Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS

Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.

I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.

Agreed.  I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting.  Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing.  (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")

The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)

At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS".  It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want.  A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing.  I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.

...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.

...

Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.

Note that I have been saying BACKGROUND and not back story.

Background: Blacksmith.
Class: Fighter.

Done.

There's nothing to halt there... it's just information that can be used to make informed decisions about what a character can and cannot do; particularly if you're using an OSR system that lacks a skill system.

It means when Bob the Blacksmith comes across a chain the party needs to break and the player says "I look for the best way to break it" the GM can say to themselves, "Bob's fighter knows about working with metal, he should have an easier time with that than Joe the Librarian's... I'll give him 3 in 6 instead of Joe's 1 in 6."

And if Bob gets poisoned or speared, the player can introduce Dave the Rogue Sailor (creation done) and the GM will know that if the party comes across something involving ropes, knots and climbing in wind and rain... Dave is probably going to be better at it than Joe.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 03:31:19 PM

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 12:48:38 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 11:21:18 AM

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM
Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS

Or, it's a place to silo all the non-combat abilities of a PC so you can have more variety by mixing combat/non-combat features without massively increasing complexity.

I mean, sure, if you run nothing but sociopathic murderhobos who make no attempts to interact with others other than killing them, backgrounds are pretty worthless/unimportant, but if you come upon a forge, then knowing if one of the PCs used to be a blacksmith is handy, as is when you come upon a noble... it's good to know who's an outlander, whose a peasant and whose an aristocrat as the response from the noble should vary depending on which of those is addressing said noble.

Agreed.  I think character backstories can help "flesh out" the motivations and goals for the character, and help provide a richer role-playing setting.  Now, you don't necessarily need this for a good old fashioned dungeon crawl, but especially for a campaign that spans multiple adventures, it can create great story arcs--though this is heavily dependent on how competent a player is at role-playing.  (And by competent I don't mean "can they make a convincing Scottish accent?" but rather "do they exhibit actions that are reflective of what they say their backstory is?")

The alternative to a reasonably fleshed out backstory is to turn everything into a metric--in your example, giving them a Smithing Skill and a Social Standing score (which might be handy to do anyway, but creating a backstory can help avoid a really random collection of attributes, stats, skills, and details.)

At any rate, I think it's overly reductive to just consider character backgrounds as "amateur community theater BS".  It seems to me that yes, one can run an RPG as just a somewhat abstracted combat simulator, and if that's what everyone wants, fine...but it can also be something much more, if that's what the participants want.  A good fantasy novel, for example, isn't just a string of fantasy combats that we read about...it has compelling, fleshed-out characters and backgrounds that explain why they're doing what they're doing.  I think RPGs can use that model to create memorable adventures.

...and all of that "back story" comes to a halt when the character dies from a failed save vs poison, or is run through with a spear by a pack of orcs from a random encounter.

...

Because (Drum roll please).....you're character is FIRST LEVEL. YOU HAVE NO BACK STORY.

Note that I have been saying BACKGROUND and not back story.

Background: Blacksmith.
Class: Fighter.

Done.

There's nothing to halt there... it's just information that can be used to make informed decisions about what a character can and cannot do; particularly if you're using an OSR system that lacks a skill system.

It means when Bob the Blacksmith comes across a chain the party needs to break and the player says "I look for the best way to break it" the GM can say to themselves, "Bob's fighter knows about working with metal, he should have an easier time with that than Joe the Librarian's... I'll give him 3 in 6 instead of Joe's 1 in 6."

And if Bob gets poisoned or speared, the player can introduce Dave the Rogue Sailor (creation done) and the GM will know that if the party comes across something involving ropes, knots and climbing in wind and rain... Dave is probably going to be better at it than Joe.

I think "background" and/or "backstory" don't have to be a certain size.  There can literally be a sentence or two to be a seed for that backstory--e.g., "Ugthor the Ugly was orphaned at an early age, but a gruff warrior who saw potential in the young Ugthor took him under his wing to learn his trade wielding a broadsword.  After his patron was killed in a bar fight initiated by an ill-tempered Orc, the young Ugthor has now set off to seek his fortune plying his trade, and has a nasty habit of collecting the ears of all Orcs he slays in battle."

