began the wussyfication.
But 2e had the best D&D settings.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 02, 2023, 03:58:49 AM
2e began the wussyfication.
But 2e had the best D&D settings.
Fact. And some of the best D&D art--at least outside of the PHB, which had some of the blandest art in 2e, including the pic Pundit mentioned in the video...
(https://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/elmore-dragon-slayers.jpg)
PS: Also, 2e had the best splat books, including all of the Complete X series.
:) That one time back in the late 1970s when you tapped your foot to the disco beat. That was it, it started there. It's all your fault. ;D
If it wasn't for that 2/2 time signature, Major chords, and that cutie across the room grooving while stealing glances at you, everything would have been so metal, forever. >:( You've failed us, grandpas!
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 02, 2023, 06:36:48 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 02, 2023, 03:58:49 AM
2e began the wussyfication.
But 2e had the best D&D settings.
Fact. And some of the best D&D art--at least outside of the PHB, which had some of the blandest art in 2e, including the pic Pundit mentioned in the video...
(https://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/elmore-dragon-slayers.jpg)
PS: Also, 2e had the best splat books, including all of the Complete X series.
Seriously? 2e art was generally trash, particularly DiTerlizzi, possibly the worst artist in TSR history. The splat books only highlighted the problems with "kits" and the other bloat they added to 1e, which had already started diluting itself via bloat. And the writing, particularly in the Planescape garbage, was bad. Throw in crap like baatezu, tanar'ri, and three hole punched supplements and it's easy to see why the company was circling the drain in the 90s.
It was interesting as there was a gap between those of us in college (1988-92) who had started with 1e and the younger players who started with 2e. As 2e picked up steam, pretty much everyone I knew who was older either stuck with 1e or switched to other games in the early 90s like MERP or WoD.
The one thing I'll give it was making dragons stronger.
Quote from: Persimmon on October 02, 2023, 08:41:42 AMSeriously? 2e art was generally trash, particularly DiTerlizzi, possibly the worst artist in TSR history.
This statement alone disqualifies anything you have to say on the subject. With the possible exception of the stuff about the punch holed Monster Manual entries, which was demonstrably garbage and a moronic idea.
Post PHB/pre-WotC 2e had some of the best art in D&D ever. The only real exception was earlier edition art created by some of the big artists that also did some of the best 2e stuff, like Elmore, Parkinson and Easley. 3e/late 2e WotC era is when D&D art went downhill and turned into a self-referential plastic imitation of a copy of modern fantasy.
Is Pundit so desperate for clicks and attention he is now rehashing and recycling topics he already spoke about. Nice ttry with changing the title it still sounds like a broken record.
Imo 2E was the heyday of D&D with better art. As for splat books definitely too many yet absolutely no one had a gun to their head forcing them to use them.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 02, 2023, 09:30:45 AM
Imo 2E was the heyday of D&D with better art. As for splat books definitely too many yet absolutely no one had a gun to their head forcing them to use them.
There's a lot of "home brew" and a few splatbooks of sorts for 5E, probably more than that available for 2E if you count DM's Guild crap. The major difference is you get a table ready for a 5E game with five or six players, and those five or six players can't have a PHB-only game and will throw a hissy fit if you try to go that route, expecting EVERYTHING to be open for EVERY table.
The last 5E game I tried to run was Primeval Thule, using only the PHB classes and featuring only races described as featured in Primeval Thule. Immediately, every single player at the table said they had a "character concept" they wanted to play that was from Tasha's or Mordenkainen's - neither of which were listed in the approved tomes for character generation.
I gave up on 5E shortly after, and decided to run it with Savage Worlds instead.
I think what happened to you is hopefully the exception and not the norm. As any player who tried to demand to play a certain concept and I said core only is going to need to find another table.
It is also not limited to 5E. I saw an player in an Rifts recruitment thread refuse to join unless the GM allowed his m to play an Atlantean Demi-God while completely disregarding what was allowed at the game.
Again unless it is a con game no one has a loaded gun pointed at their head making it that they cannot say no.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 02, 2023, 10:04:45 AM
I think what happened to you is hopefully the exception and not the norm. As any player who tried to demand to play a certain concept and I said core only is going to need to find another table.
It was my home game, which is exactly why I dissolved that group...
I deeply love that derpy adventuring squad posing for their kill for some kid that they had handed a Polaroid camera to and asked him to shoot. It has a lot going for it, including a classically dressed wizard just part of the party (other characters have abilities that you can handwave and still have them actually be realistic, a wizard posing in a bathrobe means you're actually in fantasy).
Also comparing D&D art generally to A Paladin in Hell is hardly fair. It's excellent and evocative and is easily the best art in the AD&D 1e PHB, arguably the best art in 1e generally (and if not, it's in the top 10), and is definitely notable, having inspired later products and individuals directly.
A fast journey through the 2e PHB has some non-wussy orcs on page 92 (no way we'd see these out of Hasbro today), an out of place scenario in page 83 that would definitely not make it past any of the modern censors, and the really great polymorph on page 156.
But AD&D 2e definitely has moved towards wussification. AD&D 1e had maximum strengths by sex and race (female halfings could never be stronger than 14 Strength; female elves 16; female humans 18/50; their male counterparts maxxed at 17, 18/75, and 18/00). Because of the massive difference between men and women when it comes to physical strength, this is incredibly generous (Gygax even implied as much earlier in the book, writing: "You will find ... no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma", because a limit isn't baseless, he merely some of the silly limits he had seen to be baseless. AD&D 2e made no such distinctions, generally sidestepping an attempt to provide realism out of fear of political criticism.
I can't argue with pundit's premise. 2e really did see a lot of changes. But I, personally, liked the change from demons and devils to Baatzu and Tanari. It sounded more fantastical to me.
The assassin and half-orc thing never bothered me, I can see how it would some. In Dragonlance Kender and Gully Dwarves never bothered me, but I can see how it would some again. But a GM is GM of his or her table and can do what they want.
I do, however, take umbrage with the art critique, but eh, no skin off my teeth and not worth bitchin about.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 02, 2023, 09:30:45 AM
Is Pundit so desperate for clicks and attention he is now rehashing and recycling topics he already spoke about. Nice ttry with changing the title it still sounds like a broken record.
Imo 2E was the heyday of D&D with better art. As for splat books definitely too many yet absolutely no one had a gun to their head forcing them to use them.
Yeah, amen. I love and use a lot of splats for my 2e game. But, like you said, no one is forcing me or you.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 02, 2023, 03:58:49 AM
2e began the wussyfication.
But 2e had the best D&D settings.
I think 2E was a weird period where they tried to get the best of both worlds for themselves. The default D&D setting definitely felt more like Kevin Costner's Robin Hood or something (very late 80s, fairly tame, somewhat generic), but the settings really got into interesting territory. In fact there have been a bunch of threads elsewhere on Dark Sun. And what is interesting is how many players who came up through 5E, or have adopted more restricted sensibilities around content, were adamantly opposed to it because it included things like slavery and cannibal halflings (there were other objections as well but can't recall them off hand). I actually went back and read the original boxed set again and was pretty struck by the quality (I had not read it since it came out but I remembered playing in a lot of Dark Sun campaigns). I think people also had trouble grasping the tone of it---there are some lines in the boxed set I think are clearly meant to be read in a not serious way, but they sound worse if you just take them as literal statements of fact.
