Quote from: samovar;584027I'm all for everyone "discovering" the origins of this thing. Having it all "explained" by the eminences grises de jour enters a very different territory -- and that may be what's fuelling the James M backlash.

Or maybe its someone else? WINKY WINKY

Quote from: estar;584058So those of us interested in promoting older edition D&D shouldn't help one another?

"Promoting older edition D&D?" Is that what those quotes represent to you?

To me, they represent promoting Autaurch and Tavis Allison, not "older edition D&D."

But therein lies what I see as problematic: so much of what gets batted around "the OSR hobby" is more about personalities and 'products' than it is "promoting older edition D&D."

One of the reasons I respect Guy Fullerton and Joe Browning is the comparative lack of pretension in their approach to producing adventures and such for older editions.

Quote from: _kent_;584064Or maybe its someone else? WINKY WINKY

Why not have both? What did Mr Conley say?

Quote from: estarNobody involved in the OSR i.e. playing or publishing older edition D&D is what they first seem.

Kings in disguise, Kent. That's what this thing is, apparently.

Quote from: I run with scissors;583925The fact that while typing I got a date wrong, you know have a typo.

You're still lying. You didn't typo any dates: 8/10 is, in fact, the date of the update. 8/20 is, in fact, the date of the Richard Barton post you claim to be "the first backer who expressed something other than sunshine and lollipops".

If circumstances were different, you might be able to claim that you simply "misread" the date of Barton's post and thought that it was originally posted before the 8/10 update. But since Barton's post is actually a direct reply to one of the updates that you claim only exist because of Barton's post... Well, wow. There's really not much that can be said here. How stupid would you have to be to make that mistake?

So, instead, we get a new lie about a "typo" in an attempt to excuse your original lie.

Because, of course, you're a lying sack of shit.

QuoteI mean you use some shady crowd funding site to fund your fantasy heart breaker cut and paste 3e clone.

You appear to be insinuating that I've missed a promised release date. Is that what you're trying to say, you lying sack of shit?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;584070One of the reasons I respect Guy Fullerton and Joe Browning is the comparative lack of pretension in their approach to producing adventures and such for older editions.

Big +1 here.  And I like Rob's sandbox stuff, too.  Where I start to lose interest is when someone puts out rulesets to replace old-edition D&D with their shiny new thing.  The point was not to write new games.  It was to write material for old games.

Wasn't it?

(Note I don't have a problem with Dwimmermount here - it was written as new material for an old game.  I realize it was inevitable that it would also have an "ACK version" given the partnership.)

Quote from: Tavis;583871It necessarily implies an audience for whom this stuff is new or at least worthy of explaining

*raises hand*

I see the thread's already degenerating into yet another OSR hate-fest.

To quote thedungeondelver himself: get over yourselves.

I swear to God I don't get theRPGsite's dysfunctional marriage with the OSR.

Yeah, there are some assholes in the OSR. Gasp! The horror! Well, this forum has a few of its own (one of them is even running the show) and I see not one of the OSR-haters writing off theRPGsite because of it. Also your favorite band, your favorite sports team... in fact, every branch of human activity has a lot of jerks involved and the only guaranteed jerk-free way of life is to cease all human contact.

Once again, it's all about nerds who need to feel smarter than other nerds. I don't give a flying fuck if you've been playing AD&D non-stop since 1979 and therefore feel entitled to claim that you're more "authentic" or "hardcore" or whatever label makes you feel less bad about being 40 and living in your mom's basement. However, if you're putting your money whjere your mouth is, e.g. compiling your campaign notes and publishing them, I'll look into it.

Play and support what you like. Don't play and don't support what you don't like. How hard is that?

I mean, jeez.

Quote from: EOTB;584075Where I start to lose interest is when someone puts out rulesets to replace old-edition D&D with their shiny new thing.  The point was not to write new games.  It was to write material for old games.

Wasn't it?

With OSRIC, yes, it was, but from the start the so-called 'retro-clones' were really simulacra; the authors all injected their own interpretations into the books rather than creating true clones. From there the knock-on was 'exploring new avenues' using D&D - S&W and LL, really - as the baseline, which produced the thirty-one flavors effect.

I actually understand and even applaud this impulse. To me, 'old school' is about taking the game and making it your own. I think EotPT and Arduin Grimoire - OD&D hacks, both - represent what's best about old school thinking, not counting how many character classes can dance on the head of a pin or dressing up in UW sweaters and listening to Band on the Run on vinyl while playing.

