TheRPGSite

Cross posted from my latest blog entry...

The Old School Renaissance---love the spirit, love the energy, love the nostalgic good feelings---just not into the games themselves.

It's been about 6 months now since I started getting into the old school thing, which I guess means reading and contributing to blogs and boards related to the topic of older versions of D&D and their associated clones.  I downloaded all the clones, read through them, and enjoyed the trip down memory lane as I also read through the older edition books I have.  The lure of simpler rulesets and simpler times was a real draw.  The idea of having more power in the DM's hands was also an attraction.  Rulings, not rules baby!  I used some of the ideas I learned in that time to develop the backbone and ideas of the Medieval Bard Rock Band Campaign, (click the dude with the lute in the top right to learn more).  I even re-read Leiber, Howard, and other Swords and Sorcery era authors to get into the mood.  We started the bard campaign, and I believe that my time swimming in the old school pool has influenced how I DM it in a positive way.  

A few weeks ago, I finally convinced my group to give Swords and Wizardry a shot, as we were planning to tackle the Tomb of Horrors (we never played it, back in the day). I printed out multiple copies of the S&W books for the players, and we got together to go over the rules and plan for the game.  We had a good time creating the characters.  They kept saying things like "Holy crap I can turn demons!" and "My cleric has more HP than your fighting man", etc. It was really a fun trip down memory lane.  I read through Tomb of Horrors, and was ready to go for the next week.  

When next week came along, I kept finding myself thinking more about the bard campaign, and the other campaign we put off for the past few months as the other DM took a break.  We ended up playing the bard campaign the next week, and back shelving the S&W session.  I felt like I wined and dined a woman I wanted, then got her into the bedroom and realized I didn't want to have sex with her.  It was weird.

For the longest time, I was a reluctant 3.x player.  Until late 2006 I never played a 3.x game, and prior to that, the last time I played D&D was 2nd edition in 1999.  I basically missed the whole 3.x era.  Second Edition was my game of choice.  It was simpler--3.x had way too many rules for me.  We houseruled the hell out of the 3.0 game we play, so as to make it more like the older games. But still, we use skills, feats, detailed spell descriptions, classes and class abilities, and most other aspects of 3.0.  For the bard campaign, we are even using aspects of Pathfinder Beta, and will likely incorporate some of the better elements of PF Final when it comes out.  

I know that one of the best features of the older games is that they are very modifiable, easily added to. As I went through the mental checklist of what I would add to S&W to make it more like the game I would like to play, I realize that it would probably end up looking like the game we play now.  Weird.  But as I think about it, I realize that I have more of a grasp of the rules of 3.x now than when I began playing it.  I am more comfortable with the game rules, and with the reasons behind those rules.  And best of all, the players in the group don't hold me to all of them.  I'm able to wing it, as long as everyone has a good time. I make up rules and rolls on the spot, and we all get a kick out of what happens.  As long as no one feels I'm railroading them, or just being arbitrary and capricious at their character's expense, it's all good.

We use the rules as guidelines, not maxims.  They're used if we need them, and don't act as a straightjacket.  Certain things we eliminate completely, like ability score buff spells, DR, and magic items that give ability score bonuses, but most of the rest of the rules framework we use if needed.  It's sort of like how we played AD&D.  We hit the DM Guide when we needed to, but as long as the combat and treasure flowed, we were mostly fine.

Which brings me to another thought.  There are really two aspects to the old school thing as far as I can tell---one is the rulesets, the other is the flavor of the campaign.  A lot of people, including me, conflated Swords and Sorcery's grittiness as depicted by Leiber and Howard with the old school rules, since they were contemporaneous, and Gygax was influenced by them.  I realize now that rules can be easily separated from campaign flavor. One doesn't dictate the other.  Old school rulesets aren't a necessary aspect of a Swords and Sorcery style game.  The grittiness, morally neutral/selfish, darker mood from the S&S authors I like can easily fit a 3.x ruleset, as I am demonstrating to my own satisfaction (and that of my players) with the bard campaign.
 
The flavor of the campaign is really set by the players and the DM deciding what the character motivations are going to be, not necessarily the ruleset or what the ruleset rewards to level up.  In the old days, GP for XP was king.  That dictated a lot about how people played the game.  Now, killing the toughest bad guys dictates how fast people level, under the 3.x rules.  We are basically skipping any formal XP system altogether with the bards, and I am just leveling the characters as the campaign needs dictates.  That way the players can have fun with their characters, and not be straightjacketed by having to do certain things to level.

I realize now that what I was really looking for out of the old school thing was more of an S&S campaign feel, and less of a need for old school game rulesets.  I was tired of the heroic "save the world" stuff which the 2e era ushered in with Dragonlance and its progeny.  I am now DM'ing a comedic S&S type game, if there's such a thing.  I guess it's more of a Hackmaster type of game, (from what I've heard of it, because we never played Hackmaster either).  

So while I love that the OSR is taking place, I don't really feel myself a part of it.  I love reading about what people are doing, though.  Castle Zagyg Upper Works boxed set by Gygax/Troll Lord is featured prominently in the bard campaign, as will be Rob Kuntz's original Castle Greyhawk levels when they come out.  I'm also going to use a lot from WG13 as the characters hit lower levels of the dungeon.  But the dungeon delving will only be a small part of it all, because at the same time I'm using a lot of modern gaming influences, rules, and elements like Green Ronin's Pirates of Freeport as the main setting, with heavy social roleplay elements.  It's not all hack and slash anymore.  Entire sessions go by without a sword being swung, and we're all happy with that.

I don't know what the future holds for the OSR.  I don't know what drives everyone else's involvement with it. All I know is that my players and I are having fun playing a very odd game of D&D, and no matter what version of the game anyone else plays, I wish for them that they are all having as much fun as we are.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;316146I know that one of the best features of the older games is that they are very modifiable, easily added to. As I went through the mental checklist of what I would add to S&W to make it more like the game I would like to play, I realize that it would probably end up looking like the game we play now.  Weird.  But as I think about it, I realize that I have more of a grasp of the rules of 3.x now than when I began playing it.  I am more comfortable with the game rules, and with the reasons behind those rules.  And best of all, the players in the group don't hold me to all of them.  I’m able to wing it, as long as everyone has a good time. I make up rules and rolls on the spot, and we all get a kick out of what happens.  As long as no one feels I'm railroading them, or just being arbitrary and capricious at their character’s expense, it's all good.

That's really the bottom line of your post here, in my opinion.

It doesn't sound like you have a problem with the OSR games. I does sound like you've already found your system of choice, however. Which is totally awesome. You should just stick with it and have fun. :)

Yup. I think its a fundamental flaw of the "retro" movement. Either you're playing a game so similar to its inspiration that might as well be playing the original, or you are playing a game so different that you're not playing anything like the original.

I really hope that eventually the Old School movement clues into that, and comes to get that what you need to produce are games with an Old School design-feel, but not actually an imitator of an old game; and with modern comprehension of design and presentation.

That's what I was trying to get at with FtA!. Its not a clone, its not based on any one old-school game, its very much its own thing, and it has a smooth streamlined system, but it in every respect of feel and atmosphere firmly located in the Old-school camp.

RPGPundit

Not all the retro movement is such... a few old games are still fairly close to that origin. T&T, for one. Palladium's systems, for another. They never grew out of it.

Heck, even *I* bought a reprint of the Mechanoids Trilogy. And I'm running T&T. T&T 7.5 is still the same core mechanics as T&T 1.

QuoteI really hope that eventually the Old School movement clues into that, and comes to get that what you need to produce are games with an Old School design-feel, but not actually an imitator of an old game; and with modern comprehension of design and presentation.

This is what I dug about Hackmaster Basic.  I'm not sure I dig on the mechanics per se, but it really did call to mind old school 1e AD&D while still being a game all it's own.

In this day and age, MechaTraveller aka Battletech has kept it´s rules from 77/84 and has prevailed against a forceful rebranding that was even worse than 4e vs D&D.

Yep. I want more games like HM Basic, Mazes and Minotaurs, Mutant Future, FtA!, and less clones. Even an half-complete clone would be great. I mean, I would praise the first person who recreated the "REAL" 2nd edition of AD&D based off Gygax's terse ideas. Of course, I would then mechanically scrutinize the work but that's part of parcel.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163Yup. I think its a fundamental flaw of the "retro" movement. Either you're playing a game so similar to its inspiration that might as well be playing the original, or you are playing a game so different that you're not playing anything like the original.

The 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 have some sympathy for cat-herding initiatives, but they aren't going to work. People will produce what they find relevant for themselves. If that's the Nth goblins-and-orcs intro module, well, we will have a lot of goblins-and-orcs intro modules.

Quote from: Benoist;316148That's really the bottom line of your post here, in my opinion.

It doesn't sound like you're have a problem with the OSR games. I does sound like you've already found your system of choice, however. Which is totally awesome. You should just stick with it and have fun. :)

I agree  I have nothing against any of the OSR games. To each their own. They're just not for me.  I'l keep doing my thing with what works for the group.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163I really hope that eventually the Old School movement clues into that, and comes to get that what you need to produce are games with an Old School design-feel, but not actually an imitator of an old game; and with modern comprehension of design and presentation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;316171This is what I dug about Hackmaster Basic.  I'm not sure I dig on the mechanics per se, but it really did call to mind old school 1e AD&D while still being a game all it's own.

I also agree that HmB, from what I've read about it (haven't bought it yet) might be the game that does what Pundit is talking about.

So far I've only used retroclones for one-shot games lasting an evening, or a long weekend type marathon game.  I've done some one-shot evening games starting at level 10 or higher.

For games of these sorts, personally I wouldn't use the 3E/3.5E ruleset.  This is especially the case if the games start at higher levels.  The only times I ever used 3E/3.5E for a one-shot game, was the other players requested the 3E/3.5E rules and the game was at lower levels.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163Either you're playing a game so similar to its inspiration that might as well be playing the original

I thought this was the entire and only point of a "clone" game. You are playing the original, with the legal bits filed off.

* shrug * Some of us just never stopped playing the originals.  I lost interest in "keeping up" when AD&D came out in the late 70s.  More rules does not mean a better game.

Quod navus boyantus est.

Quote from: Old Geezer;316204* shrug * Some of us just never stopped playing the originals.  I lost interest in "keeping up" when AD&D came out in the late 70s.  More rules does not mean a better game.

And neither does fewer rules.

I think OSRIC and 4C are both awesome and I've played both.

Of course, I think AD&D and Marvel FASERIP were legitimately two of the greatest games ever made.

Now when I play those games, I don't actually use 4C, I use the Marvel rule books.

However, the last time I played AD&D, we used the OSRIC book instead of the PHB, while I, as DM, used the AD&D DMG and MM.

Quote from: JimLotFP;316198I thought this was the entire and only point of a "clone" game. You are playing the original, with the legal bits filed off.

I think the point of OSRIC, which sort of started all this, was to file enough of the legal bits off that you could write a new AD&D module or sourcebook, that would be fully compatible with AD&D, but if a lawyer came knocking at your door point to OSRIC as what your module was based on.

I think people actually playing a game with OSRIC as their rulebook was a bit of an unexpected turn of events.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316219I think the point of OSRIC, which sort of started all this, was to file enough of the legal bits off that you could write a new AD&D module or sourcebook, that would be fully compatible with AD&D, but if a lawyer came knocking at your door point to OSRIC as what your module was based on.

I think people actually playing a game with OSRIC as their rulebook was a bit of an unexpected turn of events.

This was indeed the point of OSRIC, and the somewhat surprising turn of events that followed.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;316215And neither does fewer rules.

Yup. Depends on the particular end user we're talking about (aka personal tastes).

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316219I think the point of OSRIC, which sort of started all this, was to file enough of the legal bits off that you could write a new AD&D module or sourcebook, that would be fully compatible with AD&D, but if a lawyer came knocking at your door point to OSRIC as what your module was based on.

I think people actually playing a game with OSRIC as their rulebook was a bit of an unexpected turn of events.

Same thing. There is no real difference between playing an "OSRIC" module with AD&D rules is really no different than playing an AD&D module with OSRIC rules.

But as there have been products mentioning direct compatibility, the publishing angle of the clones might be completely unnecessary.

Well there is a difference in the sense that, originally, OSRIC wasn't intended to be a republication of AD&D or to serve as a rulebook, even. It was just the equivalent of a SRD for people who intended to publish new 1e material.

In other words, the target audience of OSRIC originally was the professional and would-be professional publishing game materials, not the gamer at the table.

What you say is true Jim, nonetheless, but that gamers themselves started to use the OSRIC documents at their game table as essentially a cleaned up layout of the rules of AD&D was a somewhat unexpected turn of events.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;316215And neither does fewer rules.

I was going to say the same thing.

Yeah, OSRIC was more for publishers, and in that sense, it's worked.

I think without that safe harbor, folks would have been leery to tread those waters. The fine folks who came up with OSRIC essentially waved a flag that said "it's ok!"

Even within publishers, there's a divide over whether to treat OSRIC as a rule system, or pretend its AD&D.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316227Even within publishers, there's a divide over whether to treat OSRIC as a rule system, or pretend its AD&D.

That's just a new variation on the decades old problem of whether we're going to continue to pretend that AD&D and Basic/Expert are two different games.

Quote from: jrients;316228That's just a new variation on the decades old problem of whether we're going to continue to pretend that AD&D and Basic/Expert are two different games.

And the debate over whether we should concentrate on sourcebooks or modules.

Wow, everything old *is* new again!

Welcome to 1981 guys.

I'm in a similar position to the original poster.  I like some aspects of the old gaming experiences, but find many of the rules awkward.  The clones benefit over the originals in better organziation on the whole - no more having to look in 3 places in 2 books to fully understand a rule.  But some of the rules are too faithfully adapted for my taste, such as how saving throws are grouped and the inability to have flexible multiclassing.  
 
I've had 3 sessions of running Basic Fantasy and it's going well.  Most of my players were burned out by some of the combat complexities of 3e and foudn 4e not to their tastes.  Now that percentile strength no longer seems cool to me, I realized that Basic is a better fit.  But the combined race/class bit feels limiting and I prefer increasing AC so BFRPG is a reasonable fit.  There are a few minor things that bug me that I live with as they're minor and a few things I've tweaked.  There aren't a lot of spells, especially for clerics, so I've told the clerics that each religion has 3 unique spells that they can make up and cast without praying for.  To get away from the sameness of characters in the same class, I've put together a simple feat/skill system and it's working so far.  
 
For this game and group, they don't need a ton of tactical options.  They seem to be more into characters/plots/adventure.  So the key is a level of complexity that's simple but not at the super simple level of Risus or similar games.  There are lots of different games we could play and have fun but I thought the buy in would be easier if it has some nostalgia appeal as well.  Plus, it sped up learning.  I'm cheap so being legally freely available was another big bonus.
 
One odd thing I've noticed is that, after learning several different versions of a rule or spell, it's hard to remember what the current rule is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163Yup. I think its a fundamental flaw of the "retro" movement. Either you're playing a game so similar to its inspiration that might as well be playing the original, or you are playing a game so different that you're not playing anything like the original.

: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.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that S&W is much more clearly organized and presented than 0e D&D.  Likewise, OSRIC is much better organized than 1e AD&D.  So, even if one is playing 1e AD&D, having OSRIC available is a good thing (to use as an aid, if nothing else).

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163I really hope that eventually the Old School movement clues into that, and comes to get that what you need to produce are games with an Old School design-feel, but not actually an imitator of an old game; and with modern comprehension of design and presentation.

But the OSR movement is doing this -- just check out Ruins & Ronins, which uses the S&W rules as a 'base' in order to build an 'oriental' swords & sorcery game.  Similar S&W/0e-based games are in development.

In my own case, I've used the core S&W rules as a base in order to 'build' a more 'swords & sorcery' flavoured system.  Among the things that I've done:

1. Use 'Wisdom' as a sanity score for characters (witnessing horrors can lead to a temporary, or even permanent loss, of wisdom/sanity).
2. Introduce a 'Mouser'-style version of the 'thief' class.
3. Rework the 'hit point' system.
4. Replace the magic-user and cleric classes with a single 'magician' class, that can cast any spell known.
5. Divide all spells into three categories: (a) white magic, (b) grey magic, (c) black magic.  Casting any kind of spell causes exhaustion (hit point loss); casting black magic can cause corruption (loss of wisdom/sanity).
6. Etc.

The end result is a game that differs from OD&D in many important respects -- and much more closely resembles the settings of Nehwon and Hyboria IMO -- but nonetheless clearly is built on the framework provided by 0e/S&W.

Moreover, if you ever visit the S&W forums, you will see that lots of other S&W/0eD&D players are doing similar kinds of things in their own games -- i.e., 'building' their own systems from the 'tools' provided by S&W.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163That's what I was trying to get at with FtA!. Its not a clone, its not based on any one old-school game, its very much its own thing, and it has a smooth streamlined system, but it in every respect of feel and atmosphere firmly located in the Old-school camp.

RPGPundit

FtA! 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.

Quote from: Akrasia;316240You 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.

I hadn't thought about that. OSRIC was prescient in that respect, though I doubt even they thought Wizards would remove all their back catalog from PDF, a move I still don't completely grok on their part.

I mean, I get wanting to make things harder on pirates (though this seems a misguided way to fight them), but what does pirated copies of PHB II for 4e that have to do with Oriental Adventures for AD&D?

But I digress.

I also think the availability of new stuff for AD&D, even if "all" you're doing is more AD&D modules, makes the game more attractive.

Folks don't feel like they're alone in the wilderness, and new stuff always generates a little bump in interest, which is why companies support their new game lines.

So games like OSRIC and 4C are keeping their old games in print and providing a safe legal harbor to keep the flame stoked.

Echoing the earlier posts about OSRIC being intended as an SRD rather than as a game ... yes, it was surprising that people began actually playing it. I should say, the possibility crossed my mind, because I was definitely trying to make the presentation clearer (this is in my initial draft, which was improved by Stuart) .. the possibility crossed my mind, but I basically dismissed it as unlikely.

What I didn't realize was that because the book was organized in a more "modern" fashion, it would become a good table-reference and a good introduction for players who hadn't played the original. It makes sense in retrospect, but I didn't really predict it at all.

You can tell that it was intended as an SRD from both the name and from the fact that a lot of my clunky art was in there. :)

Quote from: Akrasia;316240You 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.

Yes, 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.

Quote from: Settembrini;316175In this day and age, MechaTraveller aka Battletech has kept it´s rules from 77/84 and has prevailed against a forceful rebranding that was even worse than 4e vs D&D.

No, only the boardgame has. The 1986 RPG rules are no longer produced. Heck, the 1992 rules are not in print, either. The RPG rules in force date to just prior to the rebranding.

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.

I wouldn't necessarily see that as a bad thing in keeping the vibe (well, most of it) and dumping the rules.

And at some point after all the changing of the rules, you're not playing D&D. Seriously, I've had it up to here with assholes inviting me to play D&D and experiencing something equivalent to a chapter in a Mercedes Lackey novel. Besides, if you are going through all of that rules tinkering, don't you think you should give credit where it is due (i.e. yourself)?

The Dungeon Crawl Classics modules by Goodman Games, attempted to recreate the "old school" feel during the 3.5E era.

Quote from: Akrasia;316260EDIT: Oh yeah, S&W is presently negotiating a distribution deal with a 'major' publisher (details yet to be revealed by Mythmere).
 

"Major" would probably be misleading. We're not talking Mongoose, here. :)

Quote from: ggroy;316274The Dungeon Crawl Classics modules by Goodman Games, attempted to recreate the "old school" feel during the 3.5E era.

Yep, and Necromancer I think? Who was the "1st edition feel" guys?

Many people think the old ways had a lot going for them.

Where the OSR has stepped in is in allowing me to make new NPCs for Marvel, using 4C.

I would also point out that this isn't unique to tabletop games. There are still Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 games being produced.

It just occurred to me that Pathfinder is probably going to be/already is the biggest profile clone (and actually support a company with a real income!), but I never see anyone criticizing it for cloning 3.5.

Quote from: Akrasia;316240:
But the OSR movement is doing this -- just check out Ruins & Ronins, which uses the S&W rules as a 'base' in order to build an 'oriental' swords & sorcery game.  Similar S&W/0e-based games are in development.

Or my Points of Light which despite it's marketing was conceived and written for older editions.

There are varied reasons for people to participate in the OSR and they grow as more people join.

Because Pathfinder just sucking is a bigger concern than whether it is a clone or not.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316278It just occurred to me that Pathfinder is probably going to be/already is the biggest profile clone (and actually support a company with a real income!), but I never see anyone criticizing it for cloning 3.5.

Good point.  Though I don't think anyone would consider them "Old School" in any way.  I do wish very much that they would release a basic version of their final product, something scaled and stripped down that would serve as an entry product into tabletop RPG's.  

I know all of the OSR clones could actually serve that purpose,  but I don't think they actually do, because they aren't on the shelf at Barnes and Noble, available for a kid who never played a RPG before to pick up. I think the OSR primarily serves the people who played the game 25 years ago, who need no introduction to the game.  Pathfinder Basic would actually be on the shelf, in the normal chain of retail distribution, wherever games are sold.  Especially if they put it in a boxed set and sold it in Toys R Us next to Monopoly.

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.

You must be reading different house rules than I have, as I haven't seen anything out of the OSR gang that strikes me as half as un-D&D as the latest flavor from Wizards of the Coast.  

QuoteAt 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?

You're asking a question that's been around for as long as I've been in the hobby.  How long does a debate like that have to be around before the issue itself becomes an integral part of the scene?

QuoteWhat 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.

I wish the old school scene was as cool as this comment suggests.

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.  

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.

I disagree.

The "OSR" is far from being some monolithic movement people posting on message boards and other blogs make it out to be. I think, further, that teh OSR ought to not become a movement per se, in the sense that, for me, part of the interest is to keep and nourish the different trends in the community.

To me, personally, "Old School" in "OSR" relates much more to OD&D's free willing nature rather than AD&D's monolithic game system and standardization. To me, creating variants, houserules, tweaking a game like OD&D is very much in tune with what I understand as Old School. When you get back to the first years of the hobby, people where making the game work for them, sometimes misunderstanding this rule, or just winging it in this or that aspect, so much so that there really weren't monolithic rules of the game. It's later that the intent to keep one set of rules as "D&D" and variants as "Something not D&D" evolved to finally become "AD&D, the standard rules system that Truly Is D&D (c)".

All this to say that, to me, people coming up with their own variants and tweaks to the game is very much part of the "Old School" vibe I appreciate, first, and that I think the OSR thrives on differences and versatility rather than some sort of "movement" with a strict code of ethics and conduct, but that's just me talking.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;316280Because Pathfinder just sucking is a bigger concern than whether it is a clone or not.

Hopefully the Pathfinder core book doesn't turn out to be total shit or "broken" beyond belief.

It would be a shame to see Paizo suffering from a huge fallout.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316277Yep, and Necromancer I think? Who was the "1st edition feel" guys?

I think it was Necromancer.  I'll have to look through my old books again.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316277I would also point out that this isn't unique to tabletop games. There are still Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 games being produced.

I liked the "Indenture" retro recreation of the Atari 2600 game Adventure.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316277Yep, and Necromancer I think? Who was the "1st edition feel" guys?

They were the first with the Crucible of Freya during the 3.0 days.

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.  

Trying out and discussing house rules is definitely part of the OSR.  And there's nothing wrong with that, despite your gratuitously negative third sentence.

Nonetheless, try visiting some of the forums devoted to specific retro-clones (the LL forums or the S&W forums).  You'll see lots of discussion of adventures, campaign settings, etc.  Same goes for the forums devoted to OOP D&D (dragonsfoot, K&K, etc.).  Likewise, a lot of the old school blogs discuss actual adventures, campaign ideas, etc.

General forums like this one are not necessarily the best indicators of what is actually happening in the OSR.
 

Quote from: J Arcane;316268At 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?

I'm not sure what you have in mind here.  Any examples?

Most house rules retain the same 'core,' i.e., the basic assumptions of the game remain the same, despite many modifications to the details.  Thus anyone familiar with the core game (S&W/LL/OSRIC) will have little difficulty understanding the house rules in question.

Games like Ruins & Ronins (based on S&W) and Mutant Future (based on LL) introduce house rules to the point that they produce effectively new games.   Nonetheless, the underlying 'core' is still easily recognizable.  That makes those games readily understood by players of the core game.

Your hyperbolic claim that someone who is playing a house-ruled version of S&W/LL/OSRIC is being 'intellectually dishonest' is absurd.

Quote from: J Arcane;316268What 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.

'Cachet'?!? :confused:  WTF?  You've got to be joking.

Quote from: jrients;316282You must be reading different house rules than I have, as I haven't seen anything out of the OSR gang that strikes me as half as un-D&D as the latest flavor from Wizards of the Coast.  



You're asking a question that's been around for as long as I've been in the hobby.  How long does a debate like that have to be around before the issue itself becomes an integral part of the scene?



I wish the old school scene was as cool as this comment suggests.

See, as I've seen the sudden prevalence of this "Oh everything was house rules" theory has been rather directly proportional to the increase in online attention given it.  

I think there are definitely folks driving this who got into it because it suddenly became the online trendy thing to do, but don't actually LIKE the rules, and so set about making it all about house ruling, because then they can bend them to their taste while still being a part of this new "Old School" thing.

See, I get the old school urge now and again, but I also didn't like old school D&D much, so my solution was to just find something else that I did like that still had that feel, like Gamma World for instance.  

But it seems like when the "OSR" wasn't really an "R" at all, I never got that "house rule everything" vibe from the handful of folks involved in it.  I never got the impression that this sort of wholesale rewriting of the game was actually involved at all, that when people said "house rule" what they really meant was "new game in all but name identification", but more "house rule" in the sense normal people use it, a few rules tweaks and maybe skipping parts of the book like weapon speed or strike ranks or whatever.  

It's to the point now where I fully expect to see someone posting about their "OD&D" game with a spell point system, ascending AC, D20 + mods, encounter/daily powers, a stunt system, multiclassing, limit breaks, feats, and flat universal level curves.  I'd almost be willing to bet money it'll be posted to RPGnet within a few months.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;316272... Besides, if you are going through all of that rules tinkering, don't you think you should give credit where it is due (i.e. yourself)?

I take full credit for all of my cool house rules, most of which can be found in the fine journals Knockspell and Fight On! (and are also available at my blog). :joecool:

Quote from: Mythmere;316275"Major" would probably be misleading. We're not talking Mongoose, here. :)

I did put 'major' in 'scare quotes'! ;)

Quote from: J Arcane;316288... I think there are definitely folks driving this who got into it because it suddenly became the online trendy thing to do, but don't actually LIKE the rules, and so set about making it all about house ruling, because then they can bend them to their taste while still being a part of this new "Old School" thing...

Who are these people?  I'm curious to see who they are, since I've never encountered them.  Such people, if they exist, are clearly idiots.

Quote from: J Arcane;316288...
But it seems like when the "OSR" wasn't really an "R" at all, I never got that "house rule everything" vibe from the handful of folks involved in it.  I never got the impression that this sort of wholesale rewriting of the game was actually involved at all, that when people said "house rule" what they really meant was "new game in all but name identification", but more "house rule" in the sense normal people use it, a few rules tweaks and maybe skipping parts of the book like weapon speed or strike ranks or whatever...

Did you read ODDities or Footprints (two 'OS' fanzines that existed long before the 'OSR')?  Did you visit the OS forums?  If so, you might have seen some pretty impressive house rules.  Granted, many people who play OS games preferred 'the-rules-as-written' approach, and they certainly haven't gone away.  But there have always been serious 'house ruler' types around.  

Nonetheless, the availability of free and open versions of OS games has made it far easier for people to tinker with them, and share their tinkerings with others (either online, or in fanzines like KS or FO!).  This is a great thing, IMO.  

I love the creativity and vitality of the OSR!  It's one of the main reasons I am taking part in it. :shakespeare:

Quote from: Joethelawyer;316281Pathfinder Basic would actually be on the shelf, in the normal chain of retail distribution, wherever games are sold.  Especially if they put it in a boxed set and sold it in Toys R Us next to Monopoly.

Even at the FLGS nearby, only two of them carry any Pathfinder books.  The rest of the FLGS don't carry anything outside of WotC and White Wolf.  Surely Paizo already has their work cut out for them, in convincing anybody else to carry Pathfinder.

The question is how easy can they get the basic box sets into places like Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, etc ... and whether there's an easy way to convince kids to buy them.  I suspect the convincing part may be harder to do effectively.

How would you do the convincing part, besides bashing the box sets over kids' heads repeatedly?  ;)

QuoteWho are these people? I'm curious to see who they are, since I've never encountered them. Such people, if they exist, are clearly idiots.

You best watch where you point that word, because you're exactly one of the people I was thinking of when I penned my initial response, based on your own laundry list of rewrites posted in this very thread.

I also find it interesting how well your fandom of S&W/OD&D, and your previous advocacy of the RC, line up with those respective games sudden popularity on certain prominent internet forums.

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.

Pretty much. I'd be a lot more excited if the OSR folks generated some quality old-school adventures. The ratio of system to adventure seems about 4:1. And that '1' mostly comes from Gabox Lux (Melan).

Quote from: J Arcane;316294You best watch where you point that word, because you're exactly one of the people I was thinking of when I penned my initial response, based on your own laundry list of rewrites posted in this very thread...

My, how very strange.  :confused: You certainly seem eager to read a lot into my posts!

Well, for the record I am very happy with S&W 'as written' -- as well as LL, Basic D&D, RC D&D, and other OS games!  Indeed, I have run 'straight' games in the recent past with all of those systems.

In my current campaign, though, I am trying to simulate a stronger 'swords & sorcery' ethos.  That is, something much closer in feel to the fiction of Leiber and Howard than can be created with 'classic' D&D.  Consequently, I have introduced a number of house rules in order to modify S&W in order to better achieve that 'swords & sorcery' ethos.  

To be absolutely clear: my house rules are not meant as 'fixes' to S&W!  Rather, my house rules are meant to modify S&W in order to realize a stronger 'swords and sorcery' ethos in my current campaign.  In my next campaign, I may prefer to run a more 'classic' D&D style game.  If so, then I will use the standard rules!

Clear enough? :)

Quote from: J Arcane;316294I also find it interesting how well your fandom of S&W/OD&D, and your previous advocacy of the RC, line up with those respective games sudden popularity on certain prominent internet forums.

"Previous advocacy of the RC"?!?  My dear J Arcane, I continue to 'advocate' the RC!  :D

However, I'm not writing much about RC right now, because, quite simply, I'm not running it.  I found S&W much easier to tweak for the purposes of my current 'Swords & Sorcery' campaign.  When I go back to running classic D&D, the RC may very well be the version I use!  