I started in 1986 so I definitely do recall big changes in tone. The one that leaps to my mind the most is taking out things like Assassin. There is actually an interview somewhere with RA Salvatore, where he talks about how they wanted to take out Artemis Entreri (not sure if they wanted to remove him from the novel or from a supplement that he would appear in---I know Crystal Shard came out like a year before 2E so it could have been either as I am sure they were applying changes to material in development during the lead up). And RA Salvatore basically salvaged the character by saying he wasn't an assassin but fighter/thief or something.
Definitely remember becoming aware of the whole "don't kill a pc unless they do something really stupid and deserving of death thing" around this time too.
I did like a lot of the 2E content, and I still like the 2E system, but there also was stuff Pundit mentions really becoming prominent like the metaplot and greater emphasis on GM as storyteller in general (though I think TSR had a pretty fragmented approach here with some books going that direction, some not). I also remember them chasing WW in other ways. The Ravenloft line was pretty distinct from games like Vampire or Call of Cthulhu. But as the 90s went on and White Wolf got more successful you would see WW-like elements in supplements (for example I remember one with rules for playing the monsters). The settings for me are where 2E shined
Wargamers make a game with fantasy elements. It attracts a group of people who are really into fantasy and can see how this game will allow them to play out their own fantasy novels, and other genres are immediately developed as well. This second group doesn't really like or understand wargames that much. Eventually, the second group convinces everyone that STORY >>>> GAME and then the Rubicon is crossed. The wargamers are called all sorts of nasty names and forced out of the hobby they created and the game becomes an exercise in pure sophistry and wankery. Instead of a referee, the DM/GM becomes a co-player. And it just devolves into a hellish spiral of crap from there.
I'd say the game changed as soon as DMs started giving a fuck about an overarching plot instead of actual play. So like five seconds after D&D was published?
I wouldn't say the wargamers got forced out of their own hobby. After all, you're all still here bitching about the players who don't want their characters to die.
But in broad terms, I think Brad is right. You can probably point to Dragons of Despair as the inflection point. Wargaming is a niche appeal. Elf game is much more popular for its storytelling aspects. As it turns out, most players don't really want to sit down and play a game where starting characters suck, can't do anything, and die on the first adventure. As a result, companies stopped designing their games that way. It sounded like a good idea back in the 70s when everyone was a wargamer, and a PC was based on a regular soldier who was probably going to die in his first battle. As time went by and the concept of a role-playing game matured, more and more people came to the realization that the things that work in a wargame are not the same as the things that work in a role-playing game.
2E, was wussed out; compared to 1E AD&D.
I played some 3rd and a very little 3.5. I then switched to a different game. I don't recall anything in the realm of "wussy" but I had just core books.
Well, lucky for us we have Condor DM who is able to explain Pundit's video. Enjoy, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO4Pxid1C0
Pathetic......
If you can't die in character creation, then you are playing a wussified game.
/sarcasm
Quote from: jeff37923 on October 02, 2023, 08:18:18 PM
Pathetic......
If you can't die in character creation, then you are playing a wussified game.
/sarcasm
Real men play Traveller 1e.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 02, 2023, 07:20:16 PM
Well, lucky for us we have Condor DM who is able to explain Pundit's video. Enjoy, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO4Pxid1C0
Uhhh, yeah. Not sure a guy with 432 subscribers to his YouTube channel should be calling other people "irrelevant" to the hobby. I wouldn't claim to be "relevant," either, but then again I'm just looking for a good game...
Just to double down: 2e art in general was garbage! Those Monstrous Compendium volumes with the weird tones and the squishy figures, etc. And yes, DiTerlizzi was the worst offender.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 02, 2023, 07:20:16 PM
Well, lucky for us we have Condor DM who is able to explain Pundit's video. Enjoy, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO4Pxid1C0
That bitch thinks Pundit wants to put the Game Designer on top?
Pundit has spoken several times against the trend to play raw, to follow the dictates of the designer, from where does he get his "facts"?
Also, Pundit isn't an experienced GM?
I know where Condor BitchWanker gets his "facts" from the deepest receses of his arse!
The supreme art of earlier eras...
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/8e539eb563a515ab1b07647797bb502e/tumblr_ppnk3t7JEm1ro2bqto1_1280.jpg)
Contrasted with some samples of garbage...
Clyde Cladewell
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/6a/0b/f6/6a0bf6183230ca7c00990a4b93ff52a3.jpg)
(https://clydecaldwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Spellfire-1.jpg)
(https://www.vaultcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/clyde-caldwell-signed-ravenloft-strahd-fantasy-art-print-tsr-add-midnight-snack-1.png)
Gerald Brom
(https://i0.wp.com/dmdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/darksun-1.jpg)
(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/darksun/images/a/a0/Neeva.jpg)
(https://r4.wallpaperflare.com/wallpaper/113/627/781/amber-the-enchantress-dark-sun-gerald-brom-torn-clothes-street-hd-wallpaper-bc1325afe533721290c3799d61f11648.jpg)
Denis Beauvais
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/51138e0a6b3abbb2cb7af7ea451d611d/tumblr_oabd9e1WxQ1unlm3do1_1280.jpg)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 03, 2023, 12:07:38 AM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 02, 2023, 07:20:16 PM
Well, lucky for us we have Condor DM who is able to explain Pundit's video. Enjoy, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO4Pxid1C0
That bitch thinks Pundit wants to put the Game Designer on top?
Pundit has spoken several times against the trend to play raw, to follow the dictates of the designer, from where does he get his "facts"?
Also, Pundit isn't an experienced GM?
I know where Condor BitchWanker gets his "facts" from the deepest receses of his arse!
He's obviously trying to capitalize and get a few clicks off the anti-punit crowd.
That wobble bottom is so utterly delusional. I mean, he claims that Pundit is attacking him because Pundit criticizes 2e (and therefore it was a no-named but direct attack on Walrus DM).
Then goes on to say, that Pundit isn't an experienced DM (yes, he actually said that). And that game designers are not credible compared to experienced GMs like him. Of course, talent, game design, and research mean nothing (apparently). LOL
So how experienced is Walrus GM? He's had over 10k public games (since he started in the 90s). Or so he claims. And I shit gold bars and unicorns or so I claim.
2nd edition was the end of D&D. It has all been downhill since. 3.5e was rock bottom, even compared to how bad 4e was (which wasn't even D&D).
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist. But WotC (pronounced w-atzi) is flushing all that down the toilet with Woke nonsense.
Ravenloft and DarkSun were the only TSR products to have any decent art direction.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.
LOL! Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO! Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.
Quote from: Brad on October 02, 2023, 01:52:24 PM
I'd say the game changed as soon as DMs started giving a fuck about an overarching plot instead of actual play. So like five seconds after D&D was published?
Sound premise, though the timing was way different for me. In my own experience, DMs started caring about overarching plot right around (checks watch) Dragonlance.
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.
LOL! Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO! Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.
