The OSR can either be a golden age in design and play, or it can be a Cargo Cult of make-believe purity for a misunderstood past.
Having observed this spat on Twitter, my opinion is "a pox on both your houses." ;D
I love both!!! ;D
Still tilting at that messaging medium I see. God forbid folks should do what they want with the freedom they have.
All this over being called neener, neener, by Stuart Marshall.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/a-working-definition-of-the-osr/msg793856/#msg793856
The Post that Started it all
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/old-school-rocks-retro-clones-suck/msg282499/#msg282499
Rob's Note: It surprising how much neener-neener-neener was used on this site.
Another Rob's Note: You done good work, but this way of marketing your shit is bullshit. Normally arguments should be discussed on their own merits but in your case for whatever reason you continue to feel need to denigrate elements of the OSR in order to market your own material. And this been going on for over a decade and it is as lame today as was then.
Quote from: estar on October 24, 2014, 04:13:36 PM
Getting close to the source of the issue.
Quote from: RPGPundit;281177Ok, I'm going to come out and say it. I love old-school, and old-school gaming, but basically, I think retro-clone games suck ass. OSRIC; Labyrinth Lord, etc., they're all pointlessly stupid.
If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.
If, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you? Why not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel without having to just be a cheapass ripoff of an actual old-school game, and presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility without being hassled with trying to balance that with trying to look and stay close enough to "AD&D 1e with Unearth Arcana rules but without Cavaliers" or some shit like that?!
Ok, there's my ranting for the day. Discuss.
The Pundits response are calm and reasonable including this one.
Quote from: RPGPundit;281902Again, I'm not saying they're evil or damaging to the hobby, I'm just saying that I personally don't like them.t
And then oh man there was this.
Quote from: My game's more popular than your game. :)
Also, neener neener neener.
Later in the thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=283136&postcount=225) FtA! marketing gets discussed.
I posted this (below) on the youtube channel, but I was not aware of the "history" behind the video. I'm absolutely with @estar (Rob) here- there is room for everything, and nerds getting in arguments over one make believe faerie and elf game vs another make believe faerie and elf game is pretty ridiculous.
While I prefer for people to give us "fresh takes" on D&D (As below), I still love S&W WB , Iron Falcon, and other clones I own. They have served me well over the years including introducing many Kids to RPGS over nearly a 10 year run with my Son and his friends. I love straight up Whitebox in particular for a non no nonsense fast to set up and get alot of play time in game.
QuoteWe had little to no access to 'zines like Alarums & Excursions or The Dragon when I was starting out, that was later around 1980 and beyond. So when the Basic Holmes book and MM first showed up we were really excited about AD&D coming to fruition. By the time the DMG was a couple months into release, 4 out of the 5 of us in our group had decided to go back to OD&D picking and choosing some bits from AD&D we liked (increased HD, spells, magic items, etc). By this time the library and afterschool clubs were becoming a thing and we started to see the rules lawyers and purists as we would fill in as a DM, or jump into a pickup game cos the normal group members couldn't make it. etc. So while I was extremely happy to see S&W & other "clones" to harken back to TSR era games, I'm way happier to see the "inspired bys" systems that try to take the game somewhere else- Just like everyone did before the Hobby became a big business. Whether they are a Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, or Ruins of Arduin, or something modern like Dungeon World and 13th Age with their nods back to a "D&D construction Kit"- I'm glad to see people going somewhere else instead of regurgitating the same old shit that's been around for nearly 50 years. These "inspired by" games are in the spirit of the original game and other games of that time (T&T, RQ, Arduin, etc)- a time when it was assumed, and you were actually supposed to do things your own way and let your setting inform your ruleset- Most of the output of Wizards, Paizo, and similar are game systems to be adhered to and mastered and where systems are there to inform your setting.....A "shared experience". Blech. Screw that.
The OSR movement will be stronger, if there is an atmosphere of respect; and a clear explanation to newcomers, which titles represent the earliest play styles, and which are gonzo takes on the original frameworks. Make it easy for newcomers to dip their toes in the waters of the OSR.
I really like the idea of the OSR going with new ideas and being a non-profit like the original designers. Where I differ is that I don't want to get stuck with some of the baggage that Pundit likes (the six abilities, d20 vs AC, saves, etc.), as I played early games despite their rules, not because of them.
IMHO - There is a lot of talking past each other here.
Jeffro's basic stance is not controversial at all:
"Hey I played AD&D RAW reading the books carefully, and was able to re-create the 1:1 real time campaign paradigm St. Gygax talks about on pg. 7 of the AD&D PHB. And it is awesome...!"
Hey, great. I think that even if you don't run a 1:1 real time campaign there are a lot of things you can learn from it and apply to the standard conventional home game to enhance your play.
But then he has gone and followed it up with: "...annnd if you don't play D&D with 1:1 timing they way it was done by St. Gary back in the day then you are playing a fake version of D&D..."
I don't think that he can act surprised that some of the cool things about the 1:1 play paradigm get completely drowned out and ignored in all the noise that comes from people reacting to the whole "...you are playing a fake version of D&D." he tags on at the end.
And of course people are almost exclusively reacting and talking about the whole "..anything less is fake D&D", and not the awesome bits of the 1:1 play paradigm he re-created.
He's hamstringing his own message here just a bit...
Of course the real mystery is why the fuck I made a twitter account to jump into this mess... yeeessshh WTF did I do..???
This was a great vid.
I'm definitely of the later camp. The innovation that's been happening over the last few years has been fantastic.
I actually don't like Dungeon crawling or high-level characters loaded with magical items and infinite hit points. That's one of the reasons I left D&D years ago. In fact, I don't even like D&D in its original form per se, but it led to the OSR which I love, so happy days.
"The OSR" is garbage, and always has been.
"The OSR" is a hangout for craven has-beens and never-will-be's whose first brush with RPGs of the old school was either a late 90s purchase of the Rules Cyclopedia, arguably one of the driest and dullest and least-fun role-playing game books ever published, or they're true game tourists who saw a bunch of ripe sucks willing to throw down some hard-earned greenbacks for something, anything, that promised them it could be just like 1982 in their unairconditioned garage or moldy basement, one more time.
The soi disant "Old School Gaming authorities" seeped out of nowhere in the early 2010s, sneering and preening about how they had somehow cracked the code of Appendix N, or only that by engaging in the most ridiculous, reductive stripping down of D&D to some kind of ur-role-playing game supplemented by their own awful forays into so-called "weird fantasy" (which seems to be some kind of race to the bottom of usability in terms of presentation and content).
Of course, I couldn't lay all of this at the feet of the hacks and con-men without mentioning the orbiters who enabled this bullshit, and seemed to fill my PMs and emails with wonderful recommendations and queries as to whether or not I had played Carcosa or Maze of the Blue Medusa or Lamentations of the Flame Princess or whatever other precious precious scat that just might have a gold cufflink embedded in it so here's a spoon and get digging was shat out in blessedly limited print runs this past convention season. No no, the blame for the creation of these astroturf-bound (hidebound is far too organic a term for this flim-flammery) "gAmInG lUmInArIeS" (alas that there isn't a font set that lets me more accurately heap my utter contempt and disgust on that very concept) must rest evenly across all of their narrow, pimply shoulders equally.
And so we come to it. DAS OSR is so self-serving, so self-fellating that it's bent around into a donut shape.
You wanna know where the real old-school is? It's right here. It's me, baby. I was doing my thing and creating classic AD&D modules by hand, putting them out there, when the all-clown circus that has labeled itself the Federal Government Bureau of Classic D&D were all off doing charop wankery with d20 rule systems and curling their lips up at even the very notion of playing AD&D or OD&D. I look at my buddies over at KnKA, then I look out at the body of navel-gazing lint pickers who've tried to decode classic RPGs and create some kind of ridiculous "authority" on classic gaming, and I tell the latter group: where the fuck did you people just blow in from? Because we were already here. I don't care if anyone "shows up late". Nobody on this forum was hanging out in Lake Geneva in 1973/'74. What I do care about is this crowd of dimwits who strolled in and acted like they were the papacy of classic D&D (and other games)
All I can say that I been letting players trash my settings since late 1978 starting with Holmes and going over to AD&D when the DMG was released in 79. Everything I did in the ensuing decades refereeing wise stems from that. That about as old school as anything and I was pretty much out of step with my peers in that regard. Going left where most in my neck of the woods went right.
You wanna know where the real old-time is? It all of us back in the day. And we were not all in lock-step unison as to what we did with the D&D/AD&D. Even in the rural town I grew up in.
I did not know that Gary Gygax didn't play his own version of AD&D. To think of it, all those books, all those rules, were all a bunch of B.S. just to make money.
All I know is that I came out of watching this video absolutely excited and freshly inspired to do my own crazy shit in an OSR framework. Not that I needed anyone's permission, it's just nice to step back and celebrate the possibilities in taking the framework and running with it. Thanks for posting this video!
Quote from: estar on August 18, 2021, 12:44:20 AM
You wanna know where the real old-time is? It all of us back in the day. And we were not all in lock-step unison as to what we did with the D&D/AD&D. Even in the rural town I grew up in.
Bingo.
Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 18, 2021, 12:24:49 AM
"The OSR" is garbage, and always has been.
"The OSR" is a hangout for craven has-beens and never-will-be's whose first brush with RPGs of the old school was either a late 90s purchase of the Rules Cyclopedia, arguably one of the driest and dullest and least-fun role-playing game books ever published, or they're true game tourists who saw a bunch of ripe sucks willing to throw down some hard-earned greenbacks for something, anything, that promised them it could be just like 1982 in their unairconditioned garage or moldy basement, one more time.
The soi disant "Old School Gaming authorities" seeped out of nowhere in the early 2010s, sneering and preening about how they had somehow cracked the code of Appendix N, or only that by engaging in the most ridiculous, reductive stripping down of D&D to some kind of ur-role-playing game supplemented by their own awful forays into so-called "weird fantasy" (which seems to be some kind of race to the bottom of usability in terms of presentation and content).
Of course, I couldn't lay all of this at the feet of the hacks and con-men without mentioning the orbiters who enabled this bullshit, and seemed to fill my PMs and emails with wonderful recommendations and queries as to whether or not I had played Carcosa or Maze of the Blue Medusa or Lamentations of the Flame Princess or whatever other precious precious scat that just might have a gold cufflink embedded in it so here's a spoon and get digging was shat out in blessedly limited print runs this past convention season. No no, the blame for the creation of these astroturf-bound (hidebound is far too organic a term for this flim-flammery) "gAmInG lUmInArIeS" (alas that there isn't a font set that lets me more accurately heap my utter contempt and disgust on that very concept) must rest evenly across all of their narrow, pimply shoulders equally.
And so we come to it. DAS OSR is so self-serving, so self-fellating that it's bent around into a donut shape.
You wanna know where the real old-school is? It's right here. It's me, baby. I was doing my thing and creating classic AD&D modules by hand, putting them out there, when the all-clown circus that has labeled itself the Federal Government Bureau of Classic D&D were all off doing charop wankery with d20 rule systems and curling their lips up at even the very notion of playing AD&D or OD&D. I look at my buddies over at KnKA, then I look out at the body of navel-gazing lint pickers who've tried to decode classic RPGs and create some kind of ridiculous "authority" on classic gaming, and I tell the latter group: where the fuck did you people just blow in from? Because we were already here. I don't care if anyone "shows up late". Nobody on this forum was hanging out in Lake Geneva in 1973/'74. What I do care about is this crowd of dimwits who strolled in and acted like they were the papacy of classic D&D (and other games)
Dude, take your ouroboros of fellatio and shove it up your ass. While you are busy screaming "Get Off My Lawn" there are people enjoying Advanced Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy, and Old School Essentials. Maybe if you actually played more often, you wouldn't feel so constipated and cranky.
Go Play!
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 18, 2021, 01:31:22 PMMaybe if you actually played more often, you wouldn't feel so constipated and cranky.
The Dungeon Delver may have strong opinions that I disagree with. But he plays and referee as much if not more than many of us, myself included. I can personally attest that he gave 5th edition a fair try a couple of years back as I refereed a game with him in it.
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 18, 2021, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 18, 2021, 12:24:49 AM
"The OSR" is garbage, and always has been.
"The OSR" is a hangout for craven has-beens and never-will-be's whose first brush with RPGs of the old school was either a late 90s purchase of the Rules Cyclopedia, arguably one of the driest and dullest and least-fun role-playing game books ever published, or they're true game tourists who saw a bunch of ripe sucks willing to throw down some hard-earned greenbacks for something, anything, that promised them it could be just like 1982 in their unairconditioned garage or moldy basement, one more time.
The soi disant "Old School Gaming authorities" seeped out of nowhere in the early 2010s, sneering and preening about how they had somehow cracked the code of Appendix N, or only that by engaging in the most ridiculous, reductive stripping down of D&D to some kind of ur-role-playing game supplemented by their own awful forays into so-called "weird fantasy" (which seems to be some kind of race to the bottom of usability in terms of presentation and content).
