Yeah, that's exactly how I view the "true clones:" standards that facilitate the publication of modules, supplements, etc. that are compatible with my D&D game.  I don't play OSIRC, for example, I play AD&D and use OSRIC material in my game.

Quote from: Benoist;584521In that sense, the fact that now you'd recommend say ACKS instead of LL to your friend searching for an old school game to play doesn't invalidate the primary reason for the existence of LL at all. As far as their primary goal of reference documents for OGL publication is concerned, OSRIC, LL and S&W have been and still are brilliant successes. Whether they are played as "things" of their own is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things: fashions come and go, tastes differ, whatever.

Fair enough, and I'd certainly agree with the historical perspective of OSRIC et al as reference documents for building new material. They've been fantastic successes in that sense.

But I don't think that our two points really conflict with each other; OSRIC et al, as retail products available today, are competing against the products that they made possible, and in that sense... they come up short. And that's fine. As products for sale, they should get judged on their own merits against everything else in their market space.

Yes. One of the big advantages I felt in running AD&D on the boards here was to be able to say to prospective players: "alright, this is an AD&D game; if you have the PH then cool, and if you don't and/or don't know the game, just grab OSRIC for free online and create your character that way." There was very little dissonance between the two, mostly of the adjudication sort most 1e DMs would consider anyway (like "do I use the WP/AC table" or "is the bard in or out?" Those kinds of things).

Likewise, I find great advantage in running 2nd generation OS games which sell electronically at $10 or less for a full game. AS&SH comes instantly to mind, as does ACKS, IIRC.

Quote from: Ladybird;584554But I don't think that our two points really conflict with each other; OSRIC et al, as retail products available today, are competing against the products that they made possible, and in that sense... they come up short. And that's fine. As products for sale, they should get judged on their own merits against everything else in their market space.

Actually I think my argument is rather clear that this competition you talk about wasn't and isn't the point of these games' existence here, so I do think that makes your observation secondary at best, if not moot altogether.

That said, comparing LL say to ACKS and declaring that one falls short compared to the other is just a way of saying ACKS is better than Moldvay, and I just can't agree with that. It's a different take following different expectations and involving different methodologies to support it, okay, but LL isn't "worse" or "not as good". When you don't want to juggle with the fictional economy of an elfgame, that you don't care about numerical values attached to guilds and the like, you might be better off with LL still. So this notion that "ACKS fulfills the promise of the original game", as James M once trumpeted it on Grognardia, is marketing bullshit of the highest order, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Ladybird;584507But... these days, I can't see a reason to recommend LL over ACKS, for example, because ACKS is a superset of the same material. Out of the book, you could get the LL play experience from ACKS, but not vice-versa... and while a GM could write all that material themselves for LL, or grab it from elsewhere and integrate it into their campaign, it's a lot of work to do when someone else has already done it for you.

So not "the newer products are better!", but "the newer products provide more explicit support and resources!".

Well, you can get the same play experience for LL or ACKS from the d20 SRD, but would take some work which is already done. However, if you used LL or ACKS, then you wouldn't be using your own particular spin on the game, would you?

Different games fit different gamers differently.

Quote from: bat;584500He claimed leadership over the OSR? When was this? Egads, this is getting more terrifying by the moment. The entire idea behind the OSR, from my understanding, is that we are all doing our own thing, just related war stories and what worked and what didn't.

I am surprised he would be unopposed though, I would imagine that the One Of Porn would want that crown.

Must....snipe....at....random....guy...I don't...know...on....forum...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;584457I see you're still lying and engaging in tu quoque fallacies, you worthless piece of shit.

Once again:

Answer the questions:

1. Did you do a crowd funding via 8bit?

2. Did the crowd funding close on 9/11/2011?

3. Have you not hit your promise release date?

4. Did you not write this: http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...-not-an-update?

5. Does not 8 bit state:

QuoteQuote:

Fees and Payments

As with other sites similar to ours, 8-Bit Funding will have a base line fee for its services. In addition to our own fees, PayPal (and any service we may use in the future) will also have its own fees. Here's the breakdown:

PayPal charges 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction. So, for example, a $20 funding will come out to $19.12.

Our own charge is 5%.

So, after both PayPal's and our fee on a $20 funding contribution you'll receive $18.16 of that.

It's a little complicated, but it's the best system available so that everybody gets paid.

Contributions are immediately deposited into your PayPal email account that you supplied when creating your project.

Thus, reading this, one can infer you took money. Is this not true?

So let me make this clear, since you are a pseudo intellectual who shows his lack of honest debate, by belittling and slander:

Did you run a crowd funding campaign, in which you took money upon its' September 11, 2011 closure, and as of September 20, 2012, not sent rewards to said campaigns backers?

The more you attack me, the more you look as if you have something to hide. Still knowing you, you will not answer the questions. Thus I have created something for you:

The Justin Alexander Reaction Table (d12)

1. Call person a sack of shit

2. Call the person a liar

3. Engage in overtly hostile ossification

4. Misquote and become thick header that poster might have made a typo

5. Yell and act like baby

6. Develop a acute case of sand in his vagina

7. Count ill gotten gains

8. Refuse to answer a simple questions

9. Act like a total asshat

10. Refuse to answer the question

11. Loss all sense of rationality

12. Roll again

IRWS

Hiya Zachary S!! Welcome to theRPGsite little fella.

Quote from: _kent_;584565Hiya Zachary S!! Welcome to theRPGsite little fella.