It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ... until they took away Pundit's credit in the front of the book. Then suddenly 5e was always bad and wicked and a betrayal of everything D&D stood for (not became that... was that from the start).
Now it's on to the purity spiraling phase as earlier and earlier editions "don't count" (used to just be 4E, then became 4-5e, then all WotC editions, Pundit is saying 2e, and a few here are even saying "Dragonlance"). Pretty soon anyone who doesn't play using the original house rules for Chainmail won't be doing it right.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 08:48:57 AM
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.
LOL! Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO! Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.
It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ...
I have ZERO idea what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with my post.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 08:48:57 AM
It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ... until they took away Pundit's credit in the front of the book. Then suddenly 5e was always bad and wicked and a betrayal of everything D&D stood for (not became that... was that from the start).
Now it's on to the purity spiraling phase as earlier and earlier editions "don't count" (used to just be 4E, then became 4-5e, then all WotC editions, Pundit is saying 2e, and a few here are even saying "Dragonlance"). Pretty soon anyone who doesn't play using the original house rules for Chainmail won't be doing it right.
In fairness,
1. The OSR has been pointing to Dragonlance as 'Where D&D went off track' for
years;
2. It took both some time to get familiar with the system, and a bit of a cultural shift within WotC, for 5E to move from 'semi-OSR' to 'anti-OSR'.
My own opinion? The OSR is largely divided between whether the rules should be Lawful (AD&D), Neutral (B/X), or Chaotic (OD&D), but unified in generally assuming a Chaotic Neutral (Evil) playstyle where agency and the will to power are the supreme goods. 5E D&D is a Brand first and a game third, so it's tough to make extrapolations about that; Paizo is similar but more religious. :) Those of us who like anything outside those three camps aren't 'really' D&D fans and will be driven out sooner or later for not bearing one of the appropriate marks, without which no one can play or DM. :)
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:53:45 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 08:48:57 AM
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.
LOL! Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO! Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.
It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ...
I have ZERO idea what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with my post.
It was the most convenient post because it was the last one in a chain about 5e at the time I hit reply. Sometimes it's not about you even if your comment is referenced.
As to no idea what I'm talking about, I suggest you go looking at some of Pundit and others' posts about from c. 2015 through when WotC pulled Pundit's consultancy credit. Very different feelings about how great 5e was until it became personal for Pundit.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 09:05:32 AM
As to no idea what I'm talking about, I suggest you go looking at some of Pundit and others' posts about from c. 2015 through when WotC pulled Pundit's consultancy credit. Very different feelings about how great 5e was until it became personal for Pundit.
Why the fck would I look up what you are blathering on about when you cannot even coherently reply to a post? Adjust your meds troll.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AMRavenloft and DarkSun were the only TSR products to have any decent art direction.
Planescape also had good art direction. Some rare (tasteless) people may not have liked DiTerlizzi's art, but he had a distinctive style that was evocative nonetheless and helped set the setting's tone. And the setting's layout and presentation was consistent throughout its products, with its own look and feel. Dragonlance and Spelljammer also had consistent art as well, with a distinct feel for each setting. Though their layout and presentation was not as strong.
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 09:07:56 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 09:05:32 AM
As to no idea what I'm talking about, I suggest you go looking at some of Pundit and others' posts about from c. 2015 through when WotC pulled Pundit's consultancy credit. Very different feelings about how great 5e was until it became personal for Pundit.
Why the fck would I look up what you are blathering on about when you cannot even coherently reply to a post? Adjust your meds troll.
I thought you claimed to be intelligent. The ability to make inferences is something most adults are capable of. However since you're too "smooth brained" (as you're so fond of calling others) I will dumb it down for you.
Before WotC removed Pundit's consultancy credit Pundit and his hangers-on had generally positive feelings for 5e (go look for yourself as you clearly won't believe me... which was why I suggested looking for yourself in the first place). Then after the credit was removed, it's practically a line where you see the change in direction (again go and see for yourself as clearly you don't believe anything I say).
Now, go and prove that brain of yours is wrinkled by actually looking and seeing for yourself.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 03, 2023, 12:46:38 AM
The supreme art of earlier eras...
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/8e539eb563a515ab1b07647797bb502e/tumblr_ppnk3t7JEm1ro2bqto1_1280.jpg)
Contrasted with some samples of garbage...
Clyde Cladewell
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/6a/0b/f6/6a0bf6183230ca7c00990a4b93ff52a3.jpg)
(https://clydecaldwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Spellfire-1.jpg)
(https://www.vaultcollectibles.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/clyde-caldwell-signed-ravenloft-strahd-fantasy-art-print-tsr-add-midnight-snack-1.png)
Gerald Brom
(https://i0.wp.com/dmdave.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/darksun-1.jpg)
(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/darksun/images/a/a0/Neeva.jpg)
(https://r4.wallpaperflare.com/wallpaper/113/627/781/amber-the-enchantress-dark-sun-gerald-brom-torn-clothes-street-hd-wallpaper-bc1325afe533721290c3799d61f11648.jpg)
Denis Beauvais
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/51138e0a6b3abbb2cb7af7ea451d611d/tumblr_oabd9e1WxQ1unlm3do1_1280.jpg)
I liked a lot of the 2e art personally (particularly stuff like Caldwell, Brom and Fabian). The Ravenloft line, in my opinion, was stunning (at least the first half or so of the 90s, after they removed the border art and Fabian stopped doing anything for it, the look and feel got weaker). I think there was a lot of well executed stuff during that period, but I also do get the critique that a lot of the art and material was a little more pablum in the wake of the Satanic Panic (I think it was also just part of a broader trend in fantasy---when I think of early 80s fantasy movies versus late 80s, it is a kind of R to PG/PG-13 shift). But pre-2E D&D definitely had a different vibe and tone. That said, most of the people I gamed with just brought the 1E books to the table if they wanted that tone (and there were a ton of supplements with stuff you could cobble together).
I also will say I rather liked the look of the 2nd edition PHD art for the most part. I do think it fell into the problem that a lot of RPG art has since, which is it looks like your gamer friends are serving as the models for the characters (which immediately takes me out of an image). But there are some memorable pieces of work in that 1990 PHB and DMG. The 1995 revised PHD sucked though. I hated everything about how that one looked (same for the new monster manual). Even the font bothered me, and I don't usually care about fonts at all.
Greetings!
I have always been a champion of 5E. It is a strong system, with many advantages and benefits, with relatively few flaws or problems. System-wise, if the DM adjusts some rules--many of which are detailed options right there in the DMG--then most of the flaws or problems of 5E vanish, or at least are significantly reduced. On that score, I haven't seen a system yet that couldn't be or shouldn't be modified by the GM. I, of course, have put considerable effort into maintaining and running my 5E campaigns in a thoroughly "Old School" manner. That is not difficult or troublesome for myself, because I have always been "Old School." I started playing D&D back in the "Old School" days--and have stayed with a traditional approach to gaming and running games. I never embraced any "New School" ways of gaming.
