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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.