- Opens thread.

- Starts reading thread.

- Stops reading thread.

- Goes back to working on non-OSR project with better appreciation for why my project is non-OSR.

This is "somebody is wrong on the internet" territory where not one person with an opinion is going to change their position and everyone else is tuning out (if they haven't already) but the arguments will probably last at another five plus pages anyway.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 23, 2021, 10:09:31 PM
Here it is again, in 11 words:
Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.

That how initiative works in some editions of D&D but not AD&D 1e. Look I believe you when you say you have a handle on how AD&D Initiative works. But the reality nobody does. There are two ways of intrepeting what Gygax wrote.

This is good summary of the issues
https://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15891

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 23, 2021, 10:09:31 PM
Here it is again, in 11 words:
Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.

So what happens when Initiative is tied?
When a side has a spellcaster and wins initiative, when are times that the spellcaster may not be able to cast their spell before the other side acts?

This on page 65 doesn't sound exactly like what you call a ruling which equivalent to advice.

QuoteAttacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.

Nor does how how to handle multiple attacks on page 62.

The procedure on pages 62 to 63 certainly sounds simple. We have this on page 63.

QuoteTies: It will often occur that initiative determination results in a tie. This merely indicates that each party has equal chances for acting and that attacks occur simultaneously. In cases of equal initiative score, damage accrues to both groups regardless of what is inflicted.

But then this appears on page 66, three pages later.

QuoteSimultaneous Initiative: When opponents in melee have tied for initiative, blows (attack routines included) occur simultaneously, except when both opponents are using weapons. Each weapon has a speed factor, and in the case of otherwise simultaneous blows, the opponent with the weapon which has the lower speed factor will strike first. Thus, a blow from a fist occurs before a blow with a dagger (1 to 2), a dagger before a short sword (2 to 3), a short sword prior to a hammer (3 to 4), and so on.

Which is further modified by this two paragraphs down.

QuoteWhen weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks

And so on.

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 23, 2021, 10:44:21 PM
- Opens thread.

- Starts reading thread.

- Stops reading thread.

- Goes back to working on non-OSR project with better appreciation for why my project is non-OSR.

This is "somebody is wrong on the internet" territory where not one person with an opinion is going to change their position and everyone else is tuning out (if they haven't already) but the arguments will probably last at another five plus pages anyway.

I was tuning it out, but this post made me smile. Thank you.

Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 11:13:09 PM
That how initiative works in some editions of D&D but not AD&D 1e. Look I believe you when you say you have a handle on how AD&D Initiative works. But the reality nobody does. There are two ways of intrepeting what Gygax wrote.

This is good summary of the issues
https://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15891

What I describe IS most certainly how initiative works in 1E. As to the "two interpretations" in the post you link, I couldn't help but note in the fine print that ADDICT incorporates UA which wasn't published until 1985, and OSRIC's system uses a strained interpretation of what's actually written as justification but really relies on how the game was allegedly played at convention in 1982 for its credibility. So neither are really interpreting the 1979 DMG initiative system. Most of ADDICT I could salvage after disentangling the post 1979 parts. But OSRIC is far enough off the reservation that it doesn't seem like a credible interpretation but for 1982 convention usage. When filtering out the post-79 influences, an ADDICT-like interpretation is definitely viably BtB, but not so much an OSRIC-like one.

QuoteSo what happens when Initiative is tied?

Common sense exceptions apply.

QuoteWhen a side has a spellcaster and wins initiative, when are times that the spellcaster may not be able to cast their spell before the other side acts?

It follows the baseline initiative rule. I know you're going to say that's wrong because I know you're trying to quiz me on one of the exceptions, but the exception is very specific and the language of your question does not trigger the exception.

QuoteThis on page 65 doesn't sound exactly like what you call a ruling which equivalent to advice.

QuoteAttacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.