If someone goes on for several paragraphs--well, that can be fun for them, but as stated above, if the character dies quickly, all that work is lost.  At any rate, it certainly isn't necessary.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.

This is what I want and don't get from B/X, but I find in modern D&D.

- Backgrounds
- Race separated from class.
- Critical hits.
...

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 01:15:24 PM
Jared the half-elf ranger should have a back story with just a few things: who he is, where he came from, who his family is, how he came to be where he is, why he's adventuring, and a few things quirky/unique about him. That's it. Everything I summed up here could be said in maybe 6-8 sentences. anything more than a pragraph, you're writing fan-fic...and shitty fan-fic at that.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 31, 2022, 03:31:19 PM
Note that I have been saying BACKGROUND and not back story.

Background: Blacksmith.
Class: Fighter.

Done.

Yeah. I think this is talking past each other. blackstone read "backgrounds" as if it meant multi-paragraph player-written text, when he was responding to Eric Diaz who meant modern D&D's one-word descriptor like "Criminal" or "Sailor".

Why are backgrounds even a system issue? What did you do before you became an adventurer is a question that can be asked in any system and its consequence adjudicated. "You were X from the town of Y, therefore you will be familiar with A, might know some B, and would never ever heard of C." Apply a system appropriate modifier if it makes sense and be done with it. A list of prescribed backgrounds and enumerated benefits is needlessly limited and of dubious value. I find it far more fun to discover the character as I encounter challenges and try to leverage presumed character history against it. "Could I know something about this because I was something or other back home?" Now some character background has been discovered and locked in, while being relevant to the adventure.

As for writing an expansive backstory, it is fan fiction if it was not played out. Backstory accomplishments are created by player fiat, not earned through gameplay. Stringing together a story out of a few roll on a background mini game is legitimate provided it is subdued compared to expected in game achievements. "I am hardy because I sent long days working the fields and know a little about racking and combat because we had problems with goblins raiding."

Quote from: blackstone on October 31, 2022, 11:01:32 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.

This is what I want and don't get from B/X, but I find in modern D&D.

- Backgrounds
- Race separated from class.
- Critical hits.
- Streamlined saves.
- Unified XP.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.)
- Feats*.
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D).
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.)
- The 4e warlord.
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls.

I've been tackling each one of these aspects with my blog and books:

Feats:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/407233/Old-School-Feats-OSR?src=newest
Alternate Magic:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/397412/Alternate-Magic-OSR
Spell points:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html
Critical hits:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-simplest-critical-hit-table-osr-etc.html#comment-form

Might have been easier to just tone down 5e, but for some reason I find adding stuff to B/X much more enjoyable.

- Backgrounds: for what? Please be more specific. If you're talking about backgrounds for PCs, then that's just amateur community theater BS
- Race separated from class: then play AD&D. 'nuff said.
- Critical hits: power gaming BS
- Streamlined saves: yes, because reading a table is SOO FUCKING HARD. BOO HOO!
- Unified XP: dumbest idea ever. my fighter has different experiences than from the cleric or magic-user, therefore different experience levels. Also it should be more difficult to advance in experience for more educated/technically minded classes. A Unified XP table makes no logical sense.
- Streamlined skills (I like using 1d20, but you can use 1d6 etc.): What do you mean by streamlined? please be specific.
- Feats*.more power gaming bullshit
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D). doesn't affect the game therefore that's just a personal preference thing.
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.). play AD&D then
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls. "oh, I hate Vancian magic" yeah, how fucking edgy. Some people say they don't like it because, and they'll NEVER admit it, is being a low level magic-user in a Vancian magic system is TOO HARD. OH BOO HOO! What? You have to rely on WITS to stay alive? OH no! What shall we do?

I explained each one here.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/my-favorite-bx-house-rules-changes-bits.html

But.

Let me try to reply in the same tone so we can have some fun.

