TheRPGSite

James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

RPGPundit

Yes, but not better than the best of Judges Guild.

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

The claim seems silly to me. Some OSR stuff certainly is better than some of the stuff TSR published. Some of it certainly isn't better than most of the stuff TSR put out. The material put out by both is/was quite variable in quality.

Note: Even the worst OSR stuff often has better production values than early TSR stuff, but that's simply a function of low cost word processing/DTP software that is far better than anything early TSR had access to until they hit the "big time". However, as I don't measure the usefulness/"betterness" of game material by production values, I don't count this.

Did 2E AD&D produce any outstanding modules?

It shouldn't be surprising if several hundred people who all write stuff going in different directions manage to produce stuff that's more intriguing to any given observer than two dozen people writing stuff within limitations given them by management.  

I mean, volume alone makes a difference.

I don't think anybody will dispute that in general a classic product will be made. The fly in the ointment is that this type of judgement really only works given time. Check back in a decade and we will find the which OSR products stand with the older classics.

I will say that overall it has been a second golden age for older edtion D&D. Since 2000 there has been over 700 publications targeting an older edition of D&D. That the total combined output and variety is exceeding the original run of products.

Quote from: VectorSigma;624437It shouldn't be surprising if several hundred people who all write stuff going in different directions manage to produce stuff that's more intriguing to any given observer than two dozen people writing stuff within limitations given them by management.  

I mean, volume alone makes a difference.

For sure.  A numbers game.

One can also see this in the tie-in novels niche, such as the numerous Star Wars, Star Trek, Forgotten Realms, Warhammer, etc ... novels published every year.

Does the OSR have its Giants-series? Does it have its Tomb of Horrors? Its White Plume Mountain?

About the only module that really stands out to me as 'iconic as a TSR module' is ASE1, the OSR's Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

From what I've seen, the OSR has done a credible, competent job of turning out Sinister Secrets of Saltmarshes and Lost Caverns of Tsojcanths - The Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom is probably the most recognizable of the lot.

It's also turned out its fair share  of Forest Oracles.

Quote from: ggroy;624436Did 2E AD&D produce any outstanding modules?

Does Dungeon Magazine count? If it does, it did.

I think a lot of laudable product has come out of the OSR - mainly modules/adventures. Some of which could definitely compete with modules of olde. But when the entire framework for the rules-core of your OSR RPG is a TSR-created system, can you really claim superiority over TSR?

Retroclones serve as a nice launching pad for publishing purposes. But, I see very few OSR RPGs that offer up much that improves upon the TSR D&D experience (... except perhaps DCC, or some of the Sine Nomine stuff).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;624441Does the OSR have its Giants-series? Does it have its Tomb of Horrors? Its White Plume Mountain?

I don't know you tell me.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ar9Wm_5gI_1TdGlyZHpwRHFoU2pEMng0NkhqTlJEYmc&type=view&gid=0&f=true&colid0=1&filterstr0=module&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250

The list of modules from Hoard and Horde.

I gave to say that Raggi's modules are pretty unique, whether are they iconic we will have to check back in a few years. I agree ASE1 is a good candidate for iconic status.

Quote from: K Peterson;624446I think a lot of laudable product has come out of the OSR - mainly modules/adventures. Some of which could definitely compete with modules of olde. But when the entire framework for the rules-core of your OSR RPG is a TSR-created system, can you really claim superiority over TSR?

Yes, just as the Renaissance learned classical techniques and took them in new directions. Also superiority wouldn't be how I would describe the process. It is more of an expansion of options and variety.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;624441Does the OSR have its Giants-series? Does it have its Tomb of Horrors? Its White Plume Mountain?

It doesn't, and I don't think it will.  

We all played those classic modules back in the day; there isn't a shared experience like that now, at least not within the same time-frame.

When we all watch 'The Fugitive' every week and talk about it the next day, that's Against The Giants in the early 80s.  When you watch 'BSG' live and I watch it on Netflix ten years later...well, we can still chat about the show, but it's not the same thing, is it?

I dunno, maybe the analogy doesn't work.  But the point is that I don't think there has been any "must-play" adventure to become that shared experience.

Quote from: estar;624448Yes, just as the Renaissance learned classical techniques and took them in new directions.

I just don't feel that the vast majority of Retroclones out there have taken techniques far enough to be that revolutionary. A smattering of houserules that tweak a recognized core is not an improvement, necessarily, over that recognized core.

Quote from: estar;624448Also superiority wouldn't be how I would describe the process. It is more of an expansion of options and variety.

Well, I'm making reference to Raggi's alleged comments about being "better than", and substituting "superior to".

Quote from: Black Vulmea;624441Does the OSR have its Giants-series? Does it have its Tomb of Horrors? Its White Plume Mountain?

About the only module that really stands out to me as 'iconic as a TSR module' is ASE1, the OSR's Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

Dude, Giants, Tomb and WPM are 'iconic', as you put it, because A, they were/are widely known, and B, they've been around for decades. In contrast, the entire OSR itself A, doesn't incorporate as many players as D&D in its heydays, and neither does it have the same mass media presence, and B, it hasn't been around for decades. You're making a pointless comparison.

Also, the thread is about "are OSR modules better than TSR ones"? Not "have they been around for longer?" or "do they have higher sales figures?" Neither of these are indicative of how good a product is.

(Case in point, ToH is suitable for the cruel, American-college-fraternity style hazing of new players and is a good source of "Remember that time we got really fucking wasted and John woke up next morning with a transvestite" type quasi-masochistic rite-of-passage recollections with your gaming bros, but as an actual adventure module for actual play in someone's actual campaign? Please.)

What doesn't seem to have happened yet is a real breakthrough into the gaming mainstream.  Us obsessive compulsive types on the internet are a pretty small percentage of the whole pie and most of us have written our own retroclone already.  What's really needed is a bit more of a concensus followed by a solid kickstarter that puts out a single base-line and is followed on by a magazine on par with Dragon and Dungeon that offers a centralized place for people to get their work published and advertise their products.

There's plenty of attempts of course and hopefully one of them will eventually break though.

A breakthrough product, that's what's needed.  Something that gives us a center again.  Yes 5e could be that but when I look at what's going on there I really doubt it.

When it comes to core rules, I'd say emphatically not. You've got a "standing on the shoulders of giants" thing going on there; whilst a particular OSR rules set might have particular houserules that appeal to the designer and, presumably, most of the advocates of that particular game, there's no denying that the bulk of the work was already done by Gygax, Arneson, Moldvay, Cook and Mentzer, and all the OSR rules sets are merely tweaking particular dials here and there (where their design decisions aren't constrained by sticking within the bounds of the OGL).

As far as supplements and adventures go, I think there's definitely products out there which are as powerful an aid as anything originally published by TSR - Vornheim springs to mind. On the other hand there's also a lot of lukewarm material and some downright crap - the sort of stuff which arises when you have people self-publishing and don't need to please an editor with any sort of standards in order to get their material out there.

So I think you can find OSR products which qualify as classics, but at the same time I think it would be hyperbole to say that the average standards of the OSR are better than the average standards of TSR at its peak (wherever you happen to identify that peak).

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

I don't. The circumstances are different, the people are different, the products are aimed at different audiences, ipso facto... it's just different. Saying the OSR stuff is "better" can only be strictly subjective (e.g. what a particular individual likes best, finds the most useful in his own situation etc.) or some hubris on the part of this or that publisher tooting his own horn (Hi, James).

Nope

I still find myself and my gaming better served by revisiting TSR stuff. Most of the time.

Quote from: Premier;624455*some trash not worth repeating*

Dude, they're iconic because they were widely played and well-known among gamers. The comparison is not, which OSR modules reached the same number of gamers and the same longevity as TSR modules? but which OSR modules have a high level of name recognition and shared experience among OSR gamers?

Frex, ASE gets mentioned often when the subject of science fantasy comes up among OSR gamers. It's one of the better known modules and seems to be widely played among the folks playing pre-3e D&D and retroclones.

Is there a series of linked modules, like Giants, which get comparable buzz to ASE? Or particularly popular funhouse dungeons, like WPM, that get frequent mention?

It's not about numbers, dumbass; it's about shared experiences.

I have to wonder how the "OSR" would react to a series of linked modules like 'Giants', though.  Would they scream 'adventure path' and run for the hills?

The focus has been on dungeons, drop-in stuff, single site-based adventures, and the like.  Which is a shame in a way, as a trilogy of modules is always a neat thing to see.

Delver's releases are a sequence, aren't they?  I haven't read them.

They're 'better' for me personally... meaning, between the TSR stuff I've read and the OSR stuff I've read I generally prefer the OSR... but I could totally understand if someone else preferences went the other way round.
I'd make a stronger case for my getting a lot more out of the forums and blogosphere than I ever did magazines like Dragon... and not just because of volume.

Quote from: Premier;624455(Case in point, ToH is suitable for the cruel, American-college-fraternity style hazing of new players and is a good source of "Remember that time we got really fucking wasted and John woke up next morning with a transvestite" type quasi-masochistic rite-of-passage recollections with your gaming bros, but as an actual adventure module for actual play in someone's actual campaign? Please.)

If you want a real dungeon challenge with high level characters, that you're ready for multiple TPKs and just enjoy that kind of hardcore game experience, then ToH is stellar. It's also great to see what constitutes hardcore challenges in the game to not unknowingly emulate this kind of thing for rookie groups. It's a module I would recommend for anyone as part of a range of different models to use and build your own, with "here's a basic intro module, here's a big sandbox, here's this and that, and here's the hardcore made-to-be-a-PITA module." It is certainly not representative of the default game play, and shouldn't be construed as such, lest you want to be known as a rat bastard DM, but it's really great for what it is.

Your rant there... it's just you whining you don't like this kind of hardcore module, really. Which is cool and everything, if you hate that kind of stuff so be it, but it's not really an objective base to judge what's "good" and "not good", leaving alone the problem of what's "best".

Speaking of which, whatever's "good", "not good", "best" and "worse" needs some kind of frame of reference to be understandable. Good for what? For whom? In what context? Best how? For what purpose? Which kinds of DMs and players? That's the kind of thing one needs to define before going into these kinds of discussions (or reviews), I think.

I would like to see an "Adventure Trail" series of weird/lurid OSR modules.

Could someone track down that Raggi post from a year or two ago when he made the claim about the OSR being better than the TSR and post the link here? So that maybe we could find out what he meant and what his criteria were?

Quote from: ggroy;624436Did 2E AD&D produce any outstanding modules?

Night Below is highly lauded.

Quote from: Benoist;624487Speaking of which, whatever's "good", "not good", "best" and "worse" needs some kind of frame of reference to be understandable. Good for what? For whom? In what context? Best how? For what purpose? Which kinds of DMs and players? That's the kind of thing one needs to define before going into these kinds of discussions (or reviews), I think.

You've pulled this shit before B. Your other posts seem well put together and intelligent but then you go and trot this shit out again.

If everything is subjective then why talk about anything ever?

How about from now on when someone says "It's good" you agree to translate it as "I liked it" and then maybe follow up with "Why did you like it?" instead of "good has no meaning."

EDIT: Or we just all agree that Melan is the final arbiter of Good.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;624515Night Below is highly lauded.

Night below is amazing.

I think the claim is pretty arbitrary. When talking about D&D material I firmly believe in Sturgeon's Law.

Quote from: ggroy;624436Did 2E AD&D produce any outstanding modules?

--No.

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

Yes, its better than tsr. But the OSR isn't better than just plain "Old School" that existed at the time. TSR was merely the commercial face of what was a vibrant hobby. Most of the best old school stuff showed up in fanzines at the time, not in published products.

Plus, no OSR has yet to touch the awesomeness that was Planescape.

Quote from: ggroy;624436Did 2E AD&D produce any outstanding modules?

I rather liked Baba Yaga's Dancing Hunt, and there were a few really good Planescape modules. Plus, Dragon Mountain. 2e was really better for settings than adventures though.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624516You've pulled this shit before B. Your other posts seem well put together and intelligent but then you go and trot this shit out again.

And you're pulling the same butthurt again because you can't come to terms with the idea that your opinions about what module's good and not good might not be shared, and that you might be subjective on the question.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624516If everything is subjective then why talk about anything ever?

Not everything is subjective, no.

If you want to go about analyzing something in a less subjective manner, and conclude this or that is "good" or "bad", provide an objective frame of reference to begin with. In other words, that thing is "good" or "bad" at something, for a particular purpose, according to a particular frame of reference you set up before you go about analyzing such a thing. Context, in other words.

Just saying "this or that module sucks" or "that module is 'objectively' better than that one because I like it better!" is shit.

Saying "as an introduction module, this module might be better than that one because it spells things out on how to set up the game more clearly, includes everything you will need to flip through the game session and is generally better laid out for this purpose" is something that has a more objective frame of reference, or set of criteria, people can judge from their own POV. If I don't want an intro module, if I don't care for the layout, or prefer products that do not spell everything out for me, then I'll know at least what CRITERIA you used to make your pronouncement.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624516How about from now on when someone says "It's good" you agree to translate it as "I liked it" and then maybe follow up with "Why did you like it?" instead of "good has no meaning."

How about you come to terms with the fact your tastes are not objective to begin with, and then try to provide a better, more objective frame of reference to whatever you're looking at, the comparisons and conclusions you are drawing from there, before I even have to ask that question? I don't know. Just an idea.

I dunno. I really haven't seen anything in OSR that comes close to the classic TSR modules.

I think it competes well with the 2nd tier TSR stuff, and is better than the stuff the came out in the later 1e and early 2e eras.

And the thing about Tomb of Horrors, while it has a reputation for being hard, it's certainly beatable. In his introduction to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, EGG mentions that the people he aimed it for (his players) beat it much to his chagrin, and that running at tournaments people sometimes came up with solutions he hadn't expected.

Indeed, I think that's what helped most early TSR modules - they had originally been written for tournaments and run for years before being published.

Though then again, some of the Basic/Expert modules presumably weren't and still are very good. Not so much B3, but B4 The Lost City is really a great module, I don't think anything in the OSR has touched it, same with X1 and X2.

Quote from: Benoist;624543Not everything is subjective, no.

On the other side of the coin, very few things are objective.  (Especially absolutes).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;624480Dude, they're iconic because they were widely played and well-known among gamers.

The comparison is not, which OSR modules reached the same number of gamers and the same longevity as TSR modules? but which OSR modules have a high level of name recognition and shared experience among OSR gamers?[/quote]

How much name recognition and shared experience did ToH have... in 1977, two years after it was first published? How much did WPM have in 1981, when it was two years old? Because one of the things name recognition and shared experience correlate with is how long the material has been around. Don't compare the shared experience of a 30+ years old module with those of a two year old product like ASE.

QuoteIs there a series of linked modules, like Giants, which get comparable buzz to ASE?

Ignoring the fact that ASE is a multi-part series, I suspect that linked adventure modules just don't have the same relevance today as they did back then. Today, we have the Internet with numerous forums and blogs providing all the inspiration for DMs they could ever need. There's no longer a demand for a published adventure series or "campaign path", because there are just so many more easily accessible tools for making your own.

QuoteOr particularly popular funhouse dungeons, like WPM, that get frequent mention?

Vornheim. Sure, it's a city not a dungeon, but then again, I could ask where the particularly popular funhouse cities are in the TSR product list. Same difference.

QuoteIt's not about numbers, dumbass; it's about shared experiences.

Shared experiences don't pop out of Zeus' head in full armament like Pallas Athena, dumbass. They need time to propagate and coagulate and the OSR at large is just too young to have any yet. Ask again in 10 years.

QuoteIf you want a real dungeon challenge with high level characters, that you're ready for multiple TPKs and just enjoy that kind of hardcore game experience, then ToH is stellar. It's also great to see what constitutes hardcore challenges in the game to not unknowingly emulate this kind of thing for rookie groups. It's a module I would recommend for anyone as part of a range of different models to use and build your own, with "here's a basic intro module, here's a big sandbox, here's this and that, and here's the hardcore made-to-be-a-PITA module." It is certainly not representative of the default game play, and shouldn't be construed as such, lest you want to be known as a rat bastard DM, but it's really great for what it is.

Well, exactly, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But, like you yourself have said, what ToH represents is just a narrow segment on the wide scale of what D&D is and does. What I dislike is when people hold it up as a shining paragon of D&D at large.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624516EDIT: Or we just all agree that Melan is the final arbiter of Good.

I only arbitrate important matters with a sword in my right and a signed waiver for all possible damages in my left.

Quote from: Premier;624556Well, exactly, and I'm perfectly fine with that. But, like you yourself have said, what ToH represents is just a narrow segment on the wide scale of what D&D is and does. What I dislike is when people hold it up as a shining paragon of D&D at large.

OK I get you. I think ToH is an amazing module, one of the great ones really, but the way it's been construed in some quarters as a default example of what dungeons ought to look like was a big, big fucking mistake to say the least. I wonder how many horrible stories of asshole killer DMs and the like are linked to this fucked up phenomenon, to be honest.

Quote from: K Peterson;624453Well, I'm making reference to Raggi's alleged comments about being "better than", and substituting "superior to".

I wouldn't make that assumption. Better than could just as easily mean more variety as it could mean superior product. Of course you do know that James Raggi uses hard selling as part of promoting his products. That perhaps he deliberately left it vague to get people talking.

All things being equal, I think the TSR products are more likely to be good for a random draw.  That is not a knock on the OSR that has produced some utterly amazing products.  Just that the variance in quality is higher for a bunch of labors of love.  

You also have the perspective of decades of play testing of D&D and a lot of false pathways.  But you also have more structure and a limited number of approaches that break the structure down.

Quote from: K Peterson;624450I just don't feel that the vast majority of Retroclones out there have taken techniques far enough to be that revolutionary. A smattering of houserules that tweak a recognized core is not an improvement, necessarily, over that recognized core.

Well the point of the OSR is to play older edition D&D not something like them. With that being said, many people have stated they prefer to use OSRIC at the table as they feel it is a superior reference than the original books.

And in the case of ACKS they layer several major subsystem on top of what is essentially B/X D&D. In the case of Lamentation of the Flame Princess their starting point is OD&D which if you read the original require a lot of interpretation. Nobody can run the 1974 rules by the book due to the bad presentation of the original rules. So with Lamentations Raggi took OD&D and published a well received interpretation.  

The mistake you are making is that you have to something like 3e or even D&D 4e in order to "innovate". Innovation comes in many different ways and forms.  International Chess used the sames rules for hundreds of years however a gamemaster transported from a century ago would see a very different game now. What the OSR is doing is pushing forward with the older editions.

With D&D being a roleplaying game there more areas where newer authors can be different, improve, or increase variety than International Chess.

Well the first thing you have to realize about Raggi is, he's the OSR's Skarka.  Which means, despite his skill (and he does have skill), you can't count on anything he actually says outside his work, because he'll be as intellectually dishonest as he needs to be to promote his brand, namely himself, and his company.  Anything said publicly is marketing. Period.

So taken with the grain of salt, is this ludicrous claim ludicrous or does he have a point?

Well, here's the way I see it.  Technology has given Kevin Crawford the ability on his laptop to do 3 times the work of TSR's entire publishing dept in 1974.  The internet allows people to collaborate and influence each other's work a thousand times faster then the TSR days.  

So yeah, obviously, with all the people in the OSR working, none of them relying on it as their primary income, of course you're gonna get more successful Hail Mary's when you have a hundred quarterbacks and none of them have to worry about interceptions, downs, or even score.

If there weren't some OSR products that surpassed some TSR products, then something would be seriously wrong.

However, this is kind of like arguing which 'Love is Blindness" is better, the original U2, or the new Jack White.  Even if you say the new Jack White version is better, without the U2 version, there would be no Jack White version to begin with.  Does that count for anything?

Raggi sounds like the snot-nosed punk who inherited everything from his dad then made a few bucks more claiming he's richer then his dad who built the whole damn thing from nothing.

So, for people who claim the OSR has surpassed TSR, tell me where is the OSR module or product that beats the TSR one in the same area.

Darlene's Map
Greyhawk - yeah the world
Forgotten Realms - yeah the world
Tomb of Horrors
B2
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks
Planescape (yeah as a coherent line of products delivering a setting)
Bargle, Graz'zt, Iggwilv, Iuz - Where's the iconic bad guys we'll remember 20 years later.

So being deliberately provocative here (as Raggi most certainly was) - The OSR so far has produced some frames with good lines, some decent suspension improvements, and a good blueprint for an engine.  Maybe at some point they want to actually try making a car before they clear a space on the mantle for the Motortrend calipers.  :D

As great as the OSR is (and it can be very great) at it's best, 99% of the OSR isn't even making cars or parts of a car, they're making aftermarket accessories.  To actually compare that to the real Renaissance is, Rob, and I love ya bro, pretty laughable.