The tragedy for 5E is not the mechanical game system, though as I mentioned, there are some flaws and the system is not perfect. However, the tragedy for 5E D&D is not the actual game system, but the ideological poisoning and political corruption that has overtaken and consumed 5E D&D. I would say that the first two-thirds of 5E's market life were relatively fine. It has been in the more recent third, so to speak, that 5E and WOTC has obviously drank deeply from the Woke Kool Aid and become entirely corrupt. Since Tasha's or whatever supplement, and continuing on through Strixhaven, the Wyld Forest, and then the Citadel. There's probably a few I forgot. But you get what I'm saying--essentially, the last five or six game supplements produced by WOTC for D&D 5E.
It is precisely that political and ideological corruption of WOTC, highlighted by various articles and internet video interviews, that have sadly tainted and destroyed the game company. Or certainly destroyed WOTC's reputation and standing as a company with many "Old School" gamers such as myself. In light of all of these changes, in response, while the system of 5E is strong and hass good merits--it simply has become unpalatable to remain as a customer of WOTC. While no longer being a customer of WOTC, it then follows that there is even more incentive and motivation to play a distinctly separate or different system. Not entirely different, of course, but different enough. I happen to like Shadowdark. OSE and others exist as well.
Concerning 2E, well, the art was one part brilliant, and one part trash. As has been mentioned, there are signs of the art in 2E going downhill. So, there is that fact. However, to my mind, there remain some very good and inspiring sections of art in 2E. Ultimately, it wasn't the art of 2E that killed the game system, or the game company. It was mistakes in marketing, as well as poor business management. The whole marketing, editing, production system at TSR began to suffer more and more, not just in terms of quality product, but how the products were marketed, and how they were presented and shipped to the actual markets. These problems all snowballed to destroy the company--and 2E was, unfortunately, eventually caught up in the storm of napalm and died.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Saying Brom and Caldwell are garbage burn the heretics. Sure some 2E art was imo terrible much of 1E was just as bad though the IoSR crowd views that through rose coloured glasses that they spray painted black.
Every edition imo had its good and bad art art. One edition because it's an favourite edition for some does not and should not be given an exception. I hated one artist I think his last name was Crapapple who drew for third edition . One bad artist does not mean an entire edition art is garbage.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 03, 2023, 01:35:13 PM
Saying Brom and Caldwell are garbage burn the heretics. Sure some 2E art was imo terrible much of 1E was just as bad though the IoSR crowd views that through rose coloured glasses that they spray painted black.
Every edition imo had its good and bad art art. One edition because it's an favourite edition for some does not and should not be given an exception. I hated one artist I think his last name was Crapapple who drew for third edition . One bad artist does not mean an entire edition art is garbage.
I probably dislike 4E the most, and the art wasn't a major factor in that (4E and 3E seemed distinct but related styles to me). The only time art has effected my enjoyment of content was when they drastically changed the look of books in the mid-90s for 2E. In particular the black revised books I mentioned and the Ravenloft line (which went from looking incredible to this very barren and thin vibe----and it was both on the layout design and the art side I think).
The wussification started with the infamous "Chainmail Bikini" article in Dragon during the Satanic Panic, because that's when the Femynid infestation began.
Of course TSR bending the knee to the Democratic Politicians, Church Moms and televangelists didn't help.
Problem here is we all have our own definitition of "wussing". My personal definition is whenever telling a story becomes more important than playing a game. Looking at official products for the D&D brand I put it at around 1983 when modules with railroad elements to drive a narrative first hit the market. I would say sooner for private games that might have been doing this.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on October 03, 2023, 10:21:36 AM
...
I also will say I rather liked the look of the 2nd edition PHD art for the most part. I do think it fell into the problem that a lot of RPG art has since, which is it looks like your gamer friends are serving as the models for the characters (which immediately takes me out of an image). But there are some memorable pieces of work in that 1990 PHB and DMG. The 1995 revised PHD sucked though. I hated everything about how that one looked (same for the new monster manual). Even the font bothered me, and I don't usually care about fonts at all.
I think that the 2e PHB art was not horrible, but kinda bland--specially compared to a lot of the art from other 2e products, including the 2e DMG, which had a pretty iconic cover, while the PHB cover is kinda meh in comparison. The revised PHB and the Player's Options stuff was from around the start of the WotC era, when everything went down hill fast. The Player's Options layout was just fuggly, and the rules badly balanced (and likely barely playtested if at all IMO).
WotC era D&D art didn't become (sorta) good till 5e, which I mentioned in another thread has the best graphic design and layout of any D&D edition. Although the art is kinda bland. early to mid 2e and most of 1e era D&D had the best art (illustration wise; layout was very plain, outside of Dark Sun, Ravenloft or Planescape)--specially once classic artists like Elmore, Easley, etc. came onboard.
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.
LOL! Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO! Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.
That is why I qualified that with "insomuch" and "some". Besides, player death and TPK's aren't the only thing 1e is good for.
You can play 5e in hardcore mode if you like.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 03, 2023, 09:13:02 AM
Planescape also had good art direction.
I was checked out of D&D by then, but what I've seen of Planescape it is all over the place from Tony DiTerlizzi to Robh Ruppel, radically different artists. One of the keys to good art direction is consistency.
Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on October 03, 2023, 02:59:44 PM
The only time art has effected my enjoyment of content was when they drastically changed the look of books in the mid-90s for 2E. In particular the black revised books I mentioned and the Ravenloft line (which went from looking incredible to this very barren and thin vibe----and it was both on the layout design and the art side I think).
Yes; the art team managed to alienate Stephen Fabian (who wasn't very happy with doing so much Ravenloft stuff to begin with), and the layout changes didn't help. I think it hurt the 1996 products the most; after
Domains of Dread, the look improved a bit, although I still prefer the earlier 2nd edition products.
Fun fact: The Black Box tied with Shadowrun's
Seattle Source Book for the 1990 Origin Award for Best Graphic Presentation of a Role-Playing Game. The other nominees were the Castles box set for AD&D 2E, Angus McBride's Characters of Middle-Earth from ICE (which I have to assume didn't win only because of the relative obscurity of the line), and
Feast of Goblyns--the
other Ravenloft product within the eligibility window.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 03, 2023, 01:35:13 PM
Saying Brom and Caldwell are garbage burn the heretics. Sure some 2E art was imo terrible much of 1E was just as bad though the IoSR crowd views that through rose coloured glasses that they spray painted black.
Every edition imo had its good and bad art art. One edition because it's an favourite edition for some does not and should not be given an exception. I hated one artist I think his last name was Crapapple who drew for third edition . One bad artist does not mean an entire edition art is garbage.
Brom and Caldwell are world class artists. Though I can't stand the direction Caldwell took in the 90's. While Parkinson really took off. I don't know what happened to Easley he started out strong but didn't grow like Parkinson and Brom did. Jeff Butler, Fred Fields, and Robh Ruppel were not good fits. Tony DiTerlizzi is an interesting exception, he's basically a children's book illustrator and had his own thing going on.
The stable of artists they put together in the 80's, particularly for the time, was remarkable. My criticism has been aimed at the art direction. TSR never had a world class art director, though I will give props to Jim Roslof for building that art team.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 03, 2023, 04:45:31 PM
Yes; the art team managed to alienate Stephen Fabian (who wasn't very happy with doing so much Ravenloft stuff to begin with), and the layout changes didn't help.