To be clear: I love the RC.  If during a certain period of time there are more RC threads at the RPG site or RPG net, then it is natural that I will post in those threads.  However, such variation in the number of RC threads does not reflect my constant, unchanging affection for the RC! :joecool:

Overall, you seem to be terribly uncharitable in interpreting my gaming preferences.  I'm not sure what is motivating you to be this way.

Quote from: Haffrung;316296Pretty much. I'd be a lot more excited if the OSR folks generated some quality old-school adventures. The ratio of system to adventure seems about 4:1. And that '1' mostly comes from Gabox Lux (Melan).

This simply is not true.  Check out all of the free adventures available at dragonsfoot.  Check out all of the OSRIC adventures available from Expeditious Retreat Press, Ronin Arts, and other small companies.  Check out the LL adventures available from Brave Halfling Games and Goblinoid Games.  Check out all of the adventures that have been published in Fight On!.  Etc.

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.

Some are like that but others attempt to be as close as legally possible. The problem being that not every term has been released under the OGL.

Another issue is that the older rules are not clear or are contradictory. See rules on AD&D initiative.  

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.

There are new players that have popped up and some clones like Labyrinth Lord is in the distribution network. I think the market is still too new to determine it's ultimate direction. The examples of Open Source Operating System shows that projects can have all types of audiences. Ranging from Linux down to the level of the Commodore 64 crowd.

One thing we don't know yet the full effect is the pulling of the PDFs by Wizards.

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 feel are moving past the rulebook phase of the OSR movement. As more people join they are doing different things.

Quote from: Akrasia*snip*

Look, I only singled you out because of the terribly amusing irony of you calling people "idiots" when you were one of the people I was on about precisely.  I also found the have "your cake and eat it too" argument of this thread rather comical, one the one hand countering the OP's "make your own game" with "but look at all my house rules" while at the same time responding with "But it's still D&D" when it was agreed that said house rules might go far enough to counter the OP's point.

The truth is, there are other examples, the AC debate was pointed out, Carcosa is another one that comes to mind.  There's also the fact that I seem to see the same faces following whatever the OSR game of the week is and loudly trumpeting it's values for all and sundry.

It does seem an awful lot like there's a herd to this, a continued digressional movement, that I sort of wonder how far will really go.  So far it's gone from RC, to 1e, then B/X, now it's OD&D.  How much further will it go?  When someone uncovered the even rougher pre-OD&D notes of Arneson or Gygax in his attic and posts them online will we all be playing that instead?  And what about Chainmail?  

Shit, at this point, given past history, I'd be willing to predict that within a few years we'll have folks who weren't even alive then proudly trumpeting the values of just returning entirely to the Braunsteins or just ditching RPGs altogether and going back to historics.

It's all sort of bringing to mind the man from Adams' Hitchhiker who walks off into the ocean because we were all better off never leaving the seas in the first place.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316258Seriously 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."

It seems to me that using older edition of D&D is a type of lingua franca. That writing a supplement or adventure using an older edition of D&D will be useful for more people than System X.

The problem is that people are not used to the idea of open gaming and the fact it is available now and supported now. That what the various marketing efforts of the Old School Publishers are trying to overcome.

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.  

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?

Actually that how it was back in the day. Look how the first two supplements to OD&D was presented, the first were Gygax's house rules, and the second Arneson's house rules. So twisting the game to fit your campaign is how it was supposed to work.

The right approach in my opinion is to present your material as a way to play D&D not THE way. Write it with the idea that people are going to be cherry picking elements to use in their campaigns.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316277Where the OSR has stepped in is in allowing me to make new NPCs for Marvel, using 4C.

I know of two places you can post those and discuss them.  ;)

Quote from: jrients;316282You must be reading different house rules than I have, as I haven't seen anything out of the OSR gang that strikes me as half as un-D&D as the latest flavor from Wizards of the Coast.  

Like zombies or skeletons?  :)

Quote from: J Arcane;316300Look, I only singled you out because of the terribly amusing irony of you calling people "idiots" when you were one of the people I was on about precisely...

:shrug:  Well, it's only 'ironic' because you made some rather unjustified and uncharitable assumptions about my gaming habits and preferences.  But whatever, I'm glad that you were amused.  There's obviously no point in pursuing this matter any further.

Quote from: J Arcane;316300I also found the have "your cake and eat it too" argument of this thread rather comical, one the one hand countering the OP's "make your own game" with "but look at all my house rules" while at the same time responding with "But it's still D&D" when it was agreed that said house rules might go far enough to counter the OP's point.

:pie: But sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too!  

More seriously, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out that the core rules framework provided by OD&D is capable of being modified in any number of creative new ways -- e.g., Ronins & Ruins or Mutant Future -- while still being recognizably 'OD&D'.  This is a virtue of the OSR, viz., that the core OD&D rules can provide a 'lingua franca' for gamers with different tastes and interests.  

Quote from: J Arcane;316300There's also the fact that I seem to see the same faces following whatever the OSR game of the week is and loudly trumpeting it's values for all and sundry.

Your perception is quite different than my own.  I see BD&D, RC D&D, and 1e AD&D as very similar games.  Indeed, Basic D&D and RC D&D are the same game (with some extremely minor differences between Moldvay/Cook B/X and Menzer/Alston BECMI/RC), with AD&D a close relative.  It is easy to use BD&D material with AD&D, and vice versa.  I've remained a fan of all of these games for many years now.  Some are discussed more frequently than others at particular times, but I don't see that as reflecting any kind of 'change in fashion' -- at least not for me, and most of the OS gamers that I personally know.

The one exception would be OD&D, which for many years simply was not available (at least not without paying through the nose on ebay).  Finally, about a year ago WotC made the OD&D PDFs available -- only to pull them a few months later!  Fortunately, S&W was also produced during this time.

So one reason why we are seeing so much new discussion of OD&D (as opposed to B/RC D&D and/or 1e AD&D) is because these rules have become widely available only recently!  

As for the other OS systems, though, I don't see any significant shifts in their relative popularity, at least on the OS forums.

Quote from: J Arcane;316300And what about Chainmail?

Check out 'Spellcraft and Swordply' from Elf Lair Games!  It imagines what D&D might have become had it kept the Chainmail rules.  :D

Quote from: Akrasia;316297Overall, you seem to be terribly uncharitable in interpreting my gaming preferences.  I'm not sure what is motivating you to be this way.

He's worried he'll lose his interwebs license if he doesn't.

Quote from: estar;316301It seems to me that using older edition of D&D is a type of lingua franca. That writing a supplement or adventure using an older edition of D&D will be useful for more people than System X....

Spot on.  Produce something for LL, and it will be useful for people playing OD&D, S&W, Basic D&D, RC D&D, 1e AD&D, OSRIC, 2e AD&D, and C&C.

Weird how this thread went. I mean, really the OP is saying he prefers 3rd edition. That doesn't have anything to do with the retro-clone games. It just means older games aren't for him.

Yup. He's just saying that, despite seeing some good stuff going on with the OSR, he already found the game he wants to play. Nothing controversial about that, is there? I'm kind of surprised to see the thread turning into this debate about... what, exactly? That there's some orthodoxy within the OSR community? Of course there is. But not everyone wants to stick to AD&D rules or die. Far from it.

Quote from: Benoist;316313I'm kind of surprised to see the thread turning into this debate about... what, exactly?

J Arcane making a bigger and bigger ass of himself?

Quote from: J Arcane;316294You best watch where you point that word, because you're exactly one of the people I was thinking of when I penned my initial response, based on your own laundry list of rewrites posted in this very thread.

I also find it interesting how well your fandom of S&W/OD&D, and your previous advocacy of the RC, line up with those respective games sudden popularity on certain prominent internet forums.

Anyone who doesn't love the Rules Compendium, written by gaming rockstar (he is NOT a champions guru) Aaron Allston is probably a bad person.

QuoteBut sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too!

More seriously, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out that the core rules framework provided by OD&D is capable of being modified in any number of creative new ways -- e.g., Ronins & Ruins or Mutant Future -- while still being recognizably 'OD&D'. This is a virtue of the OSR, viz., that the core OD&D rules can provide a 'lingua franca' for gamers with different tastes and interests.

So no, you don't see the contradiction at all.
Someone asserts "Why bother with clones when you could make your own game?"  The thread replies with "Well but look at all these houserules, they're as much as a new game after all."  So then to my reply that "Well then how can you even call it D&D than?" I get "Oh but it's still D&D", apparently simply because it's proponents say so.

And what the hell sort of "lingua franca" is so varied and altered from user to user that you have to relearn it for every conversation?  Your own houserules go so far as rewriting the entire magic system, how is that going to be familiar enough at all to someone familiar with only the default system absorbed?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316315Anyone who doesn't love the Rules Compendium, written by gaming rockstar (he is NOT a champions guru) Aaron Allston is probably a bad person.

I'm so glad you feel that way about me, Chuck.  Warms the cockles of my heart it does.  

To be judged a bad person by one such as you is perhaps more meaningful than to be judged a good one by my priest.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316312Weird how this thread went. I mean, really the OP is saying he prefers 3rd edition. That doesn't have anything to do with the retro-clone games. It just means older games aren't for him.

The Pundit's post effectively changed the topic of this thread.  That's teh intrawebs for you!  :shrug:

Quote from: J Arcane;316316So no, you don't see the contradiction at all.

The thread starts off saying "Why bother with clones when you could make your own game?"  The thread replies with "Well but look at all these houserules, they're as much as a new game after all."  So then to my reply that "Well then how can you even call it D&D than?" I get "Oh but it's still D&D", apparently simply because it's proponents say so.

You're creating a contradiction where there is none.  

It's not really that hard to figure out.  Actually read S&W and Ruins & Ronins, or LL and Mutant Future, and you'll understand my point.  Anyone familiar with one of those games will understand all of the core assumptions made by the other games (how combat works, how ability scores work, how levels work, etc.).  Only certain details are changed (particular classes, etc.).  Nonetheless, the tweaks made to the 'new' games are sufficient to reflect their different genres ('oriental' fantasy in the case of R&R, 'post-apocalypse science-fantasy' in the case of MF).

Quote from: J Arcane;316316And what the hell sort of "lingua franca" is so varied and altered from user to user that you have to relearn it for every conversation?

The 'lingua franca' is the core system found in OD&D (and, for that matter, Basic D&D and AD&D).  And no, you don't have to "relearn it for every conversation."

Quote from: J Arcane;316316Your own houserules go so far as rewriting the entire magic system, how is that going to be familiar enough at all to someone familiar with only the default system absorbed?

My houserules do not "rewrite the entire magic system"!  :wizard:

It uses the same spells as found in the S&W rulebook.  They work in exactly the same way.  What I've changed is: (a) the way that spells are cast (instead of the Vancian system, spells cause exhaustion, and some cause corruption); and (b) who has access to what spells (magicians can learn any spell, whether clerical or arcane).

Anyone familiar with the S&W core rules (or OD&D, or Basic D&D, or AD&D, or OSRIC, or LL, etc.) will be able to master my magic system in two minutes, at most.

A general problem with your argument, J Arcane, is that you're trying to make it without actually looking at the games and house rules in question.  Do that, and what you see now as 'contradictions' or 'problems' likely will disappear.  :)

Quote from: Joethelawyer;316146Cross posted from my latest blog entry...

The Old School Renaissance---love the spirit, love the energy, love the nostalgic good feelings---just not into the games themselves.

This is more or less how I feel about DIY punk.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316312Weird how this thread went. I mean, really the OP is saying he prefers 3rd edition. That doesn't have anything to do with the retro-clone games. It just means older games aren't for him.

Quote from: Benoist;316313Yup. He's just saying that, despite seeing some good stuff going on with the OSR, he already found the game he wants to play. Nothing controversial about that, is there? I'm kind of surprised to see the thread turning into this debate about... what, exactly? That there's some orthodoxy within the OSR community? Of course there is. But not everyone wants to stick to AD&D rules or die. Far from it.

Yeah the whole thing got weird.  It kind of turned into exactly the opposite of what I was talking about was my experience I described in the OP.

Joe, have you looked at Basic Fantasy?   It's the mutant child of Basic D&D and 3.5 and seems to be a good match for you D20 heretics. :)   Also, start another thread about Bard Campaign and how you houseruled 3.5.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163Either you're playing a game so similar to its inspiration that might as well be playing the original, or you are playing a game so different that you're not playing anything like the original.

The concept is you are "playing the original", but without spending any money and fans of the original are able to buy new magazines, supplements and adventures.

None of the clones are "so different" than the originals.  All the differences are utterly minor, just enough to dodge legalities.  

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.

I suspect the core market of OSR publishers are people who missed their chance to publish stuff for AD&D and now have that opportunity.   With so little profit involved because no one has the necessary capital to launch a real marketing campaign, OSR publishing is mostly about vanity press and the chance to be part of the community.

Personally, my fav OSR games are those that use new concepts (Mazes & Minotaurs), but the OSR audience seems more interested in the clones and clone-related products.   That's fine for now.  As the OSR grows, more people will want to see the "movement" branch out and games like FtA! and M&M will get more attention at time.

Quote from: J Arcane;316268All 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.

You've missed one of the main points of the OSR.   It's about the concept of becoming a "gamer-creator" instead of just a "gamer-consumer" and unleashing your creativity to make the game whatever you want it to be.  

Because at the game table, "real D&D" is whatever the GM and players most enjoy regardless of the title on the box, the books or the PDF.

Quote from: RandallS;316271This 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.

Fuck yeah!

Quote from: Benoist;316283All this to say that, to me, people coming up with their own variants and tweaks to the game is very much part of the "Old School" vibe I appreciate, first, and that I think the OSR thrives on differences and versatility rather than some sort of "movement" with a strict code of ethics and conduct, but that's just me talking.

Double fuck yeah!

Quote from: J Arcane;316288But it seems like when the "OSR" wasn't really an "R" at all, I never got that "house rule everything" vibe from the handful of folks involved in it.

Maybe your local groups weren't tinkers.  Some weren't.  

I was deeply involved in the early 80s Bay Area convention scene and when you submitted your game to the event schedule, one of the questions was how houseruled your game was!  It was not uncommon to see 40% Houserules posted, people doing "AD&D using RuneQuest skills" or "AD&D with realistic combat" or whatever.  

Quote from: Akrasia;316291Did you read ODDities or Footprints (two 'OS' fanzines that existed long before the 'OSR')?

Hell yeah!   Lots of good stuff in those ODDities.  

I am bummed that I only discovered their existence at the end of their run.   One of the reasons that I contribute to Knockspell and Fight On is because I didn't want to miss my opportunity to add something to the OSR.

QuoteYou've missed one of the main points of the OSR. It's about the concept of becoming a "gamer-creator" instead of just a "gamer-consumer" and unleashing your creativity to make the game whatever you want it to be.

But I can just as easily be a "gamer-creator" by creating my own bloody game, something I have done, and am in the process of doing again, and am even hoping to make a couple of bucks off of some day.

Then I get a game that is literally whatever I want it to be, and I'm gleefully free of anyone's expectations whatsoever of it fitting in with whatever banner I've pitched it under.  

It's one of the things that's always held me back using open license games like D20 and may even be at the root of my tempering enthusiasm for working under the D6 banner.  I lose a lot of the fun of really building the thing up.  Instead it's an entirely different pursuit of trying to figure out how to make the already extant thing do what I want, like one of those ridiculous Top Gear challenges, where Jeremy and crew have to try and build a boat out of a lorry or something.

And of course, going with your own game means the world gets something actually new and exciting, instead of a pile of house rules that no one else is ever going to use because they've got their own set and don't give a toss, no matter how much backpatting they do on the forums.

Quote from: aramis;316248No, only the boardgame has. The 1986 RPG rules are no longer produced. Heck, the 1992 rules are not in print, either. The RPG rules in force date to just prior to the rebranding.

What does "only" the Boardgame mean? It´s like the combat rules in D&D, and the Mechs are Monsters, Spells and magic items in personal union.

Quote from: J Arcane;316327But I can just as easily be a "gamer-creator" by creating my own bloody game, something I have done, and am in the process of doing again, and am even hoping to make a couple of bucks off of some day...

Um, go for it!  Nobody is stopping you from creating your "own bloody game."  There's no reason to get pissy about the OSR just because you prefer to create your own games from the ground up.  Be happy doing your own thing.  The fact that other people are digging the OSR doesn't take away from that.

Quote from: J Arcane;316327...  
And of course, going with your own game means the world gets something actually new and exciting,...

Perhaps, if what you 'create' is genuinely original and finds an audience.  

Despite the fact that I quite like the Pundit's FtA!, I doubt that I'll actually ever play it, simply because it doesn't really do anything that I can't already do with some version of classic D&D (of course, I plan to borrow elements from FtA!, such as the stunt system, as house rules in some future games).

I've come to think that 'being original for the sake of being original' is overrated.  Nonetheless, if someone is capable of coming up with something genuinely original, all the more power to them!  Good luck in your own attempts (and I'm not being sarcastic in saying that).

Quote from: J Arcane;316327...  instead of a pile of house rules that no one else is ever going to use because they've got their own set and don't give a toss, no matter how much backpatting they do on the forums.

Sorry, but this strikes me as incorrect.  I suspect that more people will try out certain OS D&D house rules than will try an entirely new FRPG game.

I know that I've used some house rules that other people have come up with.  Likewise, I know a few people who have used, or adapted, some of my house rules (I believe that Benoist is one such person on this forum).  Visit the S&W forum, or the OD&D forum, or the LL forum, etc., and you'll see lots of borrowing, modifying, sharing, etc., of house rules.

You seem to be overly negative about the OSR, without reading the things that are actually coming out of it, like Knockspell, Fight On!, and lots of great ideas on various fora and blogs, as well as 'new' games like Ruins and Ronins and Mutant Future.

Quote from: Spinachcat;316325Joe, have you looked at Basic Fantasy?   It's the mutant child of Basic D&D and 3.5 and seems to be a good match for you D20 heretics.

It's one of my preferred games now.  It does have some D20 sensibility added to the elegance of Basic.

Quote from: Benoist;316283It's later that the intent to keep one set of rules as "D&D" and variants as "Something not D&D" evolved to finally become "AD&D, the standard rules system that Truly Is D&D (c)".

I think that was part of the intent of AD&D, including the attitude of some of the Gygax writing.  But it never really happened.  Even in 2e days, I think the average length of house rules was 10 pages, but I saw 80 page revisions that were entirely different games.  I had a modest 3 pages of changes.  House rules has always been part of gaming.

Part of the motivation for 3e was a realization from the designers that almost no one played AD&D as written.

Quote from: Haffrung;316296Pretty much. I'd be a lot more excited if the OSR folks generated some quality old-school adventures. The ratio of system to adventure seems about 4:1.

This is not true. If it were, well... Adventures are hard to write so that someone else can run them, much harder than writing rules so someone else can run them. I wrote up a scenario for David R so he could run an Osere campaign, it was longer than rules I've written recently. I don't think it'd sell, as-is. Is the adventure even "old school"? I dunno - it's not a dungeon, and when people say "old school" that's usually what they're thinking of.

I think of it more in the Quick Primer's terms, rules not rulings, and all that - a playstyle rather than bunch of rules.

Looks like this debate has been popping up a lot lately - on TheRPGHaven (http://www.therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=499&sid=8c00767a9138eaf22b0882b41d404a5f), on Malcolm Sheppard's blog (http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2009/07/22/dnd-rpg-old-school/), on Jonathan Tweet's blog (http://wanton-heat-jet.livejournal.com/24132.html) and so on. It also looks like there are four major threads in the criticism that inevitably crops up:
1) the nostalgia argument (usually proposed by trotting out a technological analogy, most often the Ford Model T)
I propose this has been so thoroughly debunked that it needs no further discussion; people should find different analogies if they wish to capture the essence of old-school vis-á-vis simply being insulting. I will note that I know, and have played with old-school fans who were not born when 2e was released, and also that while people may be nostalgic about their early gaming experiences, they may also have other (and more relevant) reasons to play the games they do.

2) the argument that old-school is needlessly fetishistic about "holy texts", and has built an uncompromising orthodoxy that a) drives away people who don't swear by the complete old-school "canon", b) is actually constructing false memories that are at odds with the practice of the actual 70s/80s
With regards to a), I see some fetishism about "old-school" rules elements, but I suggest that adherence to them is driven more by comfort - sure, ascending AC and addition are marginally more intuitive than descending AC and substraction (or consulting a matrix), but this is counterbalanced by several years of practice. Also, it is my impression that most people play their old-school games in a relatively rules-light fashion: in this case, a few suboptimal task resolution systems are not as much of an issue as in something like supplement-heavy 3.x or Hackmaster.

With regards to b), it is my opinion that old-school is by and large (although not universally) revisionistic, since it has emerged in contrast to new-school (whatever it means), and is built on the idea that old-school designers were actually doing the right thing most of the time: therefore, people who rejected the Vancian magic system or classes or hit points "back then" will find that old-school does not include their viewpoints. To this, my response is that there is no obligation to be wholly representative of an older scene or pass a "legitimacy test"; what matters is using any combination of old and new concepts for an enjoyable game experience, and that can be accomplished in multiple ways. The "herding cats" phrase I used in a previous post might be a good one - there is a meow in there, and a predilection to seek out mice, milk and rooftops, but otherwise, it is a lot of different people with different individual motives doing what they wish to do.

3) the argument that people modify their old-school games to an extent that the term they apply to themselves has become meaningless
This argument directly contradicts 2), although it describes some segments of the old-school scene: just like there are groups that prefer to (re?)construct a textually pure game experience, there are others that seek to mold the game to their own specific preferences. There is a good point here - if the scene loses its cohesion, it might disintegrate to the extent d20 has disintegrated, with insular sub-groups that have nothing to say to each other.

There are, however, also counter-influences: first, most of the D&D/OGL-derivative old-school systems are cross-compatible enough and rules-light enough to make adaptation from one system to another a snap (myself, I write OSRIC-compatible articles for Fight On!, S&W-compatible articles for Knockspell and use my own system for Hungarian releases). Second, there are unifying trends and fashions within the old-school scene - sandbox campaigns and "weird fantasy" have become more popular than they used to be, and there are also entirely new concepts like the "one-page dungeon" or "E6" [6-level D&D; this originated in the 3e community, but is old-school in my opinion]. All in all, I see this sort of thing as healthy.

4) the argument that old-school has focussed almost exclusively on producing rulesets and rules variants with minute differences, neglecting the actual playable content underneath
Theoretically, I agree with this criticism, and have previously argued that OSRIC et al were superfluous since most editions (except perhaps OD&D) are available cheaply on the secondary market, and the OGL is easy to understand to the extent required by self-publishing. In practice, however, the ease of availability, community-building and networking facilitiated by these systems have proven me wrong, and motivated people to produce stuff beyond previous levels. It may be nine parts psychology and one part actual utility, but if it works, it works - and as stated previously by others, the rulesets are seeing some table use.

I still think there is a bit too much focus on reinventing the wheel - the brouhaha about thieves has outlived its shelf-life long ago - but even if we are taking a purely play-oriented perspective, there is a good selection out there: Fight On!, Knockspell, XRP's Advanced Adventures, Dragonsfoot modules, JimLotFP's recent books, Mythmere Games, myself, the Scanning Project (http://rustmonsteratemysword.blogspot.com/search/label/Dungeons), CNCPlayer.net and many others (recently, I got a lot of mileage (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=34856) out of Tomb of the Bull King, a Mazes&Minotaurs module). The lack of adventures might have been a problem in 2005 or 2006, but it is much less of a problem today (although, of course, quality is uneven and preferences differ, etc. etc.).

5) the argument that old-school is too focussed on A/D&D instead of applying its principles to other systems.
Well, yeah, D&D-derivatives are as dominant in old-school as they are in the new... but let's not forget there are productive and active communities for Encounter Critical, Traveller, Mutant Future/GW, Empire of the Petal Throne, Mazes&Minotaurs, probably Space Siege (although I have little experience with it), ZEFRS and others (I would classify Zenobia as a hybrid of old and new school, and don't know how many people actually play it). It is just that they have dedicated groups and are somewhat more insular from our perspective.

Finally, on the lack of new old-school based systems: anything is possible if people are willing to invest time and passion into it. There is no way around that. There is nothing to prevent people from using the lessons they learned from old-school in new ways, but if they want something to happen, they need to get off their behinds, do it and promote it. Conversely, nobody is obliged to be "progressive": if someone is happy playing D&D or a variant, more power to them, they are doing it as right as anybody.

@sett: it means exactly that: The boardgame side of Battletech may be the same game, but the RPG side sure isn't.

Quote from: J Arcane;316316And what the hell sort of "lingua franca" is so varied and altered from user to user that you have to relearn it for every conversation?  Your own houserules go so far as rewriting the entire magic system, how is that going to be familiar enough at all to someone familiar with only the default system absorbed?

Rather than speak in generalities how about some specifics. The rules are free to download and to copy. Show what you are talking about.

Quote from: Melan;3163344) the argument that old-school has focussed almost exclusively on producing rulesets and rules variants with minute differences, neglecting the actual playable content underneath

I think this is true. However, as my old school players design their own worlds and adventures instead of relying mainly on purchased settings and adventures, there is is always going to be a greater interest in "rules variants" with minute differences in the old school community than in those segments of the gaming community who rely more on published settings and adventures. The rules variants are simply more useful to people creating their own worlds than they probably are to people who do not.

QuoteFinally, on the lack of new old-school based systems: anything is possible if people are willing to invest time and passion into it.

Such games exist. For example: Mutant Future, Spellcraft & Swordplay, Encounter Critical, and Mazes & Minotaurs. None of these games try to clone a previously existing game.

Microlite74 and Castles & Crusades are examples of game have a very old school feel but that use many "newer" rules ideas.

To be honest, I get the impression that some people are really just annoyed that there are people out there who do not enjoy the newer games they do but insist on playing older games or clones that they do not enjoy. Something like the gamers who seem annoyed that other gamers actually enjoy playing  Palladium games.

Quote from: RandallS;316337To be honest, I get the impression that some people are really just annoyed that there are people out there who do not enjoy the newer games they do but insist on playing older games or clones that they do not enjoy. Something like the gamers who seem annoyed that other gamers actually enjoy playing  Palladium games.

This happens in other genres too.

In the past, I saw this frequently with respect to musical tastes.  Some hardcore fans of a particular rock band, were annoyed at people who didn't listen to their favorite rock band.  They would also get really really angry whenever anybody said that their favorite rock band sucks.

Back in the mid 1980's, I knew one guy who was a hardcore Iron Maiden fan who was annoyed at people who didn't listen to Iron Maiden.  He branded people who didn't listen to Iron Maiden, as losers who should be physically tortured and sentenced to death.  Every time he heard anybody saying that Iron Maiden was crap, he would go up to the person and punch them in the face for insulting the "greatest band in the world" (in his words).  This guy was quite the character.

Quote from: Akrasia;316297To be absolutely clear: my house rules are not meant as 'fixes' to S&W! Rather, my house rules are meant to modify S&W in order to realize a stronger ...  

I think this has always been one of the driving motivations for houserules in all rpgs.  I did it in AD&D, 3e, D20 Modern, Star Wars, and Traveller.  It's adjusting the rules to the particulars of the setting.  People are thinking "for the next campaign, I want it to be more X."  Simpler rule sets are easier to adjust for different tones so it's not surprising that people do more of that with things like OD&D.
 
Sure, there is always the guy trying to fix a ruleset, continually changing stuff hoping to get the perfect rules.  But I think most people are making temporary adjustments to suit the particulars of their current campaign and group.  It's not unique to old school games though - I saw a ton of house rules for 3e, both trying to fix things like particular classes, and trying to achieve a particular feel.

Quote from: aramis;316335@sett: it means exactly that: The boardgame side of Battletech may be the same game, but the RPG side sure isn't.

I would say the "RPG side" is irrelevant, as it´s assuming anybody would  play the RPG with only the one RPG book. Thats just not the case. The Battletech Universe as a whole and it´s power-interaction-structure and it´s power taxanomy & distribution are the same*- even the three editions of the RPG are only a constant conversion factor apart from each other. It means nothing for gameplay or GM judgement. There are no edition wars in Battletech. The only real other edition is "Dark Age" and that has failed spectacularly.

*Even if you never use the boardgame

Got to take my dog to the Vet for surgery, but I will comment later on.
Let me just say for now: thanks, theRPGsite, for this awesome turn of a thread.

Quote from: Akrasia;316297To be absolutely clear: my house rules are not meant as 'fixes' to S&W!  Rather, my house rules are meant to modify S&W in order to realize a stronger 'swords and sorcery' ethos in my current campaign.  In my next campaign, I may prefer to run a more 'classic' D&D style game.  If so, then I will use the standard rules!

That pretty much how my modifications to Swords & Wizardry work. I wrote these rules not to fix S&W but rather adapt them to how my game world works.

For example use of magic is more common in my setting than straight up D&D. Various spell casters are allowed to cast any spell in their spell book as ritual costing a certain amount of gold in components. It takes longer so it is not that useful for combat but for day to day living it increases the use of magic.

I think we will see more of this, D&D rulebooks customized for a particular setting as opposed to previous efforts like S&W, LL, and OSRIC which emulate D&D as a general purpose ruleset. Old School fans will cherry pick the classes, and rules they like from different products for their own games.

Quote from: J Arcane;316327But I can just as easily be a "gamer-creator" by creating my own bloody game, something I have done, and am in the process of doing again, and am even hoping to make a couple of bucks off of some day.

Then I get a game that is literally whatever I want it to be, and I'm gleefully free of anyone's expectations whatsoever of it fitting in with whatever banner I've pitched it under.

You're assuming somehow that people who are just experimenting with Swords & Wizardry never made up their own game systems or experiment in any other way. I did build game systems, some of them I still like, and if I was building a specific game experience apart from what already exists and wanted the game mechanics to reflect this, I certainly would design a game system from scratch.

Thing is? That's not what I'm doing with my OD&D/Swords & Wizardry.

What I want is "my D&D". So I take the original expression of the game and add some game components to suit what I understand and appreciate as "D&D", to me.

I'm going to go one step further and simply say that it's the way I believe the game is meant to be played. AD&D and the orthodoxy of the "Official Rules" that came was a creative mistake, though it seemed like a justified business necessity at the time. Regardless of the truth of this, the only real concern I have to worry about  is my ability to experience the D&D I really want, not whether my campaign ends up being "official" or not.

I'm free in this regard, but still playing the game I love, D&D.
No need to reinvent the wheel.