Quote from: CRKrueger;624573So, for people who claim the OSR has surpassed TSR, tell me where is the OSR module or product that beats the TSR one in the same area.

Darlene's Map
Greyhawk - yeah the world
Forgotten Realms - yeah the world
Tomb of Horrors
B2
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks
Planescape (yeah as a coherent line of products delivering a setting)

So being deliberately provocative here (as Raggi most certainly was) - The OSR so far has produced some frames with good lines, some decent suspension improvements, and a good blueprint for an engine.  Maybe at some point they want to actually try making a car before they clear a space on the mantle for the Motortrend calipers.  :D

The OSR has yet to produce a "full setting", far as I know (and if I'm wrong, someone will be along to correct me shortly no doubt).  That's a fair point, although I don't think we'll get one.  The "OSR" hasn't been focusing on that end of things so far.  It might come, we'll see.

(We can now proceed to argue about what constitutes a 'full setting' I guess)

Quote from: VectorSigma;624576(We can now proceed to argue about what constitutes a 'full setting' I guess)

Plate, bowl, finger bowl, glass, napkin, 2 spoons, 3 forks, 2 knives...

Wait... I did that wrong, didn't I?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624580Plate, bowl, finger bowl, glass, napkin, 2 spoons, 3 forks, 2 knives...

Wait... I did that wrong, didn't I?

Wanna be Gamist!  Take your abstracted rules and go back to the Tea Party!
It's not 3 forks, it's Dinner Fork, Fish Fork and Salad Fork.

Quote from: estar;624569Well the point of the OSR is to play older edition D&D not something like them. With that being said, many people have stated they prefer to use OSRIC at the table as they feel it is a superior reference than the original books.

I'm sure that the original intention of the OSR was the strict celebration of TSR D&D. But, I think that point has shifted over the years, at least from the perspective of the OSR-consumer. When your average Big-Purpler thinks of the OSR I think they're more inclined to think of S&W, DCC, LL, and ACKS - in-print rules sets that are "cleaned-up" variations of TSR D&D.

QuoteThe mistake you are making is that you have to something like 3e or even D&D 4e in order to "innovate". Innovation comes in many different ways and forms.

Oh, no. No, no. I would never make that statement, or make that mistake. Trust me.

Let me be clear: I'm not a 3.x fan, or "4venger", or consider either to include innovative game designs compared to what has come before. I'm not an 'enemy' of the OSR; I own a number of OSR products - good and bad - and have read about every retroclone out there. Hell, I've played a lot more d100/BRP/RQ over the years than any version of D&D. IMO, one of the best innovations of OD&D came when Steve Perrin tweaked the hell out of it and produced Chaosium RuneQuest. ;)

The innovations I'm referring to can be found in products like DCC, Crypts & Things (to an extent), and the various product lines from Sine Nomine. OSR products that have taken the core of OD&D/BD&D and produced something remarkable from it. Emulated a style of fiction, or tweaked the core to match up with a particular genre (like Other Dust).

There are a shit-ton of retroclones out there now that model whatever edition of TSR D&D a consumer wants to experience. And I don't think that the majority are "better than" their TSR inspiration. For the games to be better, IMO, they need to offer more than just better editing, clarity, and bolted-on houserules.

For my dollar (which is the one true American god), the OSR mags like Fight On! and Knockspell are far better than Dragon or other RPG mags from the early days of the hobby. I love Judges Guild's Pegasus, but I am getting a FAR greater ROI today from the OSR mags.

I would love for the OSR to develop a "legendary" adventure module that was so totally kickass that people talked about it on the forums with such excitement than thousands of players tried it out year after year.

That would rock. We don't have that yet.
 

Quote from: VectorSigma;624485I have to wonder how the "OSR" would react to a series of linked modules like 'Giants', though.  Would they scream 'adventure path' and run for the hills?

There would be mixed reactions, but if it was a good series, it would develop attention and a following.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624516If everything is subjective then why talk about anything ever?

Can't masturbate to porn all day long. Sometimes a man's gotta give his schlong a break and just start typing arguments with people he's never gonna meet.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624537Plus, no OSR has yet to touch the awesomeness that was Planescape.

I have yet not to find a setting I enjoyed as much as Planescape.

That said, Carcosa rocks and its amazing fun.

Quote from: JeremyR;624546And the thing about Tomb of Horrors, while it has a reputation for being hard, it's certainly beatable. In his introduction to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, EGG mentions that the people he aimed it for (his players) beat it much to his chagrin, and that running at tournaments people sometimes came up with solutions he hadn't expected.

Hell yeah!

I think it would be difficult to measure--or beat--TSR's contribution to RPGs. And it's silly to suggest a bunch of amateur TSR fans have managed to outdo them in just a few years of sporadically making stuff in between handling their real jobs.

However, for a GM and group familiar with neither, I think there are a few OSR products that could totally pass the Pepsi challenge vs their TSR cognates in 2013 and not just because of advances in technology or changes in RPG fashion.

We don't get to decide the circumstances and conditions which we make stuff under--all we get to do is decide what we're gonna do with the situation we've got. And by that light, I think the OSR is batting about as well as anyone else--including many professionals.

Quote from: VectorSigma;624576(We can now proceed to argue about what constitutes a 'full setting' I guess)

As in a kitchen sink?

I do think the OSR--whatever the fuck that is--has produced more interesting settings than the ones TSR did in exactly the same way that homebrewed settings in the 70s and 80s were more interesting than the ones TSR did.

Quote from: ggroy;624591As in a kitchen sink?

Oh, I don't know, really.  I assumed somebody would quibble.  We're like that around here.

I'm not a big fan of either Greyhawk or the FR (the two setting products cited), although I've stolen from both of them over the years.

To make things more interesting, you might put it this way:

The core rules, the DMG and the Monster Manual (and the good Fiend Folio stuff like the Drow) are such an achievement they murderize any competition right out of the gate.

But if we assume those don't count and ask how much anyone managed to do with those building blocks per man hour: I think Games Workshop, Judge's Guild, TSR and all the production of amateur fans as a whole are in a dead heat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

Perhaps James Raggi intended only to say his product was superior to TSR's but got carried away.

Such generalizations are only valid from the mouths of universally respected critics but the OSR is such a mediocre enterprise that it is not likely any time soon to attract the critical gaze of anyone whose instinct for good taste would be welcomed far and wide.

In the meantime we must make do, suffer even, the opinions of James Raggi and persons such as 'RPGpundit'.

Quote from: talysman;624510Could someone track down that Raggi post from a year or two ago when he made the claim about the OSR being better than the TSR and post the link here? So that maybe we could find out what he meant and what his criteria were?

OK, a couple pages went by, and no one posted the link, so I went and dug it up:

LotFP: osr-is-better-than-tsr (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2010/07/osr-is-better-than-tsr.html)

And, rereading it to refresh my memory, I see he's saying these things:

• Clearer language, formatting, and usefulness.
• The classic TSR modules are safe from being toppled from their perch, but there's a larger number of decent OSR modules... "Even the worst of the OSR published adventures are better than the worst of the TSR adventures".
• OSR supplemental material "certainly is better than the Treasure & Monster Assortments and the Geomorphs of days past."
• Dragon was better, but not exclusively focused on one game or a small range of games, while there are several D&D-focused OSR zines.
• More variety, because more publishers, compared to TSR trying to focus its brand.

There are some caveats to the first four. Yeah, because of technology, the OSR stuff can look pretty good and is sometimes designed to be more useful, but I'm not completely on board with the language of every OSR publisher. And comparing the best OSR supplements to the very first, most basic supplemental material from TSR is kinda dirty. And Fight On! is not as laser-beam focused on one type of game as Raggi lets on. But I think his main point is the last one, since he spends a little more time on it. He's saying the OSR is better than TSR because it has a wider variety of material, because it's not a single business, but a huge number of small press publishers, each doing what they want.

In that sense, I think he's mostly right.

Interesting that the post is from July of 2010 and predates a great number of interesting 'OSR' releases.

f.y.i. Will Graham is Kent.

Quote from: Zak S;624625f.y.i. Will Graham is Kent.

I'm not an expert Kent spotter, but that's what I figured.

Is 'Kent' an acronym? Is it a good thing?

Quote from: estar;624569Well the point of the OSR is to play older edition D&D not something like them.

This is true only for the AD&D Revival segment of the OSR. They are the largest block of the OSR, but certainly not the only voice.  

I love that the OSR has created new, interesting and often better versions of the classic editions. And even more important, the OSR has produced some badass original games as well.

Quote from: Zak S;624590And by that light, I think the OSR is batting about as well as anyone else--including many professionals.

Many of the DIY garage publishers (OSR, storygamers, etc) compete very well against the 2nd tier RPG publishers in terms of quality.

It's worth pointing out when the Monster and Treasure Assortment was vastly more useful in the days before you could randomly generate monster encounters and their associated treasure in an instant using a web page. There are several breeds of supplement which were really useful back in the day but only had that utility because most DMs didn't have home computers.

TSR, that's still a boring question. It gets asked all the time, and people bring it up because TSR is their big reference point. Show me this generation's City State of the Invincible Overlord. Something with so much massive applicability. Keep on the Borderlands has been remade a dozen times. We get it, it is a great basic module. But let it rest already.

Dark Tower.
Thieves' Guild.
That sort of thing.

(Note, they were rare gems in their time, too: most of the 3rd party supplements I have collected from that period are not any better than today's average product... and that's putting it very mildly. A lot of them are worth less than the paper they are printed on. At least a PDF is a victimless crime.)

Quote from: Melan;624676TSR, that's still a boring question. It gets asked all the time, and people bring it up because TSR is their big reference point. Show me this generation's City State of the Invincible Overlord.

If that's the mark, I'll never get near it.

City State is great if what you want is City State (as are Ptolus and Haven, much in the same vein), but I really don't. That niche is filled.

Thracia or Dark Tower? That I can see some current OSR lights making a run at.

Quote from: Melan;624676Show me this generation's City State of the Invincible Overlord.

The problem is that people are imitating past glories literally, and these imitations are being praised, rather than writing original works, originality which CSIO had and the Gygax modules had in their day.

Most of your stuff Melan is not very original: ordinary maps with numbered lists of locations with monsters in them. Im not sure how you have ended up as a spokesman on this subject.

People should be on the lookout for originality, that is how the old days can be matched. Vornheim is original at least even if it has many failings and so is some sort of example to look at, setting a low standard to be improved on.

Next time, I will be asking for your kind permission.

Quote from: Will Graham;624693Im not sure how you have ended up as a spokesman on this subject.

Uh ... it's derived from his avatar, obviously.

I don't think OSR released will ever eclipse TSR releases, for one solid reason--the various OSR camps are not really united and there's a lot of separate threads, branches, etc.

TSR had a very short product list in its first decade.  When AD&D was up and running I think the average was 2-4 modules released every year before the early 80s.  Outside of Judges Guild (the only authorized module maker), which did not have the same marketplace penetration as TSR, most gamers who played D&D would know the TSR output.

However, that's based on a singular market.  Now that D&D has become "open source", for lack of a better term, there are many variants--and no central force.  Dozens of blogs, sites, message boards, and publishers all sort of fracture the audience.  As more people embrace the "long tail", the amount of central attention one items gets is less so.

That's probably also why as TSR expanded, there were less "classics", as they were fracturing their own audiences with different campaign settings.  People have limited budgets, and would then pick and choose their favorites, but there wasn't a major expansion of the pool.  So, less of a shared experience.

I also think part of the problem is that the "classics" are better set in your mind when you are younger and don't have years of experience and sometimes jaded cynicism appear.  They say the "golden age" is "12", and I suspect a person who has been involved with D&D for over 30 years is likely not going to have the same sense of wonder reading a new release than they did back in 1980 reading Tomb of Horrors or Vault of the Drow.  And I can't see many of these OSR releases being aimed at the brand new gamer.

James Raggi is a self-aggrandizing circus clown.  What he meant when he said "The OSR is better than TSR" (and he said it years ago, but hey, Pundit, you've gotta drive forum traffic right?) was "I'm better than TSR" which was his attempt at an annual "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus Christ." moment.  Then later when his star began to fade (again) he hooked up with child rapefic author Geoffery Mckinney and published Carcosa (ooo controversiaaaaaal!) and, once that charge had spent itself, he published the orange turd from beyond (that's what's on the cover, take it up with him) where apparently microscopic silver surfers can actually prevent you from DMing ever again so long as you live if you play his module.  Yes, that's really in there.

So, no, the "R" isn't better than TSR - it never was, never is, and isn't close to it.  It's Raggi getting people looking at him by saying it.  Even if the actual question would merit discussion, there is no B2, G1-3, S1 through S4, WG4, A series, C1 or C2, D1-3, etc. etc. anywhere in the "R".

Quote from: Melan;624676Show me this generation's City State of the Invincible Overlord.

I will be taking a stab at this .. eventually. My problem is that I don't scale much beyond one or two products a year. And for the really big products the work is doesn't grow linearly but rises much higher which I am sure you know from Tegal Manor. Plus for City-State the existence of the CSIO hardback from Necromancer means I put my version at the end of the list.

Quote from: Melan;624676Thieves' Guild.

Now that is something I been working on and it will come out sooner rather than later. :D

What I am planning over the next two years is releasing a series of follow-ons to the Majestic Wilderlands taking each of the four core classes (Fighter, magic-users, clerics, and thieves) and writing a supplement based on the stuff I ran for 30 years and recently that focuses on that general area. What I plan for the Wilderness and Adventure section is a detailing locales, mini-adventures, and mini-settings that pertain that class.

One of them is the Lost Book of Magic some of which I already previewed on my Blog and within Scourge of the Demon Wolf.

However I think there been a lot of creativity poured into translating D&D into other genres. However there are things like Spear at Dawn, and the upcoming Arrows of Indra that I think expand D&D in the way the best of Judges Guild material did and are every bit as useful.

Quote from: estar;624739I will be taking a stab at this .. eventually.

I too have an idea for something comparable (yet quite different). But that's not going to happen right now.

Quote from: Will Graham;624693The problem is that people are imitating past glories literally, and these imitations are being praised, rather than writing original works, originality which CSIO had and the Gygax modules had in their day.

You do realize that the point of the OSR is to play older editions of D&D not other games? Are you going to criticize the Traveller Mailing List for not talking about anything else other than Traveller. Or the GURPS forum at SJ Game for not talking about anything other than GURPS. Or Lythia.com for not posting anything else other than Harn material?

The problem you are describing is considered a feature by many. In addition you are a aware that as of May of 2012 there has been 700+ products (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar9Wm_5gI_1TdGlyZHpwRHFoU2pEMng0NkhqTlJEYmc#gid=0) that have been released and targets a older edition of D&D. That of those 700+ products, only 31 are rule system or retro-clones as people like to call them.

Quote from: Will Graham;624693Most of your stuff Melan is not very original: ordinary maps with numbered lists of locations with monsters in them. Im not sure how you have ended up as a spokesman on this subject.

You do realize there is a difference between format and content. Are you going to criticize say Game of Throne for the fact it is printed in a boring single column format on paper bound into a book? Or that it just one more series set is a pseudo medieval setting?

Obviously Game of Thrones managed to rise above similar novels due its content. Melan is respected because he takes older formats and older themes and makes them fresh with interesting ideas, places, and NPCs.

Quote from: Will Graham;624693People should be on the lookout for originality, that is how the old days can be matched. Vornheim is original at least even if it has many failings and so is some sort of example to look at, setting a low standard to be improved on.

Here are your tools to prove us wrong.

Scribus
Abiword
Inkscape or Gimp
Lulu, or RPGNow
Ghostscript
The D20 SRD

The use of these items will allow you to create a product to show the rest of us how it is done. Then at the end of the year, we can compare sales or download figures and see how well it worked out.

There are no gatekeepers to stop you from doing how it ought be done. And if you ask nicely some people may help with areas that you may not have the skills for like art, cartography, or layout.

This illustrates an important point about the OSR, that whatever slice you see is the result of what somebody WANTED to do. The secondmost important feature of the OSR is that it is a do it yourself culture. That what it is a result of those who DO.

Quote from: Benoist;624743I too have an idea for something comparable (yet quite different). But that's not going to happen right now.

Another possibility is what I was going to do before I secured the Judges Guild License. Strip out the JG Content, draw a new map, and release it as part of the vague setting that is behind my Points of Light/hexcrawl stuff.

A link to the rough map draft of Eastgate  (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/SqH85OhoPOI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/diDEAvAYLfQ/s1600/City+State+of+Eastgate.jpg)

It has an appeal because my version is more Harn-like than the original. The gonzo elements have been mostly discarded in various of politics and factional struggles. Although I still have stuff like vampires in the sewers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;624656This is true only for the AD&D Revival segment of the OSR. They are the largest block of the OSR, but certainly not the only voice.

First off B/X D&D, and OD&D both have revival segments of their own. AD&D is not the only older edition to get special treatment.

Second it not a sharp dividing line. The center of the cloud that is the OSR is the older editions of D&D. 700+ products have been release that specifically target those editions. Many more have been released that are near-clone or similar feel.

The further you get away from the older edition the less useful the OSR become in trying to get more sales, more downloads or more views. Eventually if the differences are large enough the person is the same boat as anybody else in trying to promote a new RPG.  

Quote from: Spinachcat;624656I love that the OSR has created new, interesting and often better versions of the classic editions. And even more important, the OSR has produced some badass original games as well.

Most people in the OSR are interested in a wide variety of games. I like GURPS and Harn. Dan Proctor has managed to acquire a bunch of older games in different genres and released new editions based of D&D engine.

Quote from: estar;624747Another possibility is what I was going to do before I secured the Judges Guild License. Strip out the JG Content, draw a new map, and release it as part of the vague setting that is behind my Points of Light/hexcrawl stuff.

A link to the rough map draft of Eastgate  (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/SqH85OhoPOI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/diDEAvAYLfQ/s1600/City+State+of+Eastgate.jpg)

It has an appeal because my version is more Harn-like than the original. The gonzo elements have been mostly discarded in various of politics and factional struggles. Although I still have stuff like vampires in the sewers.

I have no doubt that it would be great to see such a product come to life! :)

I disagree with the idea bandied about before that "the niche for such products has been filled". We're basically talking about settings, here, and just like I can't have enough variations on the concept of the underworld setting (aka the mega-dungeon), I can't get enough cities, can't get enough baronies and kingdoms and whatnot to play with. I think there's such a potential for this kind of product to be declined in oh-so-many-ways that they've proven in spades, over the last 40 years almost, that you can really do something like this in many, many different ways.

And yeah, that does mean that some of these do suck, only ape what preceded them without really doing anything original in and of themselves, and the like. But if after settings like CSIO, Pavis, Night City and so many others you can still have a Ptolus in the 2000s, I'm confident you can still have original city settings that represent great added value for the actual game table. I have no doubt of that.

Quote from: Benoist;624753And yeah, that does mean that some of these do suck, only ape what preceded them without really doing anything original in and of themselves, and the like. But if after settings like CSIO, Pavis, Night City and so many others you can still have a Ptolus in the 2000s, I'm confident you can still have original city settings that represent great added value for the actual game table. I have no doubt of that.

The way I view it is that we are detailing worlds here with all kinds of possibilities. I think we just scratch the surface even using the tropes that been beaten to death. All it takes a fresh perspective and an interesting idea to make something old seem fresh again.

Look at the Romance genre, soap operas, etc. You think they done all they can but they keep churning out new material every year. And every once awhile a gem seems pops up. For me this is illustrated by Downton Abbey. I usually go in for period drama but there is something compelling about watching that show.

Quote from: ggroy;624436Did 2E AD&D produce any outstanding modules?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;624515Night Below is highly lauded.

Quote from: Piestrio;624517Night below is amazing.

FRQ1 Haunted Halls of Eveningstar is basically 2e's (and FR's) answer to T1 Village of Hommlet.  Niftly little village-and-dungeon package, with a nice mini gazetteer to the surrounding region rolled in to boot.

Of course, there's Undermountain (which is firmly in the "toolkit with a starter germ" school, requiring some DM investment to get the most out of it, so YMMV).

Also, I haven't run it myself, but Dragon Mountain gets a lot of attention.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;624736James Raggi is a self-aggrandizing circus clown.  What he meant when he said "The OSR is better than TSR" (and he said it years ago, but hey, Pundit, you've gotta drive forum traffic right?) was "I'm better than TSR" which was his attempt at an annual "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus Christ." moment.  Then later when his star began to fade (again) he hooked up with child rapefic author Geoffery Mckinney and published Carcosa (ooo controversiaaaaaal!) and, once that charge had spent itself, he published the orange turd from beyond (that's what's on the cover, take it up with him) where apparently microscopic silver surfers can actually prevent you from DMing ever again so long as you live if you play his module.  Yes, that's really in there.