Of course, I couldn't lay all of this at the feet of the hacks and con-men without mentioning the orbiters who enabled this bullshit, and seemed to fill my PMs and emails with wonderful recommendations and queries as to whether or not I had played Carcosa or Maze of the Blue Medusa or Lamentations of the Flame Princess or whatever other precious precious scat that just might have a gold cufflink embedded in it so here's a spoon and get digging was shat out in blessedly limited print runs this past convention season. No no, the blame for the creation of these astroturf-bound (hidebound is far too organic a term for this flim-flammery) "gAmInG lUmInArIeS" (alas that there isn't a font set that lets me more accurately heap my utter contempt and disgust on that very concept) must rest evenly across all of their narrow, pimply shoulders equally.
And so we come to it. DAS OSR is so self-serving, so self-fellating that it's bent around into a donut shape.
You wanna know where the real old-school is? It's right here. It's me, baby. I was doing my thing and creating classic AD&D modules by hand, putting them out there, when the all-clown circus that has labeled itself the Federal Government Bureau of Classic D&D were all off doing charop wankery with d20 rule systems and curling their lips up at even the very notion of playing AD&D or OD&D. I look at my buddies over at KnKA, then I look out at the body of navel-gazing lint pickers who've tried to decode classic RPGs and create some kind of ridiculous "authority" on classic gaming, and I tell the latter group: where the fuck did you people just blow in from? Because we were already here. I don't care if anyone "shows up late". Nobody on this forum was hanging out in Lake Geneva in 1973/'74. What I do care about is this crowd of dimwits who strolled in and acted like they were the papacy of classic D&D (and other games)
Dude, take your ouroboros of fellatio and shove it up your ass. While you are busy screaming "Get Off My Lawn" there are people enjoying Advanced Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy, and Old School Essentials. Maybe if you actually played more often, you wouldn't feel so constipated and cranky.
Go Play!
Greetings!
"Ouroboros of fellatio", Jeff? *Laughing* ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
I don't really understand all of the venom and gnashing of teeth against the OSR. The *OSRIC* book was specifically designed to edit and present AD&D in a manner utilizing the OGL so as to facilitate the legal production and creation of new books and modules for AD&D.
That is a wonderful and exceptional accomplishment, and an achievement which embraces "Old School" gaming and allows AD&D products to be created, produced, and marketed commercially in the modern age--by anyone willing to do the work of such creation and authorship.
From that achievement, most of the other "clones" followed, embracing various D&D versions, editing, and presentation. Again, opening up different perspectives and styles to a new audience and a new market. Mazes & Minotaurs, Essentials, LOTFP, and on and on. Why is this such a bad thing? Before these developments, the old books were not being reproduced, nor were they being expanded or added to in a broad commercial way.
They were collecting dust in the hidden libraries of old men, waiting to die, where the old books and the old systems would be consigned to languish in obscurity in the ash-heap of history. The OSR brought the old systems, the old ways, into the public market place, where they can be embraced, discussed, expanded, and SEEN, again, by whole new groups of gamers. That is something that I think all gamers--especially of D&D--should be proud, grateful, and appreciative of.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
This has become a really good discussion. Bravo!!!
Gary Gygax himself, was playing OD&D and starting characters at 3rd Level.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 18, 2021, 02:24:28 PM
This has become a really good discussion. Bravo!!!
Gary Gygax himself, was playing OD&D and starting characters at 3rd Level.
Those were his "front porch games" in the last years of his life. While he talked alot with us about D&D on DF, ENWORLD and the C&C forums, He mostly ran, promoted, and continued to work on his Lejendary Adventures Game (Troll Lord Games was pushing out plenty of the new revised LA books and adventures along with Castle Zagyg at the time of his death).
But indeed, when he did run D&D, whether when he was at TSR, or late in life, he certainly didn't play RAW.
Quote from: SHARK on August 18, 2021, 02:19:19 PM
I don't really understand all of the venom and gnashing of teeth against the OSR.
Anybody can make a cloneThe root of the issue is that the "secret sauce" that Marshall (OSRIC), Finch, (OSRIC, S&W), and Gonnerman (Basic Fantasy) discovered that if you take the open content of the d20 SRD omit the newer mechanics, you were a hop and a skip from any of the classic editions from OD&D to AD&D 2e.
The process is straightforward enough that anybody who pay attention to the detail of what is and is not open content can replicate the steps and produce their own take. And thanks to the internet and digital technology this can be done in the time one has for a hobby.
And as turned it out hobbyists doing that have opinions. And those opinions often didn't align 100%. Different folks deals with those differences in different ways. Hence you get the debate, arguments and sometimes drama.
[quote author=SHARK link=topic=43882.msg1184090#msg1184090
That is a wonderful and exceptional accomplishment, and an achievement which embraces "Old School" gaming and allows AD&D products to be created, produced, and marketed commercially in the modern age--by anyone willing to do the work of such creation and authorship.[/quote] Sure as long as one realize that what is "Old School" and how much of AD&D has to remain to be considered AD&D are opinions and sometime points of debate.
Quote from: SHARK on August 18, 2021, 02:19:19 PM
They were collecting dust in the hidden libraries of old men, waiting to die, where the old books and the old systems would be consigned to languish in obscurity in the ash-heap of history. The OSR brought the old systems, the old ways, into the public market place, where they can be embraced, discussed, expanded, and SEEN, again, by whole new groups of gamers. That is something that I think all gamers--especially of D&D--should be proud, grateful, and appreciative of.
That is pretty much my sentiment as well with the added proviso that I encourage, heckle, and debate people to make things open content so it never becomes lost in hidden libraries, the freedom remove to realize the material in the form they think best.
Wrapping it up.Other factors is that some folks never stopped playing in the 70s or 80s. The internet impacted these folks like any other niche hobby and they connected. These hobby community started to grow in the early 2000s at places like Dragonsfoot. So when first clones came out and generated new fans as well has brought older gamers back into the classic edition it generated friction. And it didn't that OSR became a shorthand to describe the classic edition hobby as a whole.
More than a few resent being lumped in under the OSR label for different reasons but mostly because the majority folks who embrace the label just recently adopted the classic edition and celebrate it as a renaissance revival of something long lost. Spiced with the fact folks both old and new have opinions on the contribution of Arneson, Gygax, and the rest of the original design crew.
Last a lot of the clones are not "clones" but rather adaptations that either are mashups or altered in different ways for different settings and subgenres. That also generated debates and opinions especially from those committed to playing the originals 'as is'.
My take is that folks should chill out. Technology and the presence of open content means that gatekeeping is impossible. The most serious threats that the classic D&D hobby and industry faces are the same one that imperial all small publisher and the hobby in general. The fact that D&D dominates 80%+ of sales so if it sneezes we all get colds. The fact there only one major digital distributor in the form of DriveThruRPG and so on.
If you have an idea for the classic editions either 'as is' or something different. You can do it. And should do it if you find that fun and interesting to do.
Quote from: estar on August 17, 2021, 02:02:53 PM
Still tilting at that messaging medium I see. God forbid folks should do what they want with the freedom they have.
All this over being called neener, neener, by Stuart Marshall.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/a-working-definition-of-the-osr/msg793856/#msg793856
The Post that Started it all
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/old-school-rocks-retro-clones-suck/msg282499/#msg282499
Rob's Note: It surprising how much neener-neener-neener was used on this site.
Another Rob's Note: You done good work, but this way of marketing your shit is bullshit. Normally arguments should be discussed on their own merits but in your case for whatever reason you continue to feel need to denigrate elements of the OSR in order to market your own material. And this been going on for over a decade and it is as lame today as was then.
Quote from: estar on October 24, 2014, 04:13:36 PM
Getting close to the source of the issue.
Quote from: RPGPundit;281177Ok, I'm going to come out and say it. I love old-school, and old-school gaming, but basically, I think retro-clone games suck ass. OSRIC; Labyrinth Lord, etc., they're all pointlessly stupid.
If you want something classic, why the fuck would you go with this? The originals are all still out there ( you can get the RC pdf for $5), and there's NOTHING in any of these "clones" that make them more worthwhile than the original.
If, on the other hand, you want something with "old school" sentiment, but not actually old-school rules, then again why the fuck would these be any good to you? Why not just go for a game (like, say, "Forward... to Adventure!") that manages to capture the old-school feel without having to just be a cheapass ripoff of an actual old-school game, and presents new elements and a modern rules-design sensibility without being hassled with trying to balance that with trying to look and stay close enough to "AD&D 1e with Unearth Arcana rules but without Cavaliers" or some shit like that?!
Ok, there's my ranting for the day. Discuss.
The Pundits response are calm and reasonable including this one.
Quote from: RPGPundit;281902Again, I'm not saying they're evil or damaging to the hobby, I'm just saying that I personally don't like them.t
And then oh man there was this.
Quote from: My game's more popular than your game. :)
Also, neener neener neener.
Later in the thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=283136&postcount=225) FtA! marketing gets discussed.
I think you have it backwards. Those factions of the OSR feel the need to denigrate me.
This started on Twitter specifically because someone was looking for people to show up on a youtube interview about Old-school gaming, and the guy who wrote Secrets of Blackmoor was kind enough to publicly recommend me. Cue Jeffro Johnson and Rick Stump and the "BroSR" idiots, coming along to attack me for not being a "true Old school gamer" (as well as, they claim, a massive leftist; you see, because I'm not Catholic and don't believe that Democracy and the principles of the American Revolution were a horrible mistake, like they do; these are literal paleocons who believe in restoring literal absolutist monarchy and moving our entire civilization back to the dark ages... sound like any terrorist organization starting with a "T" to you?).
The fact that the Clonemaniacs of the past were equally bigoted against any game that wasn't just a Clone game until they were outmaneuvered by the early 2nd wave (something that was almost inevitable, because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions, you eventually run out of old editions) is also something your selective editing is notably avoiding.
Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 18, 2021, 12:24:49 AM
Nobody on this forum was hanging out in Lake Geneva in 1973/'74. What I do care about is this crowd of dimwits who strolled in and acted like they were the papacy of classic D&D (and other games)
I know for a fact that at least a couple of people on this forum literally were. Either there or in the twin cities.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 18, 2021, 08:38:57 AM
I did not know that Gary Gygax didn't play his own version of AD&D. To think of it, all those books, all those rules, were all a bunch of B.S. just to make money.
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.
Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.
But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.
Quote from: MattyHelms on August 18, 2021, 11:35:00 AM
All I know is that I came out of watching this video absolutely excited and freshly inspired to do my own crazy shit in an OSR framework. Not that I needed anyone's permission, it's just nice to step back and celebrate the possibilities in taking the framework and running with it. Thanks for posting this video!
Thank you! Please do make your own OSR crazy stuff!
And if you can, please SHARE THE VIDEO!
Quote from: JeffB on August 18, 2021, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 18, 2021, 02:24:28 PM
This has become a really good discussion. Bravo!!!
Gary Gygax himself, was playing OD&D and starting characters at 3rd Level.
Those were his "front porch games" in the last years of his life. While he talked alot with us about D&D on DF, ENWORLD and the C&C forums, He mostly ran, promoted, and continued to work on his Lejendary Adventures Game (Troll Lord Games was pushing out plenty of the new revised LA books and adventures along with Castle Zagyg at the time of his death).
But indeed, when he did run D&D, whether when he was at TSR, or late in life, he certainly didn't play RAW.
I appreciate this insight. Thank you.
https://twitter.com/Semiogogue/status/1426984754004570120 (https://twitter.com/Semiogogue/status/1426984754004570120) is the start of the Twitter thread in case people want to view it for themselves, and Pundit gets brought up at https://twitter.com/Semiogogue/status/1426984754004570120 (https://twitter.com/Semiogogue/status/1426984754004570120).
Quote from: SHARK on August 18, 2021, 02:19:19 PMFrom that achievement, most of the other "clones" followed, embracing various D&D versions, editing, and presentation. Again, opening up different perspectives and styles to a new audience and a new market. Mazes & Minotaurs, Essentials, LOTFP, and on and on. Why is this such a bad thing? Before these developments, the old books were not being reproduced, nor were they being expanded or added to in a broad commercial way.
The "bad thing" is the idea that these clones, and all the follow on games such as DCC, couldn't have existed without the OSR. When, in fact, these types of games were being made before the OSR was even a thing.
What I saw, from my experience defending old school gaming in the early 2000s on EnWorld, RPG.Net and the Necromancer forums, were a bunch of people coming in after the fact and restating what we were talking about as if they suddenly invented it. And then saying anything based on 3e wasn't pure enough to even be considered as having existed.
At this point, the OSR is just a marketing term attached to a purity test.
Quote(as well as, they claim, a massive leftist; you see, because I'm not Catholic and don't believe that Democracy and the principles of the American Revolution were a horrible mistake, like they do; these are literal paleocons who believe in restoring literal absolutist monarchy and moving our entire civilization back to the dark ages... sound like any terrorist organization starting with a "T" to you?).
Sounds like based guys. Where can I read them?
Quote from: Wrath of God on August 18, 2021, 07:06:24 PM
Quote(as well as, they claim, a massive leftist; you see, because I'm not Catholic and don't believe that Democracy and the principles of the American Revolution were a horrible mistake, like they do; these are literal paleocons who believe in restoring literal absolutist monarchy and moving our entire civilization back to the dark ages... sound like any terrorist organization starting with a "T" to you?).