As for the "orthodoxy within the OSR community" debate. This actually has been discussed within the community many times, and it's still being discussed today. After a few key exchanges on this idea (http://citadelofeight.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejecting-old-school-fundamentalism.html), I refuse to lump every single OSR DM/player into some monolithic group that would be just one way or the other, creative or orthodox, fundamentalist or progressist. The OSR is made of its own diversity, which in many ways reflects the diversity of the RPG hobby at large, and we should, we actually do embrace it.

There'll always be those who draw the lines and those who cross them. Let's not believe that people interested in the OSR have to be one way or the other. There's both, and it's good for the OSR to have both, and every shade in between.

People who think the OSR is some sort of monolithic movement still have a lot to learn about it.

Quote from: Akrasia;316329I know that I've used some house rules that other people have come up with.  Likewise, I know a few people who have used, or adapted, some of my house rules (I believe that Benoist is one such person on this forum).  Visit the S&W forum, or the OD&D forum, or the LL forum, etc., and you'll see lots of borrowing, modifying, sharing, etc., of house rules.

You seem to be overly negative about the OSR, without reading the things that are actually coming out of it, like Knockspell, Fight On!, and lots of great ideas on various fora and blogs, as well as 'new' games like Ruins and Ronins and Mutant Future.

This is correct, by the way. My tentative talent system for S&W uses Akrasia's "Saving throw as resolution system" concept. That's where it originally started. And it's good. ;)

Quote from: Nicephorus;316332I think that was part of the intent of AD&D, including the attitude of some of the Gygax writing.  But it never really happened.  Even in 2e days, I think the average length of house rules was 10 pages, but I saw 80 page revisions that were entirely different games.  I had a modest 3 pages of changes.  House rules has always been part of gaming.

Part of the motivation for 3e was a realization from the designers that almost no one played AD&D as written.

I don't know about that last sentence*, but the uniformization and standardization of the rules of the game for the viability of the game over the mid/long-term was very much a basic concern behind AD&D's design.

*I don't remember anyone pointing out the differences in game experiences with AD&D as an impetus to create Third Edition. Do you have quote for that? That's very interesting, because if it's true, that means the standardization is a constant issue in the mind of D&D's designers, and it wasn't just the case with First edition.

Quote from: Benoist;316364*I don't remember anyone pointing out the differences in game experiences with AD&D as an impetus to create Third Edition. Do you have quote for that? That's very interesting, because if it's true, that means the standardization is a constant issue in the mind of D&D's designers, and it wasn't just the case with First edition.

It was an article on designing 3rd edition, I believe by Sean K Reynolds, but it might have been Monte Cook.  It's been at least 5 years so I doubt that I could find it.  I recall the context being that, at first, they were hesitant to make big changes and kill any sacred cows.  Then, they noticed how far from the book most people had drifted anyway and how hard it was to move from one game group to another due to rules differences.  An edition close to AD&D would not make people give up their house rules and buy the game.  They wanted something that people were more likely to play as is.  
 
Having moved a few times in the 80s and 90s, I can attest how differently AD&D was played in different groups, due to both house rules and different interpretations of some of the rules.

Quote from: Akrasia;316287Nonetheless, try visiting some of the forums devoted to specific retro-clones (the LL forums or the S&W forums).  You'll see lots of discussion of adventures, campaign settings, etc.  Same goes for the forums devoted to OOP D&D (dragonsfoot, K&K, etc.).  Likewise, a lot of the old school blogs discuss actual adventures, campaign ideas, etc.

General forums like this one are not necessarily the best indicators of what is actually happening in the OSR.

Maybe that's a problem.

It certainly seems to be part of what fuels guys like this wannabe Ryan Dancey (http://www.mobunited.com/mobunitedmedia/2009/07/22/dnd-rpg-old-school/).

I remember when buzz about old school games started to work its way up through the mulch of d20 - it took getting off boards like Dragonsfoot and onto online communities like ENWorld and rpg.net to become anything resembling a "movement."

And I really have a difficult time with this:

Quote from: Benoist;316283To me, personally, "Old School" in "OSR" relates much more to OD&D's free willing nature rather than AD&D's monolithic game system and standardization. To me, creating variants, houserules, tweaking a game like OD&D is very much in tune with what I understand as Old School. When you get back to the first years of the hobby, people where making the game work for them, sometimes misunderstanding this rule, or just winging it in this or that aspect, so much so that there really weren't monolithic rules of the game. It's later that the intent to keep one set of rules as "D&D" and variants as "Something not D&D" evolved to finally become "AD&D, the standard rules system that Truly Is D&D (c)".

Putting aside for the moment the idea that AD&D isn't "really old school," the idea that we should be declaring, "This is Old School and this is not," rarely makes sense when you look at it closely.

I can understand the centrality of D&D to the osr - even back in the day it was the six-hundred-pound gorilla of gaming - but the idea that what is "old school" can be divined from OD&D is problematic for me. Is Traveller no longer "old school?" Or The Fantasy Trip? After all, they both had skill systems and unified resolution mechanics (though Traveller's came late in its history, shortly before the release of MT), so do they somehow lack "old school cred" because they aren't sufficiently like OD&D?

So when I said upthread that I wish the osr was more about playing old games, it's because of stuff like this. The osr wasnt originally about visiting the right forum or creating an OD&D retroclone. It was a buzz about playing older games that began popping up in the mainstream online community, and a brief surge of excitement (and some considerable doubt) that maybe someone could start publishing adventures for them again. My impression is that it's becoming something very different.

That's my opinion, originally priced at $0.02, now discounted to free, and worth every penny you paid for it.

Quote from: RandallS;316337However, as my old school players design their own worlds and adventures instead of relying mainly on purchased settings and adventures, there is is always going to be a greater interest in "rules variants" with minute differences in the old school community than in those segments of the gaming community who rely more on published settings and adventures. The rules variants are simply more useful to people creating their own worlds than they probably are to people who do not.

See, this is contrary to my own experiences and preferences. I make up my own worlds and adventures, but I have no need for rules variants. When I have a system I like, and I've tweaked it to my satisfaction, it's finished. I don't think about systems again unless I decide to run a different game.

However, I do like adventure material to supplement my own homebrew stuff. I like to read adventures for inspiration, cannibalize bits to use in my own game.

So to me, the value of supplemental adventure content (be it settings, random tables, or adventures) to my homebrew game far outweighs the value of new system material. I don't persistently need new system content, because I like to run a simple and fixed system. What I do always need more of is adventure content.

I frankly don't understand how a DM needs more and more rules material. Do they just add new rules and variants every session? I suspect in a lot of cases, those folks aren't even playing a regular game. They're tinkerers.

But then I've long ago realized that one of the main purposes of RPG sites is a kind of support group for systems wonks. And that's pretty much what I think the old-school  movement is about.

Quote from: The Shaman;316370Putting aside for the moment the idea that AD&D isn't "really old school," the idea that we should be declaring, "This is Old School and this is not," rarely makes sense when you look at it closely.

I can understand the centrality of D&D to the osr - even back in the day it was the six-hundred-pound gorilla of gaming - but the idea that what is "old school" can be divined from OD&D is problematic for me. Is Traveller no longer "old school?" Or The Fantasy Trip? After all, they both had skill systems and unified resolution mechanics (though Traveller's came late in its history, shortly before the release of MT), so do they somehow lack "old school cred" because they aren't sufficiently like OD&D?

So when I said upthread that I wish the osr was more about playing old games, it's because of stuff like this. The osr wasnt originally about visiting the right forum or creating an OD&D retroclone. It was a buzz about playing older games that began popping up in the mainstream online community, and a brief surge of excitement (and some considerable doubt) that maybe someone could start publishing adventures for them again. My impression is that it's becoming something very different.

Your impression is wrong because you are basically reading things in that statement of mine that just aren't there. I never implied that OD&D was "more OSR than thou". The gist of my original statement as it relates to your reaction is: "To me, creating variants, houserules, tweaking a game like OD&D is very much in tune with what I understand as Old School."

A game "like" OD&D. Not "necessarily" OD&D. Emphasis is, obviously, mine.

I consider Traveller to be very much OSR. How about Mutant Future (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm)? It is very much OSR, and not any less than OD&D may be.

The Shaman: I think you are reading too much into specific statements. E.g. the reason people don't address Traveller that much is because they don't care, or have dedicated and well-established communities for discussing Traveller. Your hypotheses about "old school cred" may hold water for a small minority, but I am fairly certain it is not particularly relevant for most people.

[edit]What starts to make this discussion slightly irritating (although not on the level of Malcolm's blog post) is second-guessing people's motives for playing old-school games. Not the stuff of fruitful communication.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163Yup. I think its a fundamental flaw of the "retro" movement. Either you're playing a game so similar to its inspiration that might as well be playing the original, or you are playing a game so different that you're not playing anything like the original.

I really hope that eventually the Old School movement clues into that, and comes to get that what you need to produce are games with an Old School design-feel, but not actually an imitator of an old game; and with modern comprehension of design and presentation.

I agree. I'm working on a game called "Tribute" that tries to do this. It's inspired by the way my first D&D books made me feel, and what I thought the game was about. I was able to hold onto that feeling all through 2e, but it started shaking at 3e when I realized everyone else had a different impression of the game. I didn't hate the game, but it didn't feel completely like D&D to me. Cool rules, for the most part, though. Building stuff was fun, so it was a different kind of awesome.

When 4e came out, though, I talked myself into thinking that the game would be a "return" to what I had thought it was, but which it had never officially been. I had a few fun sessions, but it really isn't D&D to me. Still, it was what everyone else thought of as D&D, and I figured I could have been missing something.

So when I decided to re-imagine my published campaign setting I tried to see if I could do it under 4e, and what I'd need to add ruleswise to make the setting shine. With the GSL being the turd that it is, and D&D no longer being what I once thought it was, I realized that D&D wasn't the game for my setting, or for the other settings I have in mind.

I looked back at what I thought was cool about AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, and basic, and I found that the imagery and the immersive settings were what I liked the most. It wasn't the rules, per se, so much as the atmosphere, potential, and promise that I loved. I decided to try to write a game with all of that. Emphasis on try. I think it's coming along pretty well, but the proof is in the playing.

Quote from: Benoist;316347Got to take my dog to the Vet for surgery, but I will comment later on.
Let me just say for now: thanks, theRPGsite, for this awesome turn of a thread.

Translation:  All my friends showed up and made it all about them.

Quote from: Benoist;316361People who think the OSR is some sort of monolithic movement still have a lot to learn about it.

It certainly looks pretty fucking monolithic when the same voices time after time show en masse like some kind of rapid response team the moment anyone dares disagree with their Official Position.  

The level of sameness in the responses in this thread is frankly too much to be believed.  

Quote from: Nicephorus;316366It was an article on designing 3rd edition, I believe by Sean K Reynolds, but it might have been Monte Cook.  It's been at least 5 years so I doubt that I could find it.  I recall the context being that, at first, they were hesitant to make big changes and kill any sacred cows.  Then, they noticed how far from the book most people had drifted anyway and how hard it was to move from one game group to another due to rules differences.  An edition close to AD&D would not make people give up their house rules and buy the game.  They wanted something that people were more likely to play as is.  
 
Having moved a few times in the 80s and 90s, I can attest how differently AD&D was played in different groups, due to both house rules and different interpretations of some of the rules.

This is exactly what I was on about in my counter point to the "lingua franca" idea.  If I have to learn a whole new way to play when I move to a new group, what the hell kind of universal language is that exactly?

Quote from: The Shaman;316370Putting aside for the moment the idea that AD&D isn't "really old school," the idea that we should be declaring, "This is Old School and this is not," rarely makes sense when you look at it closely.

I can understand the centrality of D&D to the osr - even back in the day it was the six-hundred-pound gorilla of gaming - but the idea that what is "old school" can be divined from OD&D is problematic for me. Is Traveller no longer "old school?" Or The Fantasy Trip? After all, they both had skill systems and unified resolution mechanics (though Traveller's came late in its history, shortly before the release of MT), so do they somehow lack "old school cred" because they aren't sufficiently like OD&D?

So when I said upthread that I wish the osr was more about playing old games, it's because of stuff like this. The osr wasnt originally about visiting the right forum or creating an OD&D retroclone. It was a buzz about playing older games that began popping up in the mainstream online community, and a brief surge of excitement (and some considerable doubt) that maybe someone could start publishing adventures for them again. My impression is that it's becoming something very different.

That's my opinion, originally priced at $0.02, now discounted to free, and worth every penny you paid for it.

Exactly.  This is the moving target I was referring to.  We see this "movement" regressing more and more as time goes on, and the horde marching to it's drum.  I can't help but wonder if the whole thing dries up when they stop being able to find a game or clone that's "older school" than last seasons big new thing.

Quote from: Settembrini;316344I would say the "RPG side" is irrelevant, as it´s assuming anybody would  play the RPG with only the one RPG book. Thats just not the case. The Battletech Universe as a whole and it´s power-interaction-structure and it´s power taxanomy & distribution are the same*- even the three editions of the RPG are only a constant conversion factor apart from each other. It means nothing for gameplay or GM judgement. There are no edition wars in Battletech. The only real other edition is "Dark Age" and that has failed spectacularly.

*Even if you never use the boardgame

And, again, you'd be wrong. The BTech group I was playing in  rejected everything since the launch of the clans.

The BTech edition wars are over subsidiary games (Battlespace vs the older Aerotech; Battleforce vs Battleforce 2, RPG 1E/2E/3E) and over setting (Pre-clan, Clan). Tho' there was a good bit of dissention amongst my friends when certain tech books were released... the introduction of double heat sinks, for example.

And I've run MW 2E without BTech before. The entire campaign revolved around sneaky-pete shit. No mechs appeared.

That Battletech itself used the same base rules in 1985 as it uses now is irrelevant; everything else has changed. Even the current core rules are not SW era. The available mechs, the hardware available for mechs... all different. And it feels different in play.

Plus the setting has changed drastically: the clan invasions, the federated commonwealth/steiner-davion merger.

The edition wars are not as profound as most, but they do exist. I quit playing "new battletech" back in 1994. I joined a campaign for a year, but we didn't use anything from clan invasion on, setting or rules (not by my choice, but by group concensus, tho' I'm good with that choice) in 2004-2005.

Quote from: J ArcaneWe see this "movement" regressing more and more as time goes on, and the horde marching to it's drum.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/branmakmorn.png)
:D

Quote from: J Arcane;316378It certainly looks pretty fucking monolithic when the same voices time after time show en masse like some kind of rapid response team the moment anyone dares disagree with their Official Position.

You mean your perceived "Official Position" being that there actually is no "Official Position" and no monolithic movement?
Yeah, that's a shame. And so monolithic, at that. :rolleyes:

Citizen #1: We are not brainwashed!
Citizen #2: I swear! We really aren't!
Lambda guy: See, told you. They say the same thing! They must be brainwashed!

I think part of the problem here is that you've got many Swords & Wizardry and OD&D users talking. They are bound to have some common view points on topics like "houserules or no houserules?". Go to Knights & Knaves Alehouse, talk about houseruling AD&D, and you'll get some dry humor in response (at best). My point? The K&K AD&D hardcore guys aren't more OSR than we are here, but they certainly would answer differently to this thread.

So in conclusion your argument fails J Arcane because first you're dismissing the message (there is no monolithic OSR movement) to judge on its appearance (they're all saying there isn't a monolithic OSR movement! That certainly LOOKS monolithic, doesn't it?), first, and second, you are judging the whole of the OSR movement by reading a bunch of guys who know each other and play the same game (OD&D/Swords & Wizardry). That's not what I call foolproof logic, J.

Quote from: Haffrung;316371So to me, the value of supplemental adventure content (be it settings, random tables, or adventures) to my homebrew game far outweighs the value of new system material. I don't persistently need new system content, because I like to run a simple and fixed system. What I do always need more of is adventure content.

In general, most published adventures are a waste of my money. I have to do almost as much work to fit them to my main campaign worlds as I would to write one from scratch. I might get ideas from one, but I find it easier to get ideas from articles, new rules, new monsters, etc.

QuoteI frankly don't understand how a DM needs more and more rules material. Do they just add new rules and variants every session?

Need them? Not really, but asI mentioned I often find them far more inspiring than than adventures as they are easier to mold. For example, articles on a new character class has inspired entire adventures around that class as a monster of some type.

Quote from: Haffrung;316371...  What I do always need more of is adventure content.

And, as I mentioned earlier, the OSR has produced a great number of adventures.  Far, far more adventures than rules.

Quote from: Haffrung;316371...
I frankly don't understand how a DM needs more and more rules material. Do they just add new rules and variants every session? I suspect in a lot of cases, those folks aren't even playing a regular game. They're tinkerers.

But then I've long ago realized that one of the main purposes of RPG sites is a kind of support group for systems wonks. And that's pretty much what I think the old-school  movement is about.

While many people involved in OSR like tinkering with rules, I think that most of them also are actually playing the games.  I know that I am.  My house rules have all seen use in my current campaign.  I know that Mythmere, Calithena, Jeff Rients, Melan, James Maliszewski, and many of the other 'movers and shakers' in the OSR are actively running games.

You seem determined to view the OSR in a very uncharitable light.  I'm not sure why this is.

Quote from: Akrasia;316387While many people involved in OSR like tinkering with rules, I think that most of them also are actually playing the games.  I know that I am.  My house rules have all seen use in my current campaign.  I know that Mythmere, Calithena, Jeff Rients, Melan, James Maliszewski, and many of the other 'movers and shakers' in the OSR are actively running games.

I too am actually running the game.

Quote from: Benoist;316382You mean your perceived "Official Position" being that there actually is no "Official Position" and no monolithic movement?
Yeah, that's a shame. And so monolithic, at that. :rolleyes:

Citizen #1: We are not brainwashed!
Citizen #2: I swear! We really aren't!
Lambda guy: See, told you. They say the same thing! They must be brainwashed!

I think part of the problem here is that you've got many Swords & Wizardry and OD&D users talking. They are bound to have some common view points on topics like "houserules or no houserules?". Go to Knights & Knaves Alehouse, talk about houseruling AD&D, and you'll get some dry humor in response (at best). My point? The K&K AD&D hardcore guys aren't more OSR than we are here, but they certainly would answer differently to this thread.

So in conclusion your argument fails J Arcane because first you're dismissing the message (there is no monolithic OSR movement) to judge on its appearance (they're all saying there isn't a monolithic OSR movement! That certainly LOOKS monolithic, doesn't it?), first, and second, you are judging the whole of the OSR movement by reading a bunch of guys who know each other and play the same game (OD&D/Swords & Wizardry). That's not what I call foolproof logic, J.

Exactly where did I say this thread was the soul source of my conclusions?

You've done a spectacular job attacking that strawman, but you've also given short shrift to the wide variety of other sites out there all discussing the same thing.

If anyone's ignoring the rest of the OSR here, it's you.

Quote from: J Arcane;316389Exactly where did I say this thread was the soul source of my conclusions?

You've done a spectacular job attacking that strawman, but you've also given short shrift to the wide variety of other sites out there all discussing the same thing.

If anyone's ignoring the rest of the OSR here, it's you.

Nice try but no, J.
You can't have it both ways: either we're all saying the same thing and we're somehow monolithic in your mind, or we aren't, and therefore we can't form this monolithic movement you want to see.

So which is it?

BTW, nice dodge of the actual meat of my argument, again. The meat being here = your argument fails because 1/ you're dismissing the message to judge on its appearance, and 2/you are judging the whole of the OSR movement by reading a bunch of guys who know each other and play the same game. You handwave (2) and don't address (1) at all. This is not an actual argument you're formulating.

"You are all individuals!"

"WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!"

"I'm not!"

Quote from: Benoist;316390Nice try but no, J.
You can't have it both ways: either we're all saying the same thing and we're somehow all saying the same thing and monolithic in your mind, or we aren't, and therefore we can't form this monolithic movement you want to see.

So which is it?

Umm, what?

Did you even read that sentence before you wrote it, or are you just blathering at this point and I should just tune you out?

Quote from: Haffrung;316371What I do always need more of is adventure content.

Brave Halfling, Mythmere Games, Expeditious Retreat, Goblinoid Games, Pied Pier, Chaotic Henchmen, Usherwood Publishing, Øone Games, Magique Productions, Goodman Games...

... and me...

(are we counting Troll Lord? They've got a million modules out for C&C...)

... who else is publishing adventures? And these are just the for-pay types.

Quote from: Akrasia;316387I know that Mythmere, Calithena, Jeff Rients, Melan, James Maliszewski, and many of the other 'movers and shakers' in the OSR are actively running games.

I ran the 14th session of my campaign last Sunday. While I'm not a "mover and shaker in the OSR," I'm running a old school campaign using old school rules. I'm certainly not alone.

Quote from: J Arcane;316378...
It certainly looks pretty fucking monolithic when the same voices time after time show en masse like some kind of rapid response team the moment anyone dares disagree with their Official Position.  

The level of sameness in the responses in this thread is frankly too much to be believed.  

There is no "Official Position".  The "sameness in the responses in this thread" reflects the sameness that one should expect to find in common sense replies to unjustified and ignorant assertions.

If x is true, and someone asserts not-x, then the "sameness in responses" of posters pointing out that x is true should not be surprising.  :)

Quote from: J Arcane;316378...
This is exactly what I was on about in my counter point to the "lingua franca" idea.  If I have to learn a whole new way to play when I move to a new group, what the hell kind of universal language is that exactly?

The "lingua franca" refers to the underlying core rules and base assumptions found in all games based on OS D&D.  The different house rules are "dialects".  The underlying language remains the same.

It's really not that hard to understand.  The OSR is proof of the existence of this 'lingua franca'.  I have no difficulty in understanding Ruins and Ronins, Mutant Future, house rules for 1e AD&D, and so forth, given that they all share the same set of 'core' underlying assumptions.  

Check out the OSR products.  Actually read them, and you will understand this.

Quote from: J Arcane;316378...  This is the moving target I was referring to...

There is no 'moving target' because the 'movement' simply is not as monolithic as you think it is.
 

Quote from: J Arcane;316378...I can't help but wonder if the whole thing dries up when they stop being able to find a game or clone that's "older school" than last seasons big new thing.

Heh.  I don't see this phenomenon happening at all, and, unlike yourself, I actually am involved in the OSR.  Knockspell and Fight On! don't show any signs of slowing down.  The material in those fanzines is useable with OD&D, BD&D, RCD&D, AD&D, and all of their respective clones -- it's that wonderful "lingua franca" thing, which (your speculative protestations notwithstanding) does exist and allows OSR ideas and adventures to be shared so widely.

The OSR is a grass-roots movement that is diverse, creative, and enthusiastic.  I love it.  However, it is obviously not something you like, for whatever reason.  I'm not sure why it bothers you so much.

Quote from: RandallS;316394I ran the 14th session of my campaign last Sunday. While I'm not a "mover and shaker in the OSR," I'm running a old school campaign using old school rules. I'm certainly not alone.

Don't be so modest!  You're at least a 'mover'.  ;)

Quote from: J Arcane;316392Umm, what?

Did you even read that sentence before you wrote it, or are you just blathering at this point and I should just tune you out?

Have you actually checked out other sources to form the argument that we are all somehow saying the same thing in the OSR?

WHICH sources, please? Specific names, links, websites would be helpful.

I mean, I'm seriously starting to think you're just pulling bullshit out of your ass, so if you aren't actually adding some meat on your opinions, like say, actual examples of the sources outside this thread you are referring to, you might just consider tuning me out, because I sure am not going to agree with you on this one.

Quote from: Benoist;316398Have you actually checked out other sources to form the argument that we are all somehow saying the same thing in the OSR?

WHICH sources, please? Specific names, links, websites would be helpful.

I mean, I'm seriously starting to think you're just pulling bullshit out of your ass, so if you aren't actually adding some meat on your opinions, like say, actual examples of the sources outside this thread you are referring to, you might just consider tuning me out, because I sure am not going to agree with you on this one.

The Jonathon Tweet "controversy" didn't start here.

Most of you people's pet outrages have started elsewhere, they just get boiled down and dumped here when you've run out of other places to rage about it.

EDIT:  Also, if you're going to start playing the "edit my post every 5 minutes to say something different so I don't look like a twat" game, they we are officially done here.

Bad fucking form, dude.

Quote from: J Arcane;316399The Jonathon Tweet "controversy" didn't start here.

Most of you people's pet outrages have started elsewhere, they just get boiled down and dumped here when you've run out of other places to rage about it.

What the fuck are you talking about now?

Please. Formulate an actual hypothesis I can agree or disagree with.
I do not understand what you are saying right now.

Quote from: j arcane;316399edit:  Also, if you're going to start playing the "edit my post every 5 minutes to say something different so i don't look like a twat" game, they we are officially done here.

Bad fucking form, dude.

Fuck you. I may edit my posts if I want to. You have an appointment, something, or you just enjoy being an ass?

Quote from: Benoist;316400What the fuck are you talking about now?

Please. Formulate an actual hypothesis I can agree or disagree with.
I do not understand what you are saying right now.

Statement 1:  Response to opposition to the OSR seems to be unilateral
Your rebuttal:  "You're just basing it on this site, you've never read anything else"
Statement 2:  Example of monolithic response to opposition that originated at a point other than this site

How the fuck is that hard to follow?

Quote from: Benoist;316401Fuck you. I may edit my posts if I want to. You have an appointment, something, or you just enjoy being an ass?

Don't like getting caught with your drawers down, do you?  You even had to rewrite this one too, just to try and get another dig in.

Get this, shithead.  I don't like dishonesty, I don't like revisionism.  You want to make a fucking argument, make a fucking argument, don't go back and rewrite all your fucking posts a dozen times to make you look better.

Maybe it's time this site institute a time limit on edits, if cocksuckers like you are going to be running about.

1 + 1 = 3

2 + 2 = 5

...


:rant:

Quote from: J Arcane;316402Statement 1:  Response to opposition to the OSR seems to be unilateral
Your rebuttal:  "You're just basing it on this site, you've never read anything else"
Statement 2:  Example of monolithic response to opposition that originated at a point other than this site

How the fuck is that hard to follow?

Your statement 1 is not supported by actual examples beyond this thread. I told you to check out for instance Knights & Knaves to check out how responses can differ between people interested in the OSR. Compare that to the OD&D discussion forum, the blogs on blogger.com, Dragonsfoot.org threads, Troll Lord Games' forums, the C&C Society... you STILL don't see any different response?

Give me examples of your statement 1, otherwise is just plain bullshit.

Statement 2: are you saying that the Tweet thing has something to do with what we're discussing here? How is it related?

QuoteDon't like getting caught with your drawers down, do you?  You even had to rewrite this one too, just to try and get another dig in.

Get this, shithead.  I don't like dishonesty, I don't like revisionism.  You want to make a fucking argument, make a fucking argument, don't go back and rewrite all your fucking posts a dozen times to make you look better.

Maybe it's time this site institute a time limit on edits, if cocksuckers like you are going to be running about.

Maybe you need to understand that I'm not a native speaker, scumbag, and also need to develop one little tiny thing: PATIENCE, asshole. That's how I write my posts.

I actually think before and after I posted, and revise accordingly.

You don't like it? TOO-FUCKING-BAD. Boo-hoo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river...

Quote from: Akrasia;316387You seem determined to view the OSR in a very uncharitable light.  I'm not sure why this is.

Whenever I hear the word "movement", I reach for my gun. Actually, I don't own a gun, but you get the picture.

Anyone who can't see the similarity between the Old School Renaissance and the Forge isn't looking hard enough.

Quote from: Benoist;316405Your statement 1 is not supported by actual examples beyond this thread. I told you to check out for instance Knights & Knaves to check out how responses can differ between people interested in the OSR. Compare that to the OD&D discussion forum, the blogs on blogger.com, Dragonsfoot.org threads, Troll Lord Games' forums, the C&C Society... you STILL don't see any different response?

You fucking disingenuous twatwaffle, that's exactly what statement 2 was all afucking about.  It's not my fault you can't fucking read.

QuoteGive me examples of your statement 1, otherwise is just plain bullshit.

Statement 2: are you saying that the Tweet thing has something to do with what we're discussing here? How is it related?

Umm, because it's exactly the sort of example you claim to be demanding?  An example of the "OSR" joining together in collective outrage that someone dared criticize their pet game, an outrage that originated well outside this site, and raged mostly across the blogs, as every one of the usual suspects piped up to express their nerdrage that the evil Tweet had dared dislike some of the game's systems?

It's obvious you're not reading or thinking about a word I'm fucking saying at this point, you're just doing your best to try and bend this for your own personal PR.  

QuoteMaybe you need to understand that I'm not a native speaker, scumbag, and also need to develop one little tiny thing: PATIENCE, asshole. That's how I write my posts.

I actually think before and after I posted, and revise accordingly.

You don't like it? TOO-FUCKING-BAD. Boo-hoo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river...

So don't fucking post it until you get it right, shithead.

You don't get the right to rewrite history just because you might look like a twat.  The edit button is not your personal time machine.

Quote from: Haffrung;316407Whenever I hear the word "movement", I reach for my gun. Actually, I don't own a gun, but you get the picture.

Anyone who can't see the similarity between the Old School Renaissance and the Forge isn't looking hard enough.

A fucking Men.

"movements" are suspicious things by nature, being as by simply point of definition they carry with it certain dogmatic tendencies, and I'm one of those that is always averse to dogma.

Defending old school = defending Nazism?  :banghead:

There we go.

Quote from: Haffrung;316407Whenever I hear the word "movement", I reach for my gun...

Why?  :confused:

Why does the fact that many people who like the same games share their ideas with each other on blogs and forums, contribute to fanzines like Knockspell and Fight On!, create their own variant rule sets (like Ronins & Ruins and Mutant Future), produce and publish their own adventures (either for profit of for free), etc., threaten you?

We're talking about FRPGs here, not a revolutionary movement!

If you don't like the OSR, cool.  Just ignore it.  Nobody is forcing it on you.

Quote from: Haffrung;316407Anyone who can't see the similarity between the Old School Renaissance and the Forge isn't looking hard enough.

Anyone who does see a similarity between the Old School Renaissance and the Forge should lay off the meds for a while.

Seriously, what similarities between the OSR and the Forge do you see?  :confused:

This is complete bullshit. We aren't discussing.
Just believe what you want.

Quote from: ggroy;316411Defending old school = defending Nazism?  :banghead:

There we go.

Is there someone on my ignore list I'm not seeing here?  I didn't see the message pop up anywhere in the thread, and I don't recall seeing anyone make any Godwin moves here.

Or are you just trying to be clever or something and failing miserable.

Quote from: Akrasia;316412Seriously, what similarities between the OSR and the Forge do you see?  :confused:

A community of roughly likeminded people bouncing ideas off of each other and coordinating for greater visibility and working with each other to publish.

The thing is, these things didn't start with the Forge, they are common to *any* creative community.