So, no, the "R" isn't better than TSR - it never was, never is, and isn't close to it.  It's Raggi getting people looking at him by saying it.  Even if the actual question would merit discussion, there is no B2, G1-3, S1 through S4, WG4, A series, C1 or C2, D1-3, etc. etc. anywhere in the "R".

I never thought I'd agree with you on anything, but here I am. His best contribution to D&D was publishing Vornheim, which is one of only a handful of OSR products I can think of that matches the creativity of TSR's best campaign settings.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;624804Also, I haven't run it myself, but Dragon Mountain gets a lot of attention.

It reads much better than it plays. I wasn't directly involved, but my friends played it, and it is essentially the Tucker's kobolds encounter repeated 50 times in succession. Actually, in the late 2e period, there were multiple products being sold as "the good old dungeon crawl, just like you remember it", which all seemed to miss the point.

The first Undermountain set is good, though, as long as it is bought with the understanding that it is a toolkit and not a full-blown, ready-made megadungeon. I got a lot out of it as both GM and player. The sequels are better off avoided.

Quote from: Melan;624806It reads much better than it plays. I wasn't directly involved, but my friends played it, and it is essentially the Tucker's kobolds encounter repeated 50 times in succession. Actually, in the late 2e period, there were multiple products being sold as "the good old dungeon crawl, just like you remember it", which all seemed to miss the point.

The first Undermountain set is good, though, as long as it is bought with the understanding that it is a toolkit and not a full-blown, ready-made megadungeon. I got a lot out of it as both GM and player. The sequels are better off avoided.

Again, if Dragon Mountain and Undermountain are the standard--I am not in that race at all.

I mean, Tuckers Kobolds are cool and all, but a multi-part megadungeon with pretty much nothing but warring clans of them is profoundly ill-conceived and Dragon Mountain is pretty much a bright glaring "Do The Opposite Of The Way This Works Always" sign.

Ditto Undermountain:

"
A DM perusing Ruins of Undermountain, comes across this message and eagerly leans forward:
"This is a complex encounter; the DM must be totally familiar with everything in this room before the PCs begin exploring the area."
What have we here? Sounds cuh-Rayzeee...Oh: A vampire with a lot of spells, and some other undead helping him. And pillars that trap you if you touch them. And some pits. What's in the pits? Zombies.

And in case you're wondering: the pillars don't work on the undead, so that's a layer of possible complexity (pointlessly) removed. Is there any self-respecting D&D-playing 12-year old anywhere who couldn't have thought of that on their own? Does that not sound exactly how Chad Blerkenwald killed your dwarf fighter in 8th grade?

Next room: a necrophidius in a partially magic-proof room. Next Medusas: 3 of them. You paid money for this. Couldn't they have just had a line in the Monster Manual: "Medusae occasionally appear in rooms".
"

Are those fun encounters? HELLS YEAH.

Is that a standard of creativity I couldn't see Shear or Scrap or James or Joey or Natalie or Matt Finch meeting if they sat down and wrote some rooms? Hells no.

Quote from: Zak S;624813Next Medusas: 3 of them. You paid money for this. Couldn't they have just had a line in the Monster Manual: "Medusae occasionally appear in rooms".

:rotfl:

Luckily, I never did pay money for this.

Quote from: Zak S;624813Ditto Undermountain:

"
A DM perusing Ruins of Undermountain, comes across this message and eagerly leans forward:
"This is a complex encounter; the DM must be totally familiar with everything in this room before the PCs begin exploring the area."
What have we here? Sounds cuh-Rayzeee...Oh: A vampire with a lot of spells, and some other undead helping him. And pillars that trap you if you touch them. And some pits. What's in the pits? Zombies.

And in case you're wondering: the pillars don't work on the undead, so that's a layer of possible complexity (pointlessly) removed. Is there any self-respecting D&D-playing 12-year old anywhere who couldn't have thought of that on their own? Does that not sound exactly how Chad Blerkenwald killed your dwarf fighter in 8th grade?

Next room: a necrophidius in a partially magic-proof room. Next Medusas: 3 of them. You paid money for this. Couldn't they have just had a line in the Monster Manual: "Medusae occasionally appear in rooms".
"

Are those fun encounters? HELLS YEAH.

Is that a standard of creativity I couldn't see Shear or Scrap or James or Joey or Natalie or Matt Finch meeting if they sat down and wrote some rooms? Hells no.

That's kind of where I see Undermountain's niche - it's a big outline with a small germ of creativity, and it's up to the DM to brew that germ into a full batch.  Given when it came out (an era when dungeons were considered gauche and passe, never mind huge ones), it's a worthwhile exercise.

I've noticed a trend - most of Ed's best stuff is a framework, and a bunch of tidbits that boil down to, "Here's how I did it when I did it.  You have fun."  Just a glimpse of his DM style (largely improvisational, with a real tendency to "give big, take away big", and lots of NPCs), with the caveat that you can do whatever the hell you want.  Some people need that advice, some don't.  *shrug*

Quote from: Zak S;624813Are those fun encounters? HELLS YEAH.

Is that a standard of creativity I couldn't see Shear or Scrap or James or Joey or Natalie or Matt Finch meeting if they sat down and wrote some rooms? Hells no.

Though I agree with you on the idea that original encounters are naturally more "interesting" to deal with, I think that these are somewhat overrated. What might be thought of today on some forum or G+ discussion as "boring" is actually an integral part of the shared experience the game provides, and its effectiveness in game design shouldn't be underestimated.

What I mean is that this encounter with kobolds in the dungeon, or that attack of the orcs on the village, are part of that thing that makes you nod as you play the game and think "alright, I am playing Dungeons & Dragons right now!"

Likewise, "boring" encounters just mean that you have a chance to actually play the game in a neutral setting environment, and that too can be a lot of fun if it's not repeated over and over again (assuming the DM and players aren't playing out of their way to not have fun with the combat).

So, certainly, the value of originality in setups, situations, environments and potential allies and enemies is obvious, but I do think that there's some intrinsic value to the basic, "normal" encounter setups as well, and it's easy to forget that. It depends what you are after in terms of game play when you design your dungeon. Sometimes traditional vanilla is what people really want out of the dungeon. Other times, they'll want a lot of weird situations, encounters with a lot of moving parts and the like. Most of the time, I believe, players and DMs will welcome a mix of the two.

Quote from: Benoist;624823Though I agree with you on the idea that original encounters are naturally more "interesting" to deal with, I think that these are somewhat overrated. What might be thought of today on some forum or G+ discussion as "boring" is actually an integral part of the shared experience the game provides, and its effectiveness in game design shouldn't be underestimated.

What I mean is that this encounter with kobolds in the dungeon, or that attack of the orcs on the village, are part of that thing that makes you nod as you play the game and think "alright, I am playing Dungeons & Dragons right now!"

I think Zak's point isn't that published products shouldn't include simple fight-y threats, but that devoting a lot of detail to simple fight-y threats (and making that the bulk of a product) is basically phoning it in.

Quote from: Zak S;624813Ditto Undermountain:
...
Is there any self-respecting D&D-playing 12-year old anywhere who couldn't have thought of that on their own? Does that not sound exactly how Chad Blerkenwald killed your dwarf fighter in 8th grade?

Perhaps. To be honest, my perspective on Undermountain is coloured by GMing it when I was in 8th grade, and filling much of the first level with my own encounters, including elaborate traps, rival NPC parties and new sub-levels. It could be nostalgia - after all, my most vivid memory of running it is when the PCs brought up a charmed bulette to the inn above the dungeon and all hell broke loose - but there is also the off chance Undermountain has something that encourages 8th graders to expand on the boxed set's contents, which would make it a good toolset.

Quote from: talysman;624829I think Zak's point isn't that published products shouldn't include simple fight-y threats, but that devoting a lot of detail to simple fight-y threats (and making that the bulk of a product) is basically phoning it in.

Depends on the kind of detail, I'd wager.

Quote from: talysman;624829I think Zak's point isn't that published products shouldn't include simple fight-y threats, but that devoting a lot of detail to simple fight-y threats (and making that the bulk of a product) is basically phoning it in.

That is exactly what I mean.

Those TSR modules are fun--they are not, however, a very high standard once you strip out stuff that's already in the MM and DMG.

"A kobold shows up" is a worthy encounter.

"A kobold shows up and it takes you 3 paragraphs of descriptions of cupboards to read that to your players and you paid money for it" was TSR standard.

Watch:

"120. Kitchen. This place is 20' x 30' OH MY GOD THAT'S ON THE MAP DO I NEED IT HERE TOO?...."Within the darkest recesses of the..." HOW ABOUT A SNAKE? "...fireplace dwells a giant poisonous snake. It is coiled and..."IT'LL ATTACK AND THERE'S SOME LAME TREASURE LYING AROUND "may strike by surprise (50% chance). It has not eaten for a long time, and is very hungry. It can strike to 8 foot range, half its length, and attacks any creature coming within that range. Near the ogre skeleton is a usable shortsword (its "dagger") and a leather sack containing 84 gp. These are hidden under a small pile of nondescript debris. The ten-foot-square rooms were used for crockery storage and food storage, respectively for the south and west areas. Their contents are broken and smashed; food- stuffs are spoiled."

Thanks, 240-word room description! It's hard to figure why anyone uses these dungeons: it takes more time to read and prepare them with a highlighter than it would take to make an equally involved dungeon on your own.
"

In terms of useful ideas per word used and per constant dollar paid I think the OSR is doing very well.

I've read all the TSR megadungeons all the way through and got about as many new ideas out of all of them put together as I did from Dungeon Alphabet by itself. That's sad as fuck.

Quote from: ggroy;624436Did 2E AD&D produce any outstanding modules?

The Night Below campaign was excellent - better than anything I've come across in the OSR.

Quote from: Will Graham;624693Most of your stuff Melan is not very original: ordinary maps with numbered lists of locations with monsters in them. Im not sure how you have ended up as a spokesman on this subject.

I can only assume you haven't read Zothay. It's as cool a sword and sorcery city as you'll find published anywhere.

Quote from: Zak S;624855"120. Kitchen. This place is 20' x 30' (...) Within the darkest recesses of the (...) fireplace dwells a giant poisonous snake. It is coiled and (...) may strike by surprise (50% chance). It has not eaten for a long time, and is very hungry. It can strike to 8 foot range, half its length, and attacks any creature coming within that range. Near the ogre skeleton is a usable shortsword (its "dagger") and a leather sack containing 84 gp. These are hidden under a small pile of nondescript debris. The ten-foot-square rooms were used for crockery storage and food storage, respectively for the south and west areas. Their contents are broken and smashed; food- stuffs are spoiled."

Rewrite this entry in your own style, please (without the bullshit commentary), so I can get an idea of what you are talking about.

Quote from: Benoist;624957Rewrite this entry in your own style, please (without the bullshit commentary), so I can get an idea of what you are talking about.

How about:

120 Ruined kitchen: broken crockery, ruined food, debris covered floor, cold fireplace.
Monster: giant snake, surprise 50%, hides in fireplace
Treasure: ogre skeleton under debris has shortsword and sack with 280 gp.

I could bold and italic a few words to make it easier to use but im posting from my phone.

Fascinating blurb about room descriptions. It's one of the reasons I find so many modules to be poor products. I prefer a more cohesive region design, a la Castlevania/Metroid regions. Then recommend a table of preferred monsters for that region. Then sprinkle a recommendation of special mobs who may prefer certain rooms.

Like, the hungry giant snake is an interesting idea, but does it need to be in that room instead of wandering? The 'lame treasure' of dagger and gold by the orc & debris could also be relegated to a regional table. The room layout description is nice, though the comment on spoiled food is unnecessary.

Basically, give me a feel for the background, its reason for being, and make it colorful and inspiring. Then give me regional tables for monsters and treasure. Lastly you can give me generic monster and treasure to allocate. But pre-seeded it becomes a pain to read holistically because you have to read it all to make sense of it.

Wait... how can a cover band be better than the band they're trying to emulate? I mean I can understand starting there and then moving to form its own style (indie games), but the OSR is specifically designed to replicate that old black TSR magic, and if it fails to do that, it's not OSR. It's like a lounge singer. It's not supposed to be innovative, just refined.

Does not compute.

I don't like the word debris. Not evocative. I like the broken crockery though.

The monster is a snake. Why would we have an ogre skeleton? We assume he failed his poison save, but how does the snake eat?

Is it some weird fantasy snake with serrated jaws that rips off the meat? Or is more earthly and swallows its prey, digests it and craps out the rest?

And the spoiled food? How long has this kitchen been ruined? Food rots away pretty fast.

When I am playing Warhammer Quest, I don't care about this stuff. But it matters to me when I am playing a RPG.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;624991Wait... how can a cover band be better than the band they're trying to emulate?

There are plenty of covers better than the original song.

Quote from: Spinachcat;624994There are plenty of covers better than the original song.

And plenty that aren't, too.
Glee's pretty hit and miss on that, for my liking.
(I'm like 60/40, while my wife is 90/10, for hit-to-miss ratio)

Quote from: Spinachcat;624993I don't like the word debris. Not evocative. I like the broken crockery though.

The monster is a snake. Why would we have an ogre skeleton? We assume he failed his poison save, but how does the snake eat?

Is it some weird fantasy snake with serrated jaws that rips off the meat? Or is more earthly and swallows its prey, digests it and craps out the rest?

And the spoiled food? How long has this kitchen been ruined? Food rots away pretty fast.

When I am playing Warhammer Quest, I don't care about this stuff. But it matters to me when I am playing a RPG.

All these details are useful but can be made up by any GM with half a brain on the spot, so unless something else in the dungeon refers to them (it doesn't) then there's no need to include them as something to be read.

A good version of this room would read:

120. Ruined/vandalized Kitchen. Ogre skeleton. Hidden: snake, 8ft long, sack w/84gp. Shortsword (ogre's "dagger").

Is that dull? YES.
Is it any more dull than the original room? NO.
Is it easier for a GM to use in play (this is a megadungeon)? YES.
Are there any details missing a GM could not invent? NO.
Does it leave way more time and space for the actually interesting stuff that's worth evocative prose? YES.

Quote from: Spinachcat;624994There are plenty of covers better than the original song.

But better in what way?

I find a lot of RPGs deliver the things old D&D promised more effectively than old D&D for me. But those are indie games! And people are very divided on which D&D is better. Some don't even consider them to be the same thing at all, and yet those are all covers of the original that evolved past it.

Also keep in mind that the OSR is more like a bunch of cover bands, not artists who are defined by their own individual identity. So it's not a case of Johnny Cash singing Trent Reznor's 'hurt', it a case of a band specifically hired to sound like a band someone is already familiar with and deliver a known quantity. And the farther you get from that, the farther you get from the very definition of OSR.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625015Also keep in mind that the OSR is more like a bunch of cover bands, not artists who are defined by their own individual identity. So it's not a case of Johnny Cash singing Trent Reznor's 'hurt', it a case of a band specifically hired to sound like a band someone is already familiar with and deliver a known quantity. And the farther you get from that, the farther you get from the very definition of OSR.

Not defined by their own individual identity! Wow! With that take on old school gaming, why even try to offer counter-examples? You are damned either way.

The answer, of course, is 'I don't game for you and your unrealistic/bad-faith expectations.'

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625015But better in what way?

I find a lot of RPGs deliver the things old D&D promised more effectively than old D&D for me. But those are indie games! And people are very divided on which D&D is better. Some don't even consider them to be the same thing at all, and yet those are all covers of the original that evolved past it.

Also keep in mind that the OSR is more like a bunch of cover bands, not artists who are defined by their own individual identity. So it's not a case of Johnny Cash singing Trent Reznor's 'hurt', it a case of a band specifically hired to sound like a band someone is already familiar with and deliver a known quantity. And the farther you get from that, the farther you get from the very definition of OSR.

It's weird there are still these indie-game lunatics who think the OSR's job is to imitate TSR staggering around. Like, you would've thought they all woulda die tongue-fucking electrical sockets by now.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625015Also keep in mind that the OSR is more like a bunch of cover bands, not artists who are defined by their own individual identity. So it's not a case of Johnny Cash singing Trent Reznor's 'hurt', it a case of a band specifically hired to sound like a band someone is already familiar with and deliver a known quantity. And the farther you get from that, the farther you get from the very definition of OSR.

So, what TSR modules was Raggi "covering" with Monolith Beyond Space and Time or The God That Crawls?

Which TSR-era city pack is Vornheim like?

Inform me as to the TSR-era setting that Trey Causey's Weird Adventures is aping, please.  

Is there a comparable TSR version of Goblinoid's Realms of Crawling Chaos?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625015Also keep in mind that the OSR is more like a bunch of cover bands, not artists who are defined by their own individual identity.

Either your definition of OSR is far more restrictive than mine, or you're an incredible idiot.  I'm going to presume the former.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;624991Wait... how can a cover band be better than the band they're trying to emulate? I mean I can understand starting there and then moving to form its own style (indie games), but the OSR is specifically designed to replicate that old black TSR magic, and if it fails to do that, it's not OSR. It's like a lounge singer. It's not supposed to be innovative, just refined.

Does not compute.

That is indicative that you likely aren't getting the entire range of OSR products, and just how diverse they are.

First, there is no overarching goal to directly mimic TSR products. It is not, as you put it, "specifically designed" to do anything. Yeah, there are some that are very derivative of older products, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of works out there that have taken some basic assumptions and gone in countless different directions with it.

If you were of a mind to read items like Vornheim, Raggi's modules, Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands, you would see different mindsets, not in lockstep, all putting their own spin on gaming--some more traditional, certainly, but some way, way out there. Products like Spears of the Dawn, Hulks & Horrors, and Stars Without Number take a classic gaming feel in new directions.

There continues to be this sneering that the sum of the OSR is simply rehash plus nostalgia. It simply isn't so, and it's far too diverse a group, and too creative an output, to be dismissed as some lockstep fanaticism to the past or simply mimicking the input of a single company. Frankly, that demonstrates a lack of knowledge as to what's really out there.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625015But better in what way?

I find a lot of RPGs deliver the things old D&D promised more effectively than old D&D for me. But those are indie games! And people are very divided on which D&D is better. Some don't even consider them to be the same thing at all, and yet those are all covers of the original that evolved past it.

Also keep in mind that the OSR is more like a bunch of cover bands, not artists who are defined by their own individual identity. So it's not a case of Johnny Cash singing Trent Reznor's 'hurt', it a case of a band specifically hired to sound like a band someone is already familiar with and deliver a known quantity. And the farther you get from that, the farther you get from the very definition of OSR.

It like he almost didn't follow any of the numerous reference to Horde and Hoard (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar9Wm_5gI_1TdGlyZHpwRHFoU2pEMng0NkhqTlJEYmc#gid=0) and see if his opinion has any merit.

Anon how about actually doing some research before declaring what the OSR is.

Quote from: Zachary The First;625064Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands,

However according to Anon, I am just a cover band imitating my betters.:idunno: Probably since I obsessively use standard D&D fantasy tropes rather than include P'tarns, Mezzo's Crawling Oozes, Slarns, Vortas, or Xxyyzz.

Quote from: Zak S;624855120. Kitchen. This place is 20' x 30' (...) Within the darkest recesses of the (...) fireplace dwells a giant poisonous snake. It is coiled and (...) may strike by surprise (50% chance). It has not eaten for a long time, and is very hungry. It can strike to 8 foot range, half its length, and attacks any creature coming within that range. Near the ogre skeleton is a usable shortsword (its "dagger") and a leather sack containing 84 gp. These are hidden under a small pile of nondescript debris. The ten-foot-square rooms were used for crockery storage and food storage, respectively for the south and west areas. Their contents are broken and smashed; food- stuffs are spoiled.

Quote from: Zak S;625001120. Ruined/vandalized Kitchen. Ogre skeleton. Hidden: snake, 8ft long, sack w/84gp. Shortsword (ogre's "dagger").

Quote from: Zak S;625001Is that dull? YES.
Is it any more dull than the original room? NO.
Is it easier for a GM to use in play (this is a megadungeon)? YES.
Are there any details missing a GM could not invent? NO.
Does it leave way more time and space for the actually interesting stuff that's worth evocative prose? YES.

Okay that's interesting. I see some value in both approaches. The first one refers to the function of the 10x10 rooms, provides me with a much better evocation I can "see" in my mind's eye, and connects the area with the rest of the complex. I think it's useful, more useful to some DMs than the terse approach in that regard.