Sounds like based guys. Where can I read them?
I guess he's talking about the dark enlightenment movement
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PMthese are literal paleocons who believe in restoring literal absolutist monarchy
What the fuck? In my republic? To Hell with that and them.
QuoteI guess he's talking about the dark enlightenment movement
I had no idea Curtis Yarvin is Catholic or OSR player :P
I meant specifically reactionary Catholic gamers, no just whole political movements.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.
Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.
But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.
I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.
House ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.
As far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.
Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.
But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.
I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.
House ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.
As far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.
I bet that people who weren't in the know; all assumed that 1E was his one true love, until the day that he died. It was the big breakout success, that made him famous.
Quote from: estar on August 18, 2021, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 18, 2021, 01:31:22 PMMaybe if you actually played more often, you wouldn't feel so constipated and cranky.
The Dungeon Delver may have strong opinions that I disagree with. But he plays and referee as much if not more than many of us, myself included. I can personally attest that he gave 5th edition a fair try a couple of years back as I refereed a game with him in it.
That may be so, I'll grant you that.
The problem though is that the attitude DungeonDelver is expressing turns people off of the OSR in particular and TTRPGs in general. Proclaiming from the rooftops that the Only Way To Play is the Gygax Way and you (or Old Geezer for that matter) are the Guardians of that One True Way doesn't grow the hobby as much as it gatekeeps the hobby. It is the opposite side of the SJW coin which declares that if you Do Not Play the Gygax Way, you are not a Real Gamer just like the SJWs declaring that if you do not stuff every last possible bit of Social Marxism into a product that is played then you aren't a Real Gamer.
I've gotten to the point where being called a Real Gamer is an insult. Sorry if I don't follow someone's lead like a good little Grognard Lemming.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 19, 2021, 01:15:28 AM
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.
Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.
But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.
I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.
House ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.
As far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.
I bet that people who weren't in the know; all assumed that 1E was his one true love, until the day that he died. It was the big breakout success, that made him famous.
The ones who care about what Gary Gygax's Favorite Game was do not view Gary Gygax as a human being, but as some kind of Avatar of their One True Way who must be placed upon a pedestal like a Russian Religious Icon.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.
Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.
But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.
I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.
I definitely don't deny that 1e was very popular. I played a ton of 1e, back when it was the only edition of AD&D, and also during some of the 2e period (after a period of trying 2e and finding it not nearly as good). Even though my preference was for BECMI D&D, I still really enjoyed 1e, and the DMG was probably the single best GM's book ever written.
That doesn't discount the fact that the reason it had so many rulings in it was to make sure tournament play at Cons were all done to the same standard, minimizing the possibility of wide variations of house rules.
QuoteHouse ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.
The AD&D books are a bit multiple-identity when it comes to this; there are quotes you can pick out that talk about how the GM can modify whatever he wants or make up house rules on the go, and quotes that suggest that the rules should be strictly adhered to. The guys I was arguing with have the belief that anything that is codified as a rule in the AD&D books should never be altered.
QuoteAs far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.
1. AD&D was not the main thing he ran. Ever.
2. I can bet you anything that when he ran it, he never ever ran it strictly rules-as-written. Speaking as a game designer I can tell you that game designers never run their own games rules-as-written, because you write the rules as generalities to apply to the reader and for their ease, but your own campaign will always have variances.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 18, 2021, 04:02:19 PM
Quote from: JeffB on August 18, 2021, 02:45:58 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 18, 2021, 02:24:28 PM
This has become a really good discussion. Bravo!!!
Gary Gygax himself, was playing OD&D and starting characters at 3rd Level.
Those were his "front porch games" in the last years of his life. While he talked alot with us about D&D on DF, ENWORLD and the C&C forums, He mostly ran, promoted, and continued to work on his Lejendary Adventures Game (Troll Lord Games was pushing out plenty of the new revised LA books and adventures along with Castle Zagyg at the time of his death).
But indeed, when he did run D&D, whether when he was at TSR, or late in life, he certainly didn't play RAW.
I appreciate this insight. Thank you.
:)
FWIW- My sig quote for most forums I visit, is a direct lift from a convo I had with Gary on ENWORLD many moons ago
"Maybe I'm just getting too old to want to have to deal with a heap o' rules and the steaming heap o' rules lawyers who go with them."
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible.
Ah but how was that fun was to be achieved?
QuoteThe danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging and equitable. Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included; that is why nebulous areas have been built into the game. Keep such individuality in perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the rules of ADVANCED D&D. No two campaigns will ever be the same, but all will have the common ground necessary to maintaining the whole as a viable entity about which you and your players can communicate with the many thousands of others who also find swords & sorcery role playing gaming an amusing and enjoyable pastime.
For how much tournaments were involved in the creative process again Gygax provides us with the answer.
QuoteReturning again to the framework aspect of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, what is aimed at is a "universe" into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and "laws", players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu, for all milieux will have certain (but not necessarily the same) laws in common. Character races and classes will be nearly the same. Character ability scores will have the identical meaning — or nearly so. Magic spells will function in a certain manner regardless of which world the player is functioning in. Magic devices will certainly vary, but their principles will be similar. This uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information. It might also eventually lead to grand tournaments wherein persons from any part of the U.S., or the world for that matter, can compete for accolades.
All of this backed by the account and documents that have emerged since 2010 when folks like Jon Peterson started researching the early days of the hobby.
Wrapping it upThere is no one reason for why AD&D wound up the way it did. The answer is all of the above. Yes Gygax was concerned about making money. Yes Gygax and company were indurated by the 1970's equivalent of spam. Yes Gygax was more than little ticked off by folk letting him how D&D ought to go. Yes parts of the AD&D are pretty badly written and organized as a result of one part "it sounded good at the time" and one part "I really need to get this book done what can go in here". The worst sections are found in the last book the DMG.
And none of this takes away the fact that as a whole AD&D is a seminal work in the hobby. One that had an enduring impact and many of its distinct elements has endured the test of time to make it a classic that is still enjoyed today 'as is'.
AD&D was basically designed for 3 reasons
Strict control of the property- OD&D had gone off the rails and people were taking the game into areas Gary et.al were not comfy having the name D&D associated with. People who really believed in magic/the mystical and promoted it, "weird sex stuff", those who thought he should have ZERO control over his game, etc.
A separation from Arneson's name (this ties back into strict control- whatever you think of the situation or Gary or Dave- Neither were ever going to be able to work together in the manner needed)
Tournament Play- Tim Kask mentioned it several times over the years- TSR were making money hand over fist with tournament play at the time. They (Gary, Brian, etc) saw that as their main avenue to financial success- thus AD&D and the RPGA.
As a businessman providing for his family, his employees, and making his investors happy? I don't blame Gary for any bit of it.
As a gamer, I don't always agree with the way he did things for AD&D and beyond.
*Chuckles* You speak of Jeffro and his silliness.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 17, 2021, 11:44:40 AM
The OSR can either be a golden age in design and play, or it can be a Cargo Cult of make-believe purity for a misunderstood past.
My vote is on 100% cargo cult.
So much cargo
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 19, 2021, 04:37:03 AM
I definitely don't deny that 1e was very popular. I played a ton of 1e, back when it was the only edition of AD&D, and also during some of the 2e period (after a period of trying 2e and finding it not nearly as good). Even though my preference was for BECMI D&D, I still really enjoyed 1e, and the DMG was probably the single best GM's book ever written.
That doesn't discount the fact that the reason it had so many rulings in it was to make sure tournament play at Cons were all done to the same standard, minimizing the possibility of wide variations of house rules.
What I was saying is that the aim was to have as broad appeal as possible. So if you have a part of it that is aimed at tourney play, that is to be expected and so is not necessarily evidence that therefore tourney play was the central purpose or even one of a handful of central purposes to the game. That's why I said I felt characterizing it as "for tournament play" is way over-stating the case.
Yeah, there are a lot of rulings in the DMG. In fact I often correct people that 1E does not really have a lot of rules. Most of what's in the DMG are rulings. And one of the things I point to to make the case that this is clearly so is how oddly specific the rulings are. Maybe it's just me, but I think if I were hashing out rulings for the sake of consistency in play, I'd probably be a lot more systematic about it. The way that it is such an odd collection gives me the impression that it's like, here are some things that came up in play, and here's a way to handle it that works.
And I think what heads off the potential argument of "Well, maybe these were things that came up in tournament play, here's what the referee decided, and this should be taken as juris prudence here on out" is the fact that there's a lot of stuff in the DMG that is clearly aimed at campaign play and is not very relevant to tourney play.
QuoteThe AD&D books are a bit multiple-identity when it comes to this; there are quotes you can pick out that talk about how the GM can modify whatever he wants or make up house rules on the go, and quotes that suggest that the rules should be strictly adhered to.
Right. And people have taken this as an opportunity to try to twist it into any old thing they want it to mean. The fact is, he did say both. And sometimes he said both within the same book. And sometimes he said both within the same section of the same book. And sometimes he said both in the same paragraph. And sometimes he said both in the same sentence. At some point, there needs to be acknowledgement that he didn't mean just the one or just the other. And he didn't necessarily simply have a change of heart over time. And he wasn't schizophrenic about it.
He meant both to be applied simultaneously. Almost as if this should be approached with some semblance of practicality and balance. And that, yeah, anyone who really wants to know what he was really saying might actually have to spend some time wrestling with the apparent contradictions. Which takes a lot more effort than quoting him out of context. So I'm not the least bit surprised that out-of-context interpretations is what is largely proliferated.
QuoteThe guys I was arguing with have the belief that anything that is codified as a rule in the AD&D books should never be altered.
I've argued with the zealots as well. And here's the thing I've seen. When push comes to shove, they really don't care about the Rules-as-Written. They're more concerned with there being a single, objective, correct answer to any rules question. The book is just a means to help them achieve that end. Which is why if you bring up, "But it says right here to change the rules" they'll dismiss THAT part of the rules because reasons, demonstrating their willingness to justify picking and choosing which rules to follow and which to ignore for the sake of getting to a place where there is only one correct answer.
QuoteSpeaking as a game designer I can tell you that game designers never run their own games rules-as-written, because you write the rules as generalities to apply to the reader and for their ease, but your own campaign will always have variances.
100% agree. I learned that lesson on my very first attempt at writing a module. The first encounter was with rats. And I wanted to show the world what an awesome GM I was. I wasn't going to have them just nibble away at hit points. No. What's really dangerous about contact with rats is the potential to contract disease. And I wasn't just call for a save or suck roll. No. My rat disease was going to be interesting. I was close to spelling it all out when I realized I'd just wrote 2 and a half pages, and this was just some stupid, low-threat, introductory encounter with rats. I deleted the whole thing and suddenly understood why their Monster Manual stats are what they are. I still did all that cool stuff when I actually ran it, but even my notes would have no mention of it.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 18, 2021, 06:48:17 PM
Quote from: SHARK on August 18, 2021, 02:19:19 PMFrom that achievement, most of the other "clones" followed, embracing various D&D versions, editing, and presentation. Again, opening up different perspectives and styles to a new audience and a new market. Mazes & Minotaurs, Essentials, LOTFP, and on and on. Why is this such a bad thing? Before these developments, the old books were not being reproduced, nor were they being expanded or added to in a broad commercial way.
The "bad thing" is the idea that these clones, and all the follow on games such as DCC, couldn't have existed without the OSR. When, in fact, these types of games were being made before the OSR was even a thing.
What I saw, from my experience defending old school gaming in the early 2000s on EnWorld, RPG.Net and the Necromancer forums, were a bunch of people coming in after the fact and restating what we were talking about as if they suddenly invented it. And then saying anything based on 3e wasn't pure enough to even be considered as having existed.
At this point, the OSR is just a marketing term attached to a purity test.
This ^^^^^
THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE I'M AT.
Quote from: estar on August 19, 2021, 08:22:12 AM
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible.
Ah but how was that fun was to be achieved?
Your question seems to be asking what's the method. 99 times out of 100, that is a great question to pose in response to fluffy commentary about "just have teh funz." I've used it myself. But this is the other 1 out of the 100. Because what I'm talking about here is a mission statement. Andy Stanley put it best. "Date the model, but marry the mission." If you're really serious about the mission, you have to be willing to change models as needed.
An example from 1E would be Weapon vs Armor tables. If I've got a 7th level fighter with 18/50 STR and am using a +2 weapon, I need to roll an 11 to hit AC 0. So 50/50. If I've got a +2 or -2 adjustment due to Weapon vs Armor table, it's not really a game-changer. And if we've got a party of 5 similar characters and are going against a similar enemy party, that's a whole lot of look-ups to know the adjustment for all the weapon vs armor combos that come up in that fight. Basically, a lot of extra work. Next to no payoff. That's why most people end up dropping it.
But I was really inspired by Braveheart in the mid-90's. So I might have a battle that's 40 vs 40, 0th level humans, just about every member of each side using the same type of weapon and same type of armor, now I only have to do a total of two look-ups for these weapon vs armor adjustments. Not only that, if I've got a guy with a broadsword against platemail, the adjustment is -2, giving a 0th level character a 1 in 20 chance of hitting. But if instead the same guy uses a footman's flail, the adjustment is +2, giving that guy a 5 in 20 chance of hitting. This would make my men 5 times as effective. That's a major pay off. And for just two look-ups.