And to point out the similarities is to dismiss one rather important thing: The actual games that the movement centers around. You know, the entire point of the activity. Everything else being equal, a group of people trying to bring D&D to a greater audience is considerably different than a group of people trying to bring Sorcerer to a greater audience.

Quote from: J Arcane;316410A fucking Men.

"movements" are suspicious things by nature, being as by simply point of definition they carry with it certain dogmatic tendencies, and I'm one of those that is always averse to dogma.

Time to return to reality, lads.  :teacher:

We're talking about a role-playing game here -- you know, a hobby -- not a political movement.

As for 'dogma', I'm not aware of any in the OSR.  Some participants are ardent house-rulers, others prefer 'by-the-book'.  Some like Tekumel, others like Greyhawk, others prefer home-brew settings.  Some prefer AD&D, others Basic D&D, and others OD&D.  Etc.

There are no overarching 'dogmatic tendencies' in the OSR.   Imposing any kind of coherence on the OSR would be about as successful as herding cats.

Quote from: Akrasia;316416Time to return to reality, lads.  :teacher:

We're talking about a role-playing game here -- you know, a hobby -- not a political movement.

As for 'dogma', I'm not aware of any in the OSR.  Some participants are ardent house-rulers, others prefer 'by-the-book'.  Some like Tekumel, others like Greyhawk, others prefer home-brew settings.  Some prefer AD&D, others Basic D&D, and others OD&D.  Etc.

There are no overarching 'dogmatic tendencies' in the OSR.   Imposing any kind of coherence on the OSR would be about as successful as herding cats.

I'm sure that's not how Jonathan Tweet feels about it after his recent post.

Quote from: J Arcane;316418I'm sure that's not how Jonathan Tweet feels about it after his recent post.

There is the possibility that Tweet was indeed just talking rubbish in his original post and deserved a full round of criticism.

Quote from: JimLotFP;316415A community of roughly likeminded people bouncing ideas off of each other and coordinating for greater visibility and working with each other to publish.

The thing is, these things didn't start with the Forge, they are common to *any* creative community.

And to point out the similarities is to dismiss one rather important thing: The actual games that the movement centers around. You know, the entire point of the activity. Everything else being equal, a group of people trying to bring D&D to a greater audience is considerably different than a group of people trying to bring Sorcerer to a greater audience.

Good point.  I was thinking of the games in question, which made the analogy seem absurd.  If the similarity is the fact that both the OSR and the Forge are communities of creative, interacting people, then I'm cool with that.  :)

What's exactly is the universal OSR dogma, anyway?  (I want to find out if I'm a heretic.)

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;316421What's exactly is the universal OSR dogma, anyway?  (I want to find out if I'm a heretic.)

http://lotfp.blogspot.com/

;)

Quote from: JimLotFP;316419There is the possibility that Tweet was indeed just talking rubbish in his original post and deserved a full round of criticism.

And you all sure made it a point to unite en masse to tell him how "rubbish" his personal taste was.

Quote from: J Arcane;316418I'm sure that's not how Jonathan Tweet feels about it after his recent post.

Some of Tweet's comments were criticized even by people outside of the OSR.  Many people who are fans of 3e/Pathfinder also found his criticism about wizards 'playing differently' from fighters absurd.

Ironically, I read Tweet's post as overall somewhat favourable towards S&W.  He had a good time during the game, recognized that it played fast, and sees a lot of potential for 'rules light' systems like S&W.  Sure he had some particular criticisms (the stuff about different experience point charts, wizards vs. fighters, etc.).  But overall, I didn't take his post as a rejection of S&W or OS D&D.  :shrug:

Well, I don't consider old-school a movement either. If anything, it is a cluster of preferences with both positive and negative identifiers (i.e. "old-school is this and that" / "old school is not that"). From the outsider POV, it may seem homogeneous; from the inside, it is more varied - just for a start, we could speak of
- people looking for the accurate (re)creation of a Gygaxian playstyle (as seen on the Knights&Knaves Alehouse),
- Gygaxian naturalists (as advocated by James Maliszewski),
- Bledsawian surrealists (my term; usually combining sandbox games with swords&sorcery/weird fantasy aesthetics),
- retro stupid (as identified by Jeff Rients; it has roots in the irreverence of Tunnels&Trolls and the free genre-mixing of Arduin),
- people who play AD&D as they have always played AD&D (probably the most straightforward direct evolution of 1st edition; commonly found on Dragonsfoot, with John Turncotte and perhaps Stuart Marshall as its most accomplished representatives),
- Tekumel fans (specifically, those who use it to play D&D-style games)
- etc.
The list is neither exclusive nor should the listed types be interpreted as mutually exclusive  - there is a lot of collusion among them, and a sort of movement within the entire scene in an ongoing process of differentiation.

Etc. etc. ad nauseam. Of course, insulting similes elicit more reactions, civilised discourse is dead, so I'll stand back and watch the fireworks here. :popcorn:

I'm done with the fireworks. There's just no conversation to be had at all.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;316421What's exactly is the universal OSR dogma, anyway?  (I want to find out if I'm a heretic.)

Interestingly, those who level this charge against the OSR consistently fail to explain exactly what this 'dogma' consists in.  Heh.  :reporter:

Quote from: Benoist;316413This is complete bullshit. We aren't discussing.
Just believe what you want.

Well hey there, Benoist. Took you long enough. [edit]The only way to win is not to play.[/edit] :emot-clint:

Quote from: J Arcane;316423And you all sure made it a point to unite en masse to tell him how "rubbish" his personal taste was.

Personal taste is not exempt from criticism.

Quote from: Benoist;316426I'm done with the fireworks. There's just no conversation to be had at all.

I love seeing a liar try to take the high ground.  

It's so cute.

Quote from: JimLotFP;316429Personal taste is not exempt from criticism.

So then he should surely be allowed to criticize yours then, right?

Quote from: Melan;316425- Bledsawian surrealists (my term; usually combining sandbox games with swords&sorcery/weird fantasy aesthetics)

:hmm: Does that mean my Dunfalcon setting is a sort of Bledsawian surrealist homage without me even realizing it?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Quote from: J Arcane;316431So then he should surely be allowed to criticize yours then, right?

Yes.

But he shouldn't be surprised to receive a response.

Quote from: J Arcane;316430I love seeing a liar try to take the high ground.  

It's so cute.

I edit my posts therefore I am a liar?
Dude, whatever you're smoking, keep it to yourself.

Quote from: Melan;316425...
- Bledsawian surrealists (my term; usually combining sandbox games with swords&sorcery/weird fantasy aesthetics)...

I love this term, and the kind of game it suggests!

In practice, though, I tend towards 'Gygaxian naturalism', albeit with a definite 'swords & sorcery' flavour.

Quote from: Benoist;316432:hmm: Does that mean my Dunfalcon setting is a sort of Bledsawian surrealist homage without me even realizing it?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Draw your own fucking conclusions, you nefarious dimwit! :emot-clint:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/Regd08a.gif)

(http://www.addiction-guild.com/sites/addiction-guild.com/files/images/News/2_11_azgalor/boobs.jpg)

Quote from: Akrasia;316424Some of Tweet's comments were criticized even by people outside of the OSR.  Many people who are fans of 3e/Pathfinder also found his criticism about wizards 'playing differently' from fighters absurd.

Ironically, I read Tweet's post as overall somewhat favourable towards S&W.  He had a good time during the game, recognized that it played fast, and sees a lot of potential for 'rules light' systems like S&W.  Sure he had some particular criticisms (the stuff about different experience point charts, wizards vs. fighters, etc.).  But overall, I didn't take his post as a rejection of S&W or OS D&D.  :shrug:

I sort of agree with you, to be honest.  I think he inelegantly stated his tastes, and I myself criticized his lack of tact in the thread on the topic here.

I just found it interesting how many of the same names came out of the woodwork to tell him how "wrong" his tastes were, and felt it made a good example of the postulation I had made.  

You guys don't, and probably won't ever see it, because you're too inside of it.  No one in a clique ever sees it as a clique, but the guys on the outside tend to see it pretty clear indeed, especially when it comes down on top of their heads.  

For the record, until Mr. Revisionist went all schizoid, I never intended any of my commentary to be personal, not even my little barb at you Akrasia.  I found this thread a rather enjoyable little debate exercise until it went all wrong.  I apologize to the public for subjecting them to my rather irrational reaction to a certain pet peeve.  

You and I have a long history of going at it like rabid wolves, and I appreciate that our debate has been rather civil, even in the face of what you saw as uncharitable interpretations on my part.

So it's a wrap, then?  :hatsoff:

Quote from: Benoist;316373Your impression is wrong because you are basically reading things in that statement of mine that just aren't there. I never implied that OD&D was "more OSR than thou".

Well, let's take a look at your words again:

Quote from: Benoist;316283To me, personally, "Old School" in "OSR" relates much more to OD&D's free willing nature rather than AD&D's monolithic game system and standardization.

It may not be your intent, but "Relates much more to OD&D than AD&D" comes across to me as pretty much "OD&D is more old school than AD&D."

Quote from: Benoist;316373The gist of my original statement as it relates to your reaction is: "To me, creating variants, houserules, tweaking a game like OD&D is very much in tune with what I understand as Old School."

A game "like" OD&D. Not "necessarily" OD&D. Emphasis is, obviously, mine.

But not a game "like" AD&D, with its "monolithic game system and standardization."

In its complete context, the paragraph I picked fits thus:

Quote from: Benoist;316283The "OSR" is far from being some monolithic movement people posting on message boards and other blogs make it out to be. I think, further, that teh OSR ought to not become a movement per se, in the sense that, for me, part of the interest is to keep and nourish the different trends in the community.

To me, personally, "Old School" in "OSR" relates much more to OD&D's free willing nature rather than AD&D's monolithic game system and standardization. To me, creating variants, houserules, tweaking a game like OD&D is very much in tune with what I understand as Old School. When you get back to the first years of the hobby, people where making the game work for them, sometimes misunderstanding this rule, or just winging it in this or that aspect, so much so that there really weren't monolithic rules of the game. It's later that the intent to keep one set of rules as "D&D" and variants as "Something not D&D" evolved to finally become "AD&D, the standard rules system that Truly Is D&D (c)".

All this to say that, to me, people coming up with their own variants and tweaks to the game is very much part of the "Old School" vibe I appreciate, first, and that I think the OSR thrives on differences and versatility rather than some sort of "movement" with a strict code of ethics and conduct, but that's just me talking.

Variants and tweaks are indeed part of the "old school vibe," though I've yet to encounter the roleplaying game, old or new, that I haven't tweaked or varianted . . . variabled . . . whatever.

But from a perspective shaped by my personal experience, that was just as much a part of AD&D, or Traveller, or Metamorphosis Alpha, or The Fantasy Trip, as it was OD&D. I think your statement flies in the face of that.

I also don't think it's unique to you. I haven't kept links to posts that I can whip up for your benefit, but I have noticed an undercurrent of "more old school that thou," frex in the discussion of the "dungeon-as-mythic-underworld." I think that's why I keyed on your words here.

I played those old games when they were new, and I've been part of the online communities from which the osr rose; mine was one of the voices criticizing the complexity of d20 and pointing out the nonsense that was regularly offered up as fact about older games vis-a-vis d20 on sites like ENWorld.

I've experienced these changes first-hand. And I do see a difference in the way "old school" is perceived and promoted from just a few years ago. That's natural, of course, but I'm not wild about some of those changes.

Quote from: Melan;316374[edit]What starts to make this discussion slightly irritating (although not on the level of Malcolm's blog post) is second-guessing people's motives for playing old-school games. Not the stuff of fruitful communication.

I hope this wasn't directed at me.

I don't believe I'm questioning anyone's motives, only responding to their actual words.

Quote from: Melan;316425- Bledsawian surrealists (my term; usually combining sandbox games with swords&sorcery/weird fantasy aesthetics),

Thank you for giving that a label.  I had been groping for one.

Quote from: The Shaman;316470Well, let's take a look at your words again:It may not be your intent, but "Relates much more to OD&D than AD&D" comes across to me as pretty much "OD&D is more old school than AD&D."But not a game "like" AD&D, with its "monolithic game system and standardization."

The rest of the post is your observations regarding the recent changes in the OSR folks, and I am not going to mount a debate regarding that, but I wanted to address this first part.

In essence, OD&D is more 'old school' than AD&D because it is, in fact, older.  While the relative merits and flaws of a '67 GTO and a '57 Fury can be debated, the Fury can reasonably be said to be more classic than the GTO, on account that it is a decade older.  The design aesthetic, while clearly evolved from even earlier cars, is easily demonstrated to be closer to original design aesthetics of Plymouth Motors from the '30s, but especially in the '40s and early '50s.

In the same way, OD&D is closer to original design intents than AD&D, because it is closer to the 'original' game.  There is little debate that AD&D was shored up and touted as a 'standard' ruleset; in fact, few can honestly claim this isn't where D&D overall started its ossification.  There is, of course, ample room for rules modifications.  Still, it is quite evident, even without Uncle Gary clearly stating as much, these rules were intended to standardize play; whether for conventions or simply to lock-in supplement sales may never be adequately answered.

Now, being closer to the source is important for some people, for others it's not important at all.  However, I don't find it particularly controversial that OD&D is more 'old school' than AD&D.  For myself, this has no real significance.  Nor am I concerned whether or not Mr Reints or Mr Maliszewski cleaves more to this 'old school' notion.  For my own definition, anything from the 80s and before is 'vintage', which is as fine a distinction as I care to make.  Certainly, there are still gradations within that broad category, they just don't make a difference in my daily musings or discussions.

@ Shaman: I told you already that you misunderstood what I meant, and yet again you're trying to make my words say something they are not saying. You may not be ascribing motives to people, but I would appreciate if you stopped interpreting my statement in a way that is not what I meant at all. If you are unsure, please don't assume. ASK ME what I mean instead.

Words have a meaning. I did not say "relates much more to OD&D than AD&D". I did say the OSR relates much more to OD&D's free wheeling nature than AD&D's monolithic game system. "OD&D" and "AD&D" are not the subjects of the comparison of the previous sentence, but the parts bolded are.

Look, if now I have to explain grammar to be understood, then maybe I just can't write English correctly, or people just can't understand because they missed a lesson in school. Either way, this has been going on long enough.

All I can say is: this is not what I mean.

Now you can go on and rewrite my posts a third time for me, but here it is again: this is not what I mean.

And now really, I'm done. I won't be answering any more of these, because honestly, I'm really wondering if I'm writing correct English at all at this point. So I'm just going to let this topic drop. I hope you are not going to drag me back in this conversation.

Thank you very much.

Assuming the Shaman is French speaking (I believe he is but I might be remembering wrong), I'm going to explain the same point in French with, I hope, more success than English:

Il me semble que tu es français, Shaman, donc je vais l'expliquer autrement. Je ne comparais pas les deux jeux en particuliers mais leurs totalement différentes approches en termes de règles et de ce que les utilisateurs sont censés faire de ces règles. Dans un cas on a un jeu (ODD) dont le but est d'inspirer arbitre et joueurs de façon à ce qu'ils en prennent possession et en changent les règles suivant leurs propres désirs, et dans l'autre (ADD) on a un système qui a été créé spécifiquement en tant que standard pour faire en sorte que la marque de commerce survive dans le temps et que de multiples variantes n'apparaissent, diluant ainsi l'identité du jeu au cours du temps.

Mon intention ici était d'insister sur le fait que dans l'OSR, les utilisateurs prennent possession de leurs jeux et en font plus ou moins ce qu'ils veulent. Bien sûr, tu trouveras des MD et joueurs orthodoxes, qui veulent interpréter les règles comme un texte sacré, mais ce n'est pas la nature de l'OSR globalement. Il y a trop de diversités, trop de jeux différents, trop de philosophies de jeu différentes qui se côtoient sur tellement de médias différents (forums, blogs, publications diverses et variées) qu'il est strictement impossible, à mon sens, de pointer un philosophie en particulier, comme par exemple un ultra-traditionalisme qui considère les jeux anciens comme des produits qui émanent du Sacré, et de dire "tous les gens qui sont attirés par l'OSR sont des ultra-traditionalistes". C'est tout simplement faux.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;316278It just occurred to me that Pathfinder is probably going to be/already is the biggest profile clone (and actually support a company with a real income!), but I never see anyone criticizing it for cloning 3.5.

I'm not sure it's been criticized for "cloning" per se, but people, including myself, have asked why we should bother buying it when we have the original 3.5 books on our shelves and Paizo is telling us Pathfinder - and thus all its supplements and adventures - are easily 3.5 compatible.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;316434Dude, whatever you're smoking, keep it to yourself.

What?!?! No no no...pass it around. Always pass it around.  :)

Quote from: Joethelawyer;316510What?!?! No no no...pass it around. Always pass it around.  :)

Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side.

Somebody watching too much Cheech and Chong lately?  ;)

Quote from: Benoist;316426I'm done with the fireworks. There's just no conversation to be had at all.

I keep trying to hijack these threads to talk about non-D&D old school stuff, like the Trav clone some brilliant motherfucker wrote, but it fails as JA starts screaming obscenities and being unsure what his actual point is, and Stormy and Pseudo do their flirty thing again.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;316520I keep trying to hijack these threads to talk about non-D&D old school stuff, like the Trav clone some brilliant motherfucker wrote, but it fails as JA starts screaming obscenities and being unsure what his actual point is, and Stormy and Pseudo do their flirty thing again.

Why do we keep doing this*? That is just so fucking masochistic!
* and by "we", I mean everybody.

Quote from: Benoist;316521Why do we keep doing this*? That is just so fucking masochistic!
* and by "we", I mean everybody.

Too entertaining?  ;)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;316520I keep trying to hijack these threads to talk about non-D&D old school stuff, like the Trav clone some brilliant motherfucker wrote

Which clone, by the way? ;)

Quote from: Benoist;316489@ Shaman: I told you already that you misunderstood what I meant, and yet again you're trying to make my words say something they are not saying.

Benoist, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but your words are your words, and they're there for all to see.

As I said, I picked out your post because it struck a chord with me on a larger issue pertaining to the subject. If you tell me that wasn't how you intended it to come across, then I accept that. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and I'm not trying to call you out here.

Et mon anglais est meilleur que mon français, mais merci néanmoins. :)

Quote from: The Shaman;316532Benoist, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but your words are your words, and they're there for all to see.

As I said, I picked out your post because it struck a chord with me on a larger issue pertaining to the subject. If you tell me that wasn't how you intended it to come across, then I accept that. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and I'm not trying to call you out here.

Et mon anglais est meilleur que mon français, mais merci néanmoins. :)

Thanks, man. I really appreciate that. :)
I've had a rough day. My dog's had a huge surgery of the back-leg joint today. He made it alright, but the last few hours have been a nail-biter for me (the nest few hours certainly will be too). So thanks again for the soothing post.

Quote from: The Shaman;316470

Quote from: Melan[edit]What starts to make this discussion slightly irritating (although not on the level of Malcolm's blog post) is second-guessing people's motives for playing old-school games. Not the stuff of fruitful communication.

I hope this wasn't directed at me.

I don't believe I'm questioning anyone's motives, only responding to their actual words.

No, it is specifically directed at Haffrung and J Arcane.

Quote from: JimLotFP;316393Brave Halfling, Mythmere Games, Expeditious Retreat, Goblinoid Games, Pied Pier, Chaotic Henchmen, Usherwood Publishing, Øone Games, Magique Productions, Goodman Games...

... and me...

(are we counting Troll Lord? They've got a million modules out for C&C...)

... who else is publishing adventures? And these are just the for-pay types.

Outlaw Press (Rules and Adventures for T&T)

And, taking the risk of commenting a tremendous Internet faux-pas, I will go ahead and repost in bulk what some key persons in the old-school scene had to say (http://citadelofeight.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejecting-old-school-fundamentalism.html) in reflection to a bullshit blogpost (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2009/04/old-school-vs-new-school.html) from Eric N. Shook. Pay particular attention to the last quote from Mythmere, because that's exactly about you right now and right here, J Arcane and Haffrung.

Quote from: PhilotomyI'm disappointed to hear that my musings have been taken that way. Certainly, the creation of canon or "one true wayism" has never been my intention. In fact, the concept goes against the way I see OD&D and what attracts me to the game in the first place. I think the one of the biggest draws for OD&D is its free-form nature and openness to interpretation. When I first started writing about it, I made a point of saying the web site was about OD&D "as played when I run it," but over time (it's been almost two years), perhaps that became overshadowed. I'm going to go through the musings to see if there are places where my choice of words implies "canon."

For my site to be perceived as promoting an OD&D canon or encouraging a fundamentalist approach is especially disturbing to me because of how I look at OD&D. One of the main reasons I like OD&D, and especially like the "stripped down" nature of running a game mostly based on the little brown books without the supplements, is because of the opportunity it offers for the referee to make the game his own and stretch his creativity. I like that the text is "incomplete" and subject to interpretation. Rather than considering my own interpretations from being authoritative rulings on "the old school way" or even "how it was done back in the day," I often see my interpretations as consciously diverging from the path we all know the game took. That is, I see the open nature of OD&D rules as an opportunity to challenge (and maybe break down) the assumptions we all tend to hold. How do hit dice work? What does charm person do, exactly? How does elf multi-classing work, exactly? Can this rule, or this description, be interpreted differently than how it ended up in AD&D, or in the published modules? Et cetera. I treat text of the OD&D rules as a starting point for developing my own personal D&D -- part analysis, part interpretation, a dash of exegesis, a lot of "imagine the hell out of it," and a constant work-in-progress. (I do think that it's good to start off with a solid understanding of how the system works, though; that way you're building on a solid foundation.)

I am not surprised that Eric and other members of the Lake Geneva scene might look at this and go "that's not how we played it." (Although I *am* disappointed that my site would be viewed so negatively; I've had positive feedback from others -- e.g. Mike Mornard -- who were involved at the dawn of the hobby). It's almost certainly not how they played it; I'm often consciously rejecting or changing or stripping away elements that developed in play during the Lake Geneva campaign -- maybe even elements they had a hand in creating. I'm also taking the "raw material" (i.e. the text) and putting my own spin on it. That's not a mistake, or a case of creating fallacious "old school canon." In some cases, it's quite possible that I'm doing things they tried and rejected. In others, maybe I'm doing something completely different. However, I take issue with any assertion that this is being "frozen in the past" or "entrenching." On the contrary, I think it's starting with the original pieces and using them exactly as they were intended to be used -- not as a rules straightjacket, but as a springboard for creativity and making the game my own.

While I get what you're saying about an attempt to pin down the thoughts of a poet being fraught with peril, I don't think that's the flaw. I'm not trying to pin down Gary's game, or the one true authentic old school D&D interpretation. (If I were trying to do that, I'd probably be much more enthusiastic about adopting material from Supplement I.) I'm interested in what Gary and the others did during the Lake Geneva campaign, but I'm not trying to pin that down. What I'm doing is taking the OD&D books and interpreting them. I think that's very "old school," if I dare use the term. My musings aren't intended to pin down someone else's game; they're intended to talk about mine (i.e. "OD&D as played when I run it"). I suppose I thought that it almost went without saying; thus my surprise, and thus the flaw. I think the flaw is my failure to make that clear, or slipping into language that implies a "true way."

Quote from: James MaliszewskiI'm not sure we're at a crossroads so much as the beginning of the next leg of our journey. The old school renaissance is in the process of leaving behind its early reactionary phase and gearing up for a more active phase. I actually think the likelihood of "fundamentalism" is much less now than it was a year ago. We have so many more voices speaking nowadays, each with their own distinct point of view and 'zines like Fight On! explicitly seek out a diversity of viewpoints and contributors. I have a hard time seeing much danger from One True Way-ism, even if some of the most vociferous and opinionated in the community have very strong feelings about what they like and why.

Quote from: Matt FinchI agree with James M. I think we have been through a reactionary period, and I think that was part of a broader effort to explain, to ourselves, why we play the classic versions of D&D. This was centered at Dragonsfoot, where first the gamers who'd never left classic games began to congregate (we owe a great debt to Steve), and then where those who were returning from the later games began to arrive, first in a trickle and then in a flood. For the vast majority of people, it was all just about gaming. The "philosophers," if you will, however, found an interesting topic in the question of WHY people were rejecting newer styles of gaming. What was the difference, because we all knew it was there. So, the first phase of that self-definition (and here I think things shifted over to K&KA from DF quite a bit) was largely reactionary - not in the sense used in the above blog post, but in the sense that a lot of the self-definition began by identifying what this community was rejecting. Now we're at the point where that self-definition has become more refined, and having gone through definition by the negative is able to elucidate a strong, highly flexible definition of what classic games PROVIDE, rather than what they reject. Trent Foster, in particular, has been a very cogent voice in this process as well as Philotomy. James has been able to build on these thoughts, further refine them, and (importantly) disperse them beyond the OOP community. Mainstream gamers are now, I think, starting to understand that there's more to this than mere nostalgia; there's a whole, internally consistent approach to gaming that's actually what unites the Old School Renaissance.
Self definition was an important phase to go through, but that phase of a community's life is one that takes place early on in the process. What comes next is the forward-looking part. I'm fairly sure that Eric and Rob haven't actually looked around much recently at what's really happening in the various blogs and websites out there. They're criticizing something that's already been outgrown. The point about whether it's good publicity to be called "Old School" is fair enough (and I personally hate that term because it's overinclusive), but it's weak reasoning to assume that the name of a movement defines its ultimate destiny in a substantive sense, and to actually build the discussion based on that assumption. It's much more important to support people like James and Philotomy, who are seriously putting their shoulders to the wheel and creating value. That's the crux of the matter and the reality of the renaissance, not what you call it.

I don't mean to minimize Eric's thoughts - as I said, I hate the name, too. I think you can make conclusions that the name can cause problems for public relations on the outside. I just think it's too big a stretch to continue reasoning that the name will change substance from the inside.

Quote from: Matt FinchThe tack I've taken with Swords & Wizardry is more along the lines I would have taken with OSRIC if I'd had all the benefits of hindsight. And Swords & Wizardry, unlike the other clones, has an outside agenda of promoting the idea that hobbyist gaming is about taking a basic, open-ended rules framework and then building the custom van at the gaming table itself.

Quote from: BenoistTo people like Matt who've been working on games like Swords & Wizardry, put time and effort in the whole thing, it certainly might feel like nudging the big "old-school" sign out of their hands, and that's why you get sort of a knee-jerk reaction.

Quote from: Matt FinchI don't know if you meant it this way, I think you didn't, and it's probably irrelevant since this blog entry isn't near the top any more, so people won't read the comments, but ...

You've just dismissed the opinions that I came to your blog to express quite honestly as nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction, and also basically dismissed them (and by connection everything I've written and done on the net) as little more than a disguised effort to hold the "Old School Sign" and gain internet celebrity for it. I think you can see that this is an unspeakably insulting thing to say to someone, even though I'm sure it was actually an attempt to characterize my comments in a kindly light.

My comment wasn't intended as a dagger thrust, but it was indeed intended as a finger poke. The reason is that (a) I'm absolutely not seeing fundamentalism in the Old School Renaissance, and more importantly (b) I think blanket criticisms of a highly diverse, decentralized effort are divisive and hurtful. Eric's comments didn't really take the form of a blanket criticism - they were intended as a PR comment and a future-oriented concern about the direction in which nomenclature can lead. That's fair enough. When this expands, through the comments, into accusations that fundamentalism is actually pervading a "movement," I think that's a complete mis-read on what's actually happening. It implies that there's a "movement" coming from any single source, which is just wrong. There are hundreds of people who are the driving force behind something that's very much an emergent phenomenon. So I think the comment is dismissive of lots of people. I also think it mis-reads this last year's evolving change in approach from messageboards to blogs, from "we're not 3e" to "this is what we're about, including megadungeons and sandboxes and free-form rules," and away from comparisons of the distinctions between different OOP rules toward a focus on their compatibility. My comment was intended to say that if they're seeing fundamentalism in this, they aren't perceiving the arc of the trajectory going on in the multitude of internet venues for discussion of OOP rules.

But yeah, that's a poke of the finger, because I don't think blanket accusations are productive, and I don't see the reality of the accusation, either.

Quote from: Melan;316583And, taking the risk of commenting a tremendous Internet faux-pas, I will go ahead and repost in bulk what some key persons in the old-school scene had to say (http://citadelofeight.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejecting-old-school-fundamentalism.html) in reflection to a bullshit blogpost (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2009/04/old-school-vs-new-school.html) from Eric N. Shook...

God, I had almost forgotten about that absurdly bullshit blogpost! :emot-fappery:

(Finally, I get to use that emoticon!)

Thanks for doing God's work, Melan.

Quote from: Melan;316583And, taking the risk of commenting a tremendous Internet faux-pas, I will go ahead and repost in bulk what some key persons in the old-school scene had to say (http://citadelofeight.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejecting-old-school-fundamentalism.html) in reflection to a bullshit blogpost (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2009/04/old-school-vs-new-school.html) from Eric N. Shook. Pay particular attention to the last quote from Mythmere, because that's exactly about you right now and right here, J Arcane and Haffrung.

Eh.  I don't frankly see what is so "bullshit" about Mr. Shook's post at all.  I found it convincingly argued, with some very fine points to it (the mapping of modern assumptions to original D&D is something I've noticed myself), and that his message is ultimately a hopeful and moving sentiment encouraging folks to think outside the box, any box, even the supposedly open box that is the hazily defined OD&D.

If anything, he seems to be agreeing precisely with what you all are claiming the "OSR" is supposed to be about, he just doesn't wish to treat it as some special movement or confine it or identify it with any specific set of rules (especially one that was barely well defined in it's day), so much as suggest that if it is truly doing what it should be, then it's no movement at all but something millions of dedicated and creative roleplayers have been doing for decades.

Call me masturbatory bullshit then too, because I frankly found his point far more convincing and inspirational than any I've read so far.

Quote from: aramis;316380And, again, you'd be wrong. The BTech group I was playing in  rejected everything since the launch of the clans.

The BTech edition wars are over subsidiary games (Battlespace vs the older Aerotech; Battleforce vs Battleforce 2, RPG 1E/2E/3E) and over setting (Pre-clan, Clan). Tho' there was a good bit of dissention amongst my friends when certain tech books were released... the introduction of double heat sinks, for example.

And I've run MW 2E without BTech before. The entire campaign revolved around sneaky-pete shit. No mechs appeared.

That Battletech itself used the same base rules in 1985 as it uses now is irrelevant; everything else has changed. Even the current core rules are not SW era. The available mechs, the hardware available for mechs... all different. And it feels different in play.

Plus the setting has changed drastically: the clan invasions, the federated commonwealth/steiner-davion merger.