It does when quoted in context. Also page 65. Same exact section, a few paragraphs prior. "Spell-casters will always insist that they are able to use their powers during combat melee. The DM must adjudicate the success of such use. Consider this..." That sounds a lot like a preamble to giving advice. What follows is advice, even if worded strongly like a rule. Because the author takes the time to make the preamble, there's no need to constantly be reminding the reader that the DM must adjudicate.

QuoteNor does how how to handle multiple attacks on page 62.

Common sense exceptions apply. For a lot of people, it doesn't sit well waiting around for the whole round then exploding with a flurry of attacks. Staggering out attack routines is only common sense.

QuoteWe have this on page 63.

QuoteTies: It will often occur that initiative determination results in a tie. This merely indicates that each party has equal chances for acting and that attacks occur simultaneously. In cases of equal initiative score, damage accrues to both groups regardless of what is inflicted.

But then this appears on page 66, three pages later.

QuoteSimultaneous Initiative: When opponents in melee have tied for initiative, blows (attack routines included) occur simultaneously, except when both opponents are using weapons. Each weapon has a speed factor, and in the case of otherwise simultaneous blows, the opponent with the weapon which has the lower speed factor will strike first. Thus, a blow from a fist occurs before a blow with a dagger (1 to 2), a dagger before a short sword (2 to 3), a short sword prior to a hammer (3 to 4), and so on.

Which is further modified by this two paragraphs down.

QuoteWhen weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks

And so on.

It amazes me what you'll step into even after I warn you it's coming. First section (where ties are explained on page 63) is initiative in general. Second section deals with specific cases. It is mainly for humanoid types capable of using weapons. It is organized deliberately into two different sections because it addresses two different things. Believing that is just bad editing or lack of organization causes you to miss something. You think it's a gotcha, but it's really more like a, no, got you.

Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 07:16:42 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 05:44:14 PM
I'm not sure what your argument is here?

Your criticism is designed to sell your product. Many of the topics you chose, and the thesis you adopt are meant to paint the kind of products you write in a positive light, and the alternatives like the clones in a negative light. EotB said it more eloquently than me. Anything that the reduces the sales of new rulesets will get put on your drag list. This has been a consistent behavior ever since you started being published and it has gotten more pronounced over the last few years.

As for you being deceitful. What you employ technique exploiting the fact that folks, especially when it comes to their hobby, are likely not well-informed.  You take a hot-button issue and tie to something that you view that competes with your products and talk about it. And when dug into left out important nuances and details. Like what EoTB just reported about your Twitter exchange.

Except EOTB is blatantly lying. In the thread, which I neither started nor shilled myself for, someone asked who would be good to have on a show about old-school, and the Secrets of Blackmoor dude (one of the OG old-school guys) was kind enough to recommend me. 

The BROSR were pushing their own cultists and when they saw someone with much more REAL OSR street-cred then them had recommended me, they jumped in talking about how I was a "fake conservative", a radical liberal, an evil satanist, and a part of the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy.

The guy who is leaving out details is you.

Also, once again you're suggesting that selling products is somehow inherently evil. That its wrong. Sorry, I'm a capitalist, so I don't think its wrong.

But also, I'm very BLATANT about selling my books. I'm one of the most famous (and successful) self-promoters in the hobby.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT MY POLITICS OR MY POSITIONS ON GAMING ARE AN ACT.

I had those positions on gaming BEFORE I ever had a SINGLE BOOK TO SELL. 

So to suggest that the things I criticize about censorship, about politics, about storygames, about woke gaming, or about the lameness of people buying near-identical knock-offs of books they already own to feel like they're the True Believers of the Ancient Pure Ur-D&D, is all just a scam to sell my books is, once again, you leaving out details.

Quote

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 05:44:14 PM
This is all just cover to try to hide the fact that a group of people who have only ever made cut and paste books of other people's rules have somehow got the gall to have shat all over my original works for years. But god forbid someone dare to question their pseudo-history or cult-like aspects.

You have seemed to have missed my exchange with Lunamancer.