Different models for different play styles. And this is exact the sorts of things I see when I look at the 1E rules. And this is the exact sort of thing I found lacking in later editions of D&D.
QuoteYes parts of the AD&D are pretty badly written and organized as a result of one part "it sounded good at the time" and one part "I really need to get this book done what can go in here". The worst sections are found in the last book the DMG.
I don't think this gets to be an automatic yes without debate. Pundit just mentioned in his response that he feels the 1E DMG is one of the best game master resources ever made. I think it is the best by far without even a close second. Gamers don't agree on a lot of things. Love of this book has an unusually high level of agreement. If 1E is badly written and poorly organized, and if the DMG bore the brunt of that, then something isn't adding up. Maybe we've got some backwards priorities, or maybe the gamer aesthetic compass is just broken and should be ignored. Or maybe the DMG just plain got it right.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible.
A more accurate mission statement would probably have been "hide 30 minutes of fun in 4 hours of play"
QuoteYes parts of the AD&D are pretty badly written and organized as a result of one part "it sounded good at the time" and one part "I really need to get this book done what can go in here". The worst sections are found in the last book the DMG.
I don't think this gets to be an automatic yes without debate. Pundit just mentioned in his response that he feels the 1E DMG is one of the best game master resources ever made. I think it is the best by far without even a close second. Gamers don't agree on a lot of things. Love of this book has an unusually high level of agreement. If 1E is badly written and poorly organized, and if the DMG bore the brunt of that, then something isn't adding up. Maybe we've got some backwards priorities, or maybe the gamer aesthetic compass is just broken and should be ignored. Or maybe the DMG just plain got it right.
[/quote]
If you consider that the AD&D DMG was literally the first of its kind, and without peer; it causes one to realize the magnitude of its impact. It was a big swing for the fences, right out of the gate.
Go both ways. No worries.
Ye take the high road,
And I'll take the low road,
Sure I'll be in Scotland afore ye....
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 19, 2021, 08:02:03 PM
100% agree. I learned that lesson on my very first attempt at writing a module.
Yes. I don't think I've ever even run one of my published adventures exactly the way I wrote them!
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 19, 2021, 10:06:29 PM
Your question seems to be asking what's the method. 99 times out of 100, that is a great question to pose in response to fluffy commentary about "just have teh funz." I've used it myself. But this is the other 1 out of the 100. Because what I'm talking about here is a mission statement. Andy Stanley put it best. "Date the model, but marry the mission." If you're really serious about the mission, you have to be willing to change models as needed.
An example from 1E would be Weapon vs Armor tables. If I've got a 7th level fighter with 18/50 STR and am using a +2 weapon, I need to roll an 11 to hit AC 0. So 50/50. If I've got a +2 or -2 adjustment due to Weapon vs Armor table, it's not really a game-changer. And if we've got a party of 5 similar characters and are going against a similar enemy party, that's a whole lot of look-ups to know the adjustment for all the weapon vs armor combos that come up in that fight. Basically, a lot of extra work. Next to no payoff. That's why most people end up dropping it.
But I was really inspired by Braveheart in the mid-90's. So I might have a battle that's 40 vs 40, 0th level humans, just about every member of each side using the same type of weapon and same type of armor, now I only have to do a total of two look-ups for these weapon vs armor adjustments. Not only that, if I've got a guy with a broadsword against platemail, the adjustment is -2, giving a 0th level character a 1 in 20 chance of hitting. But if instead the same guy uses a footman's flail, the adjustment is +2, giving that guy a 5 in 20 chance of hitting. This would make my men 5 times as effective. That's a major pay off. And for just two look-ups.
Different models for different play styles. And this is exact the sorts of things I see when I look at the 1E rules. And this is the exact sort of thing I found lacking in later editions of D&D.
Weapons versus AC illustrates some of the weakness that Gygax had.
It originated from the Man-to-Man weapon table in Chainmail. It wasn't in the 3 LBB of OD&D, but reappeared as part of Greyhawk. A factor (I believe 8) was subtracted from the original 2d6 target value and used as a modifier to a 1d20 rolls. So if you needed a 12 on the chainmail table it was -4 to your to-hit roll on the Greyhawk table.
So that was a bit wonky but otherwise the principle idea was still good. Largely because OD&D armor class mirrored Chainmail's Man to Man armor categories. AC 9 was nothing, AC 7 was leather, AC 5 was chain, AC 3 was plate. +1 if you had a shield.
But then AD&D PHB came along. Now Armor no longer had neat categories. Now there were intermediate steps like Banded being AC 4. However the Weapon versus AC was lifted straight from Greyhawk, and the additional weapon types were added. Some values were shuffled around to account for the fact that AD&D started at AC 10.
Now the values made even less sense in relation to the armor types they were good against.
Now this not a criticism about idea that AD&D attempts to model the fact that some weapon are better against certain armor. Overall idea is solid if you want that level of detail in a D&D system. The problem was how it was designed and implemented. It doesn't feel like it received more than a moment of consideration.
When I came up with my version for my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I did some research, considered the implications, playtested my ideas, and then added to the draft rules. Then tweaked further. Instead of a table, I opted to focus on the most significant factor and made it part of the weapon description. For example Warhammers get a bonus against Plate armor as that why they started to appear on the medieval battlefield. To be clear I am not claiming that I write better than Gary Gygax. But I will gladly claim I wrote a better researched, a better playtested , and easier to use version of how D&D weapons work against armor.
But other parts of AD&D have the feel that they were well considered and refined through actual play. So I am only critical of AD&D in part.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 19, 2021, 10:06:29 PM
QuoteYes parts of the AD&D are pretty badly written and organized as a result of one part "it sounded good at the time" and one part "I really need to get this book done what can go in here". The worst sections are found in the last book the DMG.
I don't think this gets to be an automatic yes without debate. Pundit just mentioned in his response that he feels the 1E DMG is one of the best game master resources ever made. I think it is the best by far without even a close second. Gamers don't agree on a lot of things. Love of this book has an unusually high level of agreement. If 1E is badly written and poorly organized, and if the DMG bore the brunt of that, then something isn't adding up. Maybe we've got some backwards priorities, or maybe the gamer aesthetic compass is just broken and should be ignored. Or maybe the DMG just plain got it right.
Tell me how initiative works in AD&D RAW. I am not being sarcastic, explain to everyone how one of the most important parts of one of the most important subsystem in the game is supposed to work as written.
As for poorly organized, at least in my neck of the woods, the AD&D DMG was legendary because you could re-read it even after using it for years and still find something you have not seen before. Most of the time the stuff was cool.
My point that the DMG is great, a work of genius, but has it flaws. Flaws that originated because of goals and approach that Gygax took. What it gets right, really gets right. Which is why it and its echoes still persist to today as part of the hobby. But the flaws that are there have reasons as to why they exist. And from my point of view learning about why the flaw exist for me make what he got right all the more special and make his story more human.
Quote from: estar on August 20, 2021, 12:18:09 AM
Tell me how initiative works in AD&D RAW. I am not being sarcastic, explain to everyone how one of the most important parts of one of the most important subsystem in the game is supposed to work as written.
The best way I can answer your question without straying off topic is this: When I was first learning to play, I started playing by some extremely simple core rules. Best as i recall, I knew how to make hit rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, find secret doors, and avoid traps. And I'm pretty sure that last one I just plain made up. Most important, I knew what hit points were. Through play, there are certain questions that will naturally start to come up. You go back, look at the rules. Often times, you will find they have a solution. You assimilate that rule into what you're doing. Rinse and repeat. In this way, there is never a huge hump to overcome for beginners.
And that's how initiative works. First, with a simple core. Each side rolls d6, highest goes first. Then as questions naturally arise, we begin making rulings. Depending on how you group and count them, 1E enumerates about a half dozen exceptions to that rule. Learn them as you go. Personally, I happen to really like the rulings, so I use the initiative system 100% as written. But you can use them or don't use them to taste.
I think 1E does this better than modern games. It seems like the game is put together in layers. Not necessarily as a united, finely oiled machine. But this means you can also take it on one small bite at a time. If I had to swallow the game whole all at once, I agree that 5E would be easier to choke down than 1E. And I think that's a fact a lot of gamers will hang their hats on. But since 1E has never even come close to asking to swallow the whole thing at once, this is not a measure I find at all meaningful. I consider it a silly place to hang a hat.
Now in terms of words and chapters, the 1E DMG definitely does have a rhyme and reason to it's organization. The best way I know how to characterize it is it's organized according to what's going on in your game right now.
For instance, if I want to know everything there is to know about a merchant galley, I have to go back and forth between a few different sections. What's it's hull value? That's in the waterborne adventures. How long would it take to circumnavigate the world? Outdoor movement. How much does it cost to buy one? Shit, hand me the PHB. What is the crew like? Back to the DMG, hirelings section.
But if what we have going on in the game right now is planning a wilderness trek from point A to point B and we're deciding whether to go aboard a galley ship, fast horses across the plains, or take a short-cut on foot over rough terrain, you don't have to flip back and forth to each and every means of conveyance. All the daily mileage is listed on a single page in the DMG. If what we're doing is engaged in is war or piracy on the high seas, the relevant stats for all the ships are right there in one section.
We can agree or disagree on whether this was the best way of organizing the book. But then you have to admit what you're talking about is a matter of taste, not flaws.
QuoteAs for poorly organized, at least in my neck of the woods, the AD&D DMG was legendary because you could re-read it even after using it for years and still find something you have not seen before. Most of the time the stuff was cool.
Finding new things on re-reads is something that's going to happen when you have densely-packed information. I don't know that part has very much to do with organization, or lack of organization, at all. However, whether or not the new "discovery" strikes you as cool, though, I think that may have something to do with the organization.
One time when I was reading through a list of siege hit modifiers, I suddenly began to imagine a knight on horse back racing through a battle field, dodging ballista and catapult fire, to reach the enemy siege engines. If the game had been organized differently, if instead these modifiers had been in the horse stat block in the monster manual--easier to hit because of their size, but harder to hit when running full tilt due to their speed--it wouldn't have triggered the same ideas.
QuoteMy point that the DMG is great, a work of genius, but has it flaws. Flaws that originated because of goals and approach that Gygax took. What it gets right, really gets right. Which is why it and its echoes still persist to today as part of the hobby. But the flaws that are there have reasons as to why they exist. And from my point of view learning about why the flaw exist for me make what he got right all the more special and make his story more human.
When I was a child, I was exposed to Dungeons & Dragons and the story of John Henry. And right now, I'm spending my time answering your post rather than hammering up on a mountain somewhere trying to defeat a machine at its own game. This is perhaps because I'm more moved by a good game than I am by stories about small triumphs in the face of the inescapable doom of human frailties. If you wish to look at the DMG and see small wins wrapped in tragedy, have at it. When I crack it open, it's because I'm looking for a great game.
Pundit sells rulebooks for a living. Clones give away rulesets for no profit. Pundit isn't a prolific adventure module author. Clones exist to give prolific adventure module writers a legal safe harbor to continue supporting the older rulesets they're cloning.
The conflict of interest isn't rocket science, even if it's never explicitly laid out.
Quote from: EOTB on August 23, 2021, 01:33:26 AM
Pundit sells rulebooks for a living. Clones give away rulesets for no profit. Pundit isn't a prolific adventure module author. Clones exist to give prolific adventure module writers a legal safe harbor to continue supporting the older rulesets they're cloning.
The conflict of interest isn't rocket science, even if it's never explicitly laid out.
1. many clones sell as commercial products.
2. I've written about 40 adventures. I'd say that's pretty goddamn prolific. It's way more than the average.
You've been bitching about straight clones for over a decade - since there weren't many clones and all of them were available for free.
I can't find dozens of adventure modules from you. If you've starting including those with your recent PDF zine then so be it; the swiping at clones predates that by a decade.
So you admit that both your points were wrong. Great.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
[The best way I can answer your question without straying off topic is this: When I was first learning to play, I started playing by some extremely simple core rules.
That nice and appreciate the personal anecdote. But it avoids the answer to my question which is germane to my point about the DMG organization and clarity, and why it is a brilliant work with serious flaws.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
Depending on how you group and count them, 1E enumerates about a half dozen exceptions to that rule. Learn them as you go. Personally, I happen to really like the rulings, so I use the initiative system 100% as written.
So again, I ask, explain the AD&D initiative rules? I will be up front it a gotcha question. You could refuse to answer in which case I will lay out exactly why that section (among others) is unclear, why, and how people know this.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
But you can use them or don't use them to taste.
Well if you don't use the initiative rules then you are not playing AD&D per Gygax.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
I think 1E does this better than modern games. It seems like the game is put together in layers. Not necessarily as a united, finely oiled machine.
As I said, AD&D has its strengths, I concur with this. And the strengths vastly overshadow the flaws particularly the PHB. However that not my point.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
We can agree or disagree on whether this was the best way of organizing the book. But then you have to admit what you're talking about is a matter of taste, not flaws.