I'd say that the terse description actually is more dull than the original one, but it gains in brevity, mostly, and relies more on GM interpretation and improvisation to make these elements come to life. What's interesting is that some DMs will want exactly that, welcome it and just run with it. They just want the minimum of info and run the thing from there. Others feel like "they've paid money for that" and that "something's missing" if all they got is one-liners for room descriptions. It's really a spectrum of what different DMs expect from a module and what they feel personally comfortable with, I think.

I'm pretty sure you're right when you are talking about actually running the module, though, in the sense that the terse approach is something that compiles critical information and "boom" you're there. That's useful to actual play in that sense.

The last rhetorical question (about pouring the word count into stuff actually worthy of the evocative prose) is of particular interest to me. I'm not sure a module necessarily gains from being super terse on the common areas and suddenly going about describing more complex/original areas with more evocative prose. It's like giving up on the "less special" parts to pour all the detail onto the special ones. It might create a very uneven experience. It certainly doesn't help make common areas more interesting to begin with.

One last thing coming to mind is the fact that there are DMs who simply don't "get" the terse room descriptions. You'll find a wealth of references to various TSR modules on this board and others which talk about them as though they are static environments that do not make sense and so on. Part of that comes from the terse description format where some of this stuff was implied, assumed to be understood, when in fact it wasn't by everyone, not by a long shot. Now does that mean we have to completely give up on those DMs and just assume that they won't get it anyway so we might as well do it that way and forget about it? I'm asking the question from the point of view of a maker, not a costumer. It's obvious that if you are comfortable with the terse style in the first place then that's what you are going to want. But from a maker's point of view, I'm not sure that's the only answer to that conundrum.

Quote from: Benoist;625116Okay that's interesting. I see some value in both approaches. The first one refers to the function of the 10x10 rooms, provides me with a much better evocation I can "see" in my mind's eye, and connects the area with the rest of the complex. I think it's useful, more useful to some DMs than the terse approach in that regard.

With the caveat that you really have to judge this on a room by room basis. I am mostly with Zack for this particular room. There is no reason to write the first description. An adventure is meant to be used and flavor text be incorporated when the information can't conveyed in any other way.  By now the general atmosphere of the dungeon level should have been conveyed so the referee have that as part of what he can use for his interpretation of the area.

However Zak S. example doesn't convey all the information that was in the original.

Here I would write it.

Quote120. Ruined/vandalized Kitchen. Hidden in a fireplace a 8 ft long snake. Will only attack when a character comes into range. Near a Ogre skeleton, under debris on the floor, is a usable shortsword (ogre's "dagger") along with a sack with 84 gp. The adjoining 10 x 10 rooms were pantries with spoiled food stuff and smashed crockery.

Yes, I'm thinking either of a middle ground between the original and Zak's as you provided, Rob, and/or going with both, that is, the module describes things in evocative prose format, but also provides some sheets including one-line-ish summaries for quick reference. You can then read the full descriptions between the sessions, prep with that, put yourself in the zone etc, and as you run the game you can just use the one-line items on the key sheet for immediate reference.

The entire statement strikes me as pretty damned arrogant.  I mean, yes, there is better art and advances in the craft, but stating that OSR>TSR is showing disrespect for the greats that came before, IMO.  I think this guy is just blowing smoke.

Quote from: Benoist;625128Yes, I'm thinking either of a middle ground between the original and Zak's as you provided, Rob, and/or going with both, that is, the module describes things in evocative prose format, but also provides some sheets including one-line-ish summaries for quick reference. You can then read the full descriptions between the sessions, prep with that, put yourself in the zone etc, and as you run the game you can just use the one-line items on the key sheet for immediate reference.

I get what you are trying to do. After all I just published Scourge of the Demon Wolf which is really two books mashed into one. The adventure in the first half and the supplement the second half. However when I settled on that I wrote them as separate books and only combined them in layout.

 It not same as what you are proposing which is to write the adventure and then repeat the information in a highly condensed format.

But does evocative prose make it any more usable? Does it convey information for that particular area that is not found anywhere else? If the answer is no then it is extraneous for the purpose of running the adventure.

Now one could argue that it important as a matter of writing style. Which it is find for novels and other writings that are reading entertainment. But a module is a utility product. Meant to be used at the table by a referee to run an adventure. Prose that doesn't convey useful information just hinder that utility.

Doesn't mean there is no creativity in prose in adventure modules. How the writing builds up the overall design takes a lot of creativity. The characterizations of the NPCs, the narrative sections to convey needed background information and so on.

Quote from: RandallS;624435The claim seems silly to me. Some OSR stuff certainly is better than some of the stuff TSR published. Some of it certainly isn't better than most of the stuff TSR put out. The material put out by both is/was quite variable in quality.

Note: Even the worst OSR stuff often has better production values than early TSR stuff, but that's simply a function of low cost word processing/DTP software that is far better than anything early TSR had access to until they hit the "big time". However, as I don't measure the usefulness/"betterness" of game material by production values, I don't count this.

Well said and I agree.

Quote from: Premier;624455Dude, Giants, Tomb and WPM are 'iconic', as you put it, because A, they were/are widely known, and B, they've been around for decades. In contrast, the entire OSR itself A, doesn't incorporate as many players as D&D in its heydays, and neither does it have the same mass media presence, and B, it hasn't been around for decades. You're making a pointless comparison.

Also, the thread is about "are OSR modules better than TSR ones"? Not "have they been around for longer?" or "do they have higher sales figures?" Neither of these are indicative of how good a product is.

(Case in point, ToH is suitable for the cruel, American-college-fraternity style hazing of new players and is a good source of "Remember that time we got really fucking wasted and John woke up next morning with a transvestite" type quasi-masochistic rite-of-passage recollections with your gaming bros, but as an actual adventure module for actual play in someone's actual campaign? Please.)

And add to this, that TSR was the almost the only game in town when those came out, where now a days anyone with a computer can create material and submit it to an OSR publisher in a blink of an eye.

Quote from: estar;625135I get what you are trying to do. After all I just published Scourge of the Demon Wolf which is really two books mashed into one. The adventure in the first half and the supplement the second half. However when I settled on that I wrote them as separate books and only combined them in layout.

 It not same as what you are proposing which is to write the adventure and then repeat the information in a highly condensed format.

I'm proposing to repeat key game information in highly condensed format, which is not exactly the same thing. Kind of like you have the rules explained in say, RuneQuest 6 about combat maneuvers and the like, and cheat sheets or boxed stripped down summaries which compile the critical information, assuming you read the full rules to begin with.

Quote from: estar;625135But does evocative prose make it any more usable?

Yes, it can, by providing visual representations or convey an atmosphere the DM can feed on creatively speaking when he'll describe the room in his own words during the game.

Quote from: estar;625135Does it convey information for that particular area that is not found anywhere else? If the answer is no then it is extraneous for the purpose of running the adventure.

Actually it does. It provides a color and context, a creative inspiration and a feel of the place, which you read and come to own for yourself before the game, and then, when you run it, since it'd be horrible to refer to this information much like the dreaded boxed text you'd read out loud (which I really do not like), you just describe things in your own words, the cheat sheets possibly helping in that process by providing that critical game information and aid that'll help you run the thing as your own.

Quote from: estar;625135Now one could argue that it important as a matter of writing style. Which it is find for novels and other writings that are reading entertainment. But a module is a utility product. Meant to be used at the table by a referee to run an adventure. Prose that doesn't convey useful information just hinder that utility.

You're preaching the choir, Rob. I certainly don't think that modules should be treated as novels or that their primarily value would be as sources of "leisure reading" (though there certainly are people buying modules for that purpose). These are things meant to be played. And I do think that evocative writing does have a place in that equation when it comes to help the DM visualize the environment to then use it as a springboard for his imagination and run the thing from there. Kind of like a written form of impressionism, perhaps, with a purpose to create a picture in the reader/DMs mind that leaves all the room for him to grab it from there with his own imagination and run as his, if you will.

And let's be clear: from that standpoint (not novel writing, but adventure game design), there is good and bad prose. Useful information, and useless information. What would be the most useful, and word-count effective, giving the most evocative bang for your buck, if you will, is very much a question on the table in my mind. And in that sense, the description of area (120) Zak quoted before certainly wasn't optimal, I certainly agree.

Quote from: estar;625135Doesn't mean there is no creativity in prose in adventure modules. How the writing builds up the overall design takes a lot of creativity. The characterizations of the NPCs, the narrative sections to convey needed background information and so on.

The writing is part of the design, from my POV. I think that's part of my point.

Quote from: Benoist;625116I'd say that the terse description actually is more dull than the original one,

Overall?
Let's say you read 8 pages of a dungeon, would you rather have just read:

20 rooms that went on for paragraphs and paragraphs and, in the end, turned out to be totally mundane with maybe 1 interesting one thrown in

or

100 rooms that were the same rooms, only shorter, and 5 of them were interesting
?

Some people want to read workmanlike purple prose descriptions of unremarkable things--many modern novels prove that--not me.

QuoteOne last thing coming to mind is the fact that there are DMs who simply don't "get" the terse room descriptions.

I don't write modules for people who are painfully stupid and neither should anyone else.

This is another nice thing about the OSR: it hasn't achieved as much as TSR yet but when you buy an OSR project you can usually be sure this is something the author would actually use not something pumped out to fill a word count and vaguely aimed at a target audience.

 

QuoteNow does that mean we have to completely give up on those DMs and just assume that they won't get it anyway so we might as well do it that way and forget about it?

Yes!

This is an advantage of not needing to support a mass audience to survive: you have the freedom to write good things instead of lowest-common-denominator BS for drooling rubes.

As soon as I see:

"Dining room: This is the room where the family takes its meals."

Then I know this module is going to suck and the person who wrote it hates me, hates themselves, hates life and assumes s/he is being read by people who--real or imagined--just made all of our lives worse.

It's a "Dining Room" NEXT...

QuoteI'm not sure a module necessarily gains from being super terse on the common areas and suddenly going about describing more complex/original areas with more evocative prose. It's like giving up on the "less special" parts to pour all the detail onto the special ones. It might create a very uneven experience. It certainly doesn't help make common areas more interesting to begin with.

The module is not the game session. The GM needs to do the describing of textures, colors and details no matter what.

In general, you shouldn't just burst into "The echoes of your footsteps seem to crawl up the walls toward a ceiling your torchlight barely reaches" because it's a cool room--you use language when you need it to describe the place overall so the GM can do that when s/he needs to.

I've never heard anyone with half a brain complain they don't "get" any of the One-Page Dungeons--they use a few evocative words and images to convey what's needed and do the reader the courtesy of respecting his/her time and once an idea is conveyed, the rest is a tool.

There's no reason to create modules for people who have infinite time to read modules and read nothing else.

Quote from: Zak S;625150Overall?
Let's say you read 8 pages of a dungeon, would you rather have just read:

20 rooms that went on for paragraphs and paragraphs and, in the end, turned out to be totally mundane with maybe 1 interesting one thrown in

or

100 rooms that were the same rooms, only shorter, and 5 of them were interesting
?

Some people want to read workmanlike purple prose descriptions of unremarkable things--many modern novels prove that--not me.

That's a nonsensical question to me. I would like an even design, with the common rooms and areas including interesting elements of their own right, and more complex rooms and areas with the same level of detail, which would of course translate in more words, since the area is more complex to begin with. I don't think there's a choice to pour all your creativity into one thing and not the other, to ignore the common areas and summarize them in a strictly technical manner "because they're not interesting anyway" versus the more complex areas getting all the attention "because they're naturally more interesting". I just don't get that.

Quote from: Zak S;625150I don't write modules for people who are painfully stupid and neither should anyone else.

Wait. What? "Not getting the terse description format" is being "painfully stupid" now?

I don't think that the people who don't "get" terse description formats are necessarily stupid. They might have different game experiences, more of an imagination based on the written word than the visual map or game elements, you never know. But I also think these people are very much out there. I can't count the number of times I read that this or that TSR dungeon was "bad" because "it's static and boring", which often comes down to a problem with the implicit description format. If you think these people are necessarily dumb and can't enjoy your games or are not even welcome to "the club", so be it, but I don't have to share that opinion. Certainly not.

Quote from: Zak S;625150This is another nice thing about the OSR: it hasn't achieved as much as TSR yet but when you buy an OSR project you can usually be sure this is something the author would actually use not something pumped out to fill a word count and vaguely aimed at a target audience.

 
Yes!

This is an advantage of not needing to support a mass audience to survive: you have the freedom to write good things instead of lowest-common-denominator BS for drooling rubes.

Write "good things" for whom, exactly? For you, okay, fine. So you're telling me you're strictly designing for yourself and your clones out there. If people buying your stuff get it cool, if not, fuck them. It's pure vanity stuff. Which is all fine and good really, but not everyone has to do it that way. I certainly don't want to just design modules for my clones out there. I want to bring stuff I enjoy to all kinds of DMs out there, so that they too can run it and get their own fill out of it in their own way, not necessarily mine.

And no, I'm not talking of lowest-common-denominator design. Please.

Quote from: Zak S;625150The module is not the game session. The GM needs to do the describing of textures, colors and details no matter what.

In general, you shouldn't just burst into "The echoes of your footsteps seem to crawl up the walls toward a ceiling your torchlight barely reaches" because it's a cool room--you use language when you need it to describe the place overall so the GM can do that when s/he needs to.

I've never heard anyone with half a brain complain they don't "get" any of the One-Page Dungeons--they use a few evocative words and images to convey what's needed and do the reader the courtesy of respecting his/her time and once an idea is conveyed, the rest is a tool.

There's no reason to create modules for people who have infinite time to read modules and read nothing else.

I just don't get where you are coming from, I guess. That last part to me reads like you're ranting against someone else that lives in your head, and not what I actually said. Nobody's talking about writing bad boxed text prose, and I'm certainly not talking about people who would have "less than half a brain", in your own words.

Quote from: Zak S;625150I don't write modules for people who are painfully stupid and neither should anyone else.

Yeah, I'm editing out most of the shit in Dwimmermount to be terse as fuck.

An example:

QuoteThe walls of this circular room have numerous metal hooks on which hang weapons and shields. The room is currently occupied by 5 orcs, acting as guards for their brethren. As soon as they encounter any opposition, one of their number will attempt to flee to Room 41 to gather reinforcements. In the event that the remaining Hogmen lose more than half their number or otherwise break morale, they will do the same.

becomes

QuoteNumerous metal hooks holding weapons and shields. 5 Hogmen. If they encounter any opposition, one will flee to Room 41 for reinforcements. If the Hogmen lose more than half their number or break morale, they will also flee.

Same info, half the calories.

Terse descriptions work to the extent that you're trading off a familiar cliche. I can write "Shrine" for a bog-standard D&D module and trust the reader will be able to manufacture a Standard Polytheistic Fantasy Shrine Room. I cannot write "Shrine" for a Spears of the Dawn adventure and expect the reader to just conjure up an African-styled household ancestor shrine.

In the same way, I don't want terse descriptions when half the point of the module is to evoke a particular sense of place and atmosphere. The Nightmare Maze of Jigresh is a model of terseness in its room descriptions, but it is absolutely terrible at conveying the feeling that I'm actually adventuring in Tekumel and exploring an ancient shrine. Yes, I can add the cinnamon air freshener and meshqu plaques myself, but that's because I have read other, more evocative books that actually describe these things for me.

If all I want or need to convey is that the room is a Standard-Issue Dining Room, then it's fine to just write "Dining Room. Table service worth 50 gp, feral teacup halfling (1 HD, 6 HP, 1d4 spork) lairing beneath the table". If it's the dining room of the Breathatarian Monks of the Perpetual Fast I'm going to expect more local color, even if the ultimate outcome is that it's just a dining room. Ultra-efficient roomlines leave no room whatsoever for conveying flavor and feeling, and that can make for a much better GM's table experience than the marginal increase in efficiency and decrease in pagecount that can be had with a de minimis description style.

Yes, if someone needs "Dining Room: This is where the family takes its meals" then yes, they are painfully stupid and nobody should make things for them and if they do they should feel bad about it.

Quote from: Benoist;625152Write "good things" for whom, exactly? For you, okay, fine. So you're telling me you're strictly designing for yourself and your clones out there. If people buying your stuff get it cool, if not, fuck them. It's pure vanity stuff.

If you think "making a thing that you can use and then putting it out there in case anyone wants it and then they do and you make a profit" (which is Standard Operating Procedure in any creative field with any integrity) is "pure vanity stuff" then you really do not get it and never will and we don't need to keep talking.

Quote from: Zak S;625001A good version of this room would read:

120. Ruined/vandalized Kitchen. Ogre skeleton. Hidden: snake, 8ft long, sack w/84gp. Shortsword (ogre's "dagger").

That's about the way I'd do it, too, except I'd probably mention the fireplace (because that implies a chimney, which might go somewhere. Or, at the very least, offer a place to hide.)

Actually, for a megadungeon, I'm thinking that I'd rather have a list of room types (kitchen, larder, storage) and just use single-word or abbreviated labels on the map, and then have a numbered list of monster/treasure contents that each GM would assign to a room.

Quote from: Benoist;625116The last rhetorical question (about pouring the word count into stuff actually worthy of the evocative prose) is of particular interest to me. I'm not sure a module necessarily gains from being super terse on the common areas and suddenly going about describing more complex/original areas with more evocative prose. It's like giving up on the "less special" parts to pour all the detail onto the special ones. It might create a very uneven experience. It certainly doesn't help make common areas more interesting to begin with.

Everyone's talking about "evocative prose", but I think I'd like terseness in almost all the keyed descriptions, with evocative prose reserved for the introduction to the dungeon and the introductions to each level or region.

What I would like to see in a megadungeon (or even a dungeon) is the ultraterse descriptions for the ordinary encounters like the hidden snake, but a few unusual encounters with a little bit extra, like:

120. Ruined/vandalized Kitchen with fireplace. Ogre skeleton. Hidden: snake, 8ft long, sack w/84gp. Shortsword (ogre's "dagger"). Snake is reincarnation of ogre, becomes follower of high-charisma Chaotic adventurer.

Now you have something worth the extra prose. Not just a snake, but a snake that might act abnormally, even intelligently; it might even be possible to restore it to ogre form. As an ogre, would it remain normal? The extra text is worth it in this case because it creates extra possibilities.

Against the dull/terse descriptions here, for the same reasons I don't like the power descriptions in 4e mostly: what the fuck do I do with it, I may as well start from scratch. Really, I belong to the "fuck a damn module" contingent and don't see much use in any of them, much less worshipping Keep On The Borderlands or whatever the fuck, but the two uses I do see for a module are a) filling in for when you don't have time to make something yourself and b) inspiration for when you do have the time. Super terse descriptions cut against both of these, and if you're going to use a module with descriptions like

Quote120. Ruined/vandalized Kitchen. Ogre skeleton. Hidden: snake, 8ft long, sack w/84gp. Shortsword (ogre's "dagger").

you may as well use a random dungeon generator instead (no knock on those, I like those better than modules).

Quote from: Imp;625178Against the dull/terse descriptions here, for the same reasons I don't like the power descriptions in 4e mostly: what the fuck do I do with it, I may as well start from scratch. Really, I belong to the "fuck a damn module" contingent and don't see much use in any of them, much less worshipping Keep On The Borderlands or whatever the fuck, but the two uses I do see for a module are a) filling in for when you don't have time to make something yourself and b) inspiration for when you do have the time.

So you're saying you would never use a megadungeon product, but you'll be damned if you'll let one be designed in a way you don't approve of?

Quote from: Imp;625178Against the dull/terse descriptions here, for the same reasons I don't like the power descriptions in 4e mostly: what the fuck do I do with it, I may as well start from scratch. Really, I belong to the "fuck a damn module" contingent and don't see much use in any of them, much less worshipping Keep On The Borderlands or whatever the fuck, but the two uses I do see for a module are a) filling in for when you don't have time to make something yourself and b) inspiration for when you do have the time. Super terse descriptions cut against both of these, and if you're going to use a module with descriptions like



you may as well use a random dungeon generator instead (no knock on those, I like those better than modules).

Well I'm not a big fan of modules either and I like random dungeon generators better for the most part, too, mostly because if you strip away the allegedly "evocative" prose in modules usually all you get is a snake in a corner.

Which is kinda my point about TSR:

Don't give us just a snake.

And if you did for some reason decide you were just gonna give us a snake, don't make us read half a page to find that out.

Quick rule of thumb for dungeon makers:

If I know what a room is and what is in it based on its name, don't tell me what it is and what is in there.

I know what a fucking kitchen is.  I can describe what a kitchen is like.

If you tell me the exact number of soup ladles in the kitchen or that it has a stove and shelves and pots and pans you are an asshole.

Similarly, if you need three sentences to tell me a room is empty, you are an asshole.  Also also, why are you putting in so many empty rooms in this dungeon, asshole?

