I liked the OSR when it was about playing older editions and out-of-print games.

Quote from: The Shaman;316249I liked the OSR when it was about playing older editions and out-of-print games.

:confused:  It still is.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316243Yes, absolutely. When I wrote Labyrinth Lord I had these goals in mind:

1) Support old games by making a system emulator freely available

2) Support open gaming by making it all open game content

3) Provide an "in print" brand to hopefully spur interest in playing the game and for producing new material

It's true none of us knew WotC would pull their PDFs, but if anyone recalls we had discussed the possibility. That's why making these systems completely open under the OGL is important. No matter what I may decide to do with the "Labyrinth Lord Brand" the text is all open for everyone, forever.

Yes, thanks for making LL open for everyone in perpetuity, Dan.

Also, I forgot to mention your excellent Mutant Future[/i] game as an example of a genuinely 'new' game that is based on an 'old' game.

Quote from: Akrasia;316240:confused: Your identification of a 'fundamental flaw' in the OSR is puzzling.

You fail to grasp that one of the main purposes of the 'retro-clone' systems (S&W, LL, OSRIC) is to ensure that free versions of older systems are available forever.  I'm not sure why you think that this is a 'fundamental flaw'.  It strikes me as a laudable goal, especially in light of the recent removal of all PDF versions of OOP versions of D&D by WotC.

Although the 1e AD&D books remain relatively common via e-bay (although generally of dubious physical quality), OD&D now costs 100's of dollars.  It also is hard to find decent copies of B/X D&D or the RC D&D.  The retro-clones overcome the increasing problem of scarcity with respect to OOP D&D.

This would only make sense if the "clone" in question was really and truly IDENTICAL to the original game. And not 93% identical with 7% slight changes based on what the designer thinks is cool.

Also, most of the people the Old-school movement is targetting are people who already own old-school games. It would be a different story if the plan was to mass-market one of these, but that's not what's happening here.

QuoteFtA! is a good game, and members of the OSR are doing similar things, i.e., building their own 'old school' games.  Most members of the OSR just choose to cleave more closely to the original D&D rules, however.  Those rules provide a kind of 'common language' for the participants in the OSR.

I think their time could be spent more productively, either creating significantly new games with an old-school vibe, or producing adventures/sourcebooks/setting for use with OOP games, rather than just creating slightly mutated clones. Is some of the latter happening? Yes, it seems so, finally, and that's good I guess.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrients;316185The flaw only exists if you assume that the OSR is meant to cater only to the people who have been playing D&D for decades.  I run Labyrinth Lord instead of Moldvay Basic/Expert so my players can easily get the rulebook.  At least 2 players have downloaded copies and one has ordered a print rulebook.

Also, I think we're in a transitional period right now.  We will soon reach a point where darn near every game anyone cares about will be cloned.  I believe design will continue after that.  If the movement is successful, we'll have more "neo-retro" games in 5 years than actual clones.  I consider that a good thing.

I would consider it a good thing too. And I hope it turns out that way, and that a game like FtA! is just ahead of its time.

I think that HMb is very much the sort of thing I envision, and similar to FtA! in that sense, yes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;316255I think their time could be spent more productively, either creating significantly new games with an old-school vibe, or producing adventures/sourcebooks/setting for use with OOP games, rather than just creating slightly mutated clones. Is some of the latter happening? Yes, it seems so, finally, and that's good I guess.

I've seen this sort of sentiment before. I do find it touching, but if I'm not lamenting all my wasted time please don't feel the need to do it for me. It's not necessary. ;-)

Seriously though, I really do get that some people don't understand where this is coming from. That's fine. Obviously, though, there are many people that do get it because my audience continues to grow. I'd wager I've sold more copies of Labyrinth Lord than many other small press fantasy games that do try to be "original."

Quote from: Akrasia;316251:confused:  It still is.

It seems like the most intensive old school buzz on the message boards comes from creating new clones and clone-variants, not the adventures and perhaps settings they were intended to spawn.

Or maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316255This would only make sense if the "clone" in question was really and truly IDENTICAL to the original game. And not 93% identical with 7% slight changes based on what the designer thinks is cool.

I would say that the clones are much closer to the originals than you think -- closer to 98%.  It is clear that you have not read the retro-clones closely.  What deviations do exist do not affect the way that the games play in practice, and do not affect in any way the 'game stats' in modules, etc.

Moreover, the reason for the deviations decidedly is not simply a matter of "what the designer thinks is cool".  Rather, it is primarily to ensure the legality of the clone.  A clone that was identical to the original would not be legal (for reasons of 'artistic representation').