Stephen Fabian was a genuine talent. I didn't appreciate him at the time, my teen self didn't care for his work. Now that I have perspective I get what he was doing. He rarely worked in color, but when he did the results were fantastic. Interesting story: he learned art from the Famous Artist's School, you may remember those "Draw Binky" ads that looked like a scam. That was a legitimate art school started by Norman Rockwell and other famous illustrators! Bernie Wrightson went to that school too. I wish I'd known it was legitimate when I was a teen interested in art.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/4c/32/ff/4c32ff98e49e56f346edca26086e0824.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/1b/22/c6/1b22c6a607fbe8c0cccdd8d0b939c6c4.jpg)
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 04:31:58 PM
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.
LOL! Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO! Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.
That is why I qualified that with "insomuch" and "some". Besides, player death and TPK's aren't the only thing 1e is good for.
You can play 5e in hardcore mode if you like.
I have no clue what Scooter is talking about - at first level, the characters in my newbie 5e game had three encounters. They talked their way out of the first one, bribed their way out of the second, and ran like hell from the third after an initial skirmish; any one of those could easily have been a TPK if they'd tried to stand and fight.
Now, this is a non-WotC published location-based module they're playing through, but I've had TPKs playing WotC-published 5e modules by the book, and the old starter kit was famous for them.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 02, 2023, 09:29:59 AMWith the possible exception of the stuff about the punch holed Monster Manual entries, which was demonstrably garbage and a moronic idea.
I did not like it. But I got the concept behind it. It was one of those 50-50 things where it could be useful on paper. But once implimented the flaws kinda stood out.
The main one being that it puts some wear and tear on the pages. But the pages were sturdier than standard and there are those little ring binder patches.
I could see how it could be really useful. But it was a hassle at the same time and so good idea-bad idea.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 02, 2023, 09:30:45 AM
Is Pundit so desperate for clicks and attention he is now rehashing and recycling topics he already spoke about. Nice ttry with changing the title it still sounds like a broken record.
Imo 2E was the heyday of D&D with better art. As for splat books definitely too many yet absolutely no one had a gun to their head forcing them to use them.
Honestly there were not too many expansion books. Just one per class, think one per race. A few add-ons. Alot of players loved the class books and how TSR handles it. You could buy just what interested you and ignore everything else.
Weird how people keep bitching and moaning 20odd years later about something that was optional.
The rest was setting specific.
Quote from: Omega on October 04, 2023, 05:19:41 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 02, 2023, 09:29:59 AMWith the possible exception of the stuff about the punch holed Monster Manual entries, which was demonstrably garbage and a moronic idea.
I did not like it. But I got the concept behind it. It was one of those 50-50 things where it could be useful on paper. But once implimented the flaws kinda stood out.
The main one being that it puts some wear and tear on the pages. But the pages were sturdier than standard and there are those little ring binder patches.
I could see how it could be really useful. But it was a hassle at the same time and so good idea-bad idea.
I wasn't even really opposed to the idea. The fact that they put monsters on both sides of a sheet so you couldn't really alphabetize them drove me nuts.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 02, 2023, 09:30:45 AM
Imo 2E was the heyday of D&D with better art. As for splat books definitely too many yet absolutely no one had a gun to their head forcing them to use them.
I think most of the splat books in the 2E era were fine because 1) they were highly optional and GM approval was still very important and 2) they were not as mechanically hefty and broken as the later 3E splat books. There were certainly things that could be abused, and I hated stuff like skills and powers because to me that broke the game, but the lines with the color themed covers (blue books, green books, brown books, etc), were all very heavy on flavor and setting, with mechanics that tended be stuff like NWPs and slight bonuses. Books like the Complete Bard, Glory of Rome, A mighty Fortress, and the Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb guide, were all things that added a lot to my campaigns on the GM side, seemed to give players more ideas for playing things like a bard, but never really produced an issue for me at the table as a GM. The complete books for 3E, on the other hand, were a constant source of frustration. Obviously things like easy class dipping were as much a factor as the books in the case of 3E.
Some of the later books, like aforementioned skills and powers, I think produced significant problems though. I remember having balance issues with the psionics book.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 02, 2023, 09:29:59 AM
Quote from: Persimmon on October 02, 2023, 08:41:42 AMSeriously? 2e art was generally trash, particularly DiTerlizzi, possibly the worst artist in TSR history.
This statement alone disqualifies anything you have to say on the subject. With the possible exception of the stuff about the punch holed Monster Manual entries, which was demonstrably garbage and a moronic idea.
I have to admit, as much as the hole tearing was a problem, I loved this monster manual. It still remains my favorite. I used to like mixing the different packets of monsters so I could tailor the manual to my campaign. I get why people had issues with it, there was a practicality issue with things like the potential for lost pages. But I loved how it blended perfectly with a GM's notebook. I even remember buying things like the Ravenloft packet twice so I could have on in the main MM binder, and one in my GM binder. I liked the art for these as well. The hardback MM they released with the 2E revised edition just didn't do anything for me
Quote from: Naburimannu on October 04, 2023, 04:31:43 AM
I have no clue what Scooter is talking about
Read the rules then. If your fighter has 20 hp at max you can take 40 hp damage and still live.Compare that to AD&D. Are you a total moron?
I loved the binder MM idea until I saw some printing on both sides. Then I was sad at the potential photocopy costs. :-[ That said, we live in a wonderous new age where all that is much cheaper and often available at home.
Hmmm... I should collate my own campaign MMs jusr for organizational purposes. Then I could use that Custom 5e MM/Item entry to translate MtG monsters & stuff for my campaign binder. What a needlessly distracting organization project! ;D I just might do it! Do they already have templates for Custom 1e or 2e MM/Items? :o
I would say the wussification of D&D began when Gygax set the stat bonuses for 15 or better, then came up with ever more ridiculous ways to generate high stats, including the infamous Method V where you rolled 9d6 and took the best three of those for your primary stat.
If you look at the stats in the AD&D Rogue's Gallery, you can see the player characters of the people at TSR who were designing and playtesting the game. They had some pretty beaucoup stats. No way it was 3d6 down the line. Gary might have portrayed himself as a hardass in the Dragon Magazine articles, but he wanted the PC's to be heroic. And so every fighter had 18(xx&) strength or they were considered useless. And every Magic User had an Intelligence of 17 or better. Don't believe me? Go look at the Rogues Gallery. You'll see where the power creep started.
Moldvay did the game a service when he flattened the curve when it came to stat bonuses. Too bad we didn't pay attention to him back then because we were chasing the many options of "Advanced" D&D.
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:57:25 AM
Quote from: Naburimannu on October 04, 2023, 04:31:43 AM
I have no clue what Scooter is talking about
Read the rules then. If your fighter has 20 hp at max you can take 40 hp damage and still live.Compare that to AD&D. Are you a total moron?
A hilarious oversimplification of the rules that clearly you haven't read either. Please, do us all a favor and throw yourself off a rooftop.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 04, 2023, 11:01:52 AM
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:57:25 AM
Quote from: Naburimannu on October 04, 2023, 04:31:43 AM
I have no clue what Scooter is talking about
Read the rules then. If your fighter has 20 hp at max you can take 40 hp damage and still live.Compare that to AD&D. Are you a total moron?