AD&D is a mess. I love the DMG but the PHB is all over. B/X is a lot better but it lacks some details I enjoy. It is not hard to create an easier and better game than AD&D but simplifying the rules a little bit (which 2e mostly did, BTW).

That is why not even Gygax played AD&D as written.

Specifically:

- Backgrounds: something similar to AD&Ds professions (or another one-line description, picked randomly) is enough for me.
- Race separated from class: see above.
- Critical hits: so only MU are power power gaming at your table? 10d6 fireballs are okay, but 2d8 with a sword is too much?
- Streamlined saves: you like tables, fine, but the system is messy, confusing for new players, and unnecessarily fiddly. One save would suffice.
- Unified XP: I'll agree this one is a matter of taste, but why not nerf the MU a bit to let a 5th level MU be equivalent to a 5th level fighter? Maybe only MUs are power gaming at your table?
- Streamlined skills: roll 1d20 to hear noise, find traps, etc.
- Feats. I use feats to add some options from AD&D to B/X. Is simpler and more versatile. A 10th level fighter with three of four feats is still weaker than a MU with the same XP. Also, I do give away that many +5 swords because I dislike this kind of power gaming.
- Weapon details (especially 3e/4e), without going overboard (AD&D). So I guess you agree the exist AD&D tables are horrible?
- I like "metaclasses" from 2e (warrior includes fighters, paladins, etc.). play AD&D then 1e doesn't have meta-classes, and the bard is still a mess. Same for the druid.
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go. I think you're are a decade too late for 4e hate, but okay I guess.
- Vancian Magic replaced by spell points or spell rolls. "oh, I hate Vancian magic" yeah, how fucking edgy. Some people say they don't like it because, and they'll NEVER admit it, is being a low level magic-user in a Vancian magic system is TOO HARD. OH BOO HOO! What? You have to rely on WITS to stay alive? OH no! What shall we do? 1st level MUs are identical using my spell points system, it just cuts the power gaming BS from higher level by giving MUs fewer spells options.

[BTW, there is lot of stuff about AD&D I like... just trying to keep the ball rolling]

ENERGY DRAIN.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 31, 2022, 09:42:13 PM
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go. I think you're are a decade too late for 4e hate, but okay I guess.

This is the thing that just confounds me.

The traditionalists won. 4E's last product (that didn't even have any mechanics in it) was released a literal decade ago (late 2012).

Normally after enough time passes and emotions have cooled its considered acceptable to look back through a commercial failure for any good ideas worth salvaging and repurposing.

Yet so many still can't stop shitting on 4E and reminding everyone how much they hate 4E like it's a perfomative cult ritual. No idea that was brought to prominence in 4E (ex. warlords, dragonborn and tieflings) is permitted to be explored in other systems lest those systems become impure. And this has gone on more than twice as long as the system was even active.

That is not a normal reaction to a set of books you dislike. No one died or had their house burned down by 4E existing. So why the continued venom for something that hasn't been supported in, again, a literal decade?

Quote from: Slipshot762 on November 01, 2022, 12:47:43 AM
ENERGY DRAIN.

I love energy drain in concept(especially since lost levels can be restored), but i feel it adds a lot of book keeping to remeber what spells to remove and how much HP they gained at every particular level.

And yet the turd still stinks as it burns.  If it starts whispering to you or worse still making grandious proclaimations report to your local BADD inquisitor for re-education.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:40:58 AM
That is not a normal reaction to a set of books you dislike. No one died or had their house burned down by 4E existing. So why the continued venom for something that hasn't been supported in, again, a literal decade?

   Because hating on it is fundamental to so many major branches of the hobby--OSR and derivatives, Pathfinder, and 5E--and is the one thing that can unite them, so that it serves as a common enemy to so many D&D fans?

   I like 4E, but I have been more and more convinced that I'm not suited to any of the major spheres of D&D.