The edition wars are not as profound as most, but they do exist. I quit playing "new battletech" back in 1994. I joined a campaign for a year, but we didn't use anything from clan invasion on, setting or rules (not by my choice, but by group concensus, tho' I'm good with that choice) in 2004-2005.

GRIST ON MY MILLS! See, what you have just proven: the real things that matter are the mechs, their interaction structure, their replacement modus and the universe. What RPG rulesset you use is IRRELEVANT. Even if you never ever play a single fight via the boardgame (s).  [cores of relevance, I call them]

The year a campaign is played in is WAY more important than whether I play MWI, II, III or use Shadowrun or GURPS (popular choices in Germany for BT-RPG).

I think there´s no more disagreement between the two of us.

FWIW, that particular discussion led me to write the Making the Game Your Own (http://www.philotomy.com/#your_own) musing:

Quote from: PhilotomyOD&D offers a RPG system that allows much room for interpretation. That's one of the things I love about it. There is not an official rule for everything; indeed, the text often reads more like guidelines than like rules. Descriptions of spells, monsters, and items are often short and vague, without every little detail nailed down and spelled out for the referee and players. The supplements are presented as a collection of options. To quote Gary Gygax, from the foreword of Supplement II: Blackmoor (emphasis added), "As with the first supplement, the material herein...is, of course, optional, for the premise of the whole game system is flexibility and personalization within the broad framework of the rules." In other words, you are encouraged to make OD&D into your D&D. Additionally, the system, itself, facilitates this by being open and flexible. You are both encouraged and empowered to make the game your own.

I hope that readers of this collection of thoughts on OD&D view them in this light; that is, they are my personal interpretations, re-imaginings, house-rules, and additions, starting from the broad framework of the core OD&D rules (i.e. the little brown books), and selectively drawing on the supplements and all the body of work that makes up the game. I also hope that my thoughts about OD&D might inspire and assist others in "making the game their own." To that end, I want to offer some thoughts on my approach to OD&D, and how I go about making the game my own.

As a starting principle, do not forget that I play D&D because I like D&D. That is, while freedom to do my own thing is important, D&D has certain qualities and a style and approach that I enjoy. I don't want to make it into an entirely different game; I still want it to "feel like D&D" when I play it. I don't want to cross the line into something that doesn't play and feel like D&D. Exactly where that particular line is drawn is a difficult thing to pin down, and probably a very personal (and thus subjective) thing, as well. I'm not going to attempt to draw that line for you. I think the rest of my 'musings' offer a look into my preferences and what I like in my D&D game (e.g. strongly class and level based, abstract combat with hit points and damage rolls, relatively minimal impact from stats, the use of 'vancian' magic, et cetera).

With that said, one of the primary ways that I make the game my own is to take the "raw material" of the game, its most basic building blocks, and try to approach them with a fresh perspective. I read the OD&D little brown books and try to challenge my assumptions about the game and how it works. I've played since the late 1970s, so I have decades of built-up assumptions and baggage about how things work and what certain terms mean. I purposefully set down the baggage (or at least try to — sometimes this is easier said than done). Part of the fun of making OD&D your own game is looking at the text and seeing how you might interpret a particular rule or passage of text differently. By differently, I mean differently than the manner in which that rule or term or spell came to be understood in the later development of the D&D game.

An excellent illustration of this is my ruling on when hit dice are rolled; the original rules leave that open to interpretation. I rule that all hit dice are rolled when a level is gained, not just a single new hit die that is added to the existing total. There are other OD&D referees who have characters roll all the hit dice at the start of a new day; it's a subject that's gotten quite a bit of attention in the OD&D community. (See this discussion of different ways to handle hit dice rolls, for example.) Challenging your assumptions about how things work, and thinking about how they might work is part of the fun of running OD&D. For another example, consider the description of the OD&D spell, charm person:

   

Quote from: Men & MagicThis spell applies to all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size, excluding all monsters in the "Undead" class but including Sprites, Pixies, Nixies, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins and Gnolls. If the spell is successful it will cause the charmed entity to come completely under the influence of the Magic-User until such time as the "charm" is dispelled (Dispell Magic). (Dungeons & Dragons Vol. I: Men & Magic, pg 23)

The part about the charmed victim being "...completely under the influence of the Magic-User..." leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation. In fact, some interpretations could make charm person very powerful. I think later additions and clarifications to the spell offered one way to address that. But is that the only way the potential problems could be addressed? Maybe you have a different interpretation, a different solution, or even a different opinion on whether there is a problem! When you're looking at the rules in this manner, I don't advise ignoring the later developments of the game, entirely. Those developments came about for various reasons, and sometimes for very good ones. I suggest keeping that in mind and thinking about why the game might have taken that course, but by no means feeling bound to following the path that the game took, historically. The developmental path that D&D took, historically, is not holy scripture or a one true way that must be adhered to with fundamentalist zeal.

That same admonishment may also be applied to the original rules of the little brown books. For example, consider my musing on the dungeon as a mythic underworld. In that musing, I take some OD&D rules for vision and handling the opening of doors and interpret those rules quite literally, arriving at a concept of the dungeon underworld exerting a kind of supernatural resistance to those brave enough to explore it. I interpret it that way because I think it's a cool concept (although I also note that not every dungeon need be a mystical or mythic underworld). But that doesn't mean that I believe the OD&D text should always be interpreted and applied literally, or that the text should always define the way the fantasy world functions. It just means I enjoy using the text as starting place or tool: a springboard for creativity and interpretation, not holy writ. (I use random die rolls and random tables in much the same way: not as straightjackets, but as a starting place or tool that sometimes nudges my creativity into unexpected directions.)

I also assign high value to what might first appear to be a contradictory approach: that of envisioning a concept and then creating rules that model that concept. I don't see this as a contradiction. In one approach, I'm using existing rules (or rolls, or tables) to help me create a concept that I like. (If the existing rules fail to produce or model a concept I like, I can always cast them aside in favor of something that does.) In the other approach, I'm starting with a concept I like, and then creating rules to model that concept. These approaches aren't contradictory; they're complementary. The important part is that they both result in concepts I like; that's the point.

Starting with a concept and creating rules to model it tends to encourage the creation of multiple subsystems to handle different things. I prefer that approach over the common impulse towards using a universal mechanic to handle almost everything. I prefer to accurately model the concept with different (but usually pretty simple) subsystems, rather than starting with a single universal system and forcing all your concepts to be modeled according to it. Also, I note that most "different subsystems" boil down to using different dice or a different range of modifiers to better model the probabilities under consideration. That is, almost everything boils down to "figure out how likely such-and-such is, roll some dice, and see what happens." I think that many times, you don't even need a formal subsystem; the referee can often decide on a probability and roll some dice without any need to reference a set of official rules, modifiers, et cetera. Again, this is one of the reason I love OD&D; it is not weighed down with such rules. A referee can stay with a very broad and open framework, or he can build on it to suit his custom fantasy world, creating and interpreting to suit his unique creative vision. Any rule set can be tweaked and house-ruled to suit, but some make this easier than others. In any rule set, there is a balance between freedom and preconceived concepts that are mandated (or implied) by the rules. OD&D strikes a balance point that I like.

The OD&D rules offer a fantastic foundation for taking an approach to D&D that honors the traditions of game while making it easy to "make the game your own." If that sounds cool, and like fun, then I encourage you to give it a try. Clear the decks. Take the foundation and approach it fresh, trying to see it with new eyes and appreciation of the fundamental concepts. Then stand on that foundation and build on it; make it your own. Imagine the hell out of it!

Quote from: J Arcane;316588(the mapping of modern assumptions to original D&D is something I've noticed myself)

What, in particular, are you referring to?  Just curious.

(I don't consider such "mapping" necessarily good or bad.  I do think it's best done knowingly, though, either way.)

At last!  The RPG subculture finally has an equivalent to the 9/11 truthers and Intelligent Design loonies.  If you disagree with their florid, evidence-free opinions, why, YOU'RE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!

Seriously, where's J Haffrung's evidence?  The OSR is an online phenomenon, taking place in chatrooms and web forums.  If it's the monolithic orthodoxy they claim, you'd think they could provide a string of links to prove their point.  But instead, nothing.

The argument amounts to no more than, "this is what I think, based on nothing objective, and if you disagree with me it means I'm right".

Good thing I frequent classic gaming websites, or I'd have an equally poor basis for my conclusions.
Posted in Mobile Mode

There is no monolithic orthodoxy; I mean, I started the OSR in 2002 and frankly I find original D&D at the very worst irritating in its lack of information.  Yes, yes, fill in the blanks yourself, any good DM, etc. etc., but those are the same arguments players of 4e throw down to defend its bad design.  At the very best, original D&D is just like AD&D, except spread out over too many books, The Strategic Review and Dragon Magazine articles.

The only "one true way"-ism I have run flat up against is Tim Kask's claim that AD&D was created for inept DMs and inept players who needed some kind of hand-holding.  To which I say, fuck him.

The vintage gaming resurgence (isn't that much more pleasing to the eye and ear than "OLD SKOOL REVIVAL"?) isn't about YOU. ALL MUST. PLAY. ORIGINAL D&D. THREE BOOKS, NO SUPPLEMENTS., it's about going back to gaming that promotes a gritty bildungsroman, not playing a bunch of paper-punched superheroes with out of the box superpowers.

(It's also about saying "thief" not "rogue", "magic-user" not "wizard", "cleric" not "priest" and "fighter" not "tank" - but we all have our crosses to bear, I guess.)

Quote from: Melan;316425Well, I don't consider old-school a movement either. If anything, it is a cluster of preferences with both positive and negative identifiers (i.e. "old-school is this and that" / "old school is not that"). From the outsider POV, it may seem homogeneous; from the inside, it is more varied - just for a start, we could speak of
- people looking for the accurate (re)creation of a Gygaxian playstyle (as seen on the Knights&Knaves Alehouse),
- Gygaxian naturalists (as advocated by James Maliszewski),
- Bledsawian surrealists (my term; usually combining sandbox games with swords&sorcery/weird fantasy aesthetics),
- retro stupid (as identified by Jeff Rients; it has roots in the irreverence of Tunnels&Trolls and the free genre-mixing of Arduin),
- people who play AD&D as they have always played AD&D (probably the most straightforward direct evolution of 1st edition; commonly found on Dragonsfoot, with John Turncotte and perhaps Stuart Marshall as its most accomplished representatives),
- Tekumel fans (specifically, those who use it to play D&D-style games)
- etc.
The list is neither exclusive nor should the listed types be interpreted as mutually exclusive  - there is a lot of collusion among them, and a sort of movement within the entire scene in an ongoing process of differentiation.

Etc. etc. ad nauseam. Of course, insulting similes elicit more reactions, civilised discourse is dead, so I'll stand back and watch the fireworks here. :popcorn:

Well true, OSR encompasses many disparate groups but there are elements, and vocal sub-groups within the movement, that, intentionally or not, promote "one-true-wayism."  Granted, some of those same "one-true-wayers" attacked OSRIC.  There are also those in the OSR who approach new D&D editons with complete denigration, 4etards, and I can't even remember the derogatory slur for 3e.  So those that feel a "dogma" may exist arn't smoking crack, even though I believe such a dogma does not exist across the wider community.

I personally consider myself an old-schooler, both in time playing (32 years) and game preference, but I don't believe everything Mr. Gygax did was great, that AD&D is without flaws, or that 3.x is all suck.  These views certainly disqualify me from participating in certain sub-groups of the OSR.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;316613The vintage gaming resurgence (isn't that much more pleasing to the eye and ear than "OLD SKOOL REVIVAL"?)

Yes, but it doesn't hold a candle to "Old School Renaissance." :D

Quote from: JimLotFP;316617Yes, but it doesn't hold a candle to "Old School Renaissance." :D

It's just that "old school".  That is like fingernails across the blackboard of my soul.

I'll meet you a third of the way: "vintage gaming renaissance".

Quote from: thedungeondelver;316618It's just that "old school".  That is like fingernails across the blackboard of my soul.

I'll meet you a third of the way: "vintage gaming renaissance".

I agree that "old school" probably isn't the best term (I like "classic" or "traditional" games), but people know what you're talking about.

"Vintage gaming renaissance," or the "neoclassical" tag I've seen, don't say anything to outsiders.

Quote from: Xanther;316616There are also those in the OSR who approach new D&D editons with complete denigration, 4etards, and I can't even remember the derogatory slur for 3e.

3tard
4on

Quote from: Xanther;316616So those that feel a "dogma" may exist arn't smoking crack, even though I believe such a dogma does not exist across the wider community.

Yes they are. Everyone has a vision of how they think things should be, and blogs and such encourage voicing those opinions.

Saying "Oh my god, the dogma is unfriendly!" as a complaint against the wider community because individual members have divergent and contradictory, yet strong, views is just stupid.

Quotefundamentalism in the Old School Renaissance

The acceptance of Mutant Future, Carcoasa and now Ruins & Ronin goes against anybody trying to make this point. There is a significant minority that will only play use with the original rulebooks. But this attitude doesn't exist among the various publishers. Even some people trying to use just the original book are finding value in using one of the retro clones (see http://savevspoison.blogspot.com/2009/07/wherefore-art-thou-osric.html)

The fact is that oldest editions of the D&D rules are not an extensive RPG. Even in AD&D/OSRIC most of the volume is taken up in list of items, spells, and monsters. This is not a criticism of older editions but this spareness of detail is what results in people using them as a foundation to build the game they want for their campaign.

Some only have a page of house rules while other have 80. But I can't think of single AD&D/D&D game I played that didn't have house rules of some kind. Heck look at Scrapfaggot Green or the Gen Con IX dungeon by Judges Guild both of which have several page of house rules to get the tournament GMs on the same page.

House rules has always been part of the D&D experience. Only now with the OGL we get to publish them and perhaps make a little money. This is in addition to monsters, treasure, adventure and setting supplements.

This is a good thing not only for publishers but for player. Now all these ideas can get spread beyond the confines of a one or two tables out into the general audience where they can be used, modified, or expanded.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;316613The only "one true way"-ism I have run flat up against is Tim Kask's claim that AD&D was created for inept DMs and inept players who needed some kind of hand-holding.  To which I say, fuck him.

I've consulted with the Elders, and you can consider yourself kicked out of the Old School Orthodoxy.  As you know, we have a strictly enforced set of rules that forbids such comments.

Now go and sit in the corner until you've finished an essay on why optimising a tiefling  warlock controller build is more rewarding than writing up a short backstory for an adventurer.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Akrasia;316412Seriously, what similarities between the OSR and the Forge do you see?  :confused:

• Self-identification as a Movement
• Lots of talk about design
• Reaction against an enemy (in both cases, the publishers and players of the current edition of D&D)
• Reverence for a Great Man (Edwards/Gygax)
• Uncritical mutual admiration for all each others' endeavours
• Flitting as a pack from micro-trend to micro-trend
• Collective reaction against any criticism of the group's tenants or any members of the group
• Over-estimation of their own importance and effect

And no, this sort of mutual admiration support group isn't restricted to RPGs. I don't like music scenes that consist of a clique of musicians watching each other perform. Or creative writing coffee-groups where everyone applauds each others efforts uncritically. I find them insipid, at best.

It's when these groups get defensive (and they inevitably do) that they get more annoying. Anyone challenges a tenant of the group and all the members swoop in to defend their common cause. I find that sort of behaviour obnoxious. I have no time for causes and movements where the members suspend their individual criticism in order to enjoy cheery fellowship in a group identity.

I play old-school D&D. I don't need to belong to an online movement to do so. And I believe the few really good old-school game materials that I've come across in the last few years - Melan's adventures and settings, Mazes & Minotaurs, Jreints (I think they're his) random encounters tables - would have been created regardless of whether or not there was (cue the trumpets and banners) an Old-School Renaissance.

So all I see is an online clique. A talking shop. A mutual admiration society. A formerly resentful group of gamers (Dragonsfoot is the most bitter place I've come across on the net) who now have a gang to stand up for them. An internet forum posse inspired by a cause. And I dislike those things.

Quote from: Xanther;316616I personally consider myself an old-schooler, both in time playing (32 years) and game preference, but I don't believe everything Mr. Gygax did was great, that AD&D is without flaws, or that 3.x is all suck.  These views certainly disqualify me from participating in certain sub-groups of the OSR.

Indeed. And I got fed up when those reactionary attitudes escaped from Dragonsfoot and joined up in a movement to explain to the RPG masses how D&D was really meant to be played.

Sandbox. Sword and Sorcery. Loads of hirelings. Lethal. Megadungeons. House rules galore. etc.

I started playing in 1979 as a nine-year-old. I don't need anyone to tell me how D&D was supposed to be played. I played every chance I could get. Made up my own dungeons and bought all the classics. I had fun. I didn't make loads of houserules. I didn't cry when 3E came out. I couldn't care less who has the D&D license. And I don't much care how Gary Gygax and Bob Bledsaw played the game.

Quote from: Haffrung;316626Uncritical mutual admiration for all each others' endeavours

Yes, I am completely  (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2009/03/dont-care.html)uncritical  (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/07/good-job-guys.html)of other people's efforts or call  (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/12/closed-circles-of-old-truckers-hurdy.html)anybody  (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/10/cowardice-of-modern-grognard-or.html)out  (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2009/01/its-great-idea-and-it-will-make-us.html)on something they've done. I'm Mr. Mutual Admiration. :D

Quote from: Haffrung;316626I play old-school D&D. I don't need to belong to an online movement to do so.

No you don't. I thought the movement was about expanding the audience and taking back a respectable share of the gaming scene instead of being a tiny niche. If it was only about my game, there's no reason to be involved at all...

Quote from: Haffrung;316626A formerly resentful group of gamers (Dragonsfoot is the most bitter place I've come across on the net) who now have a gang to stand up for them. An internet forum posse inspired by a cause. And I dislike those things.

... I see general antipathy between a lot of the bloggers and a lot of the pre-blogging forumgoers. Not too terribly much overlap there, I don't think.

I consider the OSR terribly fragmented, not possessing any sort of cohesive whole.

Haffrung: if posts in this thread and quotes from the horses' mouths - Philotomy, J. M. and Mythmere - are insufficient evidence, is there anything to convince you that no, there is no cohesive/monolithical "movement" in place, or have you already made up your mind on the issue?

In my opinion, your parallels with the Forge come from an extremely uncharitable reading of motives, attitudes and practices, but you are as entitled to this opinion as I am to the contrary.

I blogged about this discussion this morning (http://www.thedelversdungeon.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=644) in case anyone is interested.

Quote from: Haffrung;316626

• Self-identification as a Movement
• Lots of talk about design
• Reaction against an enemy (in both cases, the publishers and players of the current edition of D&D)
• Reverence for a Great Man (Edwards/Gygax)
• Uncritical mutual admiration for all each others' endeavours
• Flitting as a pack from micro-trend to micro-trend
• Collective reaction against any criticism of the group's tenants or any members of the group
• Over-estimation of their own importance and effect

[/LIST]
 Hmmm...  Let's see...

• Self-identification as a Movement (Modern, Mainstream games)
• Lots of talk about design (Char-op boards, ENWorld)
• Reaction against an enemy (publishers and players of previous editions)
• Reverence for a Great Man (Mearls)
• Uncritical mutual admiration for all each others' endeavours
• Flitting as a pack from micro-trend to micro-trend
• Collective reaction against any criticism of the group's tenants or any members of the group
• Over-estimation of their own importance and effect

I dunno, are you sure you are talking exclusively about this nebulous OSR group for which no one has described the membership?

Quote from: StormBringer;316635Hmmm...  Let's see...

• Self-identification as a Movement (Modern, Mainstream games)
• Lots of talk about design (Char-op boards, ENWorld)
• Reaction against an enemy (publishers and players of previous editions)
• Reverence for a Great Man (Mearls)
• Uncritical mutual admiration for all each others' endeavours
• Flitting as a pack from micro-trend to micro-trend
• Collective reaction against any criticism of the group's tenants or any members of the group
• Over-estimation of their own importance and effect

I dunno, are you sure you are talking exclusively about this nebulous OSR group for which no one has described the membership?

The same can be said about many religions and political ideologies, as if they were completely interchangeable with one another and can fit into the above paradigm.  :)

Quote from: ggroy;316637The same can be said about many religions and political ideologies, as if they were completely interchangeable with one another and can fit into the above paradigm.  :)

Which is proof positive that the paradigm is deliberately obtuse.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;316633I blogged about this discussion this morning (http://www.thedelversdungeon.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=644) in case anyone is interested.

A good thing that you posted this link, since it lead me to this thread (http://www.thedelversdungeon.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=615).

Quote from: FalconerI've been away from DF for so long. I didn't realize the same BS was still going on over there. They're still screaming "Rules Cyclopedia" at the top of their lungs no matter what the topic was meant to be! I didn't even know the bland RC, 2e, or B/X editions still had any fans! Is it just me or is DF the only place where those people exist? Maybe it's just the places I hang out, but all I'm hearing about these days is OD&D, OAD&D, and 4e. (I hear less and less about 3etard stragglers. Most seem to have embraced 4e wholeheartedly.) Am I right?

It seems the jury is still out on the old-school hivemind. ;)

Quote from: Melan;316640A good thing that you posted this link, since it lead me to this thread (http://www.thedelversdungeon.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=615).

It seems the jury is still out on the old-school hivemind. ;)

Shh!  Remember, most people think we're greybeard versions of the Fungi from Yuggoth, here to saw their brains out and put them into metal cylinders and fly them away to Lake Geneva - let's engender this notion! ;)

Quote from: ggroy;316637The same can be said about many religions and political ideologies, as if they were completely interchangeable with one another and can fit into the above paradigm.  :)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;316638Which is proof positive that the paradigm is deliberately obtuse.

Flawless victory!  :)

It's too easy, and therefore cruel, to shoot Haffrung down just for stating some common features of any given movement.  He probably doesn't understand that it applies equally to whatever he plays as a game or believes politically.

I am, however, grateful to be notified that I revere Gary Gygax and some "Edwards" chap.  I haven't referenced them previously, but from now on I'll refer to them slavishly.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Haffrung;316629Indeed. And I got fed up when those reactionary attitudes escaped from Dragonsfoot and joined up in a movement to explain to the RPG masses how D&D was really meant to be played.

Sandbox. Sword and Sorcery. Loads of hirelings. Lethal. Megadungeons. House rules galore. etc.

As one of the first to advocate Sandbox play, I never said that how anybody should play. I pointed out the advantages and disadvantage of the style as well as how it gotten little attention from the mainstream publishers. Things that you can do to make it easy for yourself IF you want to play a campaign this way.

Most of the people publishing OSR products have the same view on the other elements you mentioned (S&D, hirelings, etc). We may focus on those elements but we don't say they are on the only way to play.

Now there is a significant number of gamers who use and play older editions that are very defensive and/or dismissive of other editions. For what it worth it is pain for the OSR publishers as well as they are not often open to buying anything.

If you are so certain of your statement then support with actual incidents rather than insinuations.

The reason I participate in the OSR is that people use what I write, they buy what I write, and finally I just like talking with the people involved.

I play GURPS 4th edition as my primary system both as a GM and a player.  (http://www.twitter.com/robertsconley) I have said that D&D 4th edition is a fun game, although I heavily criticized WoTC's marketing.  I am far from a dogmatic OSR author.

There is no group think behind the OSR. Just a group of people trying to put out the best material they can based on the oldest editions of D&D. The fact that we use one of the older editions of D&D (1974 to AD&D) as the foundation of our products is the only common element that binds us. Beyond that there is a tremendous variety in what people do.

And yet here in the light of the morn, I've yet to see a genuine argument as to what makes Mr. Shook's post "bullshit", or even anything that indicates they've actually critically read and absorbed what the man was actually saying.  Just more reflexive indignation of the "OD&D OD&D OD&D" and "We're not a movement, we're a movement!" nonsense.

And the only guys in this thread to try and restate Shook's point less verbosely get roundly dogpiled.

Still not making much of a case for "We're not a clique" here.

Quote from: J Arcane;316668And yet here in the light of the morn, I've yet to see a genuine argument as to what makes Mr. Shook's post "bullshit", or even anything that indicates they've actually critically read and absorbed what the man was actually saying.  Just more reflexive indignation of the "OD&D OD&D OD&D" and "We're not a movement, we're a movement!" nonsense.

And the only guys in this thread to try and restate Shook's point less verbosely get roundly dogpiled.

Still not making much of a case for "We're not a clique" here.

I will be happy to provide this critique, but much like ENWorld, white text on a black background is a crime against humanity, so I will need to take a second look.

Quote from: StormBringer;316669I will be happy to provide this critique, but much like ENWorld, white text on a black background is a crime against humanity, so I will need to take a second look.

I'll admit, my eyes had a tough time of it, but I felt the message was sound, and that really, he wasn't preaching any message that is new, if what the OD&D crowd claims of it's "movement" is true, only that he didn't think a movement was either necessary or helpful, or that even a specific game was necessary.

The OSR is as much a movement as it´s critics are.

That said, there is an inner circle. Oh wait, it´s SEVERAL INNER CIRCLES. DF, KKK, BHP, FO!, the Jamie crowd...the Fisher-look-alike bloggers...oh my oh my...
Now, that pretty much ruins the argument.

Quote from: Settembrini;316673That said, there is an inner circle. Oh wait, it´s SEVERAL INNER CIRCLES. DF, KKK, BHP, FO!, the Jamie crowd...the Fisher-look-alike bloggers...oh my oh my...
Now, that pretty much ruins the argument.

Ominous.

We actually had some jackass (about two days after Jerry Mapes died, no less) "helpfully" suggest that we should change the name of the Knights & Knaves Alehouse because on his browser K&K looked too much like KKK and he thought that was sending the wrong message to the kiddies.

BTW, am I considered part of the Old School clique? Seriously, I want to know.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;316596What, in particular, are you referring to?  Just curious.

(I don't consider such "mapping" necessarily good or bad.  I do think it's best done knowingly, though, either way.)

To be honest, I must apologize, I don't have anything specific to point to there, just a general sense I get from a lot of the talk about it, there seems to be an almost unconscious assumption that things in OD&D work in the same way they work in other D&D, almost by default, which seems contradictory to the "everything was house rules" point about OD&D.

Quote from: Melan;316583And, taking the risk of commenting a tremendous Internet faux-pas, I will go ahead and repost in bulk what some key persons in the old-school scene had to say (http://citadelofeight.blogspot.com/2009/04/rejecting-old-school-fundamentalism.html) in reflection to a bullshit blogpost (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com/2009/04/old-school-vs-new-school.html) from Eric N. Shook. Pay particular attention to the last quote from Mythmere, because that's exactly about you right now and right here, J Arcane and Haffrung.

That discussion was an eye-opener, to me. I took some cues from both parties on this one. I think that there is a constant risk of hardening fundamentalism in a movement that calls itself "Old School", in the end, but I also do believe now, since that discussion, that it is not the case for the OSR. And it wasn't at the time. The main thing is to be aware of the potentiality of growing fundamentalism, and I think all the actors of the OSR scene (for lack of a better word) are vigilant in this regard.

Quote from: Hairfoot;316645It's too easy, and therefore cruel, to shoot Haffrung down just for stating some common features of any given movement.  He probably doesn't understand that it applies equally to whatever he plays as a game or believes politically.

I guess you missed the posts where I said I dislike movements and support groups of all stripes.

J Arcane, what's missing from Shook's post is actual specifics and examples. Without those it's very easy to read it and project your own identification or indignation onto it. To me his post read as a broad brush applied in ignorance of the breadth of the "scene" (see Sett's post above, e.g.), with what motive, exactly, I don't know. I get a sense perhaps that some people are offended by certain standard-bearers who claim (or seem to be claiming) that they and their buddies have personally rediscovered "old school", while Shook and others, perhaps, feel that they've been striving in the wilderness all these years and deserve their due.

Quote from: Haffrung;316686I guess you missed the posts where I said I dislike movements and support groups of all stripes.

Don't you see?  You disagree with them, therefore you MUST be a hypocrite, somehow, if only they can find the right opening or analogy to finally "prove" once and for all that you're just as bad as them, obviously.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;316687J Arcane, what's missing from Shook's post is actual specifics and examples. Without those it's very easy to read it and project your own identification or indignation onto it. To me his post read as a broad brush applied in ignorance of the breadth of the "scene" (see Sett's post above, e.g.), with what motive, exactly, I don't know. I get a sense perhaps that some people are offended by certain standard-bearers who claim (or seem to be claiming) that they and their buddies have personally rediscovered "old school", while Shook and others, perhaps, feel that they've been striving in the wilderness all these years and deserve their due.

I just think that the problem here is that zeitgeist and social strata are rather tough to pin to actual examples more specific than the one's like I've tried to point out in this thread.

Take the video gaming community.  The so called "hardcore" group relentlessly ridicules the Wii for being "not hardcore enough", "too casual", etc. etc. and the response overall looks pretty monolithic to one not attached to their particular proclivities, but you'd be hard pressed to find any distinct cultural source of this general attitude, only that it's there, and common enough to be noticeable.  

And that isn't anything even that calls itself a "movement" though it does have it's own label.

A worldwide movement of satanic grognards trying to take over the world.  ;)

Quote from: Melan;316677Ominous.

KKA, sorry for any inconvenience.:o

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;316687I get a sense perhaps that some people are offended by certain standard-bearers who claim (or seem to be claiming) that they and their buddies have personally rediscovered "old school", while Shook and others, perhaps, feel that they've been striving in the wilderness all these years and deserve their due.

While I do think there is some truth to what you say, I can tell you, from knowing Eric and having been involved in this whole series of exchanges on the matter of "OS Fundamentalism", that the intent wasn't to get something due to him, but rather a genuine interest in the OS scene, from a creative standpoint. Eric is very much a guy who likes to think outside of the box, and the idea of some "OS fundamentalist movement" seemed to him anathema to the fundamental concepts behind the game itself. That was the point of his entry.

Quote from: Haffrung;316626...

• Reaction against an enemy (in both cases, the publishers and players of the current edition of D&D)
• Reverence for a Great Man (Edwards/Gygax)
• Uncritical mutual admiration for all each others' endeavours
• Flitting as a pack from micro-trend to micro-trend
• Collective reaction against any criticism of the group's tenants or any members of the group
• Over-estimation of their own importance and effect

Most people involved in the OSR simply ignore 3e and 4e.  Some people actually play those versions of D&D in addition to OS D&D (or other games, like GURPS, BRP, etc.).  One of the most refreshing things about the OSR, IMO, is that, with some notable exceptions, most participants are more interested making positive contributions to the games that they do like, rather than tearing down games that they do not.

As for 'Gygax reverence', there is some, but it is not as universal within the OSR as you think.  Other members prefer Arneson, Bledsaw, Hargrave, etc.  Many (myself included) don't 'revere' any individual (although I respect the contributions of the founders of our hobby).