A hilarious oversimplification of the rules that clearly you haven't read either. Please, do us all a favor and throw yourself off a rooftop.
Yes, I have you fucking moron. I stated the effect of the rule correctly.. PLUS resting for 8 hours to get back all HP lost as opposed to 1 hp/24 hours in AD&D. Now run along dipshit.
5e took many of the lessons of the OSR and either put them in to some extent, or wrote the rules so that you could play 5e in an old school-ish kinda way. It's way more OSResque than 3e or 4e.
As to whether people here didn't get mad until they started pretending Pundit didn't help with the new edition, I couldn't say. Companies had this idea, possibly related to "ESG" investments, that they needed to "piss off the conservatards" or whatever, and many of them made small statements about equality or whatever, but these weren't targeted enough and I guess they wanted redder meat, so a lot of them started being overtly and deliberately offensive. While this is less now than it was a couple years ago, it's still going on. If this negatively impacted your view of certain companies, I mean, that's fine, it certainly did for me. If your only reason for hating 5e is that they tried to rewrite history to fuck over Pundit, uh, sure, that's a fine reason.
But I'm not even saying that happened. I'm saying if it did happen, good.
I like 5e, sort of. The core is a great system. In my view, the only thing that really holds it down is the overblown classes. Stripped down, it functions like a well oiled clock. Everything I don't like about modern D&D has to to with low effort supplements and shitty 5e community culture. WOTC took gold and turned it into shit.
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 11:06:53 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 04, 2023, 11:01:52 AM
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:57:25 AM
Quote from: Naburimannu on October 04, 2023, 04:31:43 AM
I have no clue what Scooter is talking about
Read the rules then. If your fighter has 20 hp at max you can take 40 hp damage and still live.Compare that to AD&D. Are you a total moron?
A hilarious oversimplification of the rules that clearly you haven't read either. Please, do us all a favor and throw yourself off a rooftop.
Yes, I have you fucking moron. I stated the effect of the rule correctly.. PLUS resting for 8 hours to get back all HP lost as opposed to 1 hp/24 hours in AD&D. Now run along dipshit.
Make sure you get your whole head in front of the shotgun.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 04:55:25 PM
[Jeff Butler, Fred Fields, and Robh Ruppel were not good fits.
I think Ruppel's Ravenloft covers were generally good at first, although his later work didn't impress, but Ravenloft sits a bit distant from mainstream D&D anyway.
If memory serves, the most unified cover art may have been the Dragonlance: Fifth Age line--I think that was
all Jeff Easley, or nearly so.
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:57:25 AM
Read the rules then. If your fighter has 20 hp at max you can take 40 hp damage and still live.
Technically he cannot. If your 20 HP fighter takes 40 HP of damage, you are reduced to 0 and the remaining damage (the 40 damage-20 current hit points = 20 remaining damage)
equals or exceeds your fighter's hit point maximum, you die.
Ok, so, lets change the 40 to a 39. Now the fighter is alive and at 0 hit points. And certainly, that's more generous than AD&D 1e, where any damage above 29 will kill the fighter in one blow. But 39 and 29 are not entirely dissimilar numbers. And if the 5e character is hit for 21 points of damage and then bitten for 1 point of damage, he could easily die on the spot, whereas the AD&D 1e character in that situation will not be dead.
The method for recovering hit points is much longer (especially unaided by magic) in AD&D. A single long rest in 5e famously recovers all hit points and pretty much all other resources, which is wildly unrealistic for any definition of hit points. How does 5e handle this? Well, there's an entire section on realistic healing and recovery in the DMG (basically long rests still give you hit dice, but don't offer any innate HP recovery). This puts you back into the resource-management mode of older games, though it's still more healing per day than 1e through 3e offered.
I'll point out a few things though:
1- Every version made it easier to live than the prior one, except for the launch version of AD&D 2e, which made
hovering on death's door an optional rule. I never saw that rule NOT used personally, at many AD&D 2e tables. Further AD&D splatbooks served to make it less deadly than before as well.
2- The change to make characters take death more seriously while still being compatible with traditional and story type gaming is an ongoing one, and plenty of 5e DMs have houserules or use the DMG optional rules specifically because of this stuff.
3- Back in the day, house rules to get players back on their feet (aka not really dead at low levels) were not at all uncommon.
4- One of the reasons for the stupidly powerful long rest is to prevent players from having to track all their various infirmities as a resource when that only matters a small amount of the time. Sometimes you are going from adventure to adventure as you trek across an icy landscape, trying to reach a safe spot before things get
real cold, and there a persistent damage mechanic is very compelling- but many times the players who take one long rest really have a week of downtime and this just simplifies bookkeeping for them.
Anyway, you're definitely right that 5e is a lot less deadly than 1e, and if that's a reason you don't like it, well, you're correct to not like it. The optional rules that you could use are going to be argued by many players to be overly punishing, while older games are built tough by default. Even if tables that want easier rules outnumber tables that want harsher ones, it's much easier to loosen tough rules than it is to toughen loose rules, and that's an argument for tougher rules by default.
Quote from: Venka on October 04, 2023, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:57:25 AM
Read the rules then. If your fighter has 20 hp at max you can take 40 hp damage and still live.
Technically he cannot. If your 20 HP fighter takes 40 HP of damage, you are reduced to 0 and the remaining damage (the 40 damage-20 current hit points = 20 remaining damage) equals or exceeds your fighter's hit point maximum, you die.
Okay 39 fucking hit points. In AD&D if brought to 0 HP (has taken 20 hp of damage) he is unconscious and dies automatically in 10 rounds unless healed. Also, Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and then revived will remain in a coma far 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a full week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other than that necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep when there. The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic devices, carry burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This is true even if cure spells and/or healing potions are given to him or her, although if a heal spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer applies. That and the 8 hours rest make if D&D Snowflake edition.
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 04:49:21 PM
Quote from: Venka on October 04, 2023, 04:36:52 PM
Quote from: Scooter on October 04, 2023, 08:57:25 AM
Read the rules then. If your fighter has 20 hp at max you can take 40 hp damage and still live.
Technically he cannot. If your 20 HP fighter takes 40 HP of damage, you are reduced to 0 and the remaining damage (the 40 damage-20 current hit points = 20 remaining damage) equals or exceeds your fighter's hit point maximum, you die.
Okay 39 fucking hit points. In AD&D if brought to 0 HP (has taken 20 hp of damage) he is unconscious and dies automatically in 10 rounds unless healed. That and the 8 hours rest make if D&D Snowflake edition.
Also, that's only if they have 20 hit points. At level 1 a wizard could have 5 hp (though 7-8 is more likely) and a single 10 point hit would kill them instantly.
Further a default orc in AD&D has about 5 hp and does 1d8 damage. A default orc in 5e has 13 hp and deals 1d12+3 damage.
A fighter with a good Con score might have 12 hit points at level one and so even they could go down in one hit to an orc and be dead in three rounds if they rolled poorly on the death saves.
Basically, 20 hp in 5e means way less than it does in 1e... because how they calculate monster stats is different.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 02, 2023, 09:30:45 AM
Is Pundit so desperate for clicks and attention he is now rehashing and recycling topics he already spoke about. Nice ttry with changing the title it still sounds like a broken record.