What's up, homes?

Quote from: Zak S;584567What's up, homes?

Well, I think the time is right for you to invite me to participate in your google+ hangout with the kool Kids. I think you are convincing in your most recent blogpost and I feel I have much to learn from you about rpgs in the long term but more immediately about integrity and acceptable behaviour in online discussions in this crazy techno world of ours. Also I think you are a credible artist.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.ie/2012/09/the-future-of-talking-about-games.html

Quote from: _kent_;584568Well, I think the time is right for you to invite me to participate in your google+ hangout with the kool Kids. I think you are convincing in your most recent blogpost and I feel I have much to learn from you about rpgs in the long term but more immediately about integrity and acceptable behaviour in online discussions in this crazy techno world of ours. Also I think you are a credible artist.

http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.ie/2012/09/the-future-of-talking-about-games.html

Cool story, bro.

Just a quick comment since I was the one that brought up TARGA, I think that an organization to promote old-school gaming was a good idea.  I referenced it simply because it was prominent during the time period that Tavis pointed to, and because in its very first meeting it was noted that there was some differing of opinions as to what the group's "support for publishers" was to entail.  But bringing it up was not to cast the efforts of many in a bad light.

Quote from: Benoist;584557Actually I think my argument is rather clear that this competition you talk about wasn't and isn't the point of these games' existence here, so I do think that makes your observation secondary at best, if not moot altogether.

That said, comparing LL say to ACKS and declaring that one falls short compared to the other is just a way of saying ACKS is better than Moldvay, and I just can't agree with that. It's a different take following different expectations and involving different methodologies to support it, okay, but LL isn't "worse" or "not as good". When you don't want to juggle with the fictional economy of an elfgame, that you don't care about numerical values attached to guilds and the like, you might be better off with LL still. So this notion that "ACKS fulfills the promise of the original game", as James M once trumpeted it on Grognardia, is marketing bullshit of the highest order, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, and not only that, but since ACK is exactly the type of product that the people behind the original clones hoped would be written for them, to expand the premises of the original games, it's like comparing the tricked-out car to the stock car.  Stuart has said that OSRIC does not represent how he plays his home game.  So it is saying that the game with the open spaces left for others to run with is not as complete as one that took it farther in a proprietary fashion.  Bare-bones Linux vrs Apple, in a way.

OSRIC and others were written with the intention of allowing everyone to be a sort of Bob Bledsaw, except without the risk of having the rug yanked out like Bob had happen to him.  Instead, many would prefer to be a Kevin Siembieda.  There's no crime against the OSR in this, I think it is just an unnecessary fragmentation.  

Lots of modules have been written for vanilla OSRIC/AD&D (and the others), but not great amounts of the other types of material that were once expected.  Since it is clear that once you go to all the trouble of writing ambitious expansions of the game, it is tempting to create minor revisions to the core and create new games since that's such a negligible amount of extra work, perhaps it is worth having a discussion somewhere if leaving others the space to do this as an incentive is actually hurting perception of OSRIC due to it being seen as a vanilla, unimaginative game.  I am sure that the people behind it could add lots of spice if the line was filled out in-house and pushed more vigorously in competition with the new games.

The point was to remove ruleset competition entirely but that's a sailed ship now, and I wonder if sticking to that hurts OSRIC in some ways.  As others have noted, if OSRIC competes with original material, those products could be used at many different tables so the gamers benefit.

Quote from: I run with scissors;584564

QuoteAllow me to repeat myself: 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?

If you refuse to answer the question this time, I won't bother even marginally engaging with your tu quoque fallacy in the future.

Once again...

... you have failed to answer the question, thus transparently revealing that you're just engaging in a tu quoque fallacy. (You can't answer the question, of course, because you know that if did answer it you'd simply get caught in another transparent and pathetic lie.)

Let's take a moment to review your pertinent posts again:

Quote from: I run with scissors;583231It was only because people started bitching around 8/10 did anything come out.

Quote from: I run with scissors;583452Richard Barton on August 20

What? How can this be? I am a lying "sack of shit" according to you. I have no idea who this backer is, but here is the first backer who expressed something other than sunshine and lollipops.

Do you have any explanation yet for your belief that August 20th happens before August 10th?

And can you explain why you're claiming that these dates are "typos" given that both of these dates are, in fact, completely accurate?

Feel free to continue posting. But until you explain and apologize for your lies, I'm just going to keep pointing out that your lies are transparent and pathetic.

Quote from: Settembrini;584460But a Q for J. Alexander no matter how much IRWS is a bag of untruth, from the outside it does indeed looks like Tavis and JM reacted way more after online ruckus was caused.

I laid this out earlier in the thread: The first notice to backers that things would be late came in June. There were additional updates over the next two months. Then, on August 10th, Tavis posted a backer update that promised more frequent updates on a roughly weekly basis. Since that time, we have, in fact, received frequent updates on a roughly weekly basis.

Scissors-the-Liar claims that the reason we've been receiving frequent updates on a roughly weekly basis is because people started complaining on August 20th.  But the reality is that we started receiving more frequent updates because Tavis decided more frequent updates were needed.

Basically, Scissors hopes that if he keeps blowing his bullshit smoke nobody will notice that there's no actual fire here. All you've got is a Kickstarter project that's running a few months late because somebody's father died. It's not an ideal situation, but it's not the end of the universe and it doesn't mean that anybody is "scamming" anyone.

How heavy, this ACK's.