There is some 'mutual admiration' amongst the members of the OSR -- obviously there would be, given that we share certain tastes and interests.  But there is plenty of 'mutual criticism' as well.  Just look at the divide over Carcosa.

I don't see any "flitting from micro-trend to micro-trend" in the OSR.  Feel free to explain what you mean by that.

As for any sense of self-importance, I think that most members of the OSR are well aware of how small and tangential they are in relation to the 'RPG mainstream'.

Quote from: Haffrung;316626I play old-school D&D. I don't need to belong to an online movement to do so. And I believe the few really good old-school game materials that I've come across in the last few years - Melan's adventures and settings, Mazes & Minotaurs, Jreints (I think they're his) random encounters tables - would have been created regardless of whether or not there was (cue the trumpets and banners) an Old-School Renaissance.

The OSR has produced magazines like Knockspell and Fight On!.  Those magazines are extremely helpful in bringing together interesting material by authors like Melan, Jeff Rients, and others, in one place.

The "really good old-school game materials" that people are producing these days are more widely available thanks to the OSR.  I'm not sure why anyone should complain about that.

Quote from: Haffrung;316626So all I see is an online clique. A talking shop...

If it's a clique, it's one that anyone can join.  Just have a constructive interest in OOP games, and a willingness to discuss them with others.  

The OSR is not simply a 'talking shop', though, since it is actually producing new stuff for gamers, whether in magazines like Knockspell or Fight On!, new games like Mutant Future or Ruins & Ronins, new adventures (dozens of these!), or new campaign settings.

This grassroots creativity is very exciting to me.  For some mysterious reason, you find it offensive.  Oh well.

Quote from: J Arcane;316668... Still not making much of a case for "We're not a clique" here.

If the OSR is a 'clique', it is one that anybody can join.  Anyone who likes and/or plays OS D&D can be a member.  :)

Quote from: Haffrung;316629...Sandbox. Sword and Sorcery. Loads of hirelings. Lethal. Megadungeons. House rules galore. etc...

Not all of my games are 'sandbox'.  My players almost never use hirelings.  My adventures are not overly lethal (only one character death so far in my current campaign).  I never use 'megadungeons'.  Etc.

There is no 'dogma' or 'consensus' on these matters within the OSR.  

Quote from: Haffrung;316629...I started playing in 1979 as a nine-year-old. I don't need anyone to tell me how D&D was supposed to be played...

Same here.  Your misperceptions notwithstanding, the OSR isn't about telling people how to play D&D.  

(And, btw, dragonsfoot =| OSR.)

Quote from: Hairfoot;316645I am, however, grateful to be notified that I revere Gary Gygax and some "Edwards" chap.

Same here with Mike Mearls. Find a random 4e player offline, ask 'em who Mearls is, and watch for the "Huh?"

Seanchai

Quote from: Akrasia;316728Most people involved in the OSR simply ignore 3e and 4e.

I don't really want to get involved - it's fun watching you bitch slap each other - but this is such blatant bullshit. For example, how many OSRers here piss and moan every time a 4e thread shows up? Ignore it my ass.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;316756I don't really want to get involved - it's fun watching you bitch slap each other - ...

Always happy to entertain!  :)  Although, I don't see the members of the OSR "bitch slapping" each other.  Instead, we're just trying to debunk some misconceptions that certain individuals, for reasons that remain obscure to me, have concerning the OSR.

Quote from: Seanchai;316756...
but this is such blatant bullshit. For example, how many OSRers here piss and moan every time a 4e thread shows up? Ignore it my ass....

Perhaps some do.  :shrug:  Myself, I almost never post in a 4e thread, and in fact don't dislike it (I just don't play it).  You will not find any criticism of 4e in Knockspell or Fight On!.

Quote from: T. Foster;316678BTW, am I considered part of the Old School clique? Seriously, I want to know.

I dunno 'bout that, but you are definitely part of the "excellent DM clique."

Thanks again for running a great adventure at SCMC2.

:)

Quote from: The Shaman;316773I dunno 'bout that, but you are definitely part of the "excellent DM clique."

Thanks again for running a great adventure at SCMC2.

:)

Aw shucks. I'm glad you guys enjoyed it, even though I both dropped you into the middle of a module I'd started running 2 years earlier with a 3/4 different set of players and then ran over my allotted time and cock-blocked your Boot Hill game.

Quote from: T. Foster;316778Aw shucks. I'm glad you guys enjoyed it, even though I both dropped you into the middle of a module I'd started running 2 years earlier with a 3/4 different set of players and then ran over my allotted time and cock-blocked your Boot Hill game.

No worries - that's just an easy excuse to get together to play again. :)

Incredible what can happen when people just don't look at their own fucking asses.

Quote from: J Arcane;316694I just think that the problem here is that zeitgeist and social strata are rather tough to pin to actual examples more specific than the one's like I've tried to point out in this thread.

Take the video gaming community.  The so called "hardcore" group relentlessly ridicules the Wii for being "not hardcore enough", "too casual", etc. etc. and the response overall looks pretty monolithic to one not attached to their particular proclivities, but you'd be hard pressed to find any distinct cultural source of this general attitude, only that it's there, and common enough to be noticeable.  

And that isn't anything even that calls itself a "movement" though it does have it's own label.

Come on, man.  That's just a lazy cop-out.  We're talking about a movement with 134 members that document all their activities on the internet.  I could dash over to Dragonsfoot and find some solid example of loathing directed toward players of new edition in 5 minutes.  But I won't do that because A) I'm not going to construct your arguments for you and B) those guys are dicks and I stick to the parts of DF that are less dickerly.

Quote from: jrients;316890We're talking about a movement with 134 members that document all their activities on the internet.

Did we lose 3? Why is everyone saying 134 now? Surely we've grown since March (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/03/myth-busting.html?showComment=1237912620000#c7114163011401873786).

Quote from: jrients;316890Come on, man.  That's just a lazy cop-out.  We're talking about a movement with 134 members that document all their activities on the internet.  I could dash over to Dragonsfoot and find some solid example of loathing directed toward players of new edition in 5 minutes.  But I won't do that because A) I'm not going to construct your arguments for you and B) those guys are dicks and I stick to the parts of DF that are less dickerly.

What I meant was, basically, these conversations are pointless.  If I make an assertion there's even so much as a general philosophy, I get demanded to provide examples.  If I provide examples, I get told "Well it's not like it's a conspiracy" and "We're all special snowflakes those guys are just different", and demands for "proof" os some kind of unifying force.

The point is there is no unifying force, there never is in these situations.  There's no one guy or one site telling all so-called "hardcore" gamers and journalists to trash the Wii, but they do it anyway.  

It's just goal post shifting, and strawmanning, and a lack of understanding how these things work (or a deliberate misunderstanding depending on how charitable you're feeling).

But aren't you making a leap from "some guys in the group are dicks" to something more like "it's a plank in the platform of the group to behave like dicks"?  There are douchebags in any group of people.

Quote from: jrients;316931There are douchebags in any group of people.

...for whom I've developed this handy stamp

(http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9965/douchea.gif) (http://img115.imageshack.us/i/douchea.gif/)

Quote from: JimLotFP;316896Did we lose 3? Why is everyone saying 134 now? Surely we've grown since March (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/03/myth-busting.html?showComment=1237912620000#c7114163011401873786).

Max got eaten by a troll on ENworld. I don't know who else we lost; probably someone way in the back.

Quote from: Mythmere;316999Max got eaten by a troll on ENworld. I don't know who else we lost; probably someone way in the back.

IIRC there was that guy - whatshisname from Sweden or Norway? - we reclassified him from "member" to "tool". I am pretty positive that's what happened.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163I really hope that eventually the Old School movement clues into that, and comes to get that what you need to produce are games with an Old School design-feel, but not actually an imitator of an old game; and with modern comprehension of design and presentation.

The words that started this 24-page thread.  :)

And they're so wrong.  What we needed to do was totally reject the "modern comprehension of design and presentation".  We needed to break away from this endless series of attempts to write a modern game that reaches out to the old school feel, because if we'd stuck in those old, old wheel ruts, what we'd have produced is Yet Another Completely Pointless Also-Ran RPG which a grand total of about 14 people would play for about six months before it started gathering dust.

And having rejected "the modern comprehension of design and presentation" we did exactly the right thing.  We believed that the game Gary Gygax wrote was pretty close to the perfect starting point for people's house-rules.  So we decided to write a SRD for it and bring it in line with the modern comprehension of open gaming instead.

Since then, WOTC have done us several huge favours.  4e helped.  4e outside the OGL helped a lot.  And killing off the .pdf sales of OOP stuff helped a lot.

So thank you, WOTC, for OSRIC's recent successes.  :)

Quote from: JimLotFP;316896Did we lose 3? Why is everyone saying 134 now? Surely we've grown since March (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/03/myth-busting.html?showComment=1237912620000#c7114163011401873786).

Yeah, but they were just hirelings.

Quote from: J Arcane;316906What I meant was, basically, these conversations are pointless.  If I make an assertion there's even so much as a general philosophy, I get demanded to provide examples.  If I provide examples, I get told "Well it's not like it's a conspiracy" and "We're all special snowflakes those guys are just different", and demands for "proof" os some kind of unifying force.

The point is there is no unifying force, there never is in these situations.

Ahem, sometimes there is. As e.g. when a heavily-moderated forum is the gathering point.

QuoteIt's just goal post shifting, and strawmanning, and a lack of understanding how these things work (or a deliberate misunderstanding depending on how charitable you're feeling).

Well, in another forum I've at least been convinced that there are tendencies present in the "old school" but I just don't relate to the sense of outrage at the phenomenon as a whole.

What I think would be constructive, really, would be to actively disagree with the particular things you disagree with--that is, if you feel like engaging at all. Me personally, when certain "old schoolers" say something that seems dumb or overblown, I just don't bother because I don't care enough--as you know, people say all sorts of things on the internet and get all self-important; that doesn't mean you have to take them seriously. And here, for example, you can present your ideas, even if they're in reaction to something you read on so-and-so's blog, without starting from a position of "fighting the orthodoxy".

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;317226Ahem, sometimes there is. As e.g. when a heavily-moderated forum is the gathering point.

Well, in another forum I've at least been convinced that there are tendencies present in the "old school" but I just don't relate to the sense of outrage at the phenomenon as a whole.

What I think would be constructive, really, would be to actively disagree with the particular things you disagree with--that is, if you feel like engaging at all. Me personally, when certain "old schoolers" say something that seems dumb or overblown, I just don't bother because I don't care enough--as you know, people say all sorts of things on the internet and get all self-important; that doesn't mean you have to take them seriously. And here, for example, you can present your ideas, even if they're in reaction to something you read on so-and-so's blog, without starting from a position of "fighting the orthodoxy".

Eh, outrage is far too strong a word for any of my posts in this thread that don't involved Benoist.  

This is both a thought exercise, and a genuine attempt at hopefully inducing some realizations in those my exercise discusses.  

Of course, like all such attempts, it's pointless, for basically the reasons I've stated.  Really, what I've done is no better than those who've fruitlessly argued against the cliqueishness of Tangency.  It's there, but fat chance ever getting anyone involved to admit it.

*hand J Arcane a small fiddle* Just kidding but seriously if you feel left out or undesired...just remember. This is the internet. You can ALWAYS find a new spot.

I just did.

Also I have no horse in this stake nor did I stake the horse. Thusly you can consider me at least TN for this discussion.

If it helps.

Quote from: J Arcane;317258Eh, outrage is far too strong a word for any of my posts in this thread that don't involved Benoist.

Thank you. I feel privileged. Like I'm a special snowflake or something. :D

Quote from: Benoist;317260Thank you. I feel privileged. Like I'm a special snowflake or something. :D

*intones the voice of Tyler Durden* You are not a unique and/or special snowflake!

Sorry couldn't resist Ben.

I have never played any of the retroclones, or any of the older editions themselves, but I would not mind giving any of them a try.

Gal,

You say that now...just wait until you have to try to do the math involved for grappling in 2nd edition. Makes 3rd edition grappling seem like charm school. Or the fact as a priest you can't use bladed weapons (unless you're a specialty priest). Anyway those were some of my gripes with 2nd edition. Before that...eh.

Quote from: Nightfall;317273Gal,

You say that now...just wait until you have to try to do the math involved for grappling in 2nd edition. Makes 3rd edition grappling seem like charm school. Or the fact as a priest you can't use bladed weapons (unless you're a specialty priest). Anyway those were some of my gripes with 2nd edition. Before that...eh.

Hehe, I said I would give them a try, whether or not I would like them is another matter.:)

Oh, and I remember you from ENWorld. I am sorry that you got banned for some reason, but it is good to see you here.:)

Gal,

Glad you remember me. Cause I do remember you. As for my En World ban...eh maybe it's for the best. I hate places that rate POSTERS rather than the threads.

Plus I've got time now to talk about Scarred Lands. Endlessly. Until I decide otherwise.

You are also allowed to try anything. Just remember, young padawan, do or do not.

QuoteReally, what I've done is no better than those who've fruitlessly argued against the cliqueishness of Tangency. It's there, but fat chance ever getting anyone involved to admit it.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit it exists - big time. There certainly are cliques, and at times hard feelings run pretty deep. As with any up-and-coming scene, everyone wants to claim to be the first, or if not that, they want to at least influence the direction things take in the future. I won't name names (I might like to work with some of those people one day) but I can run down the 'salient groups' as I see them...

(1) Grognards. These guys never stopped playing the same game they started with in the 70s. They don't need or like anything that they couldn't pay $200 bucks for on EBay.
Habitat: Often seen blogging about their 30 year old Greyhawk campaign and offering intermittent and esoteric rules advice on Dragonsfoot.
Typical Quote: Why do I need (insert retro-clone here) when I still have Gary's handwritten pre-OD&D notes in my wallet?
Natural Enemy: None. He'd need Viagra to get that worked up, and besides, he just doesn't really understand online communities.

(2) The Boys in the Pub. Not quite as old as the grognards, but with more than a healthy respect for the Great Gone Gygax. Can't afford the investment needed to go-old school, so they managed to whip up their own retro-clone.
Habitat: Often seen posting definitive stylistic manifestos on message forums and selling product on Lulu.
Typical Quote: Go eat a bowl of cocks, 3tard!
Natural Enemy: The heretical, and artistically challenged Trolls Den.

(3) The Troll's Den. Pot-smokin' hippy lawyers with printing presses. Feted the Great Gone Gygax with ghostwritten glory before his untimely demise and their untimely loss of license. Their dreams of a back-engineered AD&D crumble along with their revenue.
Habitat: On the fringes of ENWorld, Dragonsfoot and the Big Purple.
Typical Quote: That's an illegal copyright violation. Why? Because I'm a lawyer, and I said so. Play my game instead. Why? Because I love it.
Natural Enemy: The crude and amateurish Boys in the Pub.

(4) The Northern Fringe. Outsider gamers who've jumped on the bandwagon too late to gain acceptance into one of the cliques. Can't support any retro-clone largely because they weren't involved in writing one, and they hate those people anyways.
Habitat: Cranking out 3-staple 12 page booklets on their HP printer at home while extolling their own eccentric virtues on their blog.
Typical Quote: I'll ship it to all 6 of you as soon as I can afford another ream of A4 paper.
Natural Enemy: Another blogger or internet blowhard, often a Boy in the Pub or maybe a Troll, who's chewed him a new ass online.

(5) The Celebrity Blogger. Hipsters who couldn't care less what game they or anyone else plays as long as they dig that retro-cool thing.
Habitat: On their blog, replying to comments on their own or other hip blogs. rarely seen on forums as they just don't have that much chance of personal exposure.
Typical Quote: I like Elmore AND Otus. So there!
Natural Enemy: None. Too self-possessed to think for a minute anyone doesn't like him - well, except for the Grognard that keeps sending email death threats.

(6) The Naive Gamer. Regular Joe-the-Plumber types casually scoping out the old-school scene online.
Habitat: Big gaming forums, asking innocent questions that turn into brutal 50-page flamewars.
Typical Quote: I don't understand these Edition Wars. We all roll dice, right?
Natural Enemy: Hapless prey to all of the above.

(7) The Master Bakers. Ex-employees of Strategy Game Regulations before it went belly up. Personal friends, or enemies, of the Great Gone Gygax.
Habitat: Dragonsfoot, holding court in their own personal Q&A thread.
Typical Quote: My good buddy Gary once said to me....
Natural Enemy: Mortality

You can add this one too:

8) Weirdo - Guy that actually believes, all things being equal, gaming is about fun and well, GAMING!
habitats: Where ever the winds of the internet blow me
Typicial Quote:  I used to say Scarred Lands!! 24/7. I just now keep that off the internet.
Natural Enemy: Just apparently a random grouping of people.

Quote from: Kellri;317414snip

:rotfl:

LOL That's insanely funny, Kellri. Good stuff!

Quote from: Kellri;317414Hey, I'll be the first to admit it exists - big time. There certainly are cliques, and at times hard feelings run pretty deep. As with any up-and-coming scene, everyone wants to claim to be the first, or if not that, they want to at least influence the direction things take in the future. I won't name names (I might like to work with some of those people one day) but I can run down the 'salient groups' as I see them...

I feel awful now, I don't fall under any of those categories...

Quote from: StormBringer;317439I feel awful now, I don't fall under any of those categories...

Why feel awful about not being an easily defined demographic?

I'm not in any of Kellri's categories either... ??

Having much in common with the Grognards, but still buy and try at least a couple new games a year, and champion Indie game design. I play old-school original games, but not often, and have cherry-picked amongst the newer games, running games for them more in the last 2-3 years than the old-school games. Definitely was a champion for old-school games when it was not at all popular to do so (Before the demise of 1e, 2e, and 3e).

What ModClique is that?

Gamedaddy,

I site you in the catagory of being you.

Jeff,

Exactly. Being easily defined is just too broad stroked about who we are as individuals. Tyler Durdun's assertions aside about individuality.

Quote from: jeff37923;317491Why feel awful about not being an easily defined demographic?

If I don't fit into a clique of some kind, then I can't be one of the cool kids.  :)

Quote from: P&P;317223The words that started this 24-page thread.  :)

And they're so wrong.  What we needed to do was totally reject the "modern comprehension of design and presentation".  We needed to break away from this endless series of attempts to write a modern game that reaches out to the old school feel, because if we'd stuck in those old, old wheel ruts, what we'd have produced is Yet Another Completely Pointless Also-Ran RPG which a grand total of about 14 people would play for about six months before it started gathering dust.

And having rejected "the modern comprehension of design and presentation" we did exactly the right thing.  We believed that the game Gary Gygax wrote was pretty close to the perfect starting point for people's house-rules.  So we decided to write a SRD for it and bring it in line with the modern comprehension of open gaming instead.

Since then, WOTC have done us several huge favours.  4e helped.  4e outside the OGL helped a lot.  And killing off the .pdf sales of OOP stuff helped a lot.

So thank you, WOTC, for OSRIC's recent successes.  :)

You haven't actually written anything. You stole another man's work, and tacked on some homebrew add-ons, and you're claiming that's a movement. OSRIC is perfect example of why the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

I think the OP demonstrates why that's not a big concern.  There's a flight to older rulesets at the moment because people want to remember what gaming was like before battlemats and monster rulebooks became the norm, and a lot of them will return to newer games with an older style of play, like Joe.

I just use the bastard offspring of Trav as my system because my players are too lazy to read anything more complex. Why lug around a stone or two of books nobody except the GM reads or cares about?

So I needed rules light, but the newer stuff just ain't got that jazz. Except of course d4-d4, but I wanted random roll, too much player agonising over what traits to buy, takes forever, yawn.

That's another thing - most popular systems still in print are point-buy. "But what if I roll badly?" Boohoo.

There's one thing that I have sort of taken to heart and thought about a bit the last day or so, the result of sort of an epiphany probably bubbling up from scattered bits of all this OSR crap, especially Shook's post about using old school methods, without necessarily cleaving to old school rules.

When I sit down to create a game, I tend to think in terms of basically sitting down and assembling the thing from whole cloth, and only afterward getting to the playtest stage of it, and while this worked great when it was smaller little homebrew projects I kept to myself, as they got bigger in scope and even started focusing on possible commercial application, the resulting amount of work became rapidly overwhelming.

Reading through the sort of rough-and-tumble, free spirited writing in SWD6 1e, and listening to all these guys go on about the 'old school spirit' sort of finally sunk in and clued me into an alternate method, a sort of "develop by playtest/houserule".  

You start with a crude, basic system, just barely enough to run a game, like OD&D, and as you play and need more rules for specific things or come up with a new nifty rule idea, you slowly add that all in and keep notes of when it happens in play, until you eventually approach something more full-flavored like AD&D was.

The key difference though, is that unlike D&D, with D6 and other unfiied mechanic systems, one can take this approach and, so long as that original core is itself flexible enough and you cleave close to it whenever possible, you'll wind up with a much more cohesive and consistent whole at the end than AD&D was because you don't have to write a whole new rule for every little thing.  

I'm thinking that this approach may be the only way my currently one-man dev team will ever let my big project see the light of day.

QuoteYou haven't actually written anything. You stole another man's work, and tacked on some homebrew add-ons, and you're claiming that's a movement. OSRIC is perfect example of why the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

A wonderful dollop of spite there Pundit. As one of those guys you're calling a thief, I've just gotta ask...has the recent lack of any discussion of FtA! got you down? Take a Midol.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763You haven't actually written anything. You stole another man's work, and tacked on some homebrew add-ons, and you're claiming that's a movement. OSRIC is perfect example of why the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

RPGPundit

I'm going to quote Mythmere here from another forum, in response to a different post, but the text so neatly cuts off, seals and cauterizes the argument that it really needs to be said:

QuoteThe value of the retro-clones is not primarily in terms of the new cloned "rulebook." It's in the modules and resources. The availability of AD&D and OD&D modules and resources has increased from "almost zero" to "more than you can read" since the retro-clone thing started in 2007.

Looking at the cloned rulebook is missing the entire point.

Legally, there have been no obstacles before publishing fully AD&D- or OD&D-compatible support material since the release of the OGL; however, the role of OSRIC cannot be discounted in confirming the safety of doing so, and encouraging people to take advantage of the possibilities. Therefore, while the advantages of restatements are primarily psychological and marketing-oriented, they are real enough. Could a lively old-school community exist without simulacrum games? Probably. Dragonsfoot modules, Kellri's netbooks, Carcosa and Fight On! (which uses genericised but recognisable statistics), to note a few cases, are not dependent on the existence of either OSRIC or even the OGL. On the other hand, Monsters of Myth, XRP's Advanced Adventures line, Mythmere Games and others have benefitted significantly, and there is also a lot to be said about the critical mass of discussion/production.

Finally, a remark on a popular misconception: everyone is entitled to state an opinion on how old-school should really be and what kind of materials it should produce; however, since there is no central authority to decide on a general direction, these remarks are entirely superfluous. If you want a particular product, write it. If you want to be part of a particular community, build it. It is really that simple.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763You haven't actually written anything. You stole another man's work, and tacked on some homebrew add-ons, and you're claiming that's a movement. OSRIC is perfect example of why the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

P&P did nothing wrong. He and his team wanted to collect everything that was released under the Open Game License in a form that replicated AD&D 1st. It is wizards that opened can of worms in the first place.

The theft comment is out of line. Are you going to start paying all the historians whose work you cribbed to make your FTA! setting. If you read the primary sources yourself are you going to pay the people who maintained the manuscripts or transcribed them? Pay the developers of Rouge?

Even Gygax and Arenson's great invention stood on the shoulders of those before them nor they were innocent of ripping off other people's work. Tolkein and Bram Stroker (the Vampire Hunting Cleric) comes to mind.

Their  genius in combining these elements and others to create RPGs does not make them thieves. The fact that P&P took advantage of what was offered by Wizards and his legal rights doesn't make him or his team thieves. Nor you combining the work of other historians, primary chroniclers, and the developers of Rouge make you a thief.

The OSR is defined by those who DO. Those who write products and put them out there. The rule-books, the modules, the adventures, and the supplements. It their time to do as they will. Just as you made the decision to write FTA! and it's companion. And if they written what they wanted to achieve then it is most certainly not time wasted.

Because the OSR is defined by those DO, the OSR has never been under the control of the clone authors. The module writers over on dragonfoot and other internet sites were the initial vanguard as well as Necromancer's 1st edition feel, 3rd edition rules. Then after all the dissension caused by the creation of Castles & Crusades we have a spurt of retro-clones which is currently tailing off. Now people are branching out into supplements and other support products. All done by people doing what interests them and not by the dictates of others.

As for me I like writing about settings, about worlds that never were. I like being part of a larger community.  I like that what I write is accessible to a larger audience than if I written for GURPS, Harn or a half dozen other systems. Wizards generously gave me the tools to do so and I will damn well going to take advantage of them.

Quote from: Melan;317787Finally, a remark on a popular misconception: everyone is entitled to state an opinion on how old-school should really be and what kind of materials it should produce; however, since there is no central authority to decide on a general direction, these remarks are entirely superfluous. If you want a particular product, write it. If you want to be part of a particular community, build it. It is really that simple.

I seen this time and time again across the internet in different communities. Even was involved myself when I was developing add-ons for the Orbiter Space Simulator. The communities are defined by those who Do.

Quote from: estar;317795I seen this time and time again across the internet in different communities. Even was involved myself when I was developing add-ons for the Orbiter Space Simulator. The communities are defined by those who Do.

They also are affected by those who don't do because others whine & whinge.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763OSRIC is perfect example of why the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

RPGPundit

Who is "all concerned?"

On the contrary, the whole "old-school" thing is shaping up to be very interesting. The audience is growing, the body of work is building, and creative efforts are shooting off into new directions every day. A year and a half ago I had more sympathy for people who cried, "but will OSRIC ever amount to anything?" Today, though, even only just over two years since its release, IMO we've seen a phenomenal progress. Not in the direction people expected, but wonderful nonetheless. I think the question does still hang in the air as to what OSRIC as a brand will do, but as far as interest in first edition, basic, original edition, and so on including spin offs of those go, by no means is it a waste of time for those of us who like those games.

RPGPundit, if you feel your wasting your time by investigation the OSR (or whatever it is you are doing that makes you feel you're wasting your time) the best way to handle it is stop wasting your time and ignore it. For instance, I could read up on 4e D&D and then bitch and whine about how it was a waste of time, but I know I'm not interested in it anyway so it would be my own fault.

However, I'm starting to get the impression that your real gripe is that your game hasn't yet been accepted as "old-school," or been included in the "OSR." I am truly sorry if you feel your game isn't getting as much attention as it deserves. It can be very frustrating to work on something, put so much into it, and then be disappointed by the response. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the success or failure of your game has nothing to do with the OSR. You can direct your anger at clone games all you want, but it won't direct people to your game.

Quote from: aramis;317797They also are affected by those who don't do because others whine & whinge.

Sadly you are correct.  For me,  when it gets to a certain point I ignore it and continue on with with what I am working on.

I am of the more the merrier school of thought. It may be messy, confusing and at times argumentative but that life!

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;317803However, I'm starting to get the impression that your real gripe is that your game hasn't yet been accepted as "old-school," or been included in the "OSR."

I am a GURPS player, I love GURPS and for 15 years I ran City-State and the Wilderlands using GURPS. When I got aboard with the Wilderlands revamp there was a brief moment where I strenuously argued for my vision of the Wilderlands which was heavily influenced by the GURPS style.

Then came a moment of realization. Everybody's Wilderlands was wacked out, nobody saw the same things in the same way including me. Even the release of Bob Bledsaw' unpublished notes failed to resolve everything. The only way that the project was going to get done was for everybody to let go of their vision of the Wilderlands and work together to craft a new version from what been published and Bob's notes.

Elements of the different referee's campaign got worked in.  Which was nice. The end result was a collaborative effort superior to any one's vision including that of Bob Bledsaw (although his was the dominant view)

A similar issues run through the OSR. The simple fact is that it is defined by using one of the older editions of D&D. Whatever you do it has to be using those rules. If you don't accept that  then you will ignored by the fans of the OSR and have to market your product in the same sea as all the other independent projects out there.

I have these issues with Points of Light. The first one used abbreviated AD&D stats, the second one use abbreviated 4th edition stats. It was done because Goodman has to appeal to largest market possible and that right now is the D&D 4e crowd. PoL II is just as useful to fans of OD&D as the first one., but it does create a perception problem that I have to explain. And definitely the Old School gamers are cool to the idea. But I am not going to call them silly for feeling that way or get mad at their reaction. I understand where the OS gamers are coming from.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763... OSRIC is perfect example of why the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

RPGPundit

:huhsign:

As I've mentioned before, making versions of classic games (OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D) available for free and in perpetuity is a laudable accomplishment, especially since those games are no longer supported by any publisher, and are no longer available (legally) as PDFs.  That accomplishment alone is praiseworthy.  Your scorn for it seems misplaced.

However, as others have pointed out already (Dungeondelver, Mythmere, et al.), looking only at the clone 'rule books' in order to understand and appreciate the OSR is a mistake.  

Have you looked at the new OSRIC monster book, Monsters of Myth?  Or all the modules published for OSRIC by Expeditious Retreat Press, and others?  Or the adventures that are being published for LL and S&W?

Have you looked at the new games that have come out of the OSR, like Ruins & Ronins or Mutant Future?

Have you looked at the new magazines devoted to old school gaming, like Fight On! and Knockspell?  Those magazines are overflowing with creative ideas and new material (including estar's excellent 'Wild North' for the Wilderlands).

In short, your characterization of the OSR simply demonstrates your overall ignorance of what actually is happening with it. :pundit:

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;317803Who is "all concerned?"

On the contrary, the whole "old-school" thing is shaping up to be very interesting. The audience is growing, the body of work is building, and creative efforts are shooting off into new directions every day. A year and a half ago I had more sympathy for people who cried, "but will OSRIC ever amount to anything?" Today, though, even only just over two years since its release, IMO we've seen a phenomenal progress. Not in the direction people expected, but wonderful nonetheless. I think the question does still hang in the air as to what OSRIC as a brand will do, but as far as interest in first edition, basic, original edition, and so on including spin offs of those go, by no means is it a waste of time for those of us who like those games.

RPGPundit, if you feel your wasting your time by investigation the OSR (or whatever it is you are doing that makes you feel you're wasting your time) the best way to handle it is stop wasting your time and ignore it. For instance, I could read up on 4e D&D and then bitch and whine about how it was a waste of time, but I know I'm not interested in it anyway so it would be my own fault.

However, I'm starting to get the impression that your real gripe is that your game hasn't yet been accepted as "old-school," or been included in the "OSR." I am truly sorry if you feel your game isn't getting as much attention as it deserves. It can be very frustrating to work on something, put so much into it, and then be disappointed by the response. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the success or failure of your game has nothing to do with the OSR. You can direct your anger at clone games all you want, but it won't direct people to your game.