Quote from: talysman;625184So you're saying you would never use a megadungeon product, but you'll be damned if you'll let one be designed in a way you don't approve of?

Yes! Curse you all from beyond the grave!

I would get more use out of a module if it were written with relatively evocative prose, I'd say. For example if I wanted to take a cool room from a dungeon module and insert it into something I made. I am also thinking about the uses I've gotten out of modules when I was a kid, because they help you build your own adventures if only by providing a contrasting framework.

Quote from: Zak SDon't give us just a snake. And if you did for some reason just gonna give us a snake, don't make us read half a page to find that out.

Yeah yeah, no argument here – though any dungeon is going to have its relatively dull rooms and encounters. The writers should try to find something that's actually interesting and different about them whenever possible, of course.

As far as "I know what a kitchen is", that's true, but it might not be as true for a kid who's running a module, so there's an argument for including some details that might be obvious for adults. If I did mention it, I'd probably say something like "the pots and pans in this kitchen are curiously free of rust/ are all full of dark red goop" to make it more noteworthy though.

Quote from: Imp;625195As far as "I know what a kitchen is", that's true, but it might not be as true for a kid who's running a module, so there's an argument for including some details that might be obvious for adults.

Find me the kid that doesn't know what a kitchen is and I'll show you a kid not ready to run an RPG.

Quote from: misterguignol;625188Quick rule of thumb for dungeon makers:

If I know what a room is and what is in it based on its name, don't tell me what it is and what is in there.

I know what a fucking kitchen is.  I can describe what a kitchen is like.

If you tell me the exact number of soup ladles in the kitchen or that it has a stove and shelves and pots and pans you are an asshole.

Similarly, if you need three sentences to tell me a room is empty, you are an asshole.  Also also, why are you putting in so many empty rooms in this dungeon, asshole?

"Boxed text" should include a rough description, as it's supposed to be read to the players.  This is the exposition for the player's entering that room, and all a DM has to do is read the boxed text.

That said, if all that info isn't "boxed" I agree...

Quote from: misterguignol;625197Find me the kid that doesn't know what a kitchen is and I'll show you a kid not ready to run an RPG.

Before anyone mentions kids growing up in one-room shacks, I'll point out that they are unlikely to be spending money on RPG modules.

Quote from: Zak S;625165If you think "making a thing that you can use and then putting it out there in case anyone wants it and then they do and you make a profit" (which is Standard Operating Procedure in any creative field with any integrity) is "pure vanity stuff" then you really do not get it and never will and we don't need to keep talking.

Since the implication I'm seeing here is that disagreeing with your take on this puts me in the category of people wanting to shovel worthless shit out the window by designing to the "lowest common denominator," to use your own words, I'm coming to the same conclusion, though I'd naturally reverse our respective roles in "not getting it". That's unfortunate.

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

RPGPundit

What a stupid comment. Any interest I may have had in that dude's stuff has vanished.

It's a stupid comment because "OSR" and "TSR" aren't monolithic, they're made up of a variety of game designers who came out with a variety of products. Some of the "OSR" stuff is even made by TSR guys, thus it's actually both TSR and OSR at the same time.

Not only that, the comment displays ignorance of old school gaming in general, due to the fact that TSR was only one company. There are others, such as Judges Guild.

Plus in TSR's favor one has to consider that they invented the fucking RPG.. I doubt his pet OGL variation comes anywhere near that level of innovation.

The dude is trolling. But here's a thread about him, so he got the publicity he wanted. And I just helped him out.

Quote from: Zak S;625150100 rooms that were the same rooms, only shorter, and 5 of them were interesting
?

Some people want to read workmanlike purple prose descriptions of unremarkable things--many modern novels prove that--not me.

This can't be resolved by a general rule. Because if the trapping or atmosphere of the room is important to that area then it needs to be described. The only way you and Benoist (and others) can have a productive conversation about this is throw specific examples at each other and see how the two of you resolve it.

Quote from: misterguignol;625197Find me the kid that doesn't know what a kitchen is and I'll show you a kid not ready to run an RPG.

I'll award 2,000 xp to the person who comes up with the most evocative description of a giant's kitchen and posts it in this thread.  Don't exceed 50 words.

I guarantee we'll get at least one post containing something cool that I wouldn't have thought of.

Quote from: P&P;625213I'll award 2,000 xp to the person who comes up with the most evocative description of a giant's kitchen and posts it in this thread.  Don't exceed 50 words.

I guarantee we'll get at least one post containing something cool that I wouldn't have thought of.

Evocative descriptions are for novels.  Give me a list of interesting stuff in the giant's kitchen that I can scan quickly in play, not canned text for people who don't understand what a big kitchen would look like.

Quote from: Blackhand;625198"Boxed text" should include a rough description, as it's supposed to be read to the players.  This is the exposition for the player's entering that room, and all a DM has to do is read the boxed text.

That said, if all that info isn't "boxed" I agree...

"Boxed text to be read aloud" is a freakin' abomination and if a GM uses that stuff she or he had better be one charming motherfucker.

Quote from: P&P;625213I'll award 2,000 xp to the person who comes up with the most evocative description of a giant's kitchen and posts it in this thread.  Don't exceed 50 words.

I guarantee we'll get at least one post containing something cool that I wouldn't have thought of.

If it has "something cool I wouldn't have though of" that requires those 50 words to describe, I'll buy that, run it, and be happy.

But that isn't what TSR gave people in modules.

They saved the good stuff for the core books: "Seldom is the name of Vecna spoken except in hushed voice, and never within hearing of strangers, for legends say that the phantom of this once supreme lich still roams the earth.."

The OSR advocate wants to have his cake and eat it.

Two prevailing assumptions which are promoted implicitly by the 'thinktank' within the OSR are damaging to the OSR if it has any serious intent to produce work rising above the mediocre.

The assumptions are that,
(i)  it is 'good' to produce material which can be read swiftly and referred to with instant gratification at the gametable. The material is all surface; ideas are tiny and pop-out at the reader.

(ii)  all campaigns are generic with atmospheres as coherent as the toy-stuffed child's playroom. Tonal cramming ensures a campaign is disorganised enough to receive bleeding chunks surgically removed from any other campaign.

These assumptions are *opposed* to originality.

In my opinion the most important elements of Fantasy are originality and language. The great fantasy novels benefitted from attention paid to both. I believe language in the hands of someone who can write is a powerful tool in D&D but it is not essential. Originality remains essential. The more wildly creative D&D material is the less likely it can be slapped in thoughtlessly into someone else's campaign but surely strange and powerful sub-creation remains the most valuable contribution a writer can make to the D&D community.

Opposing the assumptions I say,

(i)  no, don't only use the surface of language. I need something deeper than convenience, more thoughtful, if I am to be inspired by your ideas or believe in your world.

(ii)  no, I don't want to use your material directly. Give a good account of what it is like to adventure in your world. Make me envious of your campaign and your creativity. Inspire me to improve my game.

It may be true that plug and play modules are what most DMs want, in which case I ask, in the interests of modesty and honesty that it is admitted that these kinds of works are pieces of shit compared to original work.

soooo Kent.

My favourite ever example (well the top one I can remember right now) of bad room description in a dungeon:

QuoteNow looted and empty, two chambers down a short passage from Ghul's Tower once contained weapons (westernmost) and armor (easternmost) for the guards in the fortress—mostly orcs and ogres, but also a variety of other monsters. Only hooks and empty racks suggest the rooms' former purpose.

It has the virtue of being short, but still, 80% of the above text is describing things that are no longer in the rooms. For reference, this is a location which has been abandoned for hundreds of years.

Quote from: misterguignol;625218Evocative descriptions are for novels.  Give me a list of interesting stuff in the giant's kitchen that I can scan quickly in play, not canned text for people who don't understand what a big kitchen would look like.

50 words is too long for you to scan quickly in play?  Your players think and decide a hell of a lot faster than mine...

Quote from: Zak S;625226If it has "something cool I wouldn't have though of" that requires those 50 words to describe, I'll buy that, run it, and be happy.

But that isn't what TSR gave people in modules.

On this board, or a couple of others I can think of, you'll find people who can do that.  It's true that they weren't writing for TSR thirty years ago.

Quote from: Zak S;625225"Boxed text to be read aloud" is a freakin' abomination and if a GM uses that stuff she or he had better be one charming motherfucker.

Boxed text is a decent teaching tool, however, for fledgling DMs - new gamers - who are trying to learn how to play this freakin' type of game. It is absolutely unnecessary for anyone with any experience with RPGs. But the average new gamer (AKA drooling rube), who's picked up a retroclone or version of TSR D&D and a few modules, could probably use a hand - some direction on how to develop into a capable DM.

I'm sure that the numbers of new gamers entering into the hobby continues to diminish. But, I think it's unfortunate to ignore this group and focus only on the already-capable, the experienced, (the aging, and eventually dying).

Quote from: P&P;62525350 words is too long for you to scan quickly in play?  Your players think and decide a hell of a lot faster than mine...

Honestly?  Yes.

Quote from: P&P;625254On this board, or a couple of others I can think of, you'll find people who can do that.  It's true that they weren't writing for TSR thirty years ago.

Good, I will totally buy their stuff.

If you look at the things I like and have put out you'll see rooms described with more than 50 words. Because they needed to be.

A snake in the corner of a fucked up kitchen is not one of them.

This thread's about TSR v OSR and someone pointed to the TSR megadungeons as great achievements--they really really weren't. They were big. That's about all they had going for them.

Quote from: K Peterson;625255Boxed text is a decent teaching tool, however, for fledgling DMs - new gamers - who are trying to learn how to play this freakin' type of game. It is absolutely unnecessary for anyone with any experience with RPGs. But the average new gamer (AKA drooling rube), who's picked up a retroclone or version of TSR D&D and a few modules, could probably use a hand - some direction on how to develop into a capable DM.

I'm sure that the numbers of new gamers entering into the hobby continues to diminish. But, I think it's unfortunate to ignore this group and focus only on the already-capable, the experienced, (the aging, and eventually dying).

"Nonstupid" and "experienced" are not the same.

I've seen many many people GM for the first time--including kids. Going "Oh, read aloud to your players, that's totally the way to GM" is bad advice.

The first thing to learn to do is to engage your players. Reading aloud teaches the opposite of that.

Quote from: misterguignol;625258Honestly?  Yes.

The differences between gaming groups still surprise me.  My players have been known to take twenty minutes deciding who'll stand where when they open the door.  (To be fair, I sort of semi-encourage this by saying that game time freezes while they talk to each other.)

Quote from: Zak S;625261"Nonstupid" and "experienced" are not the same.

I've seen many many people GM for the first time--including kids. Going "Oh, read aloud to your players, that's totally the way to GM" is bad advice.

The first thing to learn to do is to engage your players. Reading aloud teaches the opposite of that.

I'd agree with this as a general principle - but there's a side issue where I think that boxed text can be the "least worst" option in a printed module, especially in complex room environments. Which, may, of course, just mean that modules are also not a good way to learn how to GM, which is certainly a defensible position.

Quote from: Will Graham;625240The assumptions are that,
(i)  it is 'good' to produce material which can be read swiftly and referred to with instant gratification at the gametable. The material is all surface; ideas are tiny and pop-out at the reader.

You are ignoring the fact that an adventure module is the sum of the places it details. Complex and original situations can be created from details briefly described. Plus there the introduction, overview, and notes which can supply the overview needed to see how the pieces are put together.

Quote from: Will Graham;625240(ii)  all campaigns are generic with atmospheres as coherent as the toy-stuffed child's playroom. Tonal cramming ensures a campaign is disorganised enough to receive bleeding chunks surgically removed from any other campaign.

True you have to make assumptions when publishing but the OSR is not targeting a generic fantasy either. It targeting a group of related games that largely share the same "bag of stuff". This mentality leads to GURPS style adventures that read more like sourcebooks and are rarely ready to run.

Quote from: Will Graham;625240These assumptions are *opposed* to originality.

Not at all, I generated countless original adventure using the same bag of stuff as D&D for over 30 years. The key to focus on the situation of the NPCs not the mechanics or the items.

Quote from: Will Graham;625240Opposing the assumptions I say,

(i)  no, don't only use the surface of language. I need something deeper than convenience, more thoughtful, if I am to be inspired by your ideas or believe in your world.

RPG Products are meant to be use in a practical sense which is a different style of writing than what fantasy novelist need to use.

Quote from: Will Graham;625240(ii)  no, I don't want to use your material directly. Give a good account of what it is like to adventure in your world. Make me envious of your campaign and your creativity. Inspire me to improve my game.

Which the above two assumption don't contradict because of the ability to use the interconnections between NPCs and locales to create novel and interesting situation.

Quote from: Will Graham;625240It may be true that plug and play modules are what most DMs want, in which case I ask, in the interests of modesty and honesty that it is admitted that these kinds of works are pieces of shit compared to original work.

I feel is more challenging to create a useful work that is widely used than something that targets a unique place. It not easy to take the same elements that countless other have used hundreds of times and create something new, fresh, and useful.

Quote from: Grymbok;625265I'd agree with this as a general principle - but there's a side issue where I think that boxed text can be the "least worst" option in a printed module, especially in complex room environments. Which, may, of course, just mean that modules are also not a good way to learn how to GM, which is certainly a defensible position.

I think basically TSR modules are poorly designed.

I think the way the one page dungeons do it is a good way to go--and, for more complex things there should be an essay/mood-setter/pep talk at the beginning that gives you a holistic view of what's important in the area overall.

Like: if I give you Darth Vader, you know how to run Darth Vader, you know how he reacts to people, so no matter what my PCs do, you can plausibly react as Darth Vader.

A module should try to give you that familiarity. Page upon page of crutches and prosthetics like boxed text don't do that--they chop the module into deliverable pieces which obscure the whole.

When you make your own dungeon, you start with that familiarity. With modules, the artwork and the genuinely useful descriptive text do that. The boxed text is just a half-solution.

Quote from: Zak S;625261I've seen many many people GM for the first time--including kids. Going "Oh, read aloud to your players, that's totally the way to GM" is bad advice.

I disagree, obviously. I think it's a decent training-wheels approach, and likely why TSR included boxed-text-to-be-read-aloud in practically every module. I'm sure that many many gamers 10/20/30 years ago got their start DMing with modules, and read boxed text aloud, and it didn't stunt their DM-growth, disengage their players, or leave any harmful side effects.

You know, as I read through this thread with an eye on the standard of discourse I have to say that you people, all of you, remind me of those clowns who read lp/cd liner notes and then regurgitate what you have read in the pub as your own thoughts. The discussion is cliched, worn out, hackneyed. Take this Zak, eager Zak, he won't be happy till he has said the same thing fifty times. He is the party bore circulating with one anecdote, lol. Worse, many of you take his anecdote and rebreathe it in your own words.

Is anyone here capable of thinking or should I slink away?

Estar, I appreciate your efforts but Im not convinced we are talking at the same level.

Quote from: Will Graham;625280Is anyone here capable of thinking or should I slink away?

Who are you?

Quote from: Piestrio;625283Who are you?

A friend.

Quote from: Will Graham;625285A friend.

Okie dokie.

Quote from: P&P;625213I'll award 2,000 xp to the person who comes up with the most evocative description of a giant's kitchen and posts it in this thread.  Don't exceed 50 words.

I guarantee we'll get at least one post containing something cool that I wouldn't have thought of.

I wrote this up just now, thinking of what I'd want to know and think would be in-game useful about a giant's kitchen, plus a little bit of evocative color, and it came to 170 words (though technically it's describing 3 rooms - the description of just the kitchen area is 95 words). I then tried to trim it down to 50 words but it lost all the flavor. If I'm going to do that I might as well boil it down to just one: "kitchen" and improvise the rest on the spot - which is what I'd do if I were writing this for my own use, but if I'm paying somebody else my money (or even devoting my time to reading their creation) I want a bit more than that. However, I agree that much more detail than this is probably unnecessary.

12(a) is the giants' kitchen. A 50 gallon vat of "hand stew" (i.e. containing assorted bits of chopped-up humans) simmers in the fire. If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20' in the direction it's tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage). The kitchen table is 8' high and has two whole cows on it, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons (e.g. cleavers count as voulges, paring knives as bastard swords, rolling pins as morning stars, etc.) at -1 to hit. 12(b) is a pantry with giant-sized sacks of flour, potatoes, onions, etc. 12(c) is the giants' larder, where more whole cows and several human corpses are hanging on hooks. One of the latter still wears a signet ring identifying him as the son of a local petty noble (the others were his guards and retinue). If this body is returned, the party will be rewarded with 500 g.p. (or other equivalent favor) by the father.

Quote from: Will Graham;625280Zak Zak Zak Zak LOOK AT HOW CLEVER I AM! I know big words. Zak Zak Zak Zak

Why, hello kent. So nice of you to join us. Again. This is what, your third puppet after the ban?

Quote from: T. Foster;625293I wrote this up just now, thinking of what I'd want to know and think would be in-game useful about a giant's kitchen, plus a little bit of evocative color, and it came to 170 words (though technically it's describing 3 rooms - the description of just the kitchen area is 95 words). I then tried to trim it down to 50 words but it lost all the flavor. If I'm going to do that I might as well boil it down to just one: "kitchen" and improvise the rest on the spot - which is what I'd do if I were writing this for my own use, but if I'm paying somebody else my money (or even devoting my time to reading their creation) I want a bit more than that. However, I agree that much more detail than this is probably unnecessary.

12(a) is the giants’ kitchen. A 50 gallon vat of “hand stew” (i.e. containing assorted bits of chopped-up humans) simmers in the fire. If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20’ in the direction it’s tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage). The kitchen table is 8’ high and has two whole cows on it, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons (e.g. cleavers count as voulges, paring knives as bastard swords, rolling pins as morning stars, etc.) at -1 to hit. 12(b) is a pantry with giant-sized sacks of flour, potatoes, onions, etc. 12(c) is the giants’ larder, where more whole cows and several human corpses are hanging on hooks. One of the latter still wears a signet ring identifying him as the son of a local petty noble (the others were his guards and retinue). If this body is returned, the party will be rewarded with 500 g.p. (or other equivalent favor) by the father.

Cut the kitchen proper down to 68 words:

12(a): Giants’ kitchen. A 50 gallon vat of “man stew” simmers in the fire. If tipped over (Open Doors roll) everyone within 20’ of the opening must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage). The table is 8’ high and has two whole cows on it, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons at -1 to hit.

:)

Quote from: T. Foster;625293I wrote this up just now, thinking of what I'd want to know and think would be in-game useful about a giant's kitchen, plus a little bit of evocative color, and it came to 170 words (though technically it's describing 3 rooms - the description of just the kitchen area is 95 words). I then tried to trim it down to 50 words but it lost all the flavor. If I'm going to do that I might as well boil it down to just one: "kitchen" and improvise the rest on the spot - which is what I'd do if I were writing this for my own use, but if I'm paying somebody else my money (or even devoting my time to reading their creation) I want a bit more than that. However, I agree that much more detail than this is probably unnecessary.

12(a) is the giants' kitchen. A 50 gallon vat of "hand stew" (i.e. containing assorted bits of chopped-up humans) simmers in the fire. If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20' in the direction it's tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage). The kitchen table is 8' high and has two whole cows on it, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons (e.g. cleavers count as voulges, paring knives as bastard swords, rolling pins as morning stars, etc.) at -1 to hit. 12(b) is a pantry with giant-sized sacks of flour, potatoes, onions, etc. 12(c) is the giants' larder, where more whole cows and several human corpses are hanging on hooks. One of the latter still wears a signet ring identifying him as the son of a local petty noble (the others were his guards and retinue). If this body is returned, the party will be rewarded with 500 g.p. (or other equivalent favor) by the father.

Good job!

This is pretty much my point: Trent just used about the same number of words to a write a way better kitchen with a lot more gameables in it.

So: has TSR set a standard modern audiences could never beat? No.

Write 220 more  of those and you've got yourself a classic.

Quote from: T. Foster;625293stuff

It is interesting to read the eminent critic T. Foster being creative for one moment. Diverting.

Quote from: Zak S;625301So: has TSR set a standard modern audiences could never beat? No.

Write 220 more of those and you've got yourself a classic.

lol. An interesting D&D work should be more than just a long list of tiny ideas.

Quote from: Will Graham;625304lol. An interesting D&D work should be more than just a long list of tiny ideas.

So friend,

Are you here to talk about the thread topic or just whine about other people posting?

I ask because I really don't care for your posting and need to know if you're safe to ignore.

Thanks :)

Quote from: Piestrio;625306So friend,

Are you here to talk about the thread topic or just whine about other people posting?

I ask because I really don't care for your posting and need to know if you're safe to ignore.