I seem to have. I have no idea what you're even arguing here.

Quote

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
Congrats. You continue to know how to use the 'cut' and 'paste' functions, and reproduce the exact same game over and over and over again. You must feel so proud.

I am sure you have researched Old School Essentials popularity, and it rise in popularity thoroughly to come to such an insightful analysis.

Are you claiming it's not a clone? What, does it add a couple of optional rules? Does it clean up the grappling rules a little bit? Are they sure they can get away with that without being burnt at the stake by Jeffro?

Quote

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
And of course, him "calling me a neener" didn't work out all that well for the people who thought like him, did it? Given that the OSR today basically belongs to people like me.

The OSR belongs to Kevin Crawford who sales dwarf all of us. But on a more serious note, the OSR doesn't belong to people like you, doesn't belong to people like me, doesn't belong to the folks on Knights & Knaves, doesn't belong to Gavin Norman. It belongs to no one and never had.

Kevin Crawford is a person like me. Raggi is. Even Venger is. Grimjim. Alex Macris. And many many more, who want to MAKE NEW GAMES with the D&D rules, instead of worship a pseudo-history and quest for the ur-D&D and remove all impurities.

The OSR was, for about 4 years of its existence, dominated by people who didn't want new games. Now it's dominated by people who want new games. I win.

Quote

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
And which, in the ultimate of all ironies, was falsely accused by some of being 'plagiarism' including by people who had no problem playing  games that are all-but-literal cloned copies of Gary Gygax or Holmes or Moldvay's work.

You got the wrong folks there, because the accusation stemmed from people comparing your work to Empire of the Petal Throne.  Yes people talking about EoPT on the old school forums but it not really on the radar when it came to do work on the first clones and promoting them. Over the decades EoPT developed into is own distinct hobby.

Literally on this twitter thread Rick Stump brought up the same old libel of bullshit against me. The irony of a gang of assholes who think the only game books that should only be allowed are ones that copy 40 year old rulebooks without a single deviation allowed are trying to claim that AoI, a game completely different from EoPT, in a different setting, with a different system, with similar sources of inspiration but totally different approaches, was 'plagiarism'.

Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 07:21:45 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on August 23, 2021, 05:43:15 PM
Is there a third camp? Wondering where Crawford fits. Old-school in feel, yet no OGL needed. There is something about not having that OGL on the last page.

The foundation of the OSR rests on the fact if you take the D20 SRD omit the newer mechanics, then you are a hop and a skip from any particular classic edition. As for Kevin Crawford, the ideas of classic D&D are free to anybody to use. Since all his RPGs have their own distinct take, Stars with Number, etc., it up to him what kind of license to use as a large portion material is his own original work. One of his skills is his ability to take classic edition mechanics and ideas to make a very different game even when it focus on fantasy and still keep relatable for folks playing classic editions 'as is'.

That same skill bought me a house. But fine, no one is denying Crawford's talent.  You want to use him, rather than me, as the model for success in the OSR, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Bit petty of you, but fine.

Quote from: EOTB on August 23, 2021, 07:53:44 PM
"Getting the wrong folks" is pundit's rhetorical stock-in-trade.

To anyone for whom this is new juicy drama - did you see any clone enthusiasts shitting on Pundit recently, and "oh western man-ing" him from the other direction?  No?

Ok, hold this as your mental marker.  Don't take my word for it.  Wait until the next time he does a DOJ and starts telling you the biggest terror threats are domestic.  Then ask yourself if anyone from that camp drug Pundit either.  I'll predict it's a big no.

And then, when he tells you that his work prevented a kidnapping plot of the Michigan governor, and you look into it and it's clear the entire conflict was orchestrated by him in the first place to burnish his reputation for saving the day (please buy his book to send a message to the bad guys!), remember that one too.

Are you drunk or something? You're writing words but none of them actually make any sense together.

So Pundit was arguing on Twitter with some Rightist jerks*, rather than the usual Leftist jerks? And this is all about that? 