My issue isn't about FtA!; its about how I think that the Old-School sentiment is an important and necessary sentiment, that several of its proponents seem hell-bent on reducing to a cliqueish incestuous ghetto of remaking old games over and over again and rejecting what would be the most important result of it: the production of NEW games based on old-school principles. What they seem to want instead is a trickle of repetitive clones and a pigheaded refusal to acknowledge that there's anything to be applied from the developments in gaming after 1981 or so.

This is declaring defeat before the fight even starts.

RPGPundit

As someone who has treated OSRIC like a completely different game from AD&D, I can say there is an audience for that sort of thing.

It's smaller than the group that just wants adventures, but I think that's kind of cool.

Adventures being more prized than sourcebooks always felt more like the natural order to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763You haven't actually written anything. You stole another man's work,

What, Gary Gygax's?  He quite approved, you know.

I don't claim OSRIC was a work of creative genius, but it did something genuinely new.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763and tacked on some homebrew add-ons,

Welcome to the old school way of doing things.  :)  Although there's very little "tacked on" to OSRIC.  Plenty of stuff cut out, though.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763and you're claiming that's a movement.

Quite accurately, to the extent that a subculture as small as pen and paper RPGs actually has "movements".

Quote from: RPGPundit;317763OSRIC is perfect example of why the whole "old school" thing is shaping to be a mammoth waste of time for all concerned if the "only-clones" crowd stays in control of things.

Nobody's "in control" of something that's openly licenced.  Amazingly, men in dark glasses do not come and take you away if you do something creative with OSRIC.  :)

As for "waste of time", you're entitled to your opinion, wrong though it may be.

Quote from: Akrasia;317848:huhsign:

As I've mentioned before, making versions of classic games (OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D) available for free and in perpetuity is a laudable accomplishment, especially since those games are no longer supported by any publisher, and are no longer available (legally) as PDFs.  That accomplishment alone is praiseworthy.  Your scorn for it seems misplaced.

My scorn is not for the making of these games, for accessibility reasons. My scorn is for the seeming insistence on some of the "luminaries" of this movement that THIS is the whole point, the be-all and end-all of what should be done, and to reject anything BUT these things. Its for the idea that seems prevalent in the Old-schoolers that the new must suck and that the only point is to go back in a reactionary trogloditic obsession with pretending that RPGs should have just stopped in the early 80s and that nothing new could possibly be added. That attitude is toxic, in no small part because it advocates the Old-school movement intentionally ghettoizing itself into a little corner of the hobby and never coming out or letting anyone else in who wants something other than clones of the old.

QuoteHave you looked at the new games that have come out of the OSR, like Ruins & Ronins or Mutant Future?

I haven't seen R&R, as for Mutant Future, its only really redeeming quality is that Gamma World never had a single definitive edition, and that MF tries to kind of address that.  But its still basically just a reactionary-clone game.  I would not hold it up as a great example of progress in the "revolution".

QuoteHave you looked at the new magazines devoted to old school gaming, like Fight On! and Knockspell?  Those magazines are overflowing with creative ideas and new material (including estar's excellent 'Wild North' for the Wilderlands).

In short, your characterization of the OSR simply demonstrates your overall ignorance of what actually is happening with it. :pundit:

I've looked at those things, and I've ALSO looked at the attitudes of self-proclaimed OSR-fans online; and the best I can say is that for every step forward there's a half-dozen idiots who are desperately trying to shoot down anyone who dares to innovate with the old-school sensibility. There's basically two types of Old-schoolers, the ones who think we should cling to the Old-school landmarks and sensibilities while making NEW things, and the ones, like P&P apparently, who think that this is "totally wrong", and that what we need to do is say "The old games were PERFECT and we can add nothing except for clones and new modules and material for old games we've cloned".

RPGPundit

Quote from: P&P;317872What, Gary Gygax's?  He quite approved, you know.

I'm sure Gary did. I'm not saying I disapprove. I'm saying that trying to pretend that this alone makes you a game designer or creator of something new in gaming, and not just a trusty chronicler trying to preserve something that already was is kind of disingenuous of you.

QuoteI don't claim OSRIC was a work of creative genius, but it did something genuinely new.

The only thing "new" about it was the concept of Cloning, not anything new in terms of game design.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;317876I'm sure Gary did. I'm not saying I disapprove. I'm saying that trying to pretend that this alone makes you a game designer or creator of something new in gaming, and not just a trusty chronicler trying to preserve something that already was is kind of disingenuous of you.

I don't think any of the retroclone authors are claiming that they designed a game from scratch. As far as I know they all see their roles more as editors than designers -- even though some actual game design has gone into all of the retroclones. Nor have any I know for claimed to have created "something new in gaming."  Of course, since the object of a retroclone isn't to be "something new in gaming" this should not surprise anyone.

QuoteThe only thing "new" about it was the concept of Cloning, not anything new in terms of game design.

I'll be blunt, aside from some of the ideas in Forge-style storytelling RPGs, I haven't seen a whole lot new in game design since the mid-1980s. Most of what is proclaimed as "new" seems to me to be rehashing things that were done in (often very obscure) RPGs published in the pre-AD&D2 days combined in new ways and often given a much shiner face.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317874I've looked at those things, and I've ALSO looked at the attitudes of self-proclaimed OSR-fans online; and the best I can say is that for every step forward there's a half-dozen idiots who are desperately trying to shoot down anyone who dares to innovate with the old-school sensibility. There's basically two types of Old-schoolers, the ones who think we should cling to the Old-school landmarks and sensibilities while making NEW things, and the ones, like P&P apparently, who think that this is "totally wrong", and that what we need to do is say "The old games were PERFECT and we can add nothing except for clones and new modules and material for old games we've cloned".

RPGPundit

That's why IMO there's a danger in just lumping everyone together in one neat "OSR" category/"movement". Yes, there are people attempting to shoot down every single instance of innovation or step away from the original games. These guys want the old games and not the innovation that could come out of it. These guys alone would sink the OSR real quick, IMO but 1) they have a right to their opinion and 2) they aren't the only ones interested in clones. There are (far more IMO) people interested in new products, in experimentation (like you can see with something like Carcosa, or Knockspell and its variant rules for S&W/OD&D etc) and in stepping forward.

As for "perfect games", I don't think OD&D was perfect, or there wouldn't have been any supplements, and any interest in those supplements to begin with, no houserules at various game tables. But it got a lot of things right, among which the fact it presented a framework that one could mold in any of hundreds, thousands of ways to fit one's vision of the game. I think these visions are the things that we should expose to the world with magazines, modules and supplements. And that's certainly happening when you look in detail to what's going on on the OSR scene.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317874... My scorn is for the seeming insistence on some of the "luminaries" of this movement that THIS is the whole point, the be-all and end-all of what should be done, and to reject anything BUT these things. Its for the idea that seems prevalent in the Old-schoolers that the new must suck and that the only point is to go back in a reactionary trogloditic obsession with pretending that RPGs should have just stopped in the early 80s and that nothing new could possibly be added. That attitude is toxic, in no small part because it advocates the Old-school movement intentionally ghettoizing itself into a little corner of the hobby and never coming out or letting anyone else in who wants something other than clones of the old...

Again, not all of the games that are considered part of the OSR are pure retro-clones.  Consider Microlite74 (essentially a synthesis of Microlite20 and OD&D) or Spellcraft & Swordplay (a complete game that imagines what D&D might have looked like had it kept the Chainmail rules) or Basic Fantasy Role-Playing (a version of Basic/Expert D&D with some d20 revisions).  Those are 'new' old school games.  There's also Mazes and Minotaurs, Encounter Critical, etc.

In any case, most of the people involved with the OSR don't think that there was anything fundamentally wrong with the versions of D&D that were available in the early 1980s.  This is a hobby for them, and they want to produce things for the kinds of games that they enjoy.

Also, precisely who are the "luminaries" in question?

Quote from: RPGPundit;317874I haven't seen R&R, as for Mutant Future, its only really redeeming quality is that Gamma World never had a single definitive edition, and that MF tries to kind of address that.  But its still basically just a reactionary-clone game.  I would not hold it up as a great example of progress in the "revolution".

The "R" in "OSR" stands for "Renaissance" -- as in 'rebirth' -- not "revolution."  The OSR isn't about a "revolution," it's about supporting games and gaming styles from 1974-84 (or thereabouts).  That doesn't mean that 'new' ideas aren't welcome.  It does mean, overall, that 'revolutionary' ideas are not what the OSR is primarily about.

If you don't like that, then no problem.  Just ignore the OSR.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317874I've looked at those things, and I've ALSO looked at the attitudes of self-proclaimed OSR-fans online; and the best I can say is that for every step forward there's a half-dozen idiots who are desperately trying to shoot down anyone who dares to innovate with the old-school sensibility. There's basically two types of Old-schoolers, the ones who think we should cling to the Old-school landmarks and sensibilities while making NEW things, and the ones, like P&P apparently, who think that this is "totally wrong", and that what we need to do is say "The old games were PERFECT and we can add nothing except for clones and new modules and material for old games we've cloned".

RPGPundit

So the fact that five issues of Fight On! have been published (some with 150+ pages), and more are on the way, and two issues of Knockspell have been published (with more on the way), is somehow less significant in terms of demonstrating the vitality and nature of the OSR than a "half-dozen idiots" who post online?  This "half-dozen idiots" should be considered more representative of the OSR than the dozens of contributors to FO! and KS, let alone the authors of the new OSRIC modules (and S&W modules, and LL modules), variant games, and so forth?  Please.  :rolleyes:

As for your characterization of P&P (and his attitude that might be shared by others in the OSR), I don't think that he is opposed to others coming up with their own variant games, house rules, and so forth.  He happens to like AD&D, and prefers to produce material for that game (like the excellent Monsters of Myth, and his free dragonsfoot modules).  Where's the harm in that?  This is a hobby for him, like it is for most of the people in the OSR.  I applaud his contributions to the OSR.

Quote from: Akrasia;317890So the fact that five issues of Fight On! have been published (some with 150+ pages), and more are on the way, and two issues of Knockspell have been published (with more on the way), is somehow less significant in terms of demonstrating the vitality and nature of the OSR than a "half-dozen idiots" who post online?  This "half-dozen idiots" should be considered more representative of the OSR than the dozens of contributors to FO! and KS, let alone the authors of the new OSRIC modules (and S&W modules, and LL modules), variant games, and so forth?

Sounds like these "half-dozen idiots" loudmouths may be making everybody else look bad.

The "guilt by association" thing.

Or there is simply no issue.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317874My scorn is not for the making of these games, for accessibility reasons. My scorn is for the seeming insistence on some of the "luminaries" of this movement that THIS is the whole point, the be-all and end-all of what should be done, and to reject anything BUT these things. Its for the idea that seems prevalent in the Old-schoolers that the new must suck and that the only point is to go back in a reactionary trogloditic obsession with pretending that RPGs should have just stopped in the early 80s and that nothing new could possibly be added. That attitude is toxic, in no small part because it advocates the Old-school movement intentionally ghettoizing itself into a little corner of the hobby and never coming out or letting anyone else in who wants something other than clones of the old.

For every old-schooler who feels this way, there's someone who thinks that gaming should have stopped with 3e and want nothing more than Pathfinder type games forever.

Or those who think 4e is the bomb.

Or those who just want the official thing with Wizards name on it, who went from ardent 3e supporters to thinking 4e was great cause its the new shiny.

Or those who think only "indie" non-d20 games are the only thing worth their time and energy.

In short, what you're describing is not something unique to the OSR.

Its a human thing.

I don't think RPGs should have stopped in the 80's.  On the contrary, I rather like Savage Worlds, I think Champions (Hero system) gets cooler with every release (six may break my opinion though), I thoroughly enjoy the various Mechwarrior RPGs and they've just gotten better, same with the Silhouette System from DP9, etc.

I just think D&D should've stopped in the 80's, is all.

If that makes me a troglodyte, then be forewarned I can drain your STR with my potent stench, and I'm a 2+2 HD monster!

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;317908.

Or those who think only "indie" non-d20 games are the only thing worth their time and energy.

In short, what you're describing is not something unique to the OSR.

Its a human thing.

It's a humans-who-like-to-identify-themselves-with-products-and-groups thing. And thus, as you note, no different from the Forge.

However, this isn't a universal human trait. And some of us enjoy jabbing the pretensions of movements and fanboy loyalties, regardless of the subject.

QuoteIf you want a particular product, write it. If you want to be part of a particular community, build it. It is really that simple.

Hear, hear. The single most important contribution any of us can make to the 'old school movement' is to add something to it. One look through the old-school blogs and forums will tell you we're not monolithic in any sense of the word. There's plenty of room for everyone from adults-only settings to stripped-down OD&D for kids. The only common thread there is a reliance on an accessible, easily-understood ruleset. It's an ongoing experiment that can only really fail if people quit showing interest.

QuoteHowever, this isn't a universal human trait. And some of us enjoy jabbing the pretensions of movements and fanboy loyalties, regardless of the subject.

Just keep in mind you're doing the jabbing with your own big fat pretentious ego. If you want to bitch about the water in the neighbors' pool, don't be surprised when they tell you to go back home and swim.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;317908For every old-schooler who feels this way, there's someone who thinks that gaming should have stopped with 3e and want nothing more than Pathfinder type games forever.

Or those who think 4e is the bomb.

Or those who just want the official thing with Wizards name on it, who went from ardent 3e supporters to thinking 4e was great cause its the new shiny.

Or those who think only "indie" non-d20 games are the only thing worth their time and energy.

In short, what you're describing is not something unique to the OSR.

Its a human thing.

Yes, sure, but in some of these groups it is the retrogrades that dominate and control the flow of ideas, and in others they do not.

It seems to me like OS is at risk of being of the former class, when one of its major figures runs around saying that what we don't need is anything modern or new.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;317869My issue isn't about FtA!; its about how I think that the Old-School sentiment is an important and necessary sentiment, that several of its proponents seem hell-bent on reducing to a cliqueish incestuous ghetto of remaking old games over and over again and rejecting what would be the most important result of it: the production of NEW games based on old-school principles. What they seem to want instead is a trickle of repetitive clones and a pigheaded refusal to acknowledge that there's anything to be applied from the developments in gaming after 1981 or so.

This is declaring defeat before the fight even starts.

RPGPundit

Somehow I don't think you and I are in the same "fight," and that's ok. My first desire is to preserve an actual system as open game content, not an elusive "principle" that differs for everyone. I'm not sure who "they" are that want a trickle of repetitive clones. I know I don't give shit, and won't give a shit, about the various systems that come out from this point on that "fix" this or "fix" that. The systems that will tweak one thing or that thing, or even the new systems that come along with "new" mechanics and claim ownership of an "old-school feel." I don't discourage people from creating whatever their perfect game is, I just don't think anyone should have delusions that anyone else will care. Most of us are not searching for anything. We already have it. I've already won my fight.

Quote from: RPGPundit;317952It seems to me like OS is at risk of being of the former class, when one of its major figures runs around saying that what we don't need is anything modern or new.

And was there unthinking, zombie-like agreement with that sentiment?  No.  This whole thread has become an example of the non-groupthink that characterises the OSR.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Kellri;317943If you want to bitch about the water in the neighbors' pool, don't be surprised when they tell you to go back home and swim.

Neighbour's pool? This isn't the fucking Knights and Knaves Alehouse.

Holy shit you guys are sounding more and more like the Forgites. If you can't handle forums where everyone doesn't share your allegiance, then stick to your friendly redoubts. You know where they are.

Quote from: Haffrung;317973Holy shit you guys are sounding more and more like the Forgites.

If two people happen to agree with each other in disagreeing with you, then they must be part of some Forgite movement, right?

Quote from: Haffrung;317973Holy shit you guys are sounding more and more like the Forgites. If you can't handle forums where everyone doesn't share your allegiance, then stick to your friendly redoubts. You know where they are.

You're making it perfectly clear that you'll cling to the conspiracy theory no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.  It screams ignorance.

EDIT: some interesting commentary on this over at K&K: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=70149

I wanted to add that I don't agree with everything it says, but I'm sure J Arcane and Haffrung will remind us that all OSRians have the exact same opinions.  Otherwise J&H would be, you know, wrong.  We can't have that.

QuoteHoly shit you guys are sounding more and more like the Forgites. If you can't handle forums where everyone doesn't share your allegiance, then stick to your friendly redoubts. You know where they are.

Who's claiming they can't handle it here? No one. Neither should any one of us be shuffled off to the gaming ghetto because we offend your delicate sensibilities. In any case, a Forgite would probably try out some mind-bending terminology on you. As an old-school kinda guy, I just prefer 'Go Fuck Yourself'. You know what that means.

Quote from: RPG Punditthe Old-School sentiment is an important and necessary sentiment, that several of its proponents seem hell-bent on reducing to a cliqueish incestuous ghetto of remaking old games over and over again and rejecting what would be the most important result of it: the production of NEW games based on old-school principles.

Quote from: RPG Pundit againMy scorn is for the seeming insistence on some of the "luminaries" of this movement that THIS is the whole point, the be-all and end-all of what should be done, and to reject anything BUT these things.

Quote from: RPG Pundit one more timeone of its major figures runs around saying that what we don't need is anything modern or new.

Did I miss up thread where you identified who the hell you were talking about?  You're not usually this coy.

Quote from: jrients;318005Did I miss up thread where you identified who the hell you were talking about?  You're not usually this coy.

True considering the gouts of fire leveled at James Mishler and other targets in the past.

Quote from: Kellri;317991Who's claiming they can't handle it here?

You implied I was being a rude guest:

QuoteIf you want to bitch about the water in the neighbors' pool, don't be surprised when they tell you to go back home and swim.

Maybe you can explain what 'the neighbor's pool' and 'go back home' mean? Or did you just use a false and inept analogy?

Pundit, why don't you do a conversion of your dungeon generation tables or setting for a retro-clone?

I think there's a lot of good stuff in both FtA! and the Gamemaster's Notebook that could be converted to D&D but I also think there's a lot of stuff that might be lost in some of the translation. This is IMHO a good thing (for FtA!)

Quote from: jrients;318005Did I miss up thread where you identified who the hell you were talking about?  You're not usually this coy.

P&P, Gene Weigel, and T. Foster, just to name a few.

I'm being "coy" compared to my attacks on the Forgies because I don't think these people want to be destructive toward RPGs, they're just being short-sighted.

RPGPundit

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318098I think there's a lot of good stuff in both FtA! and the Gamemaster's Notebook that could be converted to D&D but I also think there's a lot of stuff that might be lost in some of the translation. This is IMHO a good thing (for FtA!)

Yes, FtA! is not a D&D clone, and that's kind of the point.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318102P&P, Gene Weigel, and T. Foster, just to name a few.

It sounds as though you are conflating the meaning of "K&K Alehouse" to mean "the people behind the OSR movement". That's completely inaccurate, from my POV.

QuoteP&P, Gene Weigel, and T. Foster, just to name a few.

I'm being "coy" compared to my attacks on the Forgies because I don't think these people want to be destructive toward RPGs, they're just being short-sighted.

If that's short-sighted it's sure proved to be a really popular variety of short-sightedness. So incredibly backward they've made 70's D&D relevant again. And, it's success is largely because P&P, Foster and others made a serious effort to explain their aesthetics.

For what it's worth, I'd never been to K&KA - or even heard of it - previous to earlier today when I ended up there through link-clickety-link-meandering  from some other forum.  I read through the "What's up with the Zeb Cook hate" thread featuring Mike Breault, and I found the back-and-forth enlightening, and the venom stunning.

I came away from K&KA with a bad taste in my mouth.  Not because it's OD&D/1e-focused, but because of the over-the-top attitudes of some of the posters (who are, I gather from context, regular posters there held in some esteem).  I don't expect agreement in a forum (go ahead and tell me that I'm wrong, my game of choice sucks, etc), but I (perhaps foolishly) expect a modicum of civility.

RPGSite, for all its beloved bluntness and occasional locker-room moments ("I'm going to call this guy a fucking retard now, sweet!"), has been more civil in my experience than that K&KA thread by orders of magnitude.  This revelation will surely disappoint someone somewhere. :)

The point: I'm glad that K&KA (and that thread in particular) is not my first or only sampling of the "OSR".  There's grognard, and then there's grognard, I guess.

I like some of the threads on K&KA (the dungeon and wilderness design threads are pretty interesting) but some of the personalities are ulcer-inducing. All and all, it's pretty on par with Dragonsfoot (which I go to for Turgunev's maps mostly).

Quote from: Kellri;318127If that's short-sighted it's sure proved to be a really popular variety of short-sightedness. So incredibly backward they've made 70's D&D relevant again. And, it's success is largely because P&P, Foster and others made a serious effort to explain their aesthetics.

The Old School Primer was a key catalyst in that regard. http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374

Quote from: estar;318176The Old School Primer was a key catalyst in that regard.

...and has been pigeonholed by critics as the classic gaming bible, when it's anything but.

I like the OSP, but it's didactic and describes a style of play that I don't entirely enjoy, and this is where the disconnect occurs.  People who are enthusiastic about the OSR see the OSP as one option among many, while the wowsers want to believe that everyone playing an old edition is a mindless zombie who want to rigidly enforce the OSP as the One True Way.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318163I like some of the threads on K&KA (the dungeon and wilderness design threads are pretty interesting) but some of the personalities are ulcer-inducing. All and all, it's pretty on par with Dragonsfoot.

Some places seem to be like huge "echo chambers", more than anything else.

Such places can become very insular, with the "in crowd" believing their own bullshit amongst themselves and thinking that they're the "chosen ones".  An outsider wonders whether they've stumbled across a "cult of personality".

Quote from: Kellri;318127If that's short-sighted it's sure proved to be a really popular variety of short-sightedness. So incredibly backward they've made 70's D&D relevant again. And, it's success is largely because P&P, Foster and others made a serious effort to explain their aesthetics.

Its short-term success; the attitude means that inevitably the whole thing will implode when there's nothing more to Clone, and no one new is allowed to enter because they aren't sufficiently obedient to the fucking purity clauses these idiots have come up with as criteria for who and what to allow into their counter-reformation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318226Its short-term success; the attitude means that inevitably the whole thing will implode when there's nothing more to Clone, and no one new is allowed to enter because they aren't sufficiently obedient to the fucking purity clauses these idiots have come up with as criteria for who and what to allow into their counter-reformation.

RPGPundit

I gotta say, this is completely the opposite of my experiences, which granted are subjective, especially since I've only done one OSRIC book.

But I did a book (OSRIC Unearthed) that was a cross between Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures, written as though nothing but OSRIC ever existed.

So to sum up, I did my take on two books with Gary Gygax's name on the cover. By all rights, NO ONE should have bought it and worse, I should have been pilloried to high heaven.

In fact, the only real tempest in a teapot the product got was over its inclusion of OSRIC in the title. People wanted to make sure that we (Phil Reed and I) had asked permission to do that.

Other than that, the reaction has been more positive than I expected. Have there been folks who dismissed it out of hand because they already had "more official" versions of those books?

Sure, but I have experienced that exact same attitude, in almost the exact same amounts, when writing 3e books.

In short, I haven't experienced any serious trend toward "strict constructionism" in the OSR movement.

Chuck

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;318234In fact, the only real tempest in a teapot the product got was over its inclusion of OSRIC in the title. People wanted to make sure that we (Phil Reed and I) had asked permission to do that.

That's a strange thing for them to ask - why should you ask permission if it's openly-licensed?

Quote from: RPGPundit;318226Its short-term success; the attitude means that inevitably the whole thing will implode when there's nothing more to Clone, and no one new is allowed to enter because they aren't sufficiently obedient to the fucking purity clauses these idiots have come up with as criteria for who and what to allow into their counter-reformation.

Meanwhile, in reality, where everything and its opposite has already been cloned, discussion has mostly turned from "what, exactly, can we learn from the classics" to "and now what can we do with all this information", and there is a rising number of good non-rules related products. It's not 2004 or even 2005 anymore.

I call strawman.

Quote from: Melan;318250Meanwhile, in reality, where everything and its opposite has already been cloned, discussion has mostly turned from "what, exactly, can we learn from the classics" to "and now what can we do with all this information", and there is a rising number of good non-rules related products. It's not 2004 or even 2005 anymore.

I call strawman.

:thanx:

Quote from: RPGPundit;318102P&P, Gene Weigel, and T. Foster, just to name a few.

I'm being "coy" compared to my attacks on the Forgies because I don't think these people want to be destructive toward RPGs, they're just being short-sighted.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;318110It sounds as though you are conflating the meaning of "K&K Alehouse" to mean "the people behind the OSR movement". That's completely inaccurate, from my POV.

Of the three persons mentioned by the Pundit, only P&P (to my knowledge) has actually contributed any actual gaming materials to the OSR (OSRIC, Monsters of Myth, and his dragonsfoot modules).

(For the record: I find many of T. Foster's posts very interesting, and think that he's generally very insightful.  In contrast, I rarely understand anything Gene Weigel posts, although I have nothing against him.)

I don't visit the K&K Alehouse very often, although I sometimes enjoy reading the discussions there.  The threads at KKA are sometimes interesting, sometimes annoying (especially when on politics), but the KKA is definitely not representative of the OSR as a whole, in my opinion.  There is an ethos of bitterness there that is somewhat off-putting (e.g., many posters there loathe dragonsfoot, for some reason).

In addition to P&P, I would consider the main people behind the OSR to be folks like Matt Finch (Mythmere), Dan Proctor (Goblinoid Games), Calithena (the editor of Fight On!), Jeff Rients, James Maliszewski, Expeditious Retreat Press, Gabor Lux (Melan), and so forth (sorry for not being comprehensive!).  

Judge the OSR by the people who are actively contributing to it, not by internet commentators and blowhards.  :shakespeare:

More like Kunts & Kocksuckers if you ask me. If you stand up to one of  their boyfriends like I did, they  86 you in a heartbeat--plus they edit your posts. Fuck I'm with a 10'  foot probe poll.

Quote from: mrk;318274If you stand up to one of their boyfriends like I did, they  86 you in a heartbeat--plus they edit your posts. Fuck I'm with a 10'  foot probe poll.

WTF?
Posted in Mobile Mode

I'm talking about  K&K the Alehouse.. Or more fittingly the shithouse.

Yes, but "86 you"?  "Fuck I'm with a 10'  foot probe poll."?  What on earth does that mean?
Posted in Mobile Mode

To be 86'd means to have been expelled and barred from return.

Generally used in reference to restaurants and bars.

Quote from: Age of Fable;318239That's a strange thing for them to ask - why should you ask permission if it's openly-licensed?

Many of the retro-clones have different conditions than the OGL for using the trademark names OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry. For example if you want to use the Sword & Wizardry name on your cover you need to include ascending Armor Class in your stat block. For example Normal Man, HD1, AC 8[12].

This is normal and expected. While the retro-clones authors may act more as editors than authors of original works. They have the right to protect the "brand" they setup around their body of rules. The way trademark law works if you want any brand then you have to adopt a strict policy concerning its use or lose it. This unlike copyright where you never lose it because you failed to enforced. (Note you may have problems recovering damages if you didn't promptly enforce).

In short the rules are free to copy, modify and share under the OGL. The various retro-clone titles are not and come with varying restrictions.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318226Its short-term success; the attitude means that inevitably the whole thing will implode when there's nothing more to Clone, and no one new is allowed to enter because they aren't sufficiently obedient to the fucking purity clauses these idiots have come up with as criteria for who and what to allow into their counter-reformation.

Damn, I knew I should setup that Lulu account before the deadline. Oh wait Lulu (or RPGNow, etc, etc) are not controlled by these people.

Seriously how are they acting as gatekeepers? The Forge movement pretty much had a central focus from day one. But the OSR is spread out among at least a half dozen communities. In addition to K&K, there is Dragonfoot, the OD&D forum, Dungeon Delver, Acaeum, and more.

A pain the ass in a way because while these communities overlap they have distinct preferences. So what works selling to the one may not work for the others.

Finally unlike the Forge, much of defines the OSR are blogs which is yet another source and unlike forums there is nothing to stop a person from blogging. Sure blogs depend on links so people can find them but most OSR blogs are found through RPG Bloggers which is system agnostic and not controlled by any of those who dominate the Old School forums.

Your conclusions lacks support. It seems like you are out of date with what been happening in the OSR rather making stuff up.

Quote from: Hairfoot;318281Yes, but "86 you"?  "Fuck I'm with a 10'  foot probe poll."?  What on earth does that mean?
Posted in Mobile Mode

I banned him for repeatedly attacking one of the other posters for being fat, and edited out the offending comments with a note that I'd done so.

Although not for disagreeing with peoples' opinions.

Quote from: Mythmere;318321I banned him for repeatedly attacking one of the other posters for being fat, and edited out the offending comments with a note that I'd done so.

Although not for disagreeing with peoples' opinions.

Are you a K&K mod?  I only know you from the S&W boards.

I was more interested in the way it was phrased.  "Fuck I'm with a 10' probe poll"?  That doesn't make sense even in the most generous translation of Engrish.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Hairfoot;318326Are you a K&K mod?  I only know you from the S&W boards.

I was more interested in the way it was phrased.  "Fuck I'm with a 10' probe poll"?  That doesn't make sense even in the most generous translation of Engrish.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Maybe "fuck 'em with a 10' probe pole"?

Quote from: estar;318308Many of the retro-clones have different conditions than the OGL for using the trademark names OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry. For example if you want to use the Sword & Wizardry name on your cover you need to include ascending Armor Class in your stat block. For example Normal Man, HD1, AC 8[12].

This is normal and expected. While the retro-clones authors may act more as editors than authors of original works. They have the right to protect the "brand" they setup around their body of rules. The way trademark law works if you want any brand then you have to adopt a strict policy concerning its use or lose it. This unlike copyright where you never lose it because you failed to enforced. (Note you may have problems recovering damages if you didn't promptly enforce).

In short the rules are free to copy, modify and share under the OGL. The various retro-clone titles are not and come with varying restrictions.

Yeah that was it. But we had asked permission to use the name in the title, so everything was mellow all around.

Well I am chiming in after alot of posts. I did not read them all (at least I missed the 'flame arc').
Old School for me is more of a reaction to a company releasing a new edition every couple of years and expecting me to plop down $100+ on a new set of rule books.
I like AD&D but prefer Tunnels and Trolls. I am waiting for my copy of Barbarians of Lemuria as well.
Another reason for OSR for me and maybe many others, is that we have taken a break from gaming to pursue careers and families and now we come back to a favorite past time from our youth and find that we don't like the new games...just don't like them. We then dig out our T&T or AD&D and start to introduce our younger friends to them.
Their reaction is generally positive and they want copies of the rules as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318103Yes, FtA! is not a D&D clone, and that's kind of the point.