Quote from: RPGPundit;316255Also, most of the people the Old-school movement is targetting are people who already own old-school games. It would be a different story if the plan was to mass-market one of these, but that's not what's happening here.

Actually, the fact that the retro-clones are free and available online, means that they have been extremely useful in getting new people to try out older games.

This certainly has been my own experience.  I've found it easier to introduce new players to older versions of D&D precisely because LL and S&W are available for free!  Many others have had similar experiences.

EDIT: Oh yeah, S&W is presently negotiating a distribution deal with a 'major' publisher (details yet to be revealed by Mythmere).

Quote from: RPGPundit;316255I think their time could be spent more productively, either creating significantly new games with an old-school vibe, or producing adventures/sourcebooks/setting for use with OOP games, rather than just creating slightly mutated clones. Is some of the latter happening? Yes, it seems so, finally, and that's good I guess.

RPGPundit

Lots of adventures, sourcebooks, settings have been produced for OOP games (equally useable with the retro-clones and the original games) from the very beginning of the OSR.  That was the original purpose of OSRIC.  I'm rather surprised that you are unaware of this.

As for 'creating significantly new games with an old-school vibe', why bother, when people still like the basic mechanics of the older games?  Why rebuild the wheel, when tweaking it will suffice?  

Mutant Future is much easier for most gamers to learn and play because it is clearly based upon Basic/Expert D&D.  In contrast, the start up costs for playing an entirely new game (like FTA) are much greater, and the pay-off far less certain.

Quote from: The Shaman;316259It seems like the most intensive old school buzz on the message boards comes from creating new clones and clone-variants, not the adventures and perhaps settings they were intended to spawn.

Or maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places.

IME, the focus of discussion has been on adventures and settings, as well as on house rules.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316258... I'd wager I've sold more copies of Labyrinth Lord than many other small press fantasy games that do try to be "original."

I quite like many aspects of the Pundit's FtA! :pundit:

But I would wager $5000 that LL has sold many more copies.

Quote from: Akrasia;316262I quite like many aspects of the Pundit's FtA! :pundit:

But I would wager $5000 that LL has sold many more copies.

Well, that's not what I was getting at. People who want to create another fantasy game have unique challenges. Honestly, there is no point even comparing a game like FtA! with Labyrinth Lord. I have very specific goals with Labyrinth Lord. That's one of the frustrating things about it when people come along and say I should be doing this, or I should be doing that. Why should someone dictate to me what I do in my spare time? I am catering to a niche group of people, and I'm fine with that. If I'm fine with it, it's my time to "waste."

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316264Well, that's not what I was getting at. People who want to create another fantasy game have unique challenges. Honestly, there is no point even comparing a game like FtA! with Labyrinth Lord.

My apologies if I misinterpreted your point.  I understood you to be saying that obviously you are not 'wasting' your time if so many people are interested in LL (more people than the audiences of many entirely new games).  

In any case, my point is that creating an entirely new 'old school' game is not intrinsically superior to reproducing and/or tweaking a game that already has been tested by time, and whose mechanics are widely known.

As I stated earlier:

Quote from: Akrasia;316260As for 'creating significantly new games with an old-school vibe', why bother, when people still like the basic mechanics of the older games?  Why rebuild the wheel, when tweaking it will suffice?  

... the start up costs for playing an entirely new game ... are much greater, and the pay-off far less certain.

Quote from: Akrasia;316265In any case, my point is that creating an entirely new 'old school' game is not intrinsically superior to reproducing and/or tweaking a game that already has been tested by time, and whose mechanics are widely known.

The added challenge with a new game is to try to convince people why they should give a crap. There are a lot of fantasy games out there.

Quote from: Akrasia;316251:confused:  It still is.

Is it really?  All the talk about OSR stuff these days seems to be house rules, house rules, and more house rules.  Twisting the game to the point of unrecognizability into something the user will actually play, while still being able to marginally identify with the movement.  

At what point does the hacked apart beast that actually gets played cease to be really the same game anymore?  And isn't it a touch intellectually dishonest to drag it to that point and still claim to be playing the same trendy new game everyone else is?

What I get from a lot of the recent threads, like the AC debate and others, is that people want the cachet of being associated with the OSR, but without any of the actual rules the OSR is supposedly predicated on.

Quote from: J Arcane;316268Is it really?  All the talk about OSR stuff these days seems to be house rules, house rules, and more house rules.  Twisting the game to the point of unrecognizability into something the user will actually play, while still being able to marginally identify with the movement.

This is what playing D&D was like back in the pre AD&D days. Every campaign used its own interpretations of the rules and its own selection of house rules (included those borrowed from other campaigns). Every GM changed things -- often in major ways -- which made for a lot of variety.  However, we were all playing D&D.