*I do almost have a soft spot for Jeffro Johnson, who I'm assuming is the Jeffro concerned. But then I have a soft spot even for Pundit... 

I love the OSR.

There's plenty of room for the TSR Revivalists, the RetroCloners and the new RetroWhatevers. No reason for the OSR to be taken in one direction or another.

As for the purists, I wrote this in 2006 after gaming with Dave Arneson.
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/dave-arneson-blackmoor-and-me.286043/

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 24, 2021, 03:58:25 PMThat same skill bought me a house. But fine, no one is denying Crawford's talent.  You want to use him, rather than me, as the model for success in the OSR, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Bit petty of you, but fine.

I am still bewildered why you don't use Kickstarter combined with DriveThruRPG's POD for distribution. I really think you've been leaving chunky money on the table.

You and Kevin have both produced great work, but Kevin has set the OSR standard on Kickstarter in a very big way. Not just in the quality of the books, but how he meets deadlines, exceeds expectations and communicates with his backers.

All skills that you have and/or could develop.

Okay, I'm very new to the OSR. As in, I just started learning about it properly this month. My understanding is that the OSR is a place that looks to the old school mentality AND  the rules for inspiration to make new things.

I'm a big fan of retro clones. I'm looking into running Lamentations of the Flame Princess because I like the grimdark weirdness of it despite some bizarre splatbooks I have no interest in. And I plan to use Veins of the Earth material for my campaign setting inspired by Arx Fatalis. To me it's new and fresh because I never played b/x. It was before my time.  I was always under the assumption that instead of holding rigidly to one rule book or another people just took liberally from whatever to make their own thing. At least that's what I'm doing. I like retro clones of b/x so that's what I'm basing my stuff off of. I don't really see a problem with retro clones at all. But I wouldn't demand everyone play just the one retro clone they got tribal over.

Quote from: Spinachcat on August 24, 2021, 10:58:14 PM
...
There's plenty of room for the TSR Revivalists, the RetroCloners and the new RetroWhatevers. No reason for the OSR to be taken in one direction or another.

So Pundit was arguing on Twitter with some Rightist jerks*, rather than the usual Leftist jerks? And this is all about that? 

*I do almost have a soft spot for Jeffro Johnson, who I'm assuming is the Jeffro concerned. But then I have a soft spot even for Pundit... 

Reading the twitter thread - it seems that all the arguments about RAW are a bit of a red herring.

Jeffro's/BroSR's argument seems to be This:

AD&D was designed for 1:1 time play.  (Which is revealed when you play RAW.)

1:1 time play was the default mode of play for Blackmoor and Greyhawk - the first RPG campaigns.

That is how RPG's are supposed to be played. If you do not play that way, you are playing RPG's wrong.

i.e. The standard once a week, variable game time style of RPG play is literally FAKE D&D.

They know this to be true because St. Gygax said so: reference pg. 7 in the AD&D PHB...


Personally, I think the whole "fake D&D" thing is bad rhetoric.

It's not like they are slagging on the SJW's in the hobby. Their rhetoric is alienating entire Swaths of the RPG community that would be otherwise disposed to hear what they have to say on the merits of 1:1 play.

"Fake D&D" is also in a way stating an opinion on Gygax's behalf based on his writings, that he is no longer around to contradict...

Do we know Gygax's opinions on 1:1 time D&D vs. standard D&D?

Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 12:41:38 PM
"Fake D&D" is also in a way stating an opinion on Gygax's behalf based on his writings, that he is no longer around to contradict...

Do we know Gygax's opinions on 1:1 time D&D vs. standard D&D?

This sounds like yet another case of taking one thing Gary Gygax said, taking it out of context, then extrapolating from it.

Gary had plenty to say about time keeping in campaigns in the 1E DMG. If you read through it, you get the impression that he imagined these mega campaigns where you had all these different players coming and going at different times.