I took technical writing in college and it been part of my professional career for over four decades training and developing metal cutting machines for machine shops. The goals of any technical writer is clarity, and organizations. While there several ways of achieving this they all hover around these goals. One can judge a technical reference by these standards and find it either lacking or well-done.
However RPG books are hybrids. They are only in part technical references. How the rules are presented can be judged on clarity, organization, and utility. Note I said presentation, which has little do with how the mechanics function as a system. In short are the rules explained well or are they not.
The reason RPG books are hybrids is that they contain advice, utilities, and sometimes setting details. Advice is perhaps the most free form in terms of organization. All needs is clarity and Gygax's advice in the DMG was very well-written.
Utilities in my view are tools used to make running a RPG easier, but not a crucial part of the system. Encounter tables are a good example of something that is a utility for RPG. The section of different types of government is another. Utilities benefit from organization but it not as crucial as rules. What utilities are best for a given RPG is a judgment call. Overall Gygax did a great job in the DMG and the rest of the AD&D line.
There is not a whole lot of setting details in AD&D so it not relevant. What there is more flavor that inspires and Gygax does a good job with this especially with the artifacts. Just enough to get a sense of what it about, but leaving you wanting more.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
Finding new things on re-reads is something that's going to happen when you have densely-packed information. I don't know that part has very much to do with organization, or lack of organization, at all. However, whether or not the new "discovery" strikes you as cool, though, I think that may have something to do with the organization.
Wasn't the same with GURPS and a few other equal detailed RPGs.
One time when I was reading through a list of siege hit modifiers, I suddenly began to imagine a knight on horse back racing through a battle field, dodging ballista and catapult fire, to reach the enemy siege engines. If the game had been organized differently, if instead these modifiers had been in the horse stat block in the monster manual--easier to hit because of their size, but harder to hit when running full tilt due to their speed--it wouldn't have triggered the same ideas.
Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
If you wish to look at the DMG and see small wins wrapped in tragedy, have at it. When I crack it open, it's because I'm looking for a great game.
Man, just because several section have serious issues does not mean I view it wrapped in tragedy. Just because Gygax had less than stellar motivations other than the love for the game and sometime prone to lazy design in creating it doesn't mean it filled only with small wins. This things make its triumph all the more magnificent and just as important human. The parts it got right, it really got right. And that doesn't count as a small win.
So how about that explanation on AD&D initiative?
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 01:45:35 AM
1. many clones sell as commercial products.
And the ones you are most critical about have a open content document that available for free as well as commercial products.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 06:59:54 AM
So you admit that both your points were wrong. Great.
Actually you said
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 01:45:35 AM
1. many clones sell as commercial products.
EOTB replied
Quote from: EOTB on August 23, 2021, 04:16:40 AM
You've been bitching about straight clones for over a decade - since there weren't many clones and all of them were available for free.
Not sure what you are reading there Pundit but
1) What clones have been released for the past decades also available for free or have freely usable open content. My own Majestic Fantasy RPG sit in between a clone (I use a fair amount of S&W 'as is') and it own thing. And I have a open content SRD available.
2) For the rest, while compatible with the classic edition, focus on their own take much like your recent RPGs. So while commercial, classic edition compatible, they are not clones. And again like my Majestic Fantasy RPG, many of these have open content that other can use, or are fairly open about 3rd party licensing.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
I think you have it backwards. Those factions of the OSR feel the need to denigrate me.
This started on Twitter specifically because someone was looking for people to show up on a youtube interview about Old-school gaming, and the guy who wrote Secrets of Blackmoor was kind enough to publicly recommend me. Cue Jeffro Johnson and Rick Stump and the "BroSR" idiots, coming along to attack me for not being a "true Old school gamer" (as well as, they claim, a massive leftist; you see, because I'm not Catholic and don't believe that Democracy and the principles of the American Revolution were a horrible mistake, like they do; these are literal paleocons who believe in restoring literal absolutist monarchy and moving our entire civilization back to the dark ages... sound like any terrorist organization starting with a "T" to you?).
So.....
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
The fact that the Clonemaniacs of the past were equally bigoted against any game that wasn't just a Clone game until they were outmaneuvered by the early 2nd wave (something that was almost inevitable, because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions, you eventually run out of old editions) is also something your selective editing is notably avoiding.
Yes sound very much like the two situations are equivalent. To be clear I am being sarcastic.
Instead of focusing on the part that you feel is a societal threat, you instead talk about it in a way that promote your commercial interests based on your particular take on how to handle the classic editions. Using the fact these yahoos happen to also play classic editions 'as is' as the connected thread. How very Tucker Carlson of you.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
The fact that the Clonemaniacs of the past were equally bigoted against any game that wasn't just a Clone game until they were outmaneuvered by the early 2nd wave (something that was almost inevitable, because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions, you eventually run out of old editions) is also something your selective editing is notably avoiding.
First off B/X Essentials which became Old School Essentials first published in 2018. So much for outright clones being old hat in the OSR.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions,
Right, I guess all those times we corresponded about the Open Game License and open content during Arrows of Indra didn't sink in.
Of course you don't care about the whole history of open content in the OSR because it is much more convenient to complain that the clonemaniacs controlled the "medium" crowding the alternatives as McLuhan put it. Yup those clonemaniacs had control of Lulu, Yuku/Proboard (forum software), ISPs, Blogger/Wordpress, so that absolutely nobody could get a word in edgewise unless the Lords of the Clones permitted.
Come on, who are you trying to bullshit with statements like these?
It not like examples are to hard to find with material like Hoard and Horde out there.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0
Material like Carcosa was being released as early at 2008. And while controversial, the controversy wasn't over the fact it wasn't a straight clone. My own Majestic Wilderlands was released in late 2009. The only reason we didn't have a flurry of alternative releases in 2007, because the d20 SRD still was the goto for most independents (like Castles and Crusades, did earlier). And because everybody was waiting with baited breath on the hammer to fall on OSRIC from Wizards. Throughout 2008 it was becoming clear that wasn't going to happen and more folks started to get involved.
As I documented, you all but ignored the OSR until Stuart Marshall called you a neener, that was followed by a long series of critical posts on clonemaniacs ignoring the expansion of folks were doing in the early 2010s. Then finally after being called out enough times, you got off your ass and did Arrows of Indra, which I encouraged and helped with.
And the sky didn't fall in, Arrows sold more than a few copies.
Sweet Galactus...
I've always been charitable and respectful of the OSR - but nothing pushes me further from it than shit like this.
Look I like St. Gygax for helping get this rodeo going... I'll be damned if the quasi-Gygax worship doesn't leave me queasy in parts of these discussions. Worse, he's being used to bludgeon others who worship his works... get a fucking grip people.
And trust me - if you want to keep the OSR in its own ghetto of the gaming-sphere (and I'll be coppers to gold there are some that do for justifiable reasons to gatekeep), keep having these petty bickering Stooge-like slapfights online and the world will go on, as it tends to do. You guys should be banding together - or at minimum not cut one another down over such petty shit as haw many hairs were on Gygax's head when he coined the phrase "Saving Throw". Personal shit aside, if the goal of the OSR is to bring gaming back to the old school from the current shit-show of the New School (in D&D) - the results seem to speak for themselves writ-large. It looks like a bunch of small city states launching cow-patties at one another from toy-catapults while the WotC Empire grows like an uncontrolled tumor.
No one wants to move into a neighborhood full squabbling residents fighting over whose lawn is more "authentic" to the town-founder's.
Jesus... get it together.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 11:26:00 AM
Jesus... get it together.
It not going to happen. People like what they like, think of Gygax in the way they are going to think of Gygax, and the Internet makes it easy for liked-minded folks to get together and share like interest. The steps one needs to take to "Jesus... get it together." invariable involves solution that are worse for creative freedom and creative diversity than what we have now. Whether you are pro-gygax, anti-clone, pro-clone, anti-clone, or more the merrier like myself, what we have now with the wealth of open content, the ease of distribution, is the best possible outcome.
I know you are a fan of Savage Worlds and it creative community, but the end of the day, the standards are dictated by Pinnacle. If somebody want to buck those standard for whatever reason they see fit, they will be shut down. The classic edition community or OSR doesn't have that limitation. For if one wants a walled garden free from distractors that can be done. If want to be completely open and adopt a everybody can play attitude that can be done as well. If like most you are somewhere in between that OK as well.
But you also get the asshole and dickweeds as well with no effective means of doing something like complaining to Pinnacle.
Folks bitch and moan about creative freedom this is what true creative freedom looks like.
My counterpoint to "Jesus... Get to get it together.
is "Focus on what you like to do whether it is playing, promoting, sharing, or publishing. And don't worry about what other folks do and don't be a dick about your stuff." But if you don't follow my advice then (shrug), I might, like in this thread debate it but that about the extent of it. I was just empathic in 2013 and yet I helped the Pundit with the maps for Arrows of Indra.
Here is my 2c FWIW. I've started with BECMI, tried various editions, and wrote my own neoclone (it's OGL but I don't know how to make a SRD wiki so I didn't).
1. There is little reason to play AD&D exactly as written, unless you are already used to it. It's presentation is confusing, as some of the rules, and some parts are simply wrong (calculation mistakes) such as the weapons vs. armor table. Not even Gygax played AD&D as written.
1a. Of course, some books (like, IMO, the 1e DMG and Moldvay's Basic) are just so good that they are worth owning, reading and trying no matter what you're playing. I've always found snippets of genius in these books.
2. There is value is retroclones because of their SRDs, even if they are nearly exact copies. I appreciate the fact that there is SRD for OSE and S&W, for example. You can add your houserules and publish online.
3. However, if you've been playing for a while, I see no reason not to use a neoclone that is more to your tastes than the original games (other than nostalgia and comfort zones). For example, I really like critical hits on a natural 20. Of course, you can always say that moldvay's basic (my favorite D&D) is the perfect game for you, but OSE is very similar and has easier access.
4. There is also some value in compatibly if you dislike adapting things on the fly. If you're playing classic modules, you might as well play classic games. However, refusing minimal changes severely limits you. I can understand not wanting to try to understand Portuguese if you only speak Spanish, but if you were born in Spain and go travelling to Mexico, refusing to try to understand the local variation of Spanish is just lazy and limiting.
(Or, to be clearer: there is no reason to avoid OSE adventures if you're only used to playing S&W, for example).
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 06:59:54 AM
So you admit that both your points were wrong. Great.
Not in the least. It doesn't matter how much in common you have with a group of people - if they promote a style of gaming that markedly reduces the need to buy new rulesets, they go on your drag list. That is all they have to do, and it doesn't matter whether they have a thousand other things in common with you.
Even the "outmaneuvered" bit is neurotic, as it presumes maneuvering to somehow cut you off.
I looked up the twitter thread. Nobody insulted you. Secrets of Blackmoor came in trying to get you airtime on a podcast that he knew nothing about, and, as was clear after conversation continued, wanted to discuss something you don't believe in and weren't a fit for.
Then you come barging in calling people OSR terrorists. And yes,
after that insults began to flow.
What do clones have to do with this latest internet slapfight? Absolutely fucking nothing outside of both groups not being interested in buying your latest game or the next half-dozen you end up writing. Which is all it takes.
Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 11:59:03 AM
I know you are a fan of Savage Worlds and it creative community, but the end of the day, the standards are dictated by Pinnacle. If somebody want to buck those standard for whatever reason they see fit, they will be shut down. The classic edition community or OSR doesn't have that limitation. For if one wants a walled garden free from distractors that can be done. If want to be completely open and adopt a everybody can play attitude that can be done as well. If like most you are somewhere in between that OK as well.
But you also get the asshole and dickweeds as well with no effective means of doing something like complaining to Pinnacle.
Folks bitch and moan about creative freedom this is what true creative freedom looks like.
My counterpoint to "Jesus... Get to get it together.
is "Focus on what you like to do whether it is playing, promoting, sharing, or publishing. And don't worry about what other folks do and don't be a dick about your stuff." But if you don't follow my advice then (shrug), I might, like in this thread debate it but that about the extent of it. I was just empathic in 2013 and yet I helped the Pundit with the maps for Arrows of Indra.
Outsiders to the OSR see the squabbling. I'm one of them, and I'm supportive of the OSR efforts in spirit. But if *I* can see it - so can anyone thinking about participating in it.
The comparison to Pinnacle isn't quite apples-to-apples in that Pinnacle encourages people doing whatever they want at their tables with their system and settings. By analogy this would be "OSR" = "Pinnacle". The "OSR" is not a publisher, all the OSR games are produced by different studios ostensibly on their subjective take of "classic DND". Pinnacle studios do that too with their system, with the exception that there are publishing standards if you're in their Ace Program - trade dress etc. But their Fan License is pretty hands off and wheel's off.
The things people are arguing about in the OSR, as you've said repeatedly, is speaking directly to the crazy levels of subjective minutiae that has very little to do with the larger picture: bringing people to an alternative to WotC's D&D. My contention is this shit is doing the exact opposite. And some people in this conversation want that.
For Pinnacle - they have their own slant on things, but they don't begrudge anyone from doing whatever they want. In fact one would think this level of freedom would produce a 3e effect where 3rd parties would pollute the pond and screw up the mechanical ecosystem with their own material, but this hasn't happened.