OSR is about homeless vagrants recruiting lost orphans to venture into deadly dungeons. That is a good premise but the mechanics suck.

so the perfect OSR game (to me) would have stunts (to fancy up your descriptions and give you an award), shift away from the wargame aspect (the idea is that mooks become useless because the most basic monsters, being supernatural, are too tough for even the strongest real world humans. The PCs are regarded as inhuman monsters due to being strong enough to stand a chance in a dungeon, but there are few of them so mass combat is nonexistent and hiring mooks does nothing), dial up focus on characters (their eroding psyche as they travel through dungeons. their ideology. Their skills.), more support for alternative magic systems (FF7 Materia, Xenogears Ether, DND Vancian, Exalted Essence, etc. Some days people want to play mentally ill wizards who delve through hell dungeons. Other days people want to play edgy anime boys with giant swords and magic rocks who lead an asaault on a space fortress guarded by dragons.)

Oh and also remove THAC0. I hate it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:40:58 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 31, 2022, 09:42:13 PM
- The 4e warlord. the fact that 4e is a flaming turd, I'll just let this one go. I think you're are a decade too late for 4e hate, but okay I guess.

This is the thing that just confounds me.

The traditionalists won. 4E's last product (that didn't even have any mechanics in it) was released a literal decade ago (late 2012).

Normally after enough time passes and emotions have cooled its considered acceptable to look back through a commercial failure for any good ideas worth salvaging and repurposing.

Yet so many still can't stop shitting on 4E and reminding everyone how much they hate 4E like it's a perfomative cult ritual. No idea that was brought to prominence in 4E (ex. warlords, dragonborn and tieflings) is permitted to be explored in other systems lest those systems become impure. And this has gone on more than twice as long as the system was even active.

That is not a normal reaction to a set of books you dislike. No one died or had their house burned down by 4E existing. So why the continued venom for something that hasn't been supported in, again, a literal decade?

All I said was 4e is a flaming turd, because it is. 'nuff said.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 01, 2022, 11:13:29 AM
OSR is about homeless vagrants recruiting lost orphans to venture into deadly dungeons. That is a good premise but the mechanics suck.

so the perfect OSR game (to me) would have stunts (to fancy up your descriptions and give you an award), shift away from the wargame aspect (the idea is that mooks become useless because the most basic monsters, being supernatural, are too tough for even the strongest real world humans. The PCs are regarded as inhuman monsters due to being strong enough to stand a chance in a dungeon, but there are few of them so mass combat is nonexistent and hiring mooks does nothing), dial up focus on characters (their eroding psyche as they travel through dungeons. their ideology. Their skills.), more support for alternative magic systems (FF7 Materia, Xenogears Ether, DND Vancian, Exalted Essence, etc. Some days people want to play mentally ill wizards who delve through hell dungeons. Other days people want to play edgy anime boys with giant swords and magic rocks who lead an asaault on a space fortress guarded by dragons.)

Oh and also remove THAC0. I hate it.

So why in the hell are you here?

Quote from: blackstone on November 01, 2022, 01:55:12 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 01, 2022, 11:13:29 AM
OSR is about homeless vagrants recruiting lost orphans to venture into deadly dungeons. That is a good premise but the mechanics suck.

so the perfect OSR game (to me) would have stunts (to fancy up your descriptions and give you an award), shift away from the wargame aspect (the idea is that mooks become useless because the most basic monsters, being supernatural, are too tough for even the strongest real world humans. The PCs are regarded as inhuman monsters due to being strong enough to stand a chance in a dungeon, but there are few of them so mass combat is nonexistent and hiring mooks does nothing), dial up focus on characters (their eroding psyche as they travel through dungeons. their ideology. Their skills.), more support for alternative magic systems (FF7 Materia, Xenogears Ether, DND Vancian, Exalted Essence, etc. Some days people want to play mentally ill wizards who delve through hell dungeons. Other days people want to play edgy anime boys with giant swords and magic rocks who lead an asaault on a space fortress guarded by dragons.)

Oh and also remove THAC0. I hate it.

So why in the hell are you here?

Because I can and I have opinions on OSR because I played it

I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that. 

Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect.  There is no such game. 

A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.