Imagine having players who show up only once a month having their characters paused on Tuesday, meanwhile you have another player who shows up to game every single night, knocking out a crawl every day and requiring a week's worth of R&R time with each outing. By the time the first group gets back to picking up their adventure, this other guy is 6 months into the future.

To reconcile this, and to maximize how much players can play together, the idea is to find a middle ground. Something that speeds the slow group up and slows the fast guy down. And it's something like, assuming group A has wrapped up their adventure, we'll just assume a month has passed between sessions. And for the guy who plays every day, let's say after 5 or so adventures he's ready to level up, then Gary will hit him with the training time, freezing that character for a while. That player will take up a new character. By the time training time's up, the rest of the group is coming back to play again. They're pretty closely synced in game time. The highly active player is only 1 level higher. This is the main reason, near as I can tell, why the training requirement was part of the game.

The idea is to allow players the freedom of coming and going. Allow people who want to play more the ability to play more. Those who want to play less, the freedom to play less. Let there be some reward for being an active player in the campaign, but to never allow a highly active character to get too far ahead. (This is paraphrasing something Gary did say in the DMG.)


There is no hard 1:1 rule. Consider the flip side of it. If you're building a small keep that takes a year of game time, there is absolutely no intent for the game to soup Nazi you, "No play for you. Come back 1 year." Hell, if you're doing a wilderness trek, you don't make 6 wandering monster checks for the day and say, "Thanks guys. Come back tomorrow where we walk through the next hex."

There is somewhat of an idea to advance time quicker for the characters than for the players. I wouldn't want to run a campaign paused on Tuesday for a month at a time because when the players finally do show up it takes 2 hours to decide what their characters are going to have for breakfast. On the flip side, I do like the idea of running a campaign where within a few years of playing it weekly, you get to play out 20+ years of the character's life so that some day you can play the children of the original group.

What I do now is, I simply assume clerics have churchly duties to perform during downtime, so after an adventure PCs have to rely on natural healing to recover. This helps advance a reasonable amount of time between adventures. These days, we've been super focused, banging out two short adventures each session with probably an average of 15 days of game time between. So every week we meet, a month is passing. And then recently we had called a 6 month down time to allow one character to begin designing a keep, one to recruit henchmen, and one to fabricate magic items and research a couple of spells.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 25, 2021, 02:23:59 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 12:41:38 PM
"Fake D&D" is also in a way stating an opinion on Gygax's behalf based on his writings, that he is no longer around to contradict...

Do we know Gygax's opinions on 1:1 time D&D vs. standard D&D?

This sounds like yet another case of taking one thing Gary Gygax said, taking it out of context, then extrapolating from it.

Gary had plenty to say about time keeping in campaigns in the 1E DMG. If you read through it, you get the impression that he imagined these mega campaigns where you had all these different players coming and going at different times.

Imagine having players who show up only once a month having their characters paused on Tuesday, meanwhile you have another player who shows up to game every single night, knocking out a crawl every day and requiring a week's worth of R&R time with each outing. By the time the first group gets back to picking up their adventure, this other guy is 6 months into the future.

To reconcile this, and to maximize how much players can play together, the idea is to find a middle ground. Something that speeds the slow group up and slows the fast guy down. And it's something like, assuming group A has wrapped up their adventure, we'll just assume a month has passed between sessions. And for the guy who plays every day, let's say after 5 or so adventures he's ready to level up, then Gary will hit him with the training time, freezing that character for a while. That player will take up a new character. By the time training time's up, the rest of the group is coming back to play again. They're pretty closely synced in game time. The highly active player is only 1 level higher. This is the main reason, near as I can tell, why the training requirement was part of the game.

The idea is to allow players the freedom of coming and going. Allow people who want to play more the ability to play more. Those who want to play less, the freedom to play less. Let there be some reward for being an active player in the campaign, but to never allow a highly active character to get too far ahead. (This is paraphrasing something Gary did say in the DMG.)