Thanks :)

Do you think a D&D work should be a long (220) list of tiny ideas?

Quote from: Will Graham;625307Do you think a D&D work should be a long (220) list of tiny ideas?

I think it can be sure. Tie it together with a bit of a frame/theme and I don't see a problem with that approach at all.

Most 1e modules are "lists of tiny ideas" if you reduce them down enough.

This room, that house, that hallway, this bridge, etc...

So long as those ideas are good and useful at the table they can go toward making a good game.

2,000xp to Trent.  Anyone else want to try?

Quote from: Will Graham;625304lol. An interesting D&D work should be more than just a long list of tiny ideas.

And a sockpuppet should be more than the same recycled garbage.

Farewell once more, kent.

Quote from: Will Graham;625307Do you think a D&D work should be a long (220) list of tiny ideas?

(http://i.imgur.com/WYkt3jI.jpg)
"You open the door into what looks like the giant's kitchen. There's a large cauldron set up over the fire with something bubbling away inside it - you're too low to see what's in there but it smells like... pork. Whatever's cooking in there has boiled over a little, and in the moonlight that comes in through a barred window on the opposite wall to you you can see a dark liquid running down the side of the cauldron. Have you ever seen blood in moonlight, Will? It appears quite black."

If any aspect of a dungeon (or game world) is not worthy of evocative prose, that aspect needs to be chopped out or replaced with something more worthy.

I have no interest in buying Dull.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;625015And the farther you get from that, the farther you get from the very definition of OSR.

And while this is true from the AD&D Revival and the TSR Only members of the OSR, it does not correct for the entire OSR which is much more varied in opinion. But the AD&D Revivalists are the largest group in the OSR and thus I am not surprised that you got this impression.

Quote from: Zak S;625150The GM needs to do the describing of textures, colors and details no matter what.

Not every GM is as awesome as I am. And even my mind blowing awesomeness is made even more extreme with evocative writing that spurs on my imagination.

Quote from: talysman;625167120. Ruined/vandalized Kitchen with fireplace. Ogre skeleton. Hidden: snake, 8ft long, sack w/84gp. Shortsword (ogre's "dagger"). Snake is reincarnation of ogre, becomes follower of high-charisma Chaotic adventurer.

Now you have something worth the extra prose. Not just a snake, but a snake that might act abnormally, even intelligently; it might even be possible to restore it to ogre form. As an ogre, would it remain normal? The extra text is worth it in this case because it creates extra possibilities.

AWESOME!!!

Kudos Talysman. Kudos x10.

Quote from: Imp;625195If I did mention it, I'd probably say something like "the pots and pans in this kitchen are curiously free of rust/ are all full of dark red goop" to make it more noteworthy though.

Yes! Why have a kitchen setting if not to play with stuff in the kitchen?

Quote from: Zak S;625225"Boxed text to be read aloud" is a freakin' abomination and if a GM uses that stuff she or he had better be one charming motherfucker.

I used to write boxed text for convention tournaments. In that competitive environment, it makes sense that every player gets the exact description but otherwise, I am not a fan.

That said, CoC modules have had some awesome boxed text and they are an acceptable training tool for introductory adventures.

Quote from: Will Graham;625240In my opinion the most important elements of Fantasy are originality and language. The great fantasy novels benefitted from attention paid to both.

I agree.

Quote from: Zachary The First;625315Farewell once more, kent.

NOOOoooooooooo..... !

He sure is a persistent little cunt, isn't he?

RPGPundit

I had to ban him at least 4 times from the Knights & Knaves Alehouse, after which he started making creepy, stalkerish comments about me on other sites :/

Hmm, how would I rework room 120?

Dungeon Region: The Forgotten Cafeteria

Regional Monsters: Giant Snake, Violent Mold, Poltergeist, etc.

Regional Treasures: 84 gp, Short Sword, Possessed Fork, etc.

Room 120 - Cauldron Room
Familiar: Ruined kitchen with fireplace, cutting table with drawers, pantry.
Unusual: Orc Skeleton in messy corner.
Recommendations:
1. Giant Snake likes to use chimney as a den. Disposition - Hungry, thus aggressive, but low morale.
2. Short Sword by the Orc Skeleton. An orcish 'butcher knife'?
3. 84 gp in pantry. Among jars of rotten food is 'orcish swear jar'.
4. Violent Mold around broken jars in messy corner. Cause of orc death? Disposition - mindless, thus indifferent, but unshakable morale.

Hmm... do I like this format? So far I do. I'll have to think on it a while.

Quote from: Zak S;625268I think basically TSR modules are poorly designed.

I think the way the one page dungeons do it is a good way to go--and, for more complex things there should be an essay/mood-setter/pep talk at the beginning that gives you a holistic view of what's important in the area overall.

Like: if I give you Darth Vader, you know how to run Darth Vader, you know how he reacts to people, so no matter what my PCs do, you can plausibly react as Darth Vader.

A module should try to give you that familiarity. Page upon page of crutches and prosthetics like boxed text don't do that--they chop the module into deliverable pieces which obscure the whole.

When you make your own dungeon, you start with that familiarity. With modules, the artwork and the genuinely useful descriptive text do that. The boxed text is just a half-solution.

While dividing up a module's content can obscure its essence, and boxed set is a creative dead end, I disagree about the one page dungeon format. Its original concept is admirable - create a functional, focused and well-organised adventure in only one page - but this form has taken over function in the same way boxed text was once substituted for "flavour". It no longer serves a good purpose, just like the ultra-minimalist dungeon keys which were very popular some time ago were no longer lean, but starved. T. Foster's giant kitchen is lean (and flavourful), Piestrio's loses something, and "Giant kitchen, vat of stew, cows and giant-sized implements" lacks the personal voice which is essential to a good adventure - and where the late Kent did have a good point. You can get good play out of these bare-bones ideas, through your own creativity, but that is a bit like using "boy loves girl, gir loves boy, families hate each other, complications ensue and everyone dies" to set Romeo and Juliet to the stage.

That doesn't mean the location key is the only way to approach an adventure. Many of the games I run are a clash of antagonistic agendas/factions (which are about social dynamics), or about the flow of information in the social and/or spatial dimension. In City Encounters (for which I have written a yet unpublished counterpart, The Nocturnal Table), Matt Finch gives us City State of the Invincible Overlord as a random encounter chart. But it is a useful approach if used well - and here, you and Kent are in the same company of Being Wrong by taking a good point too far.

Quote from: Melan;625417Being Wrong

I don't always agree with Zak S but I don't think he's 100% wrong in this case.  He may be slightly overstating the case, but, this is therpgsite.com where we make points strongly and understand about hyperbole.

Quote from: T. Foster;62529312(a) is the giants' kitchen. A 50 gallon vat of "hand stew" (i.e. containing assorted bits of chopped-up humans) simmers in the fire. If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20' in the direction it's tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage). The kitchen table is 8' high and has two whole cows on it, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons (e.g. cleavers count as voulges, paring knives as bastard swords, rolling pins as morning stars, etc.) at -1 to hit. 12(b) is a pantry with giant-sized sacks of flour, potatoes, onions, etc. 12(c) is the giants' larder, where more whole cows and several human corpses are hanging on hooks. One of the latter still wears a signet ring identifying him as the son of a local petty noble (the others were his guards and retinue). If this body is returned, the party will be rewarded with 500 g.p. (or other equivalent favor) by the father.

A) THIS is D&D.
B) It's better than 95% of what TSR ever did in a module.
C) Piestro's edit is tighter but looses imagery.
D) Shit. I just saw that Melan beat me to these same comments.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;625431A) THIS is D&D.
B) It's better than 95% of what TSR ever did in a module.
C) Piestro's edit is tighter but looses imagery.
D) Shit. I just saw that Melan beat me to these same comments.

Actually the whole "turn the pot over for 2d6 damage" and the "ring on the noble corpse leads to reward or entire side adventure" is textbook Gary.  That's why it rocks.  The weird little things.

Quote from: misterguignol;625059So, what TSR modules was Raggi "covering" with Monolith Beyond Space and Time or The God That Crawls?

Which TSR-era city pack is Vornheim like?

Inform me as to the TSR-era setting that Trey Causey's Weird Adventures is aping, please.  

Is there a comparable TSR version of Goblinoid's Realms of Crawling Chaos?

He's gone awfully quiet...

Quote from: Imp;625195As far as "I know what a kitchen is", that's true, but it might not be as true for a kid who's running a module, so there's an argument for including some details that might be obvious for adults. If I did mention it, I'd probably say something like "the pots and pans in this kitchen are curiously free of rust/ are all full of dark red goop" to make it more noteworthy though.

Yes. Theoretically "kitchen" is enough to visualize the area but it helps a lot if there is a list of stuff that I can throw at players without thinking "is this kitchen really empty or are there pots and pans lying around?" I can think of rotten bread and stale wine but anything believable-but-special may or may not come to my mind in the heat of a game.

So don't give me standards like bread and wine but red goo or "hand stew".

Quote from: Opaopajr;625406Dungeon Region: The Forgotten Cafeteria

Regional Monsters: Giant Snake, Violent Mold, Poltergeist, etc.

Regional Treasures: 84 gp, Short Sword, Possessed Fork, etc.

Room 120 - Cauldron Room
Familiar: Ruined kitchen with fireplace, cutting table with drawers, pantry.
Unusual: Orc Skeleton in messy corner.
Recommendations:
1. Giant Snake likes to use chimney as a den. Disposition - Hungry, thus aggressive, but low morale.
2. Short Sword by the Orc Skeleton. An orcish 'butcher knife'?
3. 84 gp in pantry. Among jars of rotten food is 'orcish swear jar'.
4. Violent Mold around broken jars in messy corner. Cause of orc death? Disposition - mindless, thus indifferent, but unshakable morale.

Hmm... do I like this format? So far I do. I'll have to think on it a while.

I prefer bullet point lists with stuff in order of importance and/or vislibility to any prose.
So yes, your approach sits fine with me.

Quote from: P&PI don't always agree with Zak S but I don't think he's 100% wrong in this case. He may be slightly overstating the case, but, this is therpgsite.com where we make points strongly and understand about hyperbole.

Neither do I: he is only 64% wrong, by "taking a good point too far".

Quote from: CRKruegerActually the whole "turn the pot over for 2d6 damage" and the "ring on the noble corpse leads to reward or entire side adventure" is textbook Gary. That's why it rocks. The weird little things.

That's an enjoyable kind of worldbuilding, although Rob Kuntz tends to take it too far, producing the kind of 'hidden depth' only GMs tend to appreciate, since the players have an almost zero chance of jumping through the correct hoops backwards to find them.

Quote from: One Horse TownHe's gone awfully quiet...

He has just kickstarted a free RPG day module (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1939191852/lotfp-2013-free-rpg-day-adventure?ref=card). It is an interesting business idea.

Quote from: Melan;625449He has just kickstarted a free RPG day module (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1939191852/lotfp-2013-free-rpg-day-adventure?ref=card). It is an interesting business idea.

I've been thinking of doing that for 00Dragon for a while now.  It was always going to be free, but I was tempted of doing a KS to ensure good art and high quality editing (extra costs that would hinder me) were included.

Quote from: T. Foster;62529312(a) is the giants’ kitchen. A 50 gallon vat of “hand stew” (i.e. containing assorted bits of chopped-up humans) simmers in the fire. If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20’ in the direction it’s tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage). The kitchen table is 8’ high and has two whole cows on it, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons (e.g. cleavers count as voulges, paring knives as bastard swords, rolling pins as morning stars, etc.) at -1 to hit. 12(b) is a pantry with giant-sized sacks of flour, potatoes, onions, etc. 12(c) is the giants’ larder, where more whole cows and several human corpses are hanging on hooks. One of the latter still wears a signet ring identifying him as the son of a local petty noble (the others were his guards and retinue). If this body is returned, the party will be rewarded with 500 g.p. (or other equivalent favor) by the father.

That is good stuff, and exactly the sort of thing I was talking about earlier. It is to the point, has some useful moving bits and pieces, and yet is not super-terse to the point of lacking character nor evocative imagery.

Quote from: Benoist;625476That is good stuff, and exactly the sort of thing I was talking about earlier. It is to the point, has some useful moving bits and pieces, and yet is not super-terse to the point of lacking character or evocative imagery.

How about that?

12(a) Giants' kitchen
   Fireplace: 50 gallon vat of "hand stew" (i.e. containing assorted bits of chopped-up humans) simmers in the fire.
Special: If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20' in the direction it's tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage).
   Kitchen table: 8' high, two whole cows on top, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons at -1 to hit. (e.g. cleavers count as voulges, paring knives as bastard swords, rolling pins as morning stars, etc.)

12(b) Pantry
   Giant-sized sacks of flour, potatoes, onions, etc.

12(c) Giants' larder
   Whole cows and several human corpses are hanging on hooks.
Special: One of the latter still wears a signet ring identifying him as the son of a local petty noble (the others were his guards and retinue). If this body is returned, the party will be rewarded with 500 g.p. (or other equivalent favor) by the father.


I agree, the prose version makes for better reading but at the game table, behind the GM screen, this works better for me.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;625481I agree, the prose version makes for better reading but at the game table, behind the GM screen, this works better for me.

It's clearer from an organizational point of view, that's for sure. Uses more space, too. Now between the two, I'll choose the former because I appreciate the prose version better - it's more useful to me to get a mental idea of the look and feel of the place. Your version works too, but it works less effectively for me, from that standpoint.

This is the giants' kitchen in G1, by the way.

(http://enrill.net/images/Kitchen-G1.jpg)

Quote from: Benoist;625487This is the giants' kitchen in G1, by the way.

(http://enrill.net/images/Kitchen-G1.jpg)

I'm glad they told me that there are spoons in kitchens!  I would have never come up with that myself.

Quote from: Benoist;625487This is the giants' kitchen in G1, by the way.

(http://enrill.net/images/Kitchen-G1.jpg)

I don't have my gaming materials here at work. Do you recall what the size of this room is?

29 orcs
5 hill giants
11 ogres

Quote from: misterguignol;625490I'm glad they told me that there are spoons in kitchens!  I would have never come up with that myself.

I wonder if you would have in 1978, in between writing the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook. At that point, Hill Giants were known from the original D&D LBBs, of course, but there they are described as living in caves, and might have been seen as much less evolved than they are shown in the Steading. For all we know, you might have come up with a cave and a "kitchen" that was nothing but a geyser pit in the ground with boiling blood or some such, the giants eating from whatever was cooked in there with their hands. Who knows, right?

20/20 hindsight is a powerful thing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;625497I don't have my gaming materials here at work. Do you recall what the size of this room is?

29 orcs
5 hill giants
11 ogres

Area 17 is 60x40, connects to a 20 feet wide corridor leading directly to the Kitchen Workshop with more orcs, if memory serves, all this forming a single unhindered area on the map. It's huge.

Quote from: Benoist;625498I wonder if you would have in 1978, in between writing the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook. At that point, Hill Giants were known from the original D&D LBBs, of course, but there they are described as living in caves, and might have been seen as much less evolved than they are shown in the Steading. For all we know, you might have come up with a cave and a "kitchen" that was nothing but a geyser pit in the ground with boiling blood or some such, the giants eating from whatever was cooked in there with their hands. Who knows, right?

20/20 hindsight is a powerful thing.

If you asked me where the spoons and forks were when I was five I could have told you that they were in the kitchen.

It's weird to think no one would have thought beyond putting hill giants in caves until TSR told us we could.

Quote from: misterguignol;625500If you asked me where the spoons and forks were when I was five I could have told you that they were in the kitchen.

It's weird to think no one would have thought beyond putting hill giants in caves until TSR told us we could.

Well somebody - your five-year old self, maybe - might have wondered up to that point, when looking in Monsters & Treasures and seeing that hill giants lived in caves and looked like the less evolved of all giant races. But then we know now that hill giants living on a steading as an organized force piloted from afar might actually have this kind of kitchen, right? Why? Precisely because of this module we are talking about right now.

Come on, don't pretend you missed the point.

Quote from: Benoist;625487This is the giants' kitchen in G1, by the way.

(http://enrill.net/images/Kitchen-G1.jpg)

Plus an absolutely brilliant Trampier illustration of a giantess in an apron menacing a bunch of cowering orcs with a frying pan :)

Quote from: Benoist;625498I wonder if you would have in 1978, in between writing the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook. At that point, Hill Giants were known from the original D&D LBBs, of course, but there they are described as living in caves, and might have been seen as much less evolved than they are shown in the Steading. For all we know, you might have come up with a cave and a "kitchen" that was nothing but a geyser pit in the ground with boiling blood or some such, the giants eating from whatever was cooked in there with their hands. Who knows, right?

Does it particularly matter which one a DM runs with? Add me to the party who thinks "what cutlery do Hill Giants eat with?" is a matter of pure flavour.

Quote from: Warthur;625508Does it particularly matter which one a DM runs with? Add me to the party who thinks "what cutlery do Hill Giants eat with?" is a matter of pure flavour.

Unless Og's steak knife is actually a longsword +3.

BTW, thanks to everybody for all the kind words about my kitchen description. I'm so inspired by the positive reaction that I've decided to launch a Kickstarter for my 10,000-room Megadungeon - 3 down, only 9,997 to go! Give me your cash to inspire me to write them! :D

Quote from: Exploderwizard;625510Unless Og's steak knife is actually a longsword +3.

That would surely go with the fine silver for the swanky place settings though. ;)

Quote from: Will Graham;625280You know, as I read through this thread with an eye on the standard of discourse I have to say that you people, all of you, remind me of those clowns who read lp/cd liner notes and then regurgitate what you have read in the pub as your own thoughts. The discussion is cliched, worn out, hackneyed. Take this Zak, eager Zak, he won't be happy till he has said the same thing fifty times. He is the party bore circulating with one anecdote, lol. Worse, many of you take his anecdote and rebreathe it in your own words.

Is anyone here capable of thinking or should I slink away?

Why don't you like me? I like you :(

Quote from: Melan;625449That's an enjoyable kind of worldbuilding, although Rob Kuntz tends to take it too far, producing the kind of 'hidden depth' only GMs tend to appreciate, since the players have an almost zero chance of jumping through the correct hoops backwards to find them.

Plus they're almost all tie-ins to other adventures that he planned to write (and in some cases even contracted and accepted payment for) but never got around to actually doing so because Faye Dunaway of Gaming.

Quote from: T. Foster;625507Plus an absolutely brilliant Trampier illustration of a giantess in an apron menacing a bunch of cowering orcs with a frying pan :)

That illustration isn't "useful", man.

Everybody knows that the cook would frighten the orcs with a frying pan. I know there are frying pans in kitchens too, God dammit.

And I paid money for this? WTF?

Quote from: T. Foster;625517Plus they're almost all tie-ins to other adventures that he planned to write (and in some cases even contracted and accepted payment for) but never got around to actually doing so because Faye Dunaway of Gaming.

I guess so, although I still like them because they build connections between adventures, and hint at a Bigger Picture - a Rob Kuntz D&D universe where a hidden object in the Tower of Blood is related to the elemental princes on the Plane of Fire, who are in turn are consulted by Zayene from his transdimensional laboratory. That's fascinating, even if it's product placement.

Quote from: T. Foster;625511BTW, thanks to everybody for all the kind words about my kitchen description. I'm so inspired by the positive reaction that I've decided to launch a Kickstarter for my 10,000-room Megadungeon - 3 down, only 9,997 to go! Give me your cash to inspire me to write them! :D

Will it be a megadungeon of 10,000 kitchens?

Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Of The Infinite Planes

Quote from: Exploderwizard;625510Unless Og's steak knife is actually a longsword +3.

Its a +3 Ogre Spork, carved in the mists of time by the evil Duergar smiths of Mount Kraftservasses

Quote from: T. Foster;625517Plus they're almost all tie-ins to other adventures that he planned to write (and in some cases even contracted and accepted payment for) but never got around to actually doing so because Faye Dunaway of Gaming.

Faye Dunaway?

Quote from: Planet Algol;625545Faye Dunaway?

http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2010/10/leave-dunaways-alone-true-artists-and.html

Quote from: talysman;625536Will it be a megadungeon of 10,000 kitchens?

World's Largest Kitchen - a kitchen associated with every monster type in the d20 SRD!

Quote from: T. Foster;625547http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2010/10/leave-dunaways-alone-true-artists-and.html

Huh?

Wha....

Why....

Quote from: Benoist;625518That illustration isn't "useful", man.

Everybody knows that the cook would frighten the orcs with a frying pan. I know there are frying pans in kitchens too, God dammit.

And I paid money for this? WTF?

Don't pretend that you missed the point.

Your position is mere Gygaxisme, the belief that what TSR put out was the best that could be done at the time with a side-order of insinuation that we can't do much better now.