But at their core, LotFP and ACKS are just collections of house rules which could be published as Arduin- or Carcosa-style supplements. Everything beyond that strikes me as pure ego. Making Dwimmermount 'ACKS-compatible' is just damn silly, since virtually all of these 'games' are effectively interchangeable as written - or perhaps those in "the OSR hobby," with its "legendary" four year-old half-written megadungeons, simply don't realise that we used so much of what was produced back in the day interchangeably.

Now Grampa's cranky, so you kids get off my lawn before I turn the [strike]hose[/strike] .30-30 on you.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;584087But at their core, LotFP and ACKS are just collections of house rules which could be published as Arduin- or Carcosa-style supplements. Everything beyond that strikes me as pure ego. Making Dwimmermount 'ACKS-compatible' is just damn silly, since virtually all of these 'games' are effectively interchangeable as written - or perhaps those in "the OSR hobby," with its "legendary" four year-old half-written megadungeons, simply don't realise that we used so much of what was produced back in the day interchangeably.

Yes, exactly.  I have zero problem with the new material/stuff in any of these neo-clones.  They just don't have to be games.

Quote from: The Butcher;584085Yeah, there are some assholes in the OSR. Gasp! The horror! Well, this forum has a few of its own (one of them is even running the show) and I see not one of the OSR-haters writing off theRPGsite because of it. Also your favorite band, your favorite sports team... in fact, every branch of human activity has a lot of jerks involved and the only guaranteed jerk-free way of life is to cease all human contact.

QuoteOnce again, it's all about nerds who need to feel smarter than other nerds. I don't give a flying fuck if you've been playing AD&D non-stop since 1979 and therefore feel entitled to claim that you're more "authentic" or "hardcore" or whatever label makes you feel less bad about being 40 and living in your mom's basement. However, if you're putting your money whjere your mouth is, e.g. compiling your campaign notes and publishing them, I'll look into it.

Play and support what you like. Don't play and don't support what you don't like. How hard is that?

I mean, jeez.

What you don't realize is that bitching about RPGs online IS a hobby unto itself.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;584073You appear to be insinuating that I've missed a promised release date. Is that what you're trying to say, you lying sack of shit?

Okay, I'll bite: did you take money via a crowd-funding push and have you fulfilled what you promised to people who gave you money?

Quote from: EOTB;584091Yes, exactly.  I have zero problem with the new material/stuff in any of these neo-clones.  They just don't have to be games.

100%.  Every time a new 'game' comes out I have to ask "couldn't this have been a setting/genre supplement or something?"  I mean, if ACKS had instead just been a "domain game supplement that works with OSRIC/LL/S&W/hackable thingy", wouldn't that have been better?

BV's right about the constant churning mashup, though.  That's how we played in the 80s, and that's how I play now.

Quote from: VectorSigma;584116100%.  Every time a new 'game' comes out I have to ask "couldn't this have been a setting/genre supplement or something?"  I mean, if ACKS had instead just been a "domain game supplement that works with OSRIC/LL/S&W/hackable thingy", wouldn't that have been better?

BV's right about the constant churning mashup, though.  That's how we played in the 80s, and that's how I play now.

At this point most "new clones" could be a free pdf of house rules.

Because that's what they are, house rules.

Quote from: VectorSigma;584116I mean, if ACKS had instead just been a "domain game supplement that works with OSRIC/LL/S&W/hackable thingy", wouldn't that have been better?

I've got nothing against ACKS (or any other retro-clone or variant or pseudo-clone), but I agree that I'm not in the market for clone games.  When it comes to D&D, I still run either original D&D or AD&D.  In fact, I'm prepping a new AD&D game that should start play within the week.  

I use clone supplements though (modules, monster books, etc).  For example, I'll be using an OSRIC module as the basis of the kick-off adventure in my new AD&D game.  (Normally, I don't use a lot of modules, but this time I found several that seemed to be a good fit.)

As far as domain management goes, I'd be much more likely to acquire and read (and perhaps use) a "plug-in" domain management supplement, as opposed to acquiring a complete clone game that includes it and then extracting the domain management system and applying it to my own game.  Not saying that the second approach wouldn't work, just that I'm not very likely to do it.

Anyway, I don't know if it would be "better" of not, but I will say that if the ACKS domain system were released as a separate supplement that talks about how to use it with your existing game, I'd definitely take a look at it.

I sometimes wish we could cut this bullshit and focus on playing, running, discussing and making stuff for games we enjoy. That's, ah, what makes Fight On! magazine or Dyson's Dodecahedron or Joesky! worth more than the parade of Blogosphere Superstars or the increasing crust of non-contributors around this segment of the hobby who are only in for the lulz and tearing down others. It would be nice if those people fucked right off to back where they originally came from.

OTOH, as TristramEvans wrote, bitching about RPGs online IS a hobby unto itself, I am engaging in it right now, so who am I to cast that stone? Goddamnit.