Imo 2E was the heyday of D&D with better art. As for splat books definitely too many yet absolutely no one had a gun to their head forcing them to use them.
I've done a lot of videos, but I honestly don't remember doing a video about 2e on this subject.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 02, 2023, 07:20:16 PM
Well, lucky for us we have Condor DM who is able to explain Pundit's video. Enjoy, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO4Pxid1C0
Someone seriously needs to figure out what medication that guy needs.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 03, 2023, 12:07:38 AM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 02, 2023, 07:20:16 PM
Well, lucky for us we have Condor DM who is able to explain Pundit's video. Enjoy, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO4Pxid1C0
That bitch thinks Pundit wants to put the Game Designer on top?
Pundit has spoken several times against the trend to play raw, to follow the dictates of the designer, from where does he get his "facts"?
Also, Pundit isn't an experienced GM?
I know where Condor BitchWanker gets his "facts" from the deepest receses of his arse!
The guy is just ridiculous, confounding my point about how in the OSR as a design school focuses on game designers (which is pretty obvious) as me suggesting that game designers are the most important people at the table, which as you said I am strongly opposed to. But basically, he's following the same formula others have: talk about me to get more views to your underperforming channel.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 03, 2023, 06:19:12 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 03, 2023, 12:07:38 AM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 02, 2023, 07:20:16 PM
Well, lucky for us we have Condor DM who is able to explain Pundit's video. Enjoy, LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO4Pxid1C0
That bitch thinks Pundit wants to put the Game Designer on top?
Pundit has spoken several times against the trend to play raw, to follow the dictates of the designer, from where does he get his "facts"?
Also, Pundit isn't an experienced GM?
I know where Condor BitchWanker gets his "facts" from the deepest receses of his arse!
He's obviously trying to capitalize and get a few clicks off the anti-punit crowd.
That wobble bottom is so utterly delusional. I mean, he claims that Pundit is attacking him because Pundit criticizes 2e (and therefore it was a no-named but direct attack on Walrus DM).
Then goes on to say, that Pundit isn't an experienced DM (yes, he actually said that). And that game designers are not credible compared to experienced GMs like him. Of course, talent, game design, and research mean nothing (apparently). LOL
So how experienced is Walrus GM? He's had over 10k public games (since he started in the 90s). Or so he claims. And I shit gold bars and unicorns or so I claim.
I've run multiple campaigns that have run for over 10 years of regular play. And in the case of Last Sun, I have the records to prove it.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 08:48:57 AM
Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM
5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.
LOL! Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO! Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.
It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ... until they took away Pundit's credit in the front of the book. Then suddenly 5e was always bad and wicked and a betrayal of everything D&D stood for (not became that... was that from the start).
Now it's on to the purity spiraling phase as earlier and earlier editions "don't count" (used to just be 4E, then became 4-5e, then all WotC editions, Pundit is saying 2e, and a few here are even saying "Dragonlance"). Pretty soon anyone who doesn't play using the original house rules for Chainmail won't be doing it right.
No, at least that's not what I'm saying. 2e definitely counted as D&D, it was just a more bowdlerized more sanitized D&D that was therefore more bland than what came before. 3e still counted, though it was flawed by an excessive focus on character optimization and special tricks (feats, skills etc). 5e counts, though all the later products for it have been mostly trashed.
The only edition that doesn't count as D&D is 4e.
Quote from: Abraxus on October 03, 2023, 01:35:13 PM
Saying Brom and Caldwell are garbage burn the heretics. Sure some 2E art was imo terrible much of 1E was just as bad though the IoSR crowd views that through rose coloured glasses that they spray painted black.
Every edition imo had its good and bad art art. One edition because it's an favourite edition for some does not and should not be given an exception. I hated one artist I think his last name was Crapapple who drew for third edition . One bad artist does not mean an entire edition art is garbage.
There was some definitely bad art in pre-2e D&D books for sure. There was also some quite good art in 2e. However, the art in b/x and AD&D1e as a whole evoked a kind of "heavy metal" and "gritty fantasy" style overall, while the art in 2e had a much more generic "G-rated fantasy" Ren-faire style as a whole.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 04, 2023, 05:52:40 PM
There was some definitely bad art in pre-2e D&D books for sure. There was also some quite good art in 2e. However, the art in b/x and AD&D1e as a whole evoked a kind of "heavy metal" and "gritty fantasy" style overall, while the art in 2e had a much more generic "G-rated fantasy" Ren-faire style as a whole.
Pretty much my impression. To this day every time I look at an Erol Otus piece, "Heavy Metal, Takin a Ride" starts playing in my head.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 04, 2023, 07:23:42 AM
I wasn't even really opposed to the idea. The fact that they put monsters on both sides of a sheet so you couldn't really alphabetize them drove me nuts.
I think that bugged alot of people really and put some off from buying later packs.
Quote from: Venka on October 04, 2023, 12:05:52 PM
As to whether people here didn't get mad until they started pretending Pundit didn't help with the new edition, I couldn't say. Companies had this idea, possibly related to "ESG" investments, that they needed to "piss off the conservatards" or whatever, and many of them made small statements about equality or whatever, but these weren't targeted enough and I guess they wanted redder meat, so a lot of them started being overtly and deliberately offensive. While this is less now than it was a couple years ago, it's still going on. If this negatively impacted your view of certain companies, I mean, that's fine, it certainly did for me. If your only reason for hating 5e is that they tried to rewrite history to fuck over Pundit, uh, sure, that's a fine reason.
But I'm not even saying that happened. I'm saying if it did happen, good.
Zweihander got all the consultants removed from not just the later 5e prints but also the Basic rules and anywhere else. But there was displeasure with WotC very early on as Mearls loved to chirp some new buzzword at least once a week. WotC lives on lies and outrage marketing now.
Quote from: Omega on October 05, 2023, 07:44:40 PM
Quote from: Venka on October 04, 2023, 12:05:52 PM
As to whether people here didn't get mad until they started pretending Pundit didn't help with the new edition, I couldn't say. Companies had this idea, possibly related to "ESG" investments, that they needed to "piss off the conservatards" or whatever, and many of them made small statements about equality or whatever, but these weren't targeted enough and I guess they wanted redder meat, so a lot of them started being overtly and deliberately offensive. While this is less now than it was a couple years ago, it's still going on. If this negatively impacted your view of certain companies, I mean, that's fine, it certainly did for me. If your only reason for hating 5e is that they tried to rewrite history to fuck over Pundit, uh, sure, that's a fine reason.
But I'm not even saying that happened. I'm saying if it did happen, good.
Zweihander got all the consultants removed from not just the later 5e prints but also the Basic rules and anywhere else. But there was displeasure with WotC very early on as Mearls loved to chirp some new buzzword at least once a week. WotC lives on lies and outrage marketing now.
The "WotKKK hate" precedes Pundit's credit removal by a good chunk of months if not a year or more.
IIRC it started with the usual "inclusive" declarations about how men (especially the straight, white, christian type) were evil and not welcome, then more "inclusive" statements from Mearls and company.