Quote from: misterguignol;625596Your position is mere Gygaxisme, the belief that what TSR put out was the best that could be done at the time with a side-order of insinuation that we can't do much better now.

Oh, come on. You just said something stupid about how you know what implements are in a kitchen. I put your nose in it because you spoke without thinking about the context, that it was a Hill Giants' kitchen and that the module was the first to describe such a thing with any degree of detail, that the fact that the kitchen was described in such a way was actually relevant to the information the module was conveying (that it's a steading, that the hill giant force is organized, etc), the vibe of it, and the period in which it was published. Now, instead of owning to it, you just try to divert the conversation with a nice convenient stereotype you can punch like you'd build strawmen to win arguments.

Well done. Not transparent at all. :rolleyes:

If anyone wants my actual opinion on the matter, they can find it on this thread, there to be precise. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=624464#post624464)

Quote from: Benoist;625602Oh, come on. You just said something stupid about how you know what implements are in a kitchen. I put your nose in it because you spoke without thinking about the context, that it was a Hill Giants' kitchen and that the module was the first to describe such a thing with any degree of detail, that the fact that the kitchen was described in such a way was actually relevant to what the module was trying to convey, the vibe of it, and the period in which it was published. Now, instead of owning to it, you just try to divert the conversation with a nice convenient stereotype you can punch like you'd build strawmen to win arguments.

Well done. Not transparent at all. :rolleyes:

If anyone wants my actual opinion on the matter, they can find it on this thread, there to be precise. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=624464#post624464)

Huh?  I'm not saying the OSR is better than TSR, so I'm not sure what you link is supposed to tell me.

Here, we'll try again.  Why is it important to know what cooking utensils one might find in a kitchen it one already knows what a kitchen in?

Also, tell me what relevance the described utensils have.

Quote from: misterguignol;625603Huh?  I'm not saying the OSR is better than TSR, so I'm not sure what you link is supposed to tell me.

It's letting people know that you are building a strawman argument, that I've never said that what TSR had published was "the best there could ever have been at the time" or that I insinuated in any way, shape or form that we could not publish great modules today that could or would rival with TSR's offerings.

You are a liar. That's what that link is showing.

Quote from: misterguignol;625603Also, tell me what relevance the described utensils have.

See my edited post above. The fact that the hill giants are organized, that they have such a steading, that they threaten the entire surrounding region, is actually "a thing" in the module, and the entire GDQ series later on, as a matter of fact. The fact that the hill giants are described as being evolved, with an organization, slaves, an actual kitchen with cooking implements etc says something about the place. The description of the kitchen is part of that overall picture, with the added color and humor that comes through both the text and Trampier's art that goes with it.

And with that said, since you're basically dishonest to the bitter end about all this, I'm just going to do some writing instead of answering your rhetorical questions. Have fun now.

Quote from: Benoist;625607It's letting people know that you are building a strawman argument, that I've never said that what TSR had published was "the best there could ever have been at the time" or that I insinuated in any way, shape or form that we could not publish great modules today that could or would rival with TSR's offerings.

You are a liar. That's what that link is showing.

LOLOK.  So you don't think AD&D is the perfect expression of Gary's vision for D&D?

Quote from: Benoist;625602because you spoke without thinking about the context, that it was a Hill Giants' kitchen and that the module was the first to describe such a thing with any degree of detail, that the fact that the kitchen was described in such a way was actually relevant to the information the module was conveying (that it's a steading, that the hill giant force is organized, etc),

"Hill Giants have kitchens just like people, only bigger."

FUCKING BRILLIANT!

I understand that Benoist is saying that "the fact that these hill giants live in an evolved way, which is different from the way hill giants are portrayed in the MM, and that matters to the adventure."   I get that, really I do.  But that still doesn't address the "why so much detailed description on the kitchen" question.

And I do love that kitchen illustration.

Quote from: VectorSigma;625651"Hill Giants have kitchens just like people, only bigger."

FUCKING BRILLIANT!

I understand that Benoist is saying that "the fact that these hill giants live in an evolved way, which is different from the way hill giants are portrayed in the MM, and that matters to the adventure."   I get that, really I do.  But that still doesn't address the "why so much detailed description on the kitchen" question.

And I do love that kitchen illustration.

Your lies demean us all.

When I see the word "kitchen", I think an actual kitchen, not the primitive equivalent, since moving the cooking area into a dedicated room sounds like something typical of civilized beings. So, instead of listing all the things that can be found in a kitchen, maybe a simple "stocked like typical kitchen" would do.

Or better yet: "stocked like 21st century kitchen, with triple-size inexplicable appliances (fridge, blender, microwave.)" Because *that* would be worth mentioning.

Quote from: Gib;625654Your lies demean us all.

Which bit?

1.  Droll faux-quote of Gygaxian brilliance

2. Obvious sarcasm

3. Assertion that I think I understand what Ben's trying to say even if I don't agree with it

4. Art appreciation from known whimsy-fan

They're probably all lies, really.  It's about time I did some demeaning around here.  I'm chronically over-filtered.

Quote from: Melan;625449He has just kickstarted a free RPG day module (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1939191852/lotfp-2013-free-rpg-day-adventure?ref=card). It is an interesting business idea.

Actually, i was referring to Anon whateverhisnameis.

Quote from: VectorSigma;625660Which bit?

1.  Droll faux-quote of Gygaxian brilliance

2. Obvious sarcasm

3. Assertion that I think I understand what Ben's trying to say even if I don't agree with it

4. Art appreciation from known whimsy-fan

They're probably all lies, really.  It's about time I did some demeaning around here.  I'm chronically over-filtered.

It's impossible to have a meaningful campaign unless strict utensil accounting is kept.

Quote from: T. Foster;625547http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2010/10/leave-dunaways-alone-true-artists-and.html

The first paragraph was so full of garbage (your point, I know) I stopped reading:

QuoteIn my 40+ years of being involved in the RPG industry, [...] I have yet to see critics, naysayers or others of that ilk win an award, publish anything of merit

I call bullshit. A large number of professional RPG writers began by being critics of current RPG's.

Tunnels and Trolls and Palladium, as an example.

Seriously, sir, get over yourself.

EDIT: Also, dude has no idea what a "yellow journalist" is.

If you are spelling out anything for reasons which wouldn't hit me right away you are a thief trying to fill the module with useless prose wank.

You should burn in hell. Asshole.

Quote from: Benoist;625708If you are spelling out anything for reasons which wouldn't hit me right away you are a thief trying to fill the module with useless prose wank.

You should burn in hell. Asshole.

I'm glad you finally came around to the right way of thinking!  I knew you had potential to go the distance.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;625481How about that?

12(a) Giants’ kitchen
   Fireplace: 50 gallon vat of “hand stew” (i.e. containing assorted bits of chopped-up humans) simmers in the fire.
Special: If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20’ in the direction it’s tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage).
   Kitchen table: 8’ high, two whole cows on top, along with various giant-sized kitchen implements that can be used as improvised weapons at -1 to hit. (e.g. cleavers count as voulges, paring knives as bastard swords, rolling pins as morning stars, etc.)

12(b) Pantry
   Giant-sized sacks of flour, potatoes, onions, etc.

12(c) Giants’ larder
   Whole cows and several human corpses are hanging on hooks.
Special: One of the latter still wears a signet ring identifying him as the son of a local petty noble (the others were his guards and retinue). If this body is returned, the party will be rewarded with 500 g.p. (or other equivalent favor) by the father.


I agree, the prose version makes for better reading but at the game table, behind the GM screen, this works better for me.

That's roughly how I'd do it.

I'd probably retain a Familiar v. Unusual section just to give GMs a heads up of what works off of familiar tropes and what's going to need more attention.

I really like your "Special" section inclusion. Kinda works differently than my"Recommendations" because it tags the recommended idea to an object or section of the room first, instead of the room itself and then localize. That way it hotkeys potential to descriptions as they are being described. Mine makes those room highlights still optional, and presents it in a list format in case people want to use it as a randomized table. I like both formats actually, they each serve a purpose.

And I must absolutely applaud you for bolding key words. It's such a simple thing, but boy does it help when GMing.

Here's how I think I would retain my format for such a list of rooms. (I moved familiar and unusual because this is a cluster of sub-rooms for one main room complex.) I'm adding more, 'cuz it's fun:



Region: Giant's Food Rooms
Familiar - Medieval era. Fireplace cauldron, butcher table, pantry, larder, cellar, dining room, cold storage, smoke & BBQ rooms, etc.
Unusual - Everything is Large sized.

Regional Mobs: Giants, Orcs, Bobcats, etc.

Regional Treasure: Signet Ring, giant-sized butcher tools, etc.

12 (a) Giant's Kitchen, main room
1. Cauldron is simmering with human hand stew. If tipped over (requiring a successful Open Doors roll) everyone within 20’ in the direction it’s tipped must save vs. wands or be scalded (2-12 damage).
2. Butcher table has two whole cows atop, along with giant-sized butcher tools. These tools may be used as -1 to-hit improvised weapons. (e.g. cleaver as voulge, trimming knife as bastard sword, etc.).

12 (b) Giant's Pantry
1. Climbing or shaking the pantry risks food avalanche (5+ on 1d6). Save v. wands to get out of the way and take no damage.
 1-2 Flour: Crush 1-4 hp in 10' sq., creates Fog & asphyxiate 1 hp round in 40' radius, may explode from static or fire. Buried may smother.
 3-5 Potatoes & Onions: Crush 2-12 hp in 20' square. Save is 1/4 bruise damage from bouncing food. Area is now slippery. Buried may smother.
 6 Cheese Wheel of Doom!: Crush 4-16 hp in 5' square, then rolls in one direction (1d12 clockwise) for 1-4 hp. Reeks, but no gas damage.
2. Domesticated bobcats stay here. Wary, low morale. Often seeks Giant owners when attacked.

12 (c) Giant's Larder
1. Among whole cows are several human corpses hanging on hooks. One still wears a signet ring -- a son of a local noble who is offering a reward to find him or his body and ring. Suggested reward: 500 gp or one noble favor.
2. Gelatinous Cube Head Cheese, corralled in a metal half box. Still alive and thoroughly delicious!
3. Massive sausage rope leading to a top shelf of whole dragon whelp jerky. Gutted and skinned, but teeth and claws still intact.

Quote from: Gib;625654Your lies demean us all.

Damn it Gib! I already maxed out my demeaning points for today.

Quote from: misterguignol;625709I'm glad you finally came around to the right way of thinking!  I knew you had potential to go the distance.

Oh please. He hasn't even called you Hitler yet.

Quote from: Opaopajr;625714Here's how I think I would retain my format for such a list of rooms. (I moved familiar and unusual because this is a cluster of sub-rooms for one main room complex.) I'm adding more, 'cuz it's fun:

That was awesome!  I love the idea of how the giant sized everything pose environmental dangers. Kudos to you!

Quote from: Opaopajr;625714Here's how I think I would retain my format for such a list of rooms. (I moved familiar and unusual because this is a cluster of sub-rooms for one main room complex.)

Great! Good to see that something fruitful came from this thread. (Unlikely as it was...)

QuoteUnusual - Everything is Large sized.

This one is great! (Pun intended...)

QuoteAnd I must absolutely applaud you for bolding key words. It's such a simple thing, but boy does it help when GMing.

Yes, it's a great help. I used to use a yellow marker to highlight passages in TSR modules ("nooooooo!") because the way TSR emphasised things drove me nuts (bold for magic items, italics for spells, and CAPITALS for what?).

But I'd rather not highlight the treasures or movable items that only come into play when the players interact with the room, but the stuff that is immediately visible.
I tend to forget the "elephant in the room" when the text makes me close in on the minutiae.

So this is how I'd do it:

Quote12 (c) Giant's Larder
1. Among whole cows are several human corpses hanging on hooks. One still wears a signet ring -- a son of a local noble who is offering a reward to find him or his body and ring. Suggested reward: 500 gp or one noble favor.
2. Gelatinous Cube Head Cheese, corralled in a metal half box. Still alive and thoroughly delicious!
3. Massive sausage rope leading to a top shelf of whole dragon whelp jerky. Gutted and skinned, but teeth and claws still intact.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;625859Yes, it's a great help. I used to use a yellow marker to highlight passages in TSR modules ("nooooooo!") because the way TSR emphasised things drove me nuts (bold for magic items, italics for spells, and CAPITALS for what?).

But I'd rather not highlight the treasures or movable items that only come into play when the players interact with the room, but the stuff that is immediately visible.
I tend to forget the "elephant in the room" when the text makes me close in on the minutiae.

I used to do this as well - you can tell all the modules in my collection that I've actually run because they're the ones with highlighting over words like table, fireplace and altar :)

Quote from: T. Foster;625865I used to do this as well - you can tell all the modules in my collection that I've actually run because they're the ones with highlighting over words like table, fireplace and altar :)

See, I do this true and it always bugged me because I thought "The time it is taking to go through and highlight this shit anybody could literally have written something just as good if not better:  plate.....cupboard...snake....bag".

They could have at least started by highlighting it for you.

When I write up room description I try to describe the immediately visible contents in beginning of the first paragraph and then describe the rest of it.

QuoteAttached to the south wall is the chapel house, this is the residence of Elder Anselm and Acolyte Norwold. There are three rooms. The main room has the kitchen and a long table. The floor of the room is stone and underneath the table there is a section that can be loosened to reveal a chest sized compartment. Here Elder Anselm keeps the temple's treasury and ceremonial implements. Also inside are two leather bound ledgers. The first ledger contains the church accounts, and the other a register of parishioners along with various charters and other legal documents. There is a large sack containing 5,000d (20 lbs), and a small velvet pouch with two gold crowns (320d each). The ceremonial implements are worth 1,000d. At night, Norwold sleeps on the floor in front of the fireplace.

The northeast room is Elder Anselm's bedroom and contains his bed, and a wardrobe with his normal and ceremonial clothes. The southeast room is his study. The chest contains candles, incense, parchment, writing supplies, and less valuable ceremonial implements (300d total). There is a 1 in 4 chance that either the account ledger or the registry will be on the desk.

Quote9) Knifreda's Residence
This is another two room apartment also having an inner bedroom and outer study. The inner bedroom has the look of two people occupying it as Vainvid, Knifeada's lover, sleeps here more often than his own apartment. A strong animal smell permeates the room. The outer study is sparsely equipped compared to other mages of Knifreda's experience. What is there looks new, and has a disorganized look. Scattered across the benches are 300d in ritual components and 6 viz. One wall is dominated by a bookshelf full of parchment, blank tomes, quills, inks, and other scribe supplies used by Knifreda in her work for Swarton.

Quote15) Residence of Leon the Ostler and Ecgric
This is a one room stone cottage with a table, chairs, two beds, two chests, armoire, and a fireplace. The cottage is messy with clothes and unwashed dishes lying around. Hidden in a satchel, tied underneath one of the beds, is Leon's savings of 220d and two gems, a red garnet worth 30d and a rose quartz worth 15d.
Hidden underneath Ecgric's bed, in a leather satchel, is a valuable copy of the Baralac Cycle, a series of legends surrounding one of the Dragon Kings of Caelam (an old name for City-State). It is worth 50d. One of the apprentices, Raedric is helping him learn to read it. It is a family heirloom passed down from his father.

Navel-gazing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;642806Navel-gazing.

We're not worthy.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;642806Navel-gazing.

Well who could argue with that?

EDIT: my 2 cents
Lately I've been experimenting with organizing the key based on levels of scrutiny, starting with what the party can see at a glance and working toward those secrets which require some actual experimentation to discover.
So, e.g.
At a glance: Ophidian idol atop blackened stone altar.
Looking closer: Altar is covered in ashes and rancid oil. Idol is verdigris moray eel, mouth open. Idol appears to be hollow.
On investigation: Idol is full of ashes and little bones, probably human. Feeding the idol grants water-breathing as per the spell, duration proportionate to sacrifice.

Just thought I'd throw this out here. Has anyone else had similar thoughts, or tried something similar?
Comments, critiques, suggestions?

Quote from: TristramEvans;624537Plus, no OSR has yet to touch the awesomeness that was Planescape.

This.

Also, Dark Sun and its little cannibal halflings.

Quote from: Dan Vincze;643326EDIT: my 2 cents
Lately I've been experimenting with organizing the key based on levels of scrutiny, starting with what the party can see at a glance and working toward those secrets which require some actual experimentation to discover.
So, e.g.
At a glance: Ophidian idol atop blackened stone altar.
Looking closer: Altar is covered in ashes and rancid oil. Idol is verdigris moray eel, mouth open. Idol appears to be hollow.
On investigation: Idol is full of ashes and little bones, probably human. Feeding the idol grants water-breathing as per the spell, duration proportionate to sacrifice.

Just thought I'd throw this out here. Has anyone else had similar thoughts, or tried something similar?
Comments, critiques, suggestions?

Looks very practical. I like the sound of it.

Quote from: silva;643449This.

Also, Dark Sun and its little cannibal halflings.

The thing with doing Planescape or Dark Sun is that, well, unlike rulesets, settings are well protected by American and international IP law. Your best bet is to dust off your old Planescape or Dark Sun box sets (or wait and hope for a PDF release) and run it with your ruleset of choice.

Nevertheless, there's no dearth of OSR settings and adventures inspired by the same sword-and-planet and dying-earth literature that inspired Dark Sun. Planet Algol, The Metal Earth, Carcosa, ASE... some of these make Dark Sun look like a picnic at the park. ;)

Quote from: Will Graham;625240The OSR advocate wants to have his cake and eat it.

Two prevailing assumptions which are promoted implicitly by the 'thinktank' within the OSR are damaging to the OSR if it has any serious intent to produce work rising above the mediocre.

The assumptions are that,
(i)  it is 'good' to produce material which can be read swiftly and referred to with instant gratification at the gametable. The material is all surface; ideas are tiny and pop-out at the reader.

(ii)  all campaigns are generic with atmospheres as coherent as the toy-stuffed child's playroom. Tonal cramming ensures a campaign is disorganised enough to receive bleeding chunks surgically removed from any other campaign.

These assumptions are *opposed* to originality.

In my opinion the most important elements of Fantasy are originality and language. The great fantasy novels benefitted from attention paid to both. I believe language in the hands of someone who can write is a powerful tool in D&D but it is not essential. Originality remains essential. The more wildly creative D&D material is the less likely it can be slapped in thoughtlessly into someone else's campaign but surely strange and powerful sub-creation remains the most valuable contribution a writer can make to the D&D community.

Opposing the assumptions I say,

(i)  no, don't only use the surface of language. I need something deeper than convenience, more thoughtful, if I am to be inspired by your ideas or believe in your world.

(ii)  no, I don't want to use your material directly. Give a good account of what it is like to adventure in your world. Make me envious of your campaign and your creativity. Inspire me to improve my game.

It may be true that plug and play modules are what most DMs want, in which case I ask, in the interests of modesty and honesty that it is admitted that these kinds of works are pieces of shit compared to original work.

I agree 110% with this.

I just got my eyes ( for the first time ) in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy. While I found it ridiculously modular and user-friendly, I also found it *raises shield* terribly dry and uninspiring. I know its purpose is exactly that, being a customizable and user-friendly sandbox, but then Griffin Mountain shares most of those principles while being highly evocative and dripping with originality at the same time. And because of that its the better product for me.

No, it is not better.

Quote from: Dan Vincze;643326Lately I've been experimenting with organizing the key based on levels of scrutiny, starting with what the party can see at a glance and working toward those secrets which require some actual experimentation to discover.

Just thought I'd throw this out here. Has anyone else had similar thoughts, or tried something similar?

Paul Jaquays did so, in RuneQuest scenarios published by the Judges Guild.

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

RPGPundit

Responding to this without reading the rest of the thread:

I said that three years ago after receiving dozens of OSR releases from various publishers to sell at my vendor table at the local Finnish conventions. I was struck by how different and enthusiastic (in some ways at odds with being professional) it all was.

The decentralization (and resulting lack of conformity or consistency) combined with the scope of material being released now serves the audience and "the game" better than what TSR did.

So much awesome stuff already out there, and room for any amount of additional stuff as long as it's good.

Quote from: JimLotFP;643748The decentralization (and resulting lack of conformity or consistency) combined with the scope of material being released now serves the audience and "the game" better than what TSR did.

So much awesome stuff already out there, and room for any amount of additional stuff as long as it's good.

Another guy who hasn't read the whole thread here...I think you're very right about this.

Quote from: The ButcherNevertheless, there's no dearth of OSR settings and adventures inspired by the same sword-and-planet and dying-earth literature that inspired Dark Sun. Planet Algol, The Metal Earth, Carcosa, ASE... some of these make Dark Sun look like a picnic at the park.