The core of the system is agreed upon - but not mandatory. <---- this is the key.
*NOTHING* prevents OSR people from practicing this same structure. Savage Worlds *is* inviting to both creators and players because it provides orders of magnitude more settings across many genres than the OSR does. There is no reason for this to not be true for the OSR.
Pundit and a few others are doing one thing right: pushing the OSR in different genres and settings. But the fighting and bickering and Gygaxian Way proseltyizing produce horrible optics.
(bit note here: I'm not pimping Savage Worlds for people to come play it. I'm using the opportunity you presented as trying to show a slightly bigger picture and model that the OSR independently should be aiming for *without* a mainline publisher. The Core Work is there: Basic D&D. Just like Savage World's has SWADE Core. But the SW community is *hugely* supportive of one another. The OSR don't need Gygax to ratify their views on what the OSR could be - his statement is made in the work you produce.
I just wish OSR folks would do more collaborative outreach with those that can be adult enough to agree on the basic foundation. If that can't be agreed on, then the point of the OSR is moot.
I say: why trade a kingdom for a ghetto? The cynical reality appears that each citizen wants to be king of their own trash-heap. It doesn't have to be that way. And it doesn't mean you have to play ball with assholes that don't like you. But the individuals aren't what is important - it's the work. The individuals are getting in the way.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
Outsiders to the OSR see the squabbling. I'm one of them, and I'm supportive of the OSR efforts in spirit. But if *I* can see it - so can anyone thinking about participating in it.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
The comparison to Pinnacle isn't quite apples-to-apples in that Pinnacle encourages people doing whatever they want at their tables with their system and settings. By analogy this would be "OSR" = "Pinnacle". The "OSR" is not a publisher, all the OSR games are produced by different studios ostensibly on their subjective take of "classic DND". Pinnacle studios do that too with their system, with the exception that there are publishing standards if you're in their Ace Program - trade dress etc. But their Fan License is pretty hands off and wheel's off.
It not OSR = Pinnacle. While true that then Savage Worlds industry and hobby is a collection of independents, Pinnacle lies at the center of it. Both socially in terms of their staff, and creatively in terms of their IP. They set the center of what is Savage Worlds and what is not. Now to date they managed it well and got a lot of folks excited to product content. But the fact there is an active group of folks controlling the IP makes Savage World completely different. And control of the IP allow Pinnacle exert control whether it is soft power through outreach and encouragement or hard power by employing their IP rights.
In contrast the OSR is centered around a series of out of print RPG editions, that are not supported actively by the IP holder*. These RPGs and their supplements act as a center likePinnacle and its IP does for Savage World, but it all passive. There is no active source of authority to either exert "soft" or "hard" influence. It all interpretation of "set in stone" texts that long had any active development for them.
So what are some of the important different difference.
With Savage Worlds, the author are available for question, more importantly due to the control of the IP change, if warranted can be effected. The OSR in contrast is stuck with it's core. To be clear it is not an issue with the OSR, but it does causes it dynamics to play out differently than something like Pinnacle and Savage Worlds.
Second, there are several know issues with the classic edition where there is no definitive answer on how to use the system. This is why I asked Lunamancer about Initiative. You can't play AD&D Initiative by the book because there are at least two ways of interpreting the rule. And both work in actual play. So when Lunamancer says he using Initiative 100% as written, he is deluding himself. This is not an isolated example. OD&D is known for this with all its unstated assumptions. Of AD&D but there is a little in 2e, B/X and BECMI as well. Unlike with Pinnacle and Savage Worlds there is no authority to resolve these issues. So everybody make a choice, like Lunamancer, as to how to handle the ambiguities. And it works great until hook with other folks who happened to use the other interpretation of AD&D initiative. And perhaps also has a acerbic personality and thus sparks fly.
Another is leadership, Pinnacle has the leadership role in Savage Worlds, and this makes a huge difference in the tone and tenor. The OSR in contrast are several community each with their own leadership and the only point of commonality is they are dealing with is ultimately tied back to one of the classic editions. And often what being focused on is several steps removed from the source. Most of the friction in my observation is when these communities interact. The mistake is the assumption that everybody views of the classic edition are compatible. They are not.
These elements ensure that at some point, somewhere, with some people, there will conflict, and debate. And most times it will be in the public for most to see.
But the OSR has gotten better overall. Thanks to static nature of the classic editions, thanks to the communication enable by the Internet, every year see more people knowing about what it is ambiguous and the various common solutions used to resolved. For example a lot of OD&D communities will point you to Philotomy's Musing as a good starting point for OD&D issues. Knights and Knaves forum has a sticky outlining the issues surrounding AD&D Initiative and those common solutions.
Not perfect but way better than the OSR was in 2010.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PMThe things people are arguing about in the OSR, as you've said repeatedly, is speaking directly to the crazy levels of subjective minutiae that has very little to do with the larger picture: bringing people to an alternative to WotC's D&D. My contention is this shit is doing the exact opposite. And some people in this conversation want that.
If you want that then hook with one of the OSR publisher that displays the leadership to make that happen for their niche. Necrotic Gnome and Old School Essentials has a good thing going over there. Which highlights the fact you will never find leadership for the OSR, but you will find leadership for a niche of the OSR.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
For Pinnacle - they have their own slant on things, but they don't begrudge anyone from doing whatever they want. In fact one would think this level of freedom would produce a 3e effect where 3rd parties would pollute the pond and screw up the mechanical ecosystem with their own material, but this hasn't happened.
Good, means Pinnacle leadership has some good ripple effects throughout the Savage Worlds hobby.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
The core of the system is agreed upon - but not mandatory. <---- this is the key.
Yes but Savage Worlds is not open content and to publish commercially require a tad more steps than what it takes for somebody in the OSR. Which is good because the time and commitment invested means it not likely they are going to shit all everything.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
*NOTHING* prevents OSR people from practicing this same structure. Savage Worlds *is* inviting to both creators and players because it provides orders of magnitude more settings across many genres than the OSR does. There is no reason for this to not be true for the OSR.
Fine then do it. Make it happen. To be more precise, because I know you are wrapped in Savage Worlds at the moment, tell me if you had the time and interest how you would do this? Who would you contact? How would you handle the logistics? And so on?
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
Pundit and a few others are doing one thing right: pushing the OSR in different genres and settings. But the fighting and bickering and Gygaxian Way proseltyizing produce horrible optics.
Horrible optics has been trotting alongside the OSR from even before the OSR label gained currency. OSRIC was widely derided in the industry as a work of piracy. And when the OSRIC team showed their homework the retort was effectively "Oh Wizards/Hasbro will shut you down anyway". Then when the RPG hobby got wind of it, it was all "Why should I play that broken old edition when I got X". D&D 4e marking helped a lot in minimizing as suddenly 3.X fans now were subjected to same disdain. But the OSR still gets this now and again.
Because controversy rode alongside since the beginning, it always it has attracted more than a few out to do very much their own thing. So that add creative diversity but also add a sense of creative independence as well.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
(bit note here: I'm not pimping Savage Worlds for people to come play it. I'm using the opportunity you presented as trying to show a slightly bigger picture and model that the OSR independently should be aiming for *without* a mainline publisher. The Core Work is there: Basic D&D. Just like Savage World's has SWADE Core. But the SW community is *hugely* supportive of one another. The OSR don't need Gygax to ratify their views on what the OSR could be - his statement is made in the work you produce.
Seriously work out a sketch of a plan to do this, and you will quickly see what the issue are. Don't use theoretical people, take who you know and heard of and imagine the plan working with those folks.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
I just wish OSR folks would do more collaborative outreach with those that can be adult enough to agree on the basic foundation. If that can't be agreed on, then the point of the OSR is moot.
There it just it always a niche of the OSR. There is no OSR beyond a shared interest and use (in some form) of the classic editions. Everything you have described about Savage Worlds is true of several groups within the OSR. There is a zine group that effectively functions as a collective sharing editing, art, and advice. There is Frog God Games with a stable of authors and artist. There the hobby and industry around Dungeon Crawl Classics. There are lots of folks doing what Pinnacle and Savage Worlds does. It just nobody can do that for the OSR. Neither the soft or hard power is there to make anything happen for the reason I state above.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 02:01:22 PM
I say: why trade a kingdom for a ghetto? The cynical reality appears that each citizen wants to be king of their own trash-heap. It doesn't have to be that way. And it doesn't mean you have to play ball with assholes that don't like you. But the individuals aren't what is important - it's the work. The individuals are getting in the way.
Perhaps that the fundamental difference right there. The OSR didn't start with a group saying we ought to do this. It started with individuals going their own way and saying I am going to do this. Gonnerman with Basic Fantasy, Finch then Marshall with OSRIC. And large part of that reason is the negative experience folks had with the runnup to Castles & Crusades and Troll Lord Games.
So after OSRIC and Basic Fantasy, it was about what you can do with the classic editions, not what the group can do. Because nobody wanted a group to tell them what they could or could not do. This was quickly shown by what happened with TARGA after Carcosa was released. I know Pinnacle has done well with Savage Worlds 3PP, but I guarantee you if somebody did something like Carcosa in the first year or two of the 3PP program, Pinnacle would have some issues with that. Mckinney gave me a free copy and asked me what version I wanted and I took the expurgated version because did not the original around my house with my, at the time, young kids. There was pretty hard core stuff in the spell/ritual section.
*There is marginal support as PDFs and an increasing number of out of print titles are available through print on demand.
Good points.
I'm only saying this as an outsider. I lived/played through the era that the OSR emulates - I respect it, but I've moved on to other things and I have other plans in the creator-space. If what you're saying is true, and it certainly appears that way to me - "OSR" is meaningless beyond those that want to howl the loudest about it.
It's not a movement other than a bunch of individuals trying to half-ass creating a movement hoping it'll stick with their sloppy fingerprints on the Created By Line. Which is a shame. Because it *clearly* has a place that should be pulling new players into its orbit.
I find all this pointless bickering as ultimately helping the very company (WotC) that caused all this to happen while further degrading the brand of D&D. As it stands the OSR isn't even a nuisance - when it should be a threat. But I have this sneaking suspicion that there are those in the OSR that want it this way - they prefer being king-rat on their little trash heaps.
It's a shame.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 03:42:41 PM
I'm only saying this as an outsider. I lived/played through the era that the OSR emulates - I respect it, but I've moved on to other things and I have other plans in the creator-space. If what you're saying is true, and it certainly appears that way to me - "OSR" is meaningless beyond those that want to howl the loudest about it.
Basically yes the OSR as a label is meaningless until you start talking about specific individual, companies, or group.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 03:42:41 PM
It's not a movement other than a bunch of individuals trying to half-ass creating a movement hoping it'll stick with their sloppy fingerprints on the Created By Line. Which is a shame. Because it *clearly* has a place that should be pulling new players into its orbit.
Sure there are some who think they are trying to start a movement or being part of a movement. Most of folks I know who are seriously involved in playing, promoting, or publishing think they part of a movement. There more a consensus that we like the classic editions in various way, and that there a lot of ways to get together, a lot of ways of sharing, and a lot of ways to talk about this stuff.
Quote from: tenbones on August 23, 2021, 03:42:41 PM
I find all this pointless bickering as ultimately helping the very company (WotC) that caused all this to happen while further degrading the brand of D&D. As it stands the OSR isn't even a nuisance - when it should be a threat. But I have this sneaking suspicion that there are those in the OSR that want it this way - they prefer being king-rat on their little trash heaps.
It's a shame.
Is it? Perhaps is something truly new under the sun. Not the systems involved but how they are used. For the first time in the industry and a hobby there is a niche where nobody controls the core IP, nobody who sales dominates the niche, like Pinnacle does SW,.
In my experience when you get beyond personalities and conflict this the #1 confusing part of the OSR. Everywhere else including Savage Worlds, there is a prime actor (lack of a better term). For Genesis it is Fantasy Flight, For GURPS it is SJ Games.
The been RPGs released as open content from get go like Pathfinder, and Fate, but their niches were dominated by prime actors, Paizo and Evil Hat, who provided leadership and set the tone for better or worse.
The OSR in contrast never had that. It has been and remains an egalitarian group of individuals doing their own thing with the material.
Worse for the OSR, it not about a single system. It about a family of related RPGs that are different from each other. So using OSR doesn't serve the same function as Pathfinder or Fate does. It impossible to use OSR and understand what system a given product supporting. Even back in 09, when there were only a dozen clones. Nor can we use the original names as Dungeons & Dragon not only a current trademark of Hasbro, most of we agreed not to cite compatibility when we agreed to use the material under the OGL.
So what left for each of use to brand the material we share as best as can. OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Old School Esstentials, Majestic Fantasy RPG, Swords & Wizardry and so on. This further reinforces the fact both socially and legally that the OSR is a collection of individual and small groups doing their own thing with the classic editions.
I submit, that it not a shame, but a natural consequence of the state of IP when it was first used. The closest alternative would been the Paizo route, but unlike making a 3.5 clone, making a classic edition clone wasn't consider safe or prudent. So....
We have what we have.