My removal (and that of all the other consultants save one) was entirely opportunistic, having nothing to do with me or any of the others except Zak S. It was the only way they could take Zak's name out without him suing them, because now they can just claim that they didn't feel the need to give credit to any of the consultants.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 07, 2023, 02:07:27 AM
My removal (and that of all the other consultants save one) was entirely opportunistic, having nothing to do with me or any of the others except Zak S. It was the only way they could take Zak's name out without him suing them, because now they can just claim that they didn't feel the need to give credit to any of the consultants.
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Better than the HPL-inspired games where they basically tell you a billion reasons why the dude is a horrible person before raping his IP.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 07, 2023, 02:07:27 AM
My removal (and that of all the other consultants save one) was entirely opportunistic, having nothing to do with me or any of the others except Zak S. It was the only way they could take Zak's name out without him suing them, because now they can just claim that they didn't feel the need to give credit to any of the consultants.
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Yeah, but they didn't care. Their woke cred was dependent on ejecting the evil Zak. Dumping Pundit was a bonus.
Frankly, if I was a freelancer it would've instantly soured me on EVER doing work for WotC. Who wants to work for someone who'll airbrush you out of the credits the moment you're not in good standing with the Party?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 07, 2023, 02:07:27 AM
My removal (and that of all the other consultants save one) was entirely opportunistic, having nothing to do with me or any of the others except Zak S. It was the only way they could take Zak's name out without him suing them, because now they can just claim that they didn't feel the need to give credit to any of the consultants.
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Yeah, but they didn't care. Their woke cred was dependent on ejecting the evil Zak. Dumping Pundit was a bonus.
Frankly, if I was a freelancer it would've instantly soured me on EVER doing work for WotC. Who wants to work for someone who'll airbrush you out of the credits the moment you're not in good standing with the Party?
Someone who feels sure THEY will never be purged.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 12, 2023, 03:43:13 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 07, 2023, 02:07:27 AM
My removal (and that of all the other consultants save one) was entirely opportunistic, having nothing to do with me or any of the others except Zak S. It was the only way they could take Zak's name out without him suing them, because now they can just claim that they didn't feel the need to give credit to any of the consultants.
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Yeah, but they didn't care. Their woke cred was dependent on ejecting the evil Zak. Dumping Pundit was a bonus.
Frankly, if I was a freelancer it would've instantly soured me on EVER doing work for WotC. Who wants to work for someone who'll airbrush you out of the credits the moment you're not in good standing with the Party?
Someone who feels sure THEY will never be purged.
*chuckles grimly* Indeed. And we both understand how well that works out.
"What? I can't be arrested! This is a mistake! Comrade Stalin will clear this up!"
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 12, 2023, 03:43:13 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 07, 2023, 02:07:27 AM
My removal (and that of all the other consultants save one) was entirely opportunistic, having nothing to do with me or any of the others except Zak S. It was the only way they could take Zak's name out without him suing them, because now they can just claim that they didn't feel the need to give credit to any of the consultants.
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Yeah, but they didn't care. Their woke cred was dependent on ejecting the evil Zak. Dumping Pundit was a bonus.
Frankly, if I was a freelancer it would've instantly soured me on EVER doing work for WotC. Who wants to work for someone who'll airbrush you out of the credits the moment you're not in good standing with the Party?
Someone who feels sure THEY will never be purged.
*chuckles grimly* Indeed. And we both understand how well that works out.
"What? I can't be arrested! This is a mistake! Comrade Stalin will clear this up!"
LOL! Usually the first to go are the useful idiots.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Frankly, if I was a freelancer it would've instantly soured me on EVER doing work for WotC. Who wants to work for someone who'll airbrush you out of the credits the moment you're not in good standing with the Party?
Yeah, failing to give proper credit sucks. Unfortunately, it has a long history in RPGs. TSR was notorious for not giving credit - like not giving Arneson any credit in later editions, and the whole of Star Frontiers game being credited as only "TSR Staff".
Quote from: jhkim on October 13, 2023, 03:16:44 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Frankly, if I was a freelancer it would've instantly soured me on EVER doing work for WotC. Who wants to work for someone who'll airbrush you out of the credits the moment you're not in good standing with the Party?
Yeah, failing to give proper credit sucks. Unfortunately, it has a long history in RPGs. TSR was notorious for not giving credit - like not giving Arneson any credit in later editions, and the whole of Star Frontiers game being credited as only "TSR Staff".
No shit, genius. It wasn't confined to RPGs either. The formation of Activision was directly tied to Atari's unwillingness to give its creators any credit either.
What's your point?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2023, 03:40:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 13, 2023, 03:16:44 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 09, 2023, 09:12:54 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 07, 2023, 10:38:06 AM
Refusing to credit anyone who contributed and helped shape the game is a shitass move, regardless of who it is.
Frankly, if I was a freelancer it would've instantly soured me on EVER doing work for WotC. Who wants to work for someone who'll airbrush you out of the credits the moment you're not in good standing with the Party?
Yeah, failing to give proper credit sucks. Unfortunately, it has a long history in RPGs. TSR was notorious for not giving credit - like not giving Arneson any credit in later editions, and the whole of Star Frontiers game being credited as only "TSR Staff".
No shit, genius. It wasn't confined to RPGs either. The formation of Activision was directly tied to Atari's unwillingness to give its creators any credit either.
What's your point?
His point is to minimize what happened to Pundit by implication, but without actually stating it directly, so that he can deny any such point when called on it. Because there's no other reason to bring that up. It's SOP for him...
Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 13, 2023, 03:40:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim on October 13, 2023, 03:16:44 PM
Yeah, failing to give proper credit sucks. Unfortunately, it has a long history in RPGs. TSR was notorious for not giving credit - like not giving Arneson any credit in later editions, and the whole of Star Frontiers game being credited as only "TSR Staff".
No shit, genius. It wasn't confined to RPGs either. The formation of Activision was directly tied to Atari's unwillingness to give its creators any credit either.
What's your point?
I think there's often a modern tendency to be shocked, outraged, and make current behavior out as an unparalleled crisis.
But if a supposed crisis -- like not crediting contributors -- is a problem that has been around for decades, then it can still be opposed while still understanding how its been an ongoing problem rather than a sudden crisis.
Without a doubt, 2e. They completely knuckled under to MADD, got rid of Demons and Devils, yes...got rid of them. They only brought them back renamed because Roger Moore shamed them into doing it. Created the idiotic Time of Troubles which fucked up the Realms forever just so they could get rid of Assassins and the "Really Evil Gods".
The whole thing was flavorless oatmeal with a cool Thief option. Then the settings came in, the renamed bad guys came back, Vampire took over as the Dangerous Game, and it became something you could mix with 1e.
What, no hardcore answer? It started the first time someone used a method to generate characteristics that produces something better than 3d6, in order, does. :D
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 18, 2023, 07:08:23 PM
What, no hardcore answer? It started the first time someone used a method to generate characteristics that produces something better than 3d6, in order, does. :D
Nah. It was during 1st edition with its pussified negetive hit point totals. Real men play dead at 0.
Didn't the wussing of D&D start when there was that group in California that started playing the game wrong, long before AD&D1e came out?