Yeah, but notice how all settings you mentioned are more or less of the same genre spectrum ( sword-and-sorcery/planet and dying earth) while the TSR ones varied more widely genre-wise - Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Zakhara, etc.

Thats a "problem" I see with OSR: they stick to a really restrict genre/style. While TSR, despite all the supposed commercial and suits restraints, managed to venture further creatively-wise, producing settings that spanned a wider spectrum of genres. Also, I feel the OSR is too dungeon-focused, while TSR felt more setting-focused to me, with products that feel more internally-consistent (in opposition to the easy-of-use/customization focus, but creative superficiality of the former). But I may be wrong here, since I didnt read most of OSR settings, I just end up reading what people say or discuss about them.

Normally I don't feel motivated to respond, but I could feel the strawman's boot on my face, so I thought I should sqwak. I am on a hiatus currently, but you can find five(or more?) different settings on my site alone. Calssic D&D style fantasy: Province if Forgotten Empire; PA/sword and planet with a desert focus: Metal Earth, Satan's Spine; PA/Sword and Planet with an ice age focus: Metal Earth, Ruinlands; Gothic 19th century inspired fantasy: The Haunted Isles. And recently I've started to do some stuff with detailing HPL'S dreamlands.
Beyond that there is stuff like Spears of the Dawn, Stars without Number, Wampus Country, Gothic Earth, Arrows of Whattthefuckever, and so on. There is a ton of variety out there. Check your confirmation bias.

Quote from: silva;643812Thats a "problem" I see with OSR: they stick to a really restrict genre/style.

Stars Without Number - planet-hopping sci fi.

Backswords & Bucklers - Elizabethan fantasy.

Flying Swordsmen - Chinese wuxia martial arts fantasy.

Mutant Future - post-apocalypse sci-fi.

Please, shut the fuck up. Or don't, and keep looking ignorant. Either one's fine, really.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;643819Stars Without Number - planet-hopping sci fi.

Backswords & Bucklers - Elizabethan fantasy.

Flying Swordsmen - Chinese wuxia martial arts fantasy.

Mutant Future - post-apocalypse sci-fi.

Please, shut the fuck up. Or don't, and keep looking ignorant. Either one's fine, really.

The law of 4 chan in action. If I just stay quiet somebody will argue my point for me. I never learn.

Oops, my bad. Thanks for the correction, folks. :)

I think that the Canon of old-school has been closed. Nothing can really be added to it and stand on the same level. The Canon was closed back in a magical age that cannot be revisited. We live in a different age.

The best that the OSR can do is some sort of deuterocanon.

It's true that there IS a number of varied and highly innovative games within the OSR - and of course Vulmea was a single line away from expressing this in a completely normal and reasonable way before finally giving in and coming across as an utter cunt. Having said that, I think silva is sort of right in that the Weird Fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth set of ensisibilites does seem to be rather heavily and arguably somewhat disproportionately over-represented (and I'm saying this as someone who dearly loves some of these settings / blogs / products).

Personally, I figured that this was just a phase, however enduring, and would eventually end with number of new and interesting voices appearing in the OSR blogosphere or whatever, taking it in new directions. It just hasn't happened yet.

QuoteI think that the Canon of old-school has been closed. Nothing can really be added to it and stand on the same level. The Canon was closed back in a magical age that cannot be revisited. We live in a different age.

The best that the OSR can do is some sort of deuterocanon.

I loathe any mention of an RPG / OSR / whateverhobby "canon" with every fiber of my being. A game, a system, a module or a blog should stand on the merits of its quality, on how interesting, fun and innovative it is; not on whether some self-designated game theologists deem it worthy to be raised into the canon along with the works of Our Fathers Gary & Dave. I know that SWN or ASSH have given me more cool ideas and/or better DM-ing tools than whatever official TSR product I've last perused, and that's the only sort of "canon" I give a damn about.

Quote from: Premier;643864the Weird Fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth set of ensisibilites does seem to be rather heavily and arguably somewhat disproportionately over-represented (and I'm saying this as someone who dearly loves some of these settings / blogs / products).

Personally, I figured that this was just a phase, however enduring, and would eventually end with number of new and interesting voices appearing in the OSR blogosphere or whatever, taking it in new directions. It just hasn't happened yet.

I agree it's over-represented, sure.  It's also "over-represented" in Appendix N, so anybody who gets their kicks as a gaming-history-fetishist (even a little bit) might be grabbing on to that as well.  Plus, it's a counter-movement, in that TSR/WotC haven't really done much, if anything, with that end of the spectrum in ages, so of course you're going to see more of it in the OSR flogosphere.  And - pure opinion here - a lot of what you see on some blogs is pure thought-experiment rather than notes from a game-in-progress, and that may make a difference as well.

"Weird" is overrepresented.  So is "gonzo", so is "metal", so is "fantasy fucking Vietnam" playstyle.  So is "Western Marches", "open table", "hexcrawl", "megadungeon".  But, as always, the blogs are a fraction of what's going on out there.  Tons of gamers, many of them playing very different ways.

It's easy to see these things trumpeted, but I think they're less common on a larger scale.  I'm sure plenty of people are using retroclones or the original games to play "high fantasy", "classic fantasy", "paladins & princesses", whatever the hell you want to call it, or just cranking through classic modules and having a great time of it.

Quote from: Premier;643864. . . and of course Vulmea was a single line away from expressing this in a completely normal and reasonable way before finally giving in and coming across as an utter cunt.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nlh0KRqM2Jg/TnekMu7DusI/AAAAAAAADb8/SpTRHqmf2fA/s1600/kid-w-middle-finger.jpg)

I started running weird fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth-influenced sandbox hexcrawls with SF elements before they were everywhere. Should I give up because some bitter pundits somewhere on the Internet think it is now too much? Stop right there, kiddo: I don't game for you. And that's all.

Quote from: VectorSigma;643889Plus, it's a counter-movement, in that TSR/WotC haven't really done much, if anything, with that end of the spectrum in ages, so of course you're going to see more of it in the OSR flogosphere.  And - pure opinion here - a lot of what you see on some blogs is pure thought-experiment rather than notes from a game-in-progress, and that may make a difference as well.

I see it as a backlash against all the squeaky clean TSR offerings of the late 80's and early 90's. They took out all the titty monsters and loot grabbing and put in sing-alongs and magic spaceships.

Not that some of it wasn't fun, some of it was. But there was a lot of saturday morning cartoon level sanitizing to D&D, some of which persists to this day.

QuoteI started running weird fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth-influenced sandbox hexcrawls with SF elements before they were everywhere. Should I give up because some bitter pundits somewhere on the Internet think it is now too much? Stop right there, kiddo: I don't game for you. And that's all.

I'll admit to only having browsed the last couple of pages, but did anyone actually suggest that there should be less of the S&S / whatever stuff? I think the general line of sentiment here is that there should be more of the rest, not less of this. No one was arguing to change the party line, not that there is one.

Quote from: Premier;644044I'll admit to only having browsed the last couple of pages, but did anyone actually suggest that there should be less of the S&S / whatever stuff?

Majority or not, it sure seems to be a loudly trumpeted opinion.

Quote from: Melan;644028I started running weird fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth-influenced sandbox hexcrawls with SF elements before they were everywhere. Should I give up because some bitter pundits somewhere on the Internet think it is now too much? Stop right there, kiddo: I don't game for you. And that's all.

Agreed, while weird fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth don't appeal to me personally (obviously sandbox hexcrawls do tho) it makes me happy that open gaming and the technology of the Internet is allowing those that do to share their stuff, perhaps make a little money, and grow their community with new gamers.

And if there are folks with an issue with that, well there is nothing to stop them from promoting, publishing, and playing the games they like. And if they still have a problem then they really should get a life.

Quote from: Melan;644054Majority or not, it sure seems to be a loudly trumpeted opinion.

It may be a reason of bottled - up dislike for glorification of gonzo, exploding across The Internets. Just like the love of gonzo exploded before on the OSR blogs. Just going through the usual motions, really - you know, movement, countermovement, all that jazz.

Personally, I never liked the so - called "gonzo" and probably never will, unless I land under a great GM who'll just run a fun campaign with it. But if you do - I think there's both a plenty of material for "gonzo" S&S/Weird Stuff DnD, as well for just S&S DnD.

Quote from: Piestrio;624517Night below is amazing.

Night Below is one of my favorites.

Is Reverse Dungeon 2E?

Quote from: Melan;644028I started running weird fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth-influenced sandbox hexcrawls with SF elements before they were everywhere.

And you'll be running them when the eye of fashion has settled elsewhere.  Nobody's judging you, Melan.

Quote from: Melan;644028I started running weird fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth-influenced sandbox hexcrawls with SF elements before they were everywhere.

This is sort of off topic, but I'm a bit surprised by that statement as I've never really considered Fomalhaut to be Weird Fantasy. S&S, Dying Earth, sci-fi, sure. Laced with modern-day social commentary and satire, yes. But I don't see the Weird element. At least, to me, that phrase conjures up something like Planet Algol, friendly extra-dimensional lobster-ghouls, long-lost ruins and items that are clearly 21st century rather than far future, goofy oversized bubble-space helmet,s and pop-culture asides without actual socio-political snarkiness. I'd be curious to learn what you personally consider W.F..

Quote from: Bill;644158Night Below is one of my favorites.

Is Reverse Dungeon 2E?

Yes it is, but I wonder how much it owes to the Orcs of Thar gazetteer?

Quote from: Fiasco;644275Yes it is, but I wonder how much it owes to the Orcs of Thar gazetteer?

I sooooo want to run a humanoid game now!

Use Orcs of Thar for the main setting, lead into the Giant, Depths, Drow modules.   Orcish warband steals the glory from those puny humans!

Quote from: Premier;644274This is sort of off topic, but I'm a bit surprised by that statement as I've never really considered Fomalhaut to be Weird Fantasy. S&S, Dying Earth, sci-fi, sure. Laced with modern-day social commentary and satire, yes. But I don't see the Weird element. At least, to me, that phrase conjures up something like Planet Algol, friendly extra-dimensional lobster-ghouls, long-lost ruins and items that are clearly 21st century rather than far future, goofy oversized bubble-space helmet,s and pop-culture asides without actual socio-political snarkiness. I'd be curious to learn what you personally consider W.F..

That's more like "gonzo". Weird fantasy to me simply means Dunsany, Merritt, Catherine L. Moore, CAS and some aspects of Vance: otherworldly, slightly surreal fantasy with odd juxtapositions, lots of vivid colour, and a combination of beauty and meance.

These elements have played a role in both Fomalhaut campaigns; sometimes more, sometimes less. The adventures in hostile otherworlds - from the dream-dimension of Yong, the half-man enchanter to the lands ruled by the Lords of Dzahn or the tower of Riamos - are the purest examples, but a lot more in-game situations have a hint of oddity which comes from my love of this style of fantasy.

Of course, I just want to run a good game. Which is why the campaigns (and modules) have been about a diverse set of ideas, and why I don't really try to conform to strict definitions. Although I have ideas about what defines my world, I have always seen it as a fluid setting, drawing from a broad variety of influences.

Looks like no Orcs of Thar for me.

$247   on Amazon.


So sad.

Quote from: JimLotFP;643748Responding to this without reading the rest of the thread:

I said that three years ago after receiving dozens of OSR releases from various publishers to sell at my vendor table at the local Finnish conventions. I was struck by how different and enthusiastic (in some ways at odds with being professional) it all was.

The decentralization (and resulting lack of conformity or consistency) combined with the scope of material being released now serves the audience and "the game" better than what TSR did.

So much awesome stuff already out there, and room for any amount of additional stuff as long as it's good.

Thank you for that clarification!  I certainly agree with the level of enthusiasm visible in more recent OSR works; I think that once we got past "clonemania" the level of creativity that the OSR shows is really astounding.

RPGPundit

Quote from: VectorSigma;643889It's easy to see these things trumpeted, but I think they're less common on a larger scale.  I'm sure plenty of people are using retroclones or the original games to play "high fantasy", "classic fantasy", "paladins & princesses", whatever the hell you want to call it, or just cranking through classic modules and having a great time of it.

I'm sure there are. After all, people used OD&D and 1e to run all sorts of campaigns back in the 1970s and 1980s. I ran a Middle Earth War of the Ring mini-campaign using OD&D back in 1976. It worked just fine.

Why aren't OSR people publishing a lot of stuff like this today? The "secret" is that OSR writers aren't professionals being paid a monthly wage with benefits to produce what other people like. For the most part they are writing what they are interested in and making it available to others, often for free or for what amounts to beer and movie money. If someone wants a high fantasy version of Swords & Wizards or Labyrinth Lord, they are welcome to write one or try to find someone interested enough in doing so to write one for them.

There's some stuff out there already, of course. You just have to find it. For example, there is a variant of S&W designed for play in The Land (of the Thomas Covenant books). I don't remember where I found it, but it's free on the Net somewhere and a copy sits on my hard drive.

Quote from: Bill;644354I sooooo want to run a humanoid game now!

Use Orcs of Thar for the main setting, lead into the Giant, Depths, Drow modules.   Orcish warband steals the glory from those puny humans!

That would be quite awesome since the giants have orcs as slaves in the steading.

FREE THE PEOPLE!!!  :)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;645260That would be quite awesome since the giants have orcs as slaves in the steading.

FREE THE PEOPLE!!!  :)

"The age of Men is over. The time of the Orc has come!"
—Gothmog

This is what I consider to be the "OSR":

* Pre-3e D&D
* Traveller
* Gamma World (not the d20, 4e, or Alternity versions)
* Boot Hill
* Star Frontiers
* Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, and other BRP games
* various retro-clones

I think you get the picture. The OSR is not pure D&D, no matter what some people might claim. TSR is actually part of the OSR (unintentionally so). That's how I see it, anyway...

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

RPGPundit

And no, I don't agree with him.

Quote from: Melan;644028I started running weird fantasy / S&S / Dying Earth-influenced sandbox hexcrawls with SF elements before they were everywhere. Should I give up because some bitter pundits somewhere on the Internet think it is now too much? Stop right there, kiddo: I don't game for you. And that's all.

Dude, stop writing my bloody posts before I do :D :hatsoff:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;645563This is what I consider to be the "OSR":

* Pre-3e D&D
* Traveller
* Gamma World (not the d20, 4e, or Alternity versions)
* Boot Hill
* Star Frontiers
* Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, and other BRP games
* various retro-clones

I think you get the picture. The OSR is not pure D&D, no matter what some people might claim. TSR is actually part of the OSR (unintentionally so). That's how I see it, anyway...

I agree. RQ (even RQ II) is as old-school as any retro-clone, or CoC or MongTrav.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;645563This is what I consider to be the "OSR":

* Pre-3e D&D
* Traveller
* Gamma World (not the d20, 4e, or Alternity versions)
* Boot Hill
* Star Frontiers
* Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, and other BRP games
* various retro-clones

Its curious that Trav and BRP stuff gets included on the list, but not other early non-TSR games?

RPGPundit

Yeah, where's Bunnies and Burrows?

For that matter, where's the Bunnies and Burrows retro-clone?

Nah.. OSR stands for "Old D&D Renaissance". Saying otherwise is delusional at best.

Quote from: RPGPundit;645846Its curious that Trav and BRP stuff gets included on the list, but not other early non-TSR games?

RPGPundit

I never got to play Boot Hill, but both Gamma World and Gangbusters were both a lot of fun.

Quote from: RPGPundit;645846Its curious that Trav and BRP stuff gets included on the list, but not other early non-TSR games?

RPGPundit

It's not an all-inclusive list, and only intended to provide examples.

Quote from: silva;645905Nah.. OSR stands for "Old D&D Renaissance". Saying otherwise is delusional at best.

Something actually labeled "OSR" yeah is really DDR - "D&D Revival".  It's symptomatic of the arrogance of jackasses like JMal to come up with such a term.

However, there has also been a resurgence of BRP stuff and Traveller stuff mainly due to Mongoose licensing them and Pete, Loz and Gareth doing such a good job with them.

We're kind of in a "OSR 2.0" wave now, with lots of Old School games coming out that are compatible, but aren't clones, and keep more to the general style of the older games rather then the rules.

In other words, OSR is outgrowing it's focus on D&D clones.

Hmm.. this OSR 2.0 thing actually makes sense, Krueger.

Maybe the OSR has just left a long enough paper trail by now that it's getting harder for people online to hold onto the stupid caricatures they made up about it back a million years ago when some other dork made fun of them on some forum somewhere.

Its fair to say that the AD&D Revival faction is the largest, and perhaps loudest faction in the OSR, but certainly not the only faction.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;644043But there was a lot of saturday morning cartoon level sanitizing to D&D, some of which persists to this day.

Some? I'd say WotC has increasingly sanitized D&D, but that was expected under the ownership of Hasbro.

Quote from: JimLotFP;643748The decentralization (and resulting lack of conformity or consistency) combined with the scope of material being released now serves the audience and "the game" better than what TSR did.

I almost agree, but TSR gave me several awesome settings and outside of Carcosa, the OSR hasn't given me a published setting that has really excited me like Dark Sun, Ravenloft or Planescape.

I gotta give TSR credit for that.

Quote from: Spinachcat;646013I gotta give TSR credit for that.

Agreed. TSR was fantastic at creating settings.

The OSR thus far hasn't really, except the setting in Nod magazine wich might be the biggest sandbox hexcrawl ever and is generally speaking made of cool and awesome and obscure RL faerietale stuff and myth and whatnot.

Quote from: CRKruegerWe're kind of in a "OSR 2.0" wave now, with lots of Old School games coming out that are compatible, but aren't clones, and keep more to the general style of the older games rather then the rules.

In other words, OSR is outgrowing it's focus on D&D clones.

Spot on!

Quote from: Spinachcat;646013Its fair to say that the AD&D Revival faction is the largest, and perhaps loudest faction in the OSR

But is it, really? Based on what metric? When I consider the various old-school D&D-based gaming blogs I frequent, my (personal, subjective) impression is that blogs and material based on AD&D 1st ed. or OSRIC certainly do not outpace OD&D and Basic-based stuff by a very significant margin. If at all.

Quote from: Spinachcat;646013I almost agree, but TSR gave me several awesome settings and outside of Carcosa, the OSR hasn't given me a published setting that has really excited me like Dark Sun, Ravenloft or Planescape.

Have you looked at Arrows of Indra?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;646464Have you looked at Arrows of Indra?

Arrows of Indra and Spears at Dawn are both on my radar, but neither India nor Africa are cultures or mythologies that immediately appeal to me. That said, I will eventually own both games just out curiosity to read what you and SineNomine have written on these unusual subjects.

Quote from: Premier;646050But is it, really? Based on what metric?

You are right that there are many fun blogs focused on 0e, Basic and their related clones. Perhaps more blogs than are focused on OSRIC, but I don't know.

Maybe I should say "Classic D&D Revival" instead of AD&D Revival because I don't draw a big line between 0e to 2e since all the material is essentially interchangeable. I run modified 0e and on the fly I can integrate almost any TSR 2e or OSRIC material.

I use "AD&D" to represent all pre-3e especially because on Dragonsfoot and K&K, there is strong emphasis (and outright worship) on the original texts and later scribblings of Gygax.

I don't view S&W Complete as OD&D, just S&W: White Box, but that is a personal preference.

I have no expectation of getting "full settings" from the OSR, precisely because of the DIY aspect that drives the whole thing.  Micro-settings, drop-ins, yes, but not a "full setting" in the sense of a Dark Sun, Planescape, etc.

Would be interesting, though.

Quote from: VectorSigma;646488I have no expectation of getting "full settings" from the OSR, precisely because of the DIY aspect that drives the whole thing.  Micro-settings, drop-ins, yes, but not a "full setting" in the sense of a Dark Sun, Planescape, etc.

Would be interesting, though.

Some consider my Majestic Wilderlands supplement a fairly complete setting.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=68864

Quote from: Spinachcat;646479Arrows of Indra and Spears at Dawn are both on my radar, but neither India nor Africa are cultures or mythologies that immediately appeal to me. That said, I will eventually own both games just out curiosity to read what you and SineNomine have written on these unusual subjects.

Well, I hope it surprises you.

Quote from: estar;646696Some consider my Majestic Wilderlands supplement a fairly complete setting.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=68864

I don't think I would, not in the sense he means.
Its a "complete" setting in the sense that the original greyhawk or blackmoor booklets were settings; there's a lot of new rules and mechanical stuff, and then a very rough and general overview of the world.
But for it to be "complete" the way Dark Sun is complete, say, you'd need to have a 64-page gazeteer, several smaller-scale maps (ideally hexmaps) showing the places of the world in far more detail, a dozen or so pages of NPCs, some adventure seeds if not a full-blown adventure, etc.

RPGPundit