Trying to follow the conversation. In my head, OS(R) is both Revival (clones, bringing back what was already there) and Renaissance (rebirth, and changed, yet somewhat compatible). The clones' primary contribution is sparking new material which can be used with old games or the clones. The non-clones look to innovate, becoming free-standing games on their own that may or may not be compatible with some older games, yet mostly retain the feel. The feel being incredibly difficult to define at times.
It seems to me they have different goals, and both are successful at what they set out to accomplish.
I also reviewed the old thread claiming clones are not new games. My first thought is, I see the argument. I could hand a copy of Treasure Island to an editor and ask for a retroclone of the book. Any editor would be able to create it. However, I would not ask an editor to write Black Sails. I would ask a writer, or a creative.
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.
Interesting conversation.
Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 10:13:21 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
The fact that the Clonemaniacs of the past were equally bigoted against any game that wasn't just a Clone game until they were outmaneuvered by the early 2nd wave (something that was almost inevitable, because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions, you eventually run out of old editions) is also something your selective editing is notably avoiding.
Yes sound very much like the two situations are equivalent. To be clear I am being sarcastic.
Instead of focusing on the part that you feel is a societal threat, you instead talk about it in a way that promote your commercial interests based on your particular take on how to handle the classic editions. Using the fact these yahoos happen to also play classic editions 'as is' as the connected thread. How very Tucker Carlson of you.
I'm not sure what your argument is here? Are you claiming I don't really care about the OSR, or the fight against the woke, and it's all just some kind of moneymaking swindle on my part? If so, that's just ridiculously wrong.
Or are you claiming that somehow making money from spending huge amounts of time actually designing RPGs is somehow in and of itself fundamentally wrong? If so, that's not just ridiculous but stupid.
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.
Quote
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
The fact that the Clonemaniacs of the past were equally bigoted against any game that wasn't just a Clone game until they were outmaneuvered by the early 2nd wave (something that was almost inevitable, because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions, you eventually run out of old editions) is also something your selective editing is notably avoiding.
First off B/X Essentials which became Old School Essentials first published in 2018. So much for outright clones being old hat in the OSR.
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.
Quote
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions,
Right, I guess all those times we corresponded about the Open Game License and open content during Arrows of Indra didn't sink in.
Of course you don't care about the whole history of open content in the OSR because it is much more convenient to complain that the clonemaniacs controlled the "medium" crowding the alternatives as McLuhan put it. Yup those clonemaniacs had control of Lulu, Yuku/Proboard (forum software), ISPs, Blogger/Wordpress, so that absolutely nobody could get a word in edgewise unless the Lords of the Clones permitted.
Come on, who are you trying to bullshit with statements like these?
It not like examples are to hard to find with material like Hoard and Horde out there.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0
Material like Carcosa was being released as early at 2008.
Not a game.
But what I'm talking about was the OSR prior to LotFP.
And of course, I'm specifically talking about 2007.
Quote
As I documented, you all but ignored the OSR until Stuart Marshall called you a neener,
You have the order backwards: I largely ignored the movement that was just guys playing copies of AD&D until I wanted to see if they were interested in doing more, and that's when Stuart Marshall "called me a neener". You tried to make it sound like he did it for no reason, and not because that crowd were trying to reject the idea of any D&D-based but not D&D-clone RPGs in the OSR!
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.
Quote
that was followed by a long series of critical posts on clonemaniacs ignoring the expansion of folks were doing in the early 2010s. Then finally after being called out enough times, you got off your ass and did Arrows of Indra, which I encouraged and helped with.
And the sky didn't fall in, Arrows sold more than a few copies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions,
Right, I guess all those times we corresponded about the Open Game License and open
Not a game.
But what I'm talking about was the OSR prior to LotFP.
And of course, I'm specifically talking about 2007.[/quote]
OK let's see here. We got
* Not a Clone
2006 Basic Fantasy
2006 Osric V1
2007 Labyrinth Lord
2008 Swords & Wizardry
2008 OSRIC v2
2008 Mutant Future*
2009 Swords & Wizardry, White Box
2009 Ruins & Ronin*
2010 World of Onn: Core Rules*
2010 Hideouts & Hoodlums*
2010 Dark Dungeons*
2010 Backswords & Bucklers*
Finally
2010 Lamentations of the Flame Princess*
From 2006 to the 2010 release of LotFP we got 13 releases of core rulebooks (we are not counting supplements like my MW). A little under half are clones. In 2007 we had two clone released, Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy First Edition.
In that time from 2006 to 2010 we had 396 supplemental products according to Hoards and Hordes, and roughly 210 products that on record with DriveThruRPG.
Some how I get feeling that folks were not too concerned about making clones at the time. In 2007 alone 49 supplemental product were release to 2 clones.
Throughout the history of the OSR, supplements has always dwarfed the number of rulebooks out there.
Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
You have the order backwards: I largely ignored the movement that was just guys playing copies of AD&D until I wanted to see if they were interested in doing more, and that's when Stuart Marshall "called me a neener". You tried to make it sound like he did it for no reason, and not because that crowd were trying to reject the idea of any D&D-based but not D&D-clone RPGs in the OSR!
No they just didn't want to use what you had to offer. Of course TheRPGSite being TheRPGSite, it got escalated. If you look at all the old school sites they talk more than just OD&D, B/X, or AD&D. While every groups in the OSR is centered on the classic edition in some way, every group drags something else along for the ride. I like GURPS, Fantasy Age, Traveller, and 5e and have a bunch of stuff that supports these systems.
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.
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.
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'.
Greetings!
I'm inspired by many different writers and game designers. I think the whole OSR movement is great! The OSR movement is a great environment for people to become involved, publish different products and books, and contribute in a meaningful way to the hobby as a whole.
Honestly, though, any author or game designer in the OSR shouldn't be involved in cock-measuring against anyone.
I forgot this girl's name--but she's a moderately-cute, plump Goth chick. No college degree, no real work experience. She even writes like a College-Freshman. Her plots, characterization, dialogue, all that shit has been reviewed and critiqued. Her writing skills, from what I have seen and read reviewed, are modest as well, and nothing especially brilliant in any way.
This plump Goth-chick self-published a novel about sparkly vampire romances, with lots of sex and drama. She writes a new book about every month, and has for several years. She has over 1 million followers. Her first year she profited over 1 million dollars, and has continued making roughly that profit figure every year, for five years straight and more. No-name, no degree, no publisher, no professional experience, no great writing talent. She's not Stephen King. I recall this ordinary girl was 26 years old when she published her first book, and went on to profit her first million dollars that year. Her pictures were of her dressed like she fell out of the back end of a Goodwill store, no make-up, and wearing a hoodie. And yet--she is an outstanding and overwhelming success.
That is pretty damned inspiring. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
"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.
Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 09:03:13 AM
That nice and appreciate the personal anecdote. But it avoids the answer to my question which is germane to my point about the DMG organization and clarity, and why it is a brilliant work with serious flaws.
I didn't avoid your question at all. I answered it head on. I'm not exactly surprised that you missed it. I knew it wouldn't be the answer you expected. But it is nonetheless the correct answer to your question. More correct than anything that would resemble ADDICT.
QuoteSo again, I ask, explain the AD&D initiative rules? I will be up front it a gotcha question. You could refuse to answer in which case I will lay out exactly why that section (among others) is unclear, why, and how people know this.
Yes, I sensed that you thought your question was a gotcha. But it really isn't one. I figured out the BtB initiative system in high school and have been using it for 30 years. I know it far too well for it to have any gotcha value. If you'd like to make specific points of how it's presented in the DMG, you're more than welcome to make them.
QuoteQuote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
But you can use them or don't use them to taste.
Well if you don't use the initiative rules then you are not playing AD&D per Gygax.
Objection #1. Assumes as fact that which is in dispute. My reason for responding to this thread is I thought Pundit was over-stating the Gary's demand for uniformity in 1E. Being that's in dispute, you don't get to just assume it up-front that it's either Gary's way otherwise you're not playing AD&D. You'll need to back that claim.
Objection #1a. just as a heads up to save us some time, the supporting reasons I gave when making my objection had to do with Gary saying both things sometimes even in the same sentence, indicating that the two sides are to be taken together in a practical and balanced way. Which means if you're planning on making the case via cherry-picked quotes, you're first going to have to make the case for the truth value of cherry-picked quotes.
Objection #2. Non-responsive. I had made a clear distinction between what was rule and what was ruling. What you're calling a rule in your response is something I called a ruling, and it's on the basis of being a ruling and not a rule I made the claim that you can use it or not. If you want to take the position that these things are hard rules that shall not be altered, you're free to try and make that case. But you don't get to just assume it.
QuoteQuote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
I think 1E does this better than modern games. It seems like the game is put together in layers. Not necessarily as a united, finely oiled machine.
As I said, AD&D has its strengths, I concur with this. And the strengths vastly overshadow the flaws particularly the PHB. However that not my point.
And I appreciate that's not your point. But it is a form of organizing ideas nonetheless, and one I think is really important and lacking in a lot of games these days. Understand that at least part of what I'm challenging here is the measuring stick by which some will glibly state that 1E suffers from poor organization. Are you sure you're not over-emphasizing things of low importance and under-emphasizing things of high importance? Even if we agreed on the facts, and so far we're disagreeing on a lot of them, that could flip any conclusion on its head.
QuoteI took technical writing in college and it been part of my professional career for over four decades training and developing metal cutting machines for machine shops. The goals of any technical writer is clarity, and organizations. While there several ways of achieving this they all hover around these goals. One can judge a technical reference by these standards and find it either lacking or well-done.
However RPG books are hybrids. They are only in part technical references. How the rules are presented can be judged on clarity, organization, and utility. Note I said presentation, which has little do with how the mechanics function as a system. In short are the rules explained well or are they not.
The reason RPG books are hybrids is that they contain advice, utilities, and sometimes setting details. Advice is perhaps the most free form in terms of organization. All needs is clarity and Gygax's advice in the DMG was very well-written.
Of course if we got into the weeds on this, we'd probably end up having a lot of disagreement on how to categorize the content as rules vs utilities vs advice. As noted above, you're calling parts of the initiative system "rules" that I regard as "rulings" which would be much more akin to advice.
But let's put that aside for now. We're talking about a 200+ page DMG. Short of paying them, nobody is going to read that book unless they really, really want to read it. Part of the task of the author is to get the reader to want to keep reading. Now I know you said it's actually a hybrid kind of book. And so I guess that opens the door to wishfully thinking that all those non-technical rules parts will suffice to keep the reader engaged. But surely out of 200+ pages, there are going to be places where you face a trade-off between good technical writing and keeping the reader hooked. How do you decide whether to make that trade-off?
Call it semantics, but I call it important, I have a hard time calling something a flaw if correcting it actually diminishes the whole. Given that we can't hop in a time machine and get a do-over on 1E and see if it does better or worse with some technical writing corrections, it's hard to do a reality check to confirm the validity of what you believe would be an improvement. I'd put the odds as at least 100 to 1 against any change being an improvement unless you can make a really compelling case, and then I'd probably put it at only 3 to 1 against. At what point is this just Joseph II saying "Too many notes" to Mozart?
QuoteSo how about that explanation on AD&D initiative?
Here it is again, in 11 words:
Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.
I disagree that initiative is important.
I disagree that the initiative rules are poorly organized.
I think believing that initiative is poorly organized is itself an impediment to understanding initiative. Initiative when both sides are humanoids capable of using weapons is separate from initiative in general. Failure to recognize that the system is organized this way leads to compiling the rules which in turn leads to apparent contradictions. But if you view the same section through the lens that these rules are well organized, it's clear that these are two separate cases and reconciling the rules is a lot easier and makes perfect sense.
- 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... ;D
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/ (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... ;D
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.
Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 03:04:49 PM
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.
I catch a lot of this on my Twitter feed, and I generally agree--it's definitely possible, and it seems to fit in well with the rest of the AD&D rules set. My objection is the assumption that this is the
only way to play--some are even taking it to the extent that it's the only way to play RPGs, and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' while finally making the game accessible to the general public.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2021, 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 03:04:49 PM
That is what Jeffro/BrOSR are saying - 1:1 Time, no exceptions.
...stuff I wrote...
I catch a lot of this on my Twitter feed, and I generally agree--it's definitely possible, and it seems to fit in well with the rest of the AD&D rules set. My objection is the assumption that this is the only way to play--some are even taking it to the extent that it's the only way to play RPGs, and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' while finally making the game accessible to the general public.
I agree.
On:
"...the assumption that this is the only way to play"TSR promoted the 'standard' mode of play that Jeffro & crew are railing about as Fake D&D since the beginning of the game. Even during the era when Gygax was at the height of his creativity and influence over at TSR.
So which is it Gary? Oh wait, he is not around to weigh in on the issue. A bit convenient...
On:
"...necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,'..."I don't see exactly how Bradford thinks this will work - he says it, but I think it is more a matter of doing what Pundit says and having the stones to stand up against the wokeoso's.
IMHO the hobby's professional convergence got underway good and proper when D&D - the market leader - moved from middle America to the left coast. Because those with the control only hire like minded people. Not that the lake Geneva WI crew were anything resembling a right wing coalition... But the culture at Adkison's WOTC was a different animal entirely! And D&D exerts a huge influence over the RPG hobby as a whole.