There is no hard 1:1 rule. Consider the flip side of it. If you're building a small keep that takes a year of game time, there is absolutely no intent for the game to soup Nazi you, "No play for you. Come back 1 year." Hell, if you're doing a wilderness trek, you don't make 6 wandering monster checks for the day and say, "Thanks guys. Come back tomorrow where we walk through the next hex."

There is somewhat of an idea to advance time quicker for the characters than for the players. I wouldn't want to run a campaign paused on Tuesday for a month at a time because when the players finally do show up it takes 2 hours to decide what their characters are going to have for breakfast. On the flip side, I do like the idea of running a campaign where within a few years of playing it weekly, you get to play out 20+ years of the character's life so that some day you can play the children of the original group.

What I do now is, I simply assume clerics have churchly duties to perform during downtime, so after an adventure PCs have to rely on natural healing to recover. This helps advance a reasonable amount of time between adventures. These days, we've been super focused, banging out two short adventures each session with probably an average of 15 days of game time between. So every week we meet, a month is passing. And then recently we had called a 6 month down time to allow one character to begin designing a keep, one to recruit henchmen, and one to fabricate magic items and research a couple of spells.

I think that's a really great way of putting it. Oddly enough despite never reading the 1E DMG, when I was in my High School Board Game club I ended up being GM to multiple groups of 3.5 games due to being quite in demand. (not because I was good. But because I was one of two GMs in a group of around 40 people who also did Warhammer and etc.) I worked out a very similar system and had it jotted down in a notebook exactly how much time had passed between each group. It ended up causing a lot of intrigue in this shared world I created as different groups had different goals and would plan around the schedule for other groups to achieve their goals. If you've ever played the game EvE Online and been part of a big corp it was kinda like that. Obviously it all fell apart when the Chaotic stupid group summoned a demon and basically destroyed the world. Causing a big argument that 12 year old me dealt with by disbanding everything and running away thinking myself the worst GM of all time.

All this time I was closer to the will of holy Gygax than I ever thought. Weird.

Kinda wanna try something like that again now I think about it.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 25, 2021, 02:23:59 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 12:41:38 PM
"Fake D&D" is also in a way stating an opinion on Gygax's behalf based on his writings, that he is no longer around to contradict...

Do we know Gygax's opinions on 1:1 time D&D vs. standard D&D?

This sounds like yet another case of taking one thing Gary Gygax said, taking it out of context, then extrapolating from it.

Gary had plenty to say about time keeping in campaigns in the 1E DMG. If you read through it, you get the impression that he imagined these mega campaigns where you had all these different players coming and going at different times. ...

This exactly what Jeffro/BrOSR are saying is the type of game that they are replicating.

They are saying this is exactly the type of game that Gygax and Arneson were running in the early days.

And that AD&D was written to support this style of play RAW.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 25, 2021, 02:23:59 PM
There is no hard 1:1 rule. Consider the flip side of it. If you're building a small keep that takes a year of game time, there is absolutely no intent for the game to soup Nazi you, "No play for you. Come back 1 year." Hell, if you're doing a wilderness trek, you don't make 6 wandering monster checks for the day and say, "Thanks guys. Come back tomorrow where we walk through the next hex."
...

That is what Jeffro/BrOSR are saying - 1:1 Time, no exceptions.

FWIW: On the "No play for you. Come back 1 year." That is when you are supposed to switch to a new character. Troup play with a given player controlling various PC's and henchmen at various times is the default mode of play. (It has been a while but, I assume ther are spells that might help that process along as well. AD&D is rather gonzo fantasy.)

He actually Blogs play reports from his campaign showing how 1:1 time works in practice... (https://jeffro.wordpress.com) So in his defense, they do get it to work.

I take him at his word; 1:1 time gaming is possible.

My main objection to what Jeffro is going on about with his "fake D&D" spiel is making a pronouncement on what was Gygax's "preferred" style of play, at a time when he cannot tell us what his real opinion on the issue is.