On:
"...finally making the game accessible to the general public. ..."I'm not so sure on this one. "Changing the game" to attract the normies is part of the reason that the hobby is in the state that it is currently in. When you give an equal voice to casual players that don't really care all that much about the actual game, you get the issues we see now.
And honestly I think that the normies won't be anymore attracted to the 1:1 time RPG format than the standard one. For many of the same reasons - just applied to different aspects of the 1:1 campaign.
I also believe that running a 1:1 campaign requires a higher level of commitment from a GM than the standard mode of play, and the hobby has always had a big GM / player deficit even under the easier to run standard play mode.
And they are certainly not going to rally to their cause the people who would otherwise be disposed to give 1:1 time RPG gaming a try by telling them that they are all still playing "Fake D&D"...
I had the chance when I got off work to hunt down the quote I knew I'd read in the DMG. There is a parenthetical note "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening" on pg 37.
It clearly doesn't say you must. It clearly doesn't say the only way. It says best. And I think a reasonable person would take this to mean "generally best" which means there could be better ways to handle it in some cases. You don't have to interpret it to mean generally best, but I'd consider that interpretation most likely correct but at the very least makes the list as a valid interpretation of real D&D.
The other thing is it says "when no play is happening." Not always and at all times the 1:1 time frame applies. Nothing here backs the soup Nazi theory of AD&D. Though you can certainly play that way if you choose to.
Here's where I spike the ball. There's an example given in that section that poses a real problem for the whole "Gary sez 1:1, no exceptions" hypothesis. It has on day 51 of the campaign character A heading off to seek some oracle, newbie characters E and F head into the dungeon, while characters B, C, and D do nothing. Basically, their players don't game again until 4 (real) days later.
E and F barely survive day 51. They rest for a few game days then try again on Day 54. They stumble upon the worst monster on the first level, surprise it, slay it, and come out with a huge haul. On day 55, B, C, and D enter the dungeon to find that area has already been cleared out. But if they hadn't been so lazy, gone there on day 52, they could have found the monster and snagged all the swag.
Then Gary ponders, so what if the players for characters B, C, and D show up 4 days later as planned but say, "Yo, I think we're only going to take 1 day off and go into the dungeon on day 52." That is, playing out day 52 after E and F already played out day 54, slayed the monster, and gone the treasure.
Gary here says that even though in this case character's B, C, and D would have gotten there first, the activities of E and F should be allowed to stand. In game, he justifies it as destiny had decreed the monster in question would not fall to characters B, C, and D, and therefore the creature was somewhere else when they visited its lair on 52. Out of game, he justifies the call saying "Some penalty must accrue to the non-active," meaning because the players for B, C, and D snoozed they loozed.
As a DM, it might make my job easier to just say, hey, you guys weren't playing, 1:1 went into effect, B, C, and D go out on day 55 rather than 52. Then I won't have to reconcile things like what happens if players E and F get there before players B, C, and C, but characters B, C, and D get there before characters E and F. And maybe that's what Gary meant when he said "it is best to use 1 actual day = 1 game day when no play is happening" But you can see clear here that Gary is contemplating other ways of running the campaign, even to go so far as giving advice on how to untangle the mess you can get yourself in straying from the 1:1 time ratio.
The example continues and dispels the "no soup for you" as it follows the journeys of character A, who travels for 11 days, visits the oracle remaining for 3 days, journeys back another 11 days, arriving home late on day 75, taking a brief rest, then ready to adventure on day 77. He then says, and this quote is juicy, "Allowing that activity to be not unusual for a single session of play,"--in other words, those 25 days just took place in a single session, and that's pretty typical a thing.
Quote from: estar on August 23, 2021, 11:13:09 PM
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?
I often use D6 v D6 initiative and I use "Ties go to the Heroes" and some monsters (or circumstances) may add +1/-1 to the rolls. The "ties to heroes" rule works great for me because I run monsters as MONSTERS!!! and its a nice tip to the players so they feel there's something in the rules that leans toward them.
(and then my monsters murderize their PCs with murder sauce)
As for spellcasting, I have casters declare IF they are casting before initiative is rolled which makes the D6 v D6 roll even more tense, which is fun.
D6 v D6 even ties to the players, odd ties to the monsters.
Quote from: FingerRod on August 26, 2021, 08:31:44 PM
D6 v D6 even ties to the players, odd ties to the monsters.
That works too! I just enjoy giving players a false sense of security! I also give PCs their max HP at convention games. Oh the bravado of that first battle!
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2021, 03:09:26 PM
... and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' ...
No one needs to exclude the Critical Role fans. They don't play D&D anyway, just watch...
Have initiative ties mean that attacks happen simultaneously. That sort of thing happens all the time in the real world. There ar ehsitorical accounts of duelists stabbing each other to death at the same time.
Quote from: Spinachcat on August 26, 2021, 08:21:25 PM
I often use D6 v D6 initiative and I use "Ties go to the Heroes" and some monsters (or circumstances) may add +1/-1 to the rolls. The "ties to heroes" rule works great for me because I run monsters as MONSTERS!!! and its a nice tip to the players so they feel there's something in the rules that leans toward them.
My first time as DM was only after playing the game twice. Initiative was not among the rules I knew at that time, so I just had players go first.
That was so long ago, I don't remember exactly how those games went. But I can safely report what didn't happen. The pages didn't fall out of my book. The dice didn't spontaneously burst into flame, and the planet didn't break off its axis and go hurtling into the sun.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 26, 2021, 09:20:30 PM
Have initiative ties mean that attacks happen simultaneously. That sort of thing happens all the time in the real world. There are historical accounts of duelists stabbing each other to death at the same time.
That is how BtB initiative works. I think that's the common sense conclusion without being told what to do.
Quote from: Spinachcat on August 26, 2021, 08:35:27 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on August 26, 2021, 08:31:44 PM
D6 v D6 even ties to the players, odd ties to the monsters.
That works too! I just enjoy giving players a false sense of security! I also give PCs their max HP at convention games. Oh the bravado of that first battle!
Hah that is sick...
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2021, 03:09:26 PM
Quote from: Jaeger on August 25, 2021, 03:04:49 PM
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.
I catch a lot of this on my Twitter feed, and I generally agree--it's definitely possible, and it seems to fit in well with the rest of the AD&D rules set. My objection is the assumption that this is the only way to play--some are even taking it to the extent that it's the only way to play RPGs, and necessary for excluding the Critical Role fans and other 'undesirables,' while finally making the game accessible to the general public.
I wouldn't say there is only one way to play. But I would say the Critical Role way IS wrong and those kinds of people should not expect that kind of play in the games I GM. I'm not an adherent to the Gygax Bible. But I do espouse and encourage the old school mentality. And I actually think if presented properly it can be just as successful and compelling to normal people. What turns them off is the autism on display by OSR publishers at times. The petty infighting and everyone's separate insistence on their way being the only way.
I think there's room for games with full crunchy AD&D rules "as Gygax intended" and the simpler b/x stuff. I like both kinds of games and so do the groups I frequent. I don't understand either RPG Pundit or the BrOSR when they say I have to pick one or the other. That kills the OSR more than anything else.
Quote from: Spinachcat on August 26, 2021, 08:21:25 PM
I often use D6 v D6 initiative and I use "Ties go to the Heroes" and some monsters (or circumstances) may add +1/-1 to the rolls. The "ties to heroes" rule works great for me because I run monsters as MONSTERS!!! and its a nice tip to the players so they feel there's something in the rules that leans toward them.
(and then my monsters murderize their PCs with murder sauce)
As for spellcasting, I have casters declare IF they are casting before initiative is rolled which makes the D6 v D6 roll even more tense, which is fun.
Sounds good to me. The debate was over how AD&D as written works and whether it was well organized and understandable. Your method sounds playable and in my experience will work as well as other. In my experience both folks bad in the day played with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, magic items, etc.) with Basic D&D rules for combat, variations of 1d6 roll high. Varying on whether it was individual initiative or group initiative.
With AD&D as written, ties is one of the instances when weapon speed comes into play. It determines the order of who strikes, along with possibility of getting multiple attacks on an opponent.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 26, 2021, 09:20:30 PM
Have initiative ties mean that attacks happen simultaneously. That sort of thing happens all the time in the real world. There ar ehsitorical accounts of duelists stabbing each other to death at the same time.
That works as well, although not how AD&D does it. See Simultaneous Initiative on page 66 of the DMG.
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2021, 01:19:43 PM
Sounds good to me. The debate was over how AD&D as written works and whether it was well organized and understandable....
This is why I felt that all the talk of RAW AD&D was a bit of a red herring... Yes, you can do it.
Yet by Jeffro's own admission:
"AD&D is the definitive expression of all things Gygaxian. It's a landmark work, epochal even. There was nothing like it before in history and there can never be another work that even approaches its influence and significance. It is staggeringly awesome. But it is not accessible. "https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149712026412785665
"The Holmes, Molvay, and Mentzer box sets were accessible. Original D&D and first edition AD&D were not. They were #EliteOnly and required #WinningSecrets in order to be mastered!"https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149807845434515456
He then goes around telling everyone that is not playing D&D with 1:1 time that they are playing FAKE D&D.
To support his 1:1 Time = The Standard; He then cites the selfsame AD&D rule set that he had described as:
"not accessible"...
At the very least I think he communicates his position poorly.
I've never heard of this BrOSR or this Jeffro guy. Is this a Twitter thing or something?
Where did they come from? Why now? What is their history to act like they're the conduit of Gygax's ghost?
People can't even come together on agreement how AD&D 1e rules are all supposed to work for something as basic as combat so colour me less than convinced that they discovered the 'true 1e way': did someone unearth some arcane document in Gail's house that explains it all?
I like the AD&D discussion but this just sounds like another opinionated grognard(s), acting like they discovered the Da Vinci code.
Quote from: Jaeger on August 27, 2021, 09:05:06 PM
This is why I felt that all the talk of RAW AD&D was a bit of a red herring...
There's a snipe I take at people who take BtB/RAW too seriously. But a corollary of that exact same snipe also implies an important role for BtB/RAW.
The question I ask is, By which book or books? Rules as written where? Back in the day, it was said any rule that Gary authors was considered "official" for 1E. It could very well be the case that Gary wrote a really great 1E rule on a cocktail napkin that is buried somewhere in his archives, unseen. No one could possibly be expected to be playing by that rule.
And so it does matter where the rule is written. Not just that it's written. It needs to be a rule accessible (not in the same sense Jeffro uses the word) to the people playing it. What's accessible to the group could vary from table to table. Not every table is going to have Unearthed Arcana at it. But almost all of them are going to have the PHB and DMG. Most tables aren't going to have access to the full catalog of Polyhedron and Sage Advice columns where answers are given to rules questions with an air of authority.
The point is BtB/RAW is not a monolith, but it does have a center. We all have our own individual plays of playing the game, but there's enough in common where we can pick up a Fiend Folio or an adventure module or a setting book, and it's familiar enough to be usable. There are gamers out there who hold as their highest priority that there be a single objectively correct answer to every rules question. They invoke BtB/RAW as a cudgel. And if you point out that the rule book literally says the DM can change the rules, they'll quickly dismiss THAT rule. When it comes right down to it, the one correct answer is more important than actual text.
QuoteYes, you can do it.
Yet by Jeffro's own admission:
"AD&D is the definitive expression of all things Gygaxian. It's a landmark work, epochal even. There was nothing like it before in history and there can never be another work that even approaches its influence and significance. It is staggeringly awesome. But it is not accessible. "
https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149712026412785665
I've definitely heard that sort of thing stated. Alignments don't make sense. Illusions in 1E don't make sense. Initiative is 1E's Kobayashi Maru. There is no consistent encumbrance system.
And I look at it like this. If I have a problem with my car, and I take it to a mechanic, if one mechanic looks under the hood and says, "None of this even makes sense," and a different mechanic says, "Okay, I see what's going on here. And I have a solution to fix it," I'm going to have more confidence in the second guy. I'll give him a try. If he's a total whack job, I'll find that out quick enough. But it almost always works out.
So I'm not sure why gamers allowed themselves to get snowed by people who don't know the answer and choose to say there is no answer rather than just admit they don't know it? We're talking about a game that was played by millions of teenagers without internet access to get their questions answered on demand.
Quote"The Holmes, Molvay, and Mentzer box sets were accessible. Original D&D and first edition AD&D were not. They were #EliteOnly and required #WinningSecrets in order to be mastered!"
https://twitter.com/JohnsonJeffro/status/1149807845434515456
He then goes around telling everyone that is not playing D&D with 1:1 time that they are playing FAKE D&D.
To support his 1:1 Time = The Standard; He then cites the selfsame AD&D rule set that he had described as: "not accessible"...
At the very least I think he communicates his position poorly.
There's the monolith. And he claims it's in the Bible, but it's written in a language only the priesthood can decipher. As I posted earlier, the example given in the DMG on tracking time contradicts what he says regarding 1:1 time.
I heard (second hand) that Gary was pretty flexible at his gaming table. If you wanted to do something outside of the commonly understood rules, he'd turn the question around and ask you how you'd rule it. Then he'd consider your answer for a moment. And usually he'd just say "yes, that sounds about right."