RPGPundit

OK, but...

I've suggested a couple of things you could do with your system, to address your problems with it. There might be various problems with my ideas, but what other ideas are they competing with?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;318327Maybe "fuck 'em with a 10' probe pole"?

Or perhaps it was, "Fuck! I'm with a 10' probe, Pole!"

Actually, it would make sense if mrk was saying he was a 10' pole, since he's clearly a tool.

When you start interpreting some people's swearing to make sense of it, you know you're either:
a) too drunk/stoned to understand, or
b) THEY are too drunk/stoned to speak/write intelligibly.

Given that I am sober right now, I vote B), personally.

Quote from: Benoist;318362When you start interpreting some people's swearing to make sense of it, you know you're either:
a) too drunk/stoned to understand, or
b) THEY are too drunk/stoned to speak/write intelligibly.

Given that I am sober right now, I vote B), personally.

You forgot c) Doesn't speak English natively, and is spelling things phonetically.

"Fuck 'em with a 10' probe pole"

Quote from: StormBringer;318369You forgot c) Doesn't speak English natively, and is spelling things phonetically.

"Fuck 'em with a 10' probe pole"

Right. That works too, I guess. :)

Quote from: Mythmere;318321I banned him for repeatedly attacking one of the other posters for being fat, and edited out the offending comments with a note that I'd done so.

Although not for disagreeing with peoples' opinions.

Bullshit! Let's go over the facts now that you have no say or power over here on the rpgsite. That prick had a history of insulting me and when I put him in his place you sided with him. Banishing me and editing out my posts because  you wear the crown over at K&K  now that the original founder has died. Either way Mythmere,  I've shown what a hypocritical, two faced, sack of shit you are and how you play favoritism with your inner circle of cronies and man sissies who need to go running to the forum police as backup. Really, take a hint and go back to your shithouse were you belong, you self centered bastard.

Quote from: Akrasia;318258Of the three persons mentioned by the Pundit, only P&P (to my knowledge) has actually contributed any actual gaming materials to the OSR (OSRIC, Monsters of Myth, and his dragonsfoot modules).

That's true, for the most part. I do have 4 (I think) individually-credited contributions in MoM, and am responsible for about 6 pages of non-individually-credited content in OSRICv2 (the essays on Dungeon and Town Adventuring and the Example of Play). Other than those, though, you're right that my name doesn't appear in any credit bylines. I am, however, internet-friends with most of the folks on your list (as well as other folks not on your list like kellri (Classic Dungeon Designer netbooks) and wheggi (contributor to FO! & KS, plus a ton of brilliant as-yet-unpublished stuff) and James Boney (author of several of the XRP adventures)), and have reviewed, commented on and discussed a lot of their stuff with them prior to its release (I was, I'm pretty sure, the first person besides Stuart and Matt to see the draft of what eventually became OSRIC and discussed it with them at length and was involved in their decision to position it as an "old school SRD" rather than "yet another attempt to get AD&D fans to play some other game instead of what they really want to play") and they seem to, at least to an extent, value my input (arguably more than they should). So while "internet commentator and blowhard" does in some sense describe my "role" in the OSR, especially to someone not seeing all the behind-the-scenes, pre-release stuff, it also seems pretty uncharitable.

As for why my "contribution" is mostly limited to behind-the-scenes chatting about and assisting other designers with the stuff they've designed rather than designing my own stuff, there's a couple reasons: 1) I'm extraordinarily lazy and undisciplined -- the length of time required to put together a message-board post is about the extent of my attention-span, and while I might be able to put together a page or two prospectus on what I think would be a cool and useful advebture or supplement (something I've done several times), the effort required to convert that into an actual 32+ pp product is just way beyond me (and makes me respect the hell out of the people who do have the drive and discipline to do that); and 2) I actually have this naive/idealistic/hippy-commune belief that individual players and GMs should be creating their own stuff for use in their home games rather than either buying someone else's stuff or attempting to sell their stuff to someone else -- that passive consumption of pre-packaged modules and settings and books of new rules isn't really what it should be about. The back-and-forth exchange of ideas and inspiration, which is what I think is really helpful in getting individual GMs to create their own stuff, works just as well (or better) on forums and blogs than in the crystallized format of a professional (or quasi-professional) printed product. Talking to a fellow GM about where he gets his ideas and why he designs things the way he does (preferably accompanied by concrete examples in the form of maps and notes as used in actual play) is, I think, much more useful and valuable than a module or sourcebook in inspiring someone to create their own stuff, and while that can be done in a printed product (Rob Kuntz's "Bottle City" and Dave Arneson's "First Fantasy Campaign" being probably the best examples of this approach) it still feels inefficient and articifical to me, and that an actual two-way dialogue on a forum or blog would serve the same purpose as well or better.

Quote from: mrk;318405Either way Mythmere,  I've shown what a hypocritical, two faced, sack of shit you are and [blah blah blah blah]

Hysteric much?

One overwrought allegation is not exactly Q.E.D.

Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, but I don't see where you've demonstrated anything.

Quote from: T. Foster;318407actually have this naive/idealistic/hippy-commune belief that individual players and GMs should be creating their own stuff for use in their home games rather than either buying someone else's stuff or attempting to sell their stuff to someone else

Jesus H Christ Foster, what are you ranting about now??!! That people shouldn't go buy other peoples modules or gaming material?  That's like saying a writer shouldn't go buy another author's book or a guitarist shouldn't pick up another musicians record. Really, I think you need to take a break from D&D for awhile...

Quote from: Garnfellow;318408Hysteric much?

One overwrought allegation is not exactly Q.E.D.

Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, but I don't see where you've demonstrated anything.

Nope, just relaying my side of the story and to give a warning about the practices by Mythtator over at the shithouse.

Quote from: T. Foster;318407That's true, for the most part. I do have 4 (I think) individually-credited contributions in MoM, and am responsible for about 6 pages of non-individually-credited content in OSRICv2 (the essays on Dungeon and Town Adventuring and the Example of Play). Other than those, though, you're right that my name doesn't appear in any credit bylines. I am, however, internet-friends with most of the folks on your list (as well as other folks not on your list like kellri (Classic Dungeon Designer netbooks) and wheggi (contributor to FO! & KS, plus a ton of brilliant as-yet-unpublished stuff) and James Boney (author of several of the XRP adventures)), and have reviewed, commented on and discussed a lot of their stuff with them prior to its release (I was, I'm pretty sure, the first person besides Stuart and Matt to see the draft of what eventually became OSRIC and discussed it with them at length and was involved in their decision to position it as an "old school SRD" rather than "yet another attempt to get AD&D fans to play some other game instead of what they really want to play") and they seem to, at least to an extent, value my input (arguably more than they should). So while "internet commentator and blowhard" does in some sense describe my "role" in the OSR, especially to someone not seeing all the behind-the-scenes, pre-release stuff, it also seems pretty uncharitable...

My apologies for my ignorance of your many contributions to OSRIC, T. Foster, and your widespread influence on the OSRIC side of the OSR.  :)  (Although I very much like 1e AD&D and OSRIC, I've been much more interested in OD&D and BD&D in recent years, and thus their respective 'retro-clones'.)

Also, I didn't have you in mind when I referred to "internet blowhards," although my wording obviously made it seem that way.  My apologies.  I had in mind a more general point, viz., that one should judge the OSR (or any other 'hobbyist movement,' for that matter) by its actual products and contributions, not by anonymous posters on fora and blogs.

I did say that I generally found your posts 'very insightful', btw.

Quote from: T. Foster;318407... 2) I actually have this naive/idealistic/hippy-commune belief that individual players and GMs should be creating their own stuff for use in their home games rather than either buying someone else's stuff or attempting to sell their stuff to someone else -- that passive consumption of pre-packaged modules and settings and books of new rules isn't really what it should be about....

For the most part I agree.  That's why I get more out of fanzines like Fight On! and Knockspell (and, for that matter, e-zines like Footprints and the now defunct ODDities) than I do most modules.  

However, I do like an excellent module.  Looking at other people's ideas in that format can spur one's creative juices just as much as a discussion on a blog (or in a pub), even if one does not end up using the product in the end.

In any case, I invariably modify any module that I end up using, imparting my own 'twist' and ideas.  I suspect that most GMs interested in the OSR do the same.  Using a module or book that someone else produced as a starting point for one's game isn't entirely a matter of 'passive consumption'.

Quote from: Akrasia;318418My apologies for my ignorance of your many contributions to OSRIC, T. Foster, and your widespread influence on the OSRIC side of the OSR.  :)  (Although I very much like 1e AD&D and OSRIC, I've been much more interested in OD&D and BD&D in recent years, and thus their respective 'retro-clones'.)

Also, I didn't have you in mind when I referred to "internet blowhards," although my wording obviously made it seem that way.  My apologies.  I had in mind a more general point, viz., that one should judge the OSR (or any other 'hobbyist movement,' for that matter) by its actual products and contributions, not by anonymous posters on fora and blogs.

I did say that I generally found your posts 'very insightful', btw.

No worries, and thanks for the "very insightful" :) I'm definitely more of a behind-the-scenes guy and my contribution-as-such to the OSR pales in comparison to people like Stuart and Matt and James and kellri who actually turn out product rather than just talking about it, so I'm not demanding any kind of respect or celebrity status. I just didn't want to be dismissed completely...

QuoteFor the most part I agree.  That's why I get more out of fanzines like Fight On! and Knockspell (and, for that matter, e-zines like Footprints and the now defunct ODDities) than I do most modules.  

However, I do like an excellent module.  Looking at other people's ideas in that format can spur one's creative juices just as much as a discussion on a blog (or in a pub), even if one does not end up using the product in the end.

In any case, I invariably modify any module that I end up using, imparting my own 'twist' and ideas.  I suspect that most GMs interested in the OSR do the same.  Using a module or book that someone else produced as a starting point for one's game isn't entirely a matter of 'passive consumption'.

No real disagreement here -- I'm fully willing to admit that a really well-done module can be every bit as inspirational as a good discussion, and that there's a special place for those products that can both be plugged as-is right into an evening's play when you're feeling lazy or overworked but also inspire further expansion and creativity (like the open-ended early TSR modules like Dwellers in the Forbidden City and The Lost City, or my all-time favorite published module, Griffin Mountain (for RuneQuest, from 1981)) so it's not an either/or black & white thing. "Toolbox" products like kellri's excellent Old School Encounters netbook, Judges Guild's Ready Ref Sheets or Midkemia Press' Cities are another good example of published products that spur, rather than replace, individual creativity. So it's not that I'm totally against published products and think people should only be discussing things and sharing unpolished notes on blogs and forums, I just feel that there's so much of an emphasis on publication -- that some people feel a polished module-style presentation is the only thing that "counts" and that material not presented in that format isn't worthwhile -- and that the alternative tends to get overlooked and underappreciated.

Can I just say that while I was associated with some people by coincidence, I never said that I was pro-clone or pro-"old school"?

I don't want to start another war over here (now that everybody in the universe is against me!) so lets just assume that everybody hates my stinking guts. Well, I hate all of you too! ;) Just kidding!

Seriously, now I've always been anti-clone from the beginning.

For those of you that remember, didn't I eject people from my forum over it because I was tired at looking at all that cut and pasted stuff that somebody was going to sue me for? I have nothing to do with any movement.

For those of you who weren't there, you're all being a little bigoted in your assumptions. Tell them!!! Wasn't I always "Johnny Start from Scratch", right? RIGHT!?! Didn't I get pissed off at ever turn over people acting creatively lame and in some crazy way inadvertantly forced people to create these migrant forums? I tried over and over and nobody wanted to do anything and those that did wanted to clone. I couldn't even tell them how furious I was BUT I WAS. I was holding back the truth but now I could care less about "old sentiments" for people that I don't or didn't know.

I'm anti-cloner and anti-old school.

And I'm all alone in my own creativity department, sure I worked on a lot of mystery crap with Gary Gygax for a short time long ago but nothing ever came of it because he just ran out of steam, and now its just me. You don't see my name on anything except some loose work on remnant e-mags. Maybe someday I'll collaborate but for now its just me.

Don't group me in anything anymore. I'm just as close to any of you people.

Theres no secret league that contains cloners or schoolers that I'm part of.

BTW, My forum is open but its locked down with "ID checks and guard dogs" until this Orwellian "Two-Minutes Hate" for Gene Weigel sizzles down.

Quote from: Age of Fable;318348OK, but...

I've suggested a couple of things you could do with your system, to address your problems with it. There might be various problems with my ideas, but what other ideas are they competing with?

Huh? What ideas did you address, and what does it have to do with the matter at hand?

RPGPundit

Jesus Christ, T.Foster is HARD-fucking-CORE.  He's actually advocating that no books should ever be made, ever, for anything, and that everyone should just be making adventures, settings, and rules for themselves. He's like the Khmer Rouge of Old-schoolers.

I mean, its almost like a reductio ad absurdum. But really, isn't this just the ultimate expression of current Old-school sentiment? It represents everything I think is backwards and toxic about the current movement's way of thinking.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318450I mean, its almost like a reductio ad absurdum. But really, isn't this just the ultimate expression of current Old-school sentiment? It represents everything I think is backwards and toxic about the current movement's way of thinking.

No because the people who called themselves part of the OSR are making products. Many folks are interested in making new products using older edition. Which by definition excludes those who don't want to do that. Even that is not cut and dried some are not interested in making new rules supplement but are happy making adventure module.

There is a sizable group of gamers that been always playing the older editions which T Foster is a part of. A lot of them don't buy OSR stuff a lot of them do.

It not a cut and dried situation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318450Jesus Christ, T.Foster is HARD-fucking-CORE.  He's actually advocating that no books should ever be made, ever, for anything, and that everyone should just be making adventures, settings, and rules for themselves. He's like the Khmer Rouge of Old-schoolers.

Heh.  Total annihilation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318450I mean, its almost like a reductio ad absurdum. But really, isn't this just the ultimate expression of current Old-school sentiment? It represents everything I think is backwards and toxic about the current movement's way of thinking.

If they're intent on destroying themselves via self immolation, there isn't much I can do about it.  I suppose one can roast some marshmallows while watching the spectacle unfold.  :)

Rumor has it that Foster is going to publish his own clone system for people to use: a  250 page book full of blank pages.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318450Jesus Christ, T.Foster is HARD-fucking-CORE.  He's actually advocating that no books should ever be made, ever, for anything, and that everyone should just be making adventures, settings, and rules for themselves. He's like the Khmer Rouge of Old-schoolers.

I mean, its almost like a reductio ad absurdum. But really, isn't this just the ultimate expression of current Old-school sentiment? It represents everything I think is backwards and toxic about the current movement's way of thinking.

RPGPundit

Well, at least I'm helping dispel the notion that all the OSR people automatically agree with each other about everything in unthinking herd-like fashion :)

I think Lorraine Williams was a clone.

As for "retro," well... her fashion sense should give you a clue.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318450... But really, isn't this just the ultimate expression of current Old-school sentiment? It represents everything I think is backwards and toxic about the current movement's way of thinking...

:rolleyes:  Do you even try to understand posts that point out that your understanding of the OSR is deeply mistaken?

And T. Foster is one guy.  He's not the president of the OSR.  I'm sure that he would hate my house rules for OD&D.  :p

Quote from: ggroy;318456...
If they're intent on destroying themselves via self immolation, there isn't much I can do about it.  I suppose one can roast some marshmallows while watching the spectacle unfold.  :)

The OSR is 'destroying themselves via self-immolation' by making free versions of the classic games available in perpetuity, producing new modules for those games (some for free), producing great fanzines like Fight On! and Knockspell, and ... gosh ... playing the classic games regularly?

If that's self-destruction, count me in!  :joecool:

Quote from: Akrasia;318471The OSR is 'destroying themselves via self-immolation' by making free versions of the classic games available in perpetuity, producing new modules for those games (some for free), producing great fanzines like Fight On! and Knockspell, and ... gosh ... playing the classic games regularly?

If that's self-destruction, count me in!  :joecool:

Perhaps by the time the copyrights expire for the old D&D stuff, the retroclones will become the real original versions.  :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;318450Jesus Christ, T.Foster is HARD-fucking-CORE.  He's actually advocating that no books should ever be made, ever, for anything, and that everyone should just be making adventures, settings, and rules for themselves. He's like the Khmer Rouge of Old-schoolers.

I mean, its almost like a reductio ad absurdum. But really, isn't this just the ultimate expression of current Old-school sentiment? It represents everything I think is backwards and toxic about the current movement's way of thinking.

And you are like the fucking Hindenburg of bombastic messageboard rhetorics, leading to the K-T event of intelligent debate all across the motherfucking Solar System and then some. :emot-clint:

Quote from: T. FosterWell, at least I'm helping dispel the notion that all the OSR people automatically agree with each other about everything in unthinking herd-like fashion  :)

I agree completely with T. Foster on this individuality thing. Like, 100%.

Last night we sat down with our snacks and dice and index card character sheets, and as GM I had some NPCs I'd rolled up, and some random events and encounters, and based on these rolls I described what happened, and things got complicated and couldn't be resolved just by killing or using k3w1 pw0rz, and if a player said something stupid in mid-conversation with an NPC then their character said it too, and generally the players just had to think their way through things to success.

And we cracked lots of jokes and the players argued a bit.

This to me is "old school."

I don't know what the fuck the rest of you are talking about. What is the "right" clone? Whether we should use modules or come up with our adventures? There's a "gateway to the Old School Revolution" you have to pass through? Khmer Rouge? What the fuck?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318487Khmer Rouge? What the fuck?

common mistake, he meant Khmer Rogue

Great. Khmer Rouge? I happen to spend 1/2 the year in Cambodia, and that's no more funny or witty a statement than accusing a gamer of being a Nazi.

Y'know Pundit, if you really want to draw a comparison between a gaming cabal you don't like and a real world bunch of self-important pricks...try the Freemasons.

Quote from: Kellri;318495Y'know Pundit, if you really want to draw a comparison between a gaming cabal you don't like and a real world bunch of self-important pricks...try the Freemasons.

But all the Freemasons I know are tired old men with strange rituals and delusions of relevancy.  How could that possibly apply to this situation?

Quote from: mhensley;318489common mistake, he meant Khmer Rogue

Aren't those in the upcoming Martial Power II?

Quote from: StormBringer;318502Aren't those in the upcoming Martial Power II?

Yep. And they're gonna have k3w1 pwn'g p0w3rz or something.

Quote from: mrk;318413Jesus H Christ Foster, what are you ranting about now??!! That people shouldn't go buy other peoples modules or gaming material?  That's like saying a writer shouldn't go buy another author's book or a guitarist shouldn't pick up another musicians record.

I believe it's more along the lines of sitting in on a jam session is better then buying an mp3.

That doesn't really strike me as such a crazy notion.

The thing is though that if you use someone else's adventure, it's always going to play differently to someone else with the same book, because every group is different.

So, writing your own modules vs using someone else's is not like a jam session vs an mp3, but more like composing your own music out of nothing vs getting the music sheets and using them as the basis for your own composition.

Not such an extreme difference as you make out.

Quote from: Kellri;318495Great. Khmer Rouge? I happen to spend 1/2 the year in Cambodia, and that's no more funny or witty a statement than accusing a gamer of being a Nazi.

The comparison here is in the rabid anti-progress vibe, extended to the point where nothing at all is seen as acceptable, like the mere fact of wearing glasses making one an "intellectual"; the Maoist urge to think that to create the pure utopia you have to destroy absolutely everything that has come before to start again from the very foundation, only nothing new can be produced that won't be questionable from the point of view of acceptable "purity".

QuoteY'know Pundit, if you really want to draw a comparison between a gaming cabal you don't like and a real world bunch of self-important pricks...try the Freemasons.

Even the Freemasons do innovate you know.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrients;318496But all the Freemasons I know are tired old men with strange rituals and delusions of relevancy.  How could that possibly apply to this situation?

Ouch, brother.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318528So, writing your own modules vs using someone else's is not like a jam session vs an mp3, but more like composing your own music out of nothing vs getting the music sheets and using them as the basis for your own composition.

I don't really think that's the right analogy, though: for me, it's more like composing your own song versus covering someone else's.

You can speed up the tempo or change the arrangement from a band to a solo guitar, but it's still someone else's tune.

Quote from: The Shaman;318538I don't really think that's the right analogy, though: for me, it's more like composing your own song versus covering someone else's.

You can speed up the tempo or change the arrangement from a band to a solo guitar, but it's still someone else's tune.

Depends on what sort of adventure you're talking about. If it's adventure as a pre-written plotline for PCs to follow, then I'd agree with you. If it's adventure as a setting, opponents, and some hooks, then it's more like being presented with some instruments and a few basic chords, and taking it from there.

Quote from: Haffrung;318542Depends on what sort of adventure you're talking about. If it's adventure as a pre-written plotline for PCs to follow, then I'd agree with you. If it's adventure as a setting, opponents, and some hooks, then it's more like being presented with some instruments and a few basic chords, and taking it from there.

Perhaps, but I'm more inclined to think of the rules as the "basic chords."

I need to sleep now.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318449Huh? What ideas did you address, and what does it have to do with the matter at hand?

RPGPundit

Well, you're obviously disappointed with the sales of/interest in Forward to Adventure. I've suggested a couple of things you could do (as it's 'rogue-like', adapt it to a HeroQuest style game; convert the setting and/or dungeon generation tables it to a retro-clone system). You've dismissed both these ideas. No doubt there are obstacles to both these ideas, but I suggest that they're a better basis to proceed from than bemoaning your fate on the internet.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318534Ouch, brother.

Oh, come on!  Where's your sense of humor?

Quote from: jrients;318564Oh, come on!  Where's your sense of humor?

I'm wonderin' if there's a masonic ring on him... ;)

Seriously, tho', just too much coming out to try it all these days. And far too little money.

Quote from: Haffrung;318542Depends on what sort of adventure you're talking about. If it's adventure as a pre-written plotline for PCs to follow, then I'd agree with you. If it's adventure as a setting, opponents, and some hooks, then it's more like being presented with some instruments and a few basic chords, and taking it from there.

Yeah, but are there any like that published these days that are any good?  You're more likely to see adventure paths, which to me seem like railroading, or WOTC adventures, which are a series of tactical encounters.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;318568Yeah, but are there any like that published these days that are any good?  You're more likely to see adventure paths, which to me seem like railroading, or WOTC adventures, which are a series of tactical encounters.

I haven't seen one adventure path come out of the OSR. Someone will quickly remind me if I've overlooked something, I'm sure.

Quote from: The Shaman;318521I believe it's more along the lines of sitting in on a jam session is better then buying an mp3.

That doesn't really strike me as such a crazy notion.

Yeah it is a bit crazy. You pay to go see a concert or a movie or comic, then what's the problem with a game book or a module? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into T.Fosters  views of D&D socialism.

Quote from: mrk;318405[snip] editing out my posts because  [snip] hypocritical, [snip] hint and go [snip] bastard.  

Well, this just doesn't make sense ... :) Obviously, I win.

EDIT: If your substantive posts got deleted in the process of banning you, that wasn't the intention - but I think they weren't deleted, because I seem to recall going in to edit out the "you're fat" attacks after I'd already banned you.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;318568Yeah, but are there any like that published these days that are any good?  You're more likely to see adventure paths, which to me seem like railroading, or WOTC adventures, which are a series of tactical encounters.

More likely to see such fare where exactly?  It ain't at any of the old school dives I hang out at.  I can smell an adventure path from a mile away.  I don't mind people thinking the OSR stinks, but it's not that particular odor.

Quote from: Mythmere;318597Well, this just doesn't make sense ... :) Obviously, I win.

Wow, what a complete, delusional, piece of shit you are. You ' Win" because you now can do whatever you want at that forum.

Folks, anyone  who's interested in going to K&K, you need to know this  ASSHOLE will edit your posts and banish you  even if your sticking up for yourself after some shitheel friend of his insults you. That's why I post here at therpgsite where we all know it's a level playing board and don't have to worry (too much) that RPGPundit is going to kick you out because you called someone such as Mythmere a FUCKHEAD or you think his stupid fucking little D&D clone isn't worth the price of a sheet of toiletpaper or the time to download the  PDF and toss it in the garbage bin on your desktop.

So that's what your going to get over at the Shithouse; AKA  Kunts & Kocksuckers, now run by the biggest one of them all.

Okay, this is starting to get really entertaining. Go on, please. :)

This is getting fun. :)

Quote from: mrk;318596You pay to go see a concert or a movie or comic, then what's the problem with a game book or a module?

Perhaps because I don't expect anything like the same experience from a movie or concert as I do a roleplaying game.

You're comparing fish and bicycles here.

this thread is a perfect example of why i no longer bother to post here much.

Quote from: mrk;318614*snip*

It's becoming easier and easier to see who the cocksucking cunt is in this exchange.

The only way that hole's gonna stop getting deeper is if you quit digging, mrk.

Quote from: kregmosier;318624this thread is a perfect example of why i no longer bother to post here much.

Then don't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318533The comparison here is in the rabid anti-progress vibe, extended to the point where nothing at all is seen as acceptable, like the mere fact of wearing glasses making one an "intellectual"; the Maoist urge to think that to create the pure utopia you have to destroy absolutely everything that has come before to start again from the very foundation, only nothing new can be produced that won't be questionable from the point of view of acceptable "purity".

The reason this position seems unreasonably extreme is because, of course, you're taking it to an unreasonable extreme and turning it into a strawman. Yeah, I think D&D went off the rails sometime around 1983, and the rpg industry as a whole sometime around 1990, and I think that while the 3E/d20 movement was in some sense corrective, that it was ultimately flawed by attempting to build upon, rather than repudiate, the bad stuff that had come before, and thus ultimately fell into a lot of the same traps (surfeit of splatbooks, overemphasis on metaplot and "canon," products aimed at readers and collectors rather than players, etc.). I think the best way to move the hobby forward is to make a clean break with the bad elements (what I consider the bad elements; obviously other people will have different opinions but I'm talking about my own preferences here), re-establish a "before the fall" baseline, and develop anew from there along the route not taken the first time around. The post-83 and post-90 material is still there as a negative example -- what not to do. This doesn't mean "progress" is impossible or all change is bad, it just means certain kinds of progress and change -- those that replicate the road the game/industry went down before that proved (at least IMO) to be aesthetic and commercial dead ends -- are looked down upon.

Likewise, I do think fewer books is generally better for rpgs, but that doesn't mean I think zero books is the ideal. I think an appropriate amount of books is a compact ruleset (ideally a boxed set of 2 or 3 books, or a single hardback, running no more than about 150 pp, that is complete and self-sufficient and theoretically all you'd ever need for an entire campaign) plus perhaps an open-ended adventure/setting or two to serve as an example and jumping-off point (the kind of product that has elements that can be used as-is with minimal prep, but also has openings for further individual expansion -- Griffin Mountain for RQ is my ideal example), a couple "toolbox" type accessories with lots of random tables and idea-nuggets that both take some of the prep-burden off the GM and also spur his imagination and help him create stuff (a la Midkemia Press' Cities and kellri's Old School Encounters netbook), and maybe a book or two of optional/advanced rules to add onto the baseline for people want more detail in a particular area (like the various Classic Traveller "Books": Mercenary, High Guard, etc.). And beyond that, rather than feeding players and GMs a endless stream of predigested modules, settings, and rules expansions, encourage them to create their own stuff. Have a website where GMs and players can share ideas and discuss the game with each other, encourage people to get together at conventions to play and explore how other groups are doing things, and so on.

As some groups come up with really good and innovative new rules and settings that stuff gets distributed and adopted (just like how in the 90s I had a whole collection of RQ house-rules gathered from various other folks' house-rules and modified to fit my tastes -- a set of alternate sorcery rules originally by Sandy Petersen, the personality traits and passions system lifted and modified from Pendragon, an alternate system for crits and special maneuvers originally by Steve Perrin, some alternate char-gen stuff by I-forget-who, etc.) and if it's really popular perhaps it gets published as a supplement (so fans who don't keep up with the online community can see it), and if it's both popular and too much different from the baseline perhaps it gets published as a separate game (because, I suppose it merits saying, I don't envision everybody playing the same game, but rather many different games all following more-or-less this same pattern -- various flavors of fantasy and horror and superheroes and sf, historical games, modern games, games with simple rules for beginners or casual players vs. games with complex rules for experienced and hardcore fans, games with more tactical emphasis and games with more story emphasis, and so on).

This seems like an extreme position now, because it's so at odds with how things have been done in the rpg industry for the past 2 decades, but really it's not much different from how things were done in the 2 decades before that, only with the internet communication is a lot easier and there's less need for centralization through magazines and fanzines and whatnot -- all that stuff can now be done informally, and much more quickly and efficiently.

T. Foster, you are like Jack the Ripper, except instead of murdering lots of people you make lots of reasonable arguments.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;318568Yeah, but are there any like that published these days that are any good?  You're more likely to see adventure paths, which to me seem like railroading, or WOTC adventures, which are a series of tactical encounters.

You haven't played through an adventure path, have you?

Boot Hill 2e is one of my favorite roleplaying games. The actual rules run eighteen pages, and the game comes with a big map, with a town on one side and a county on the other. The genre requires minimal introduction. Minis (http://www.besttoysoldiers.com/acatalog/WildWestVillage.jpg) are cheap and easy to find. Adventure ideas fill shelves in libraries and video rental stores.

Gaming is only as complicated as you choose to make it.

Quote from: Age of Fable;318562Well, you're obviously disappointed with the sales of/interest in Forward to Adventure. I've suggested a couple of things you could do (as it's 'rogue-like', adapt it to a HeroQuest style game; convert the setting and/or dungeon generation tables it to a retro-clone system). You've dismissed both these ideas. No doubt there are obstacles to both these ideas, but I suggest that they're a better basis to proceed from than bemoaning your fate on the internet.

I'm not bemoaning anything. FtA! has sold reasonably well. I'm bemoaning all the way to the bank.

This is about ideology, and the failure of vision of the OSR, not about my particular game.

I mean shit, have you ever had someone come from another country just to get a chance to play YOUR game, fucker? Have any of the retro clone authors?

Paint this however you fucking like, but the issue here is the question of whether Old-school turns into an incestuous little circle jerk of old losers obsessing over just how far back in time they can set the prohibition-bar of what they won't allow into their little hissy-fit of a revolt against the tides of change; or if it becomes a major driving force for the FUTURE development of the hobby.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318644I mean shit, have you ever had someone come from another country just to get a chance to play YOUR game, fucker? Have any of the retro clone authors?

Last weekend.

Why do you ask?

Quote from: mrk;318614That's why I post here at therpgsite where we all know it's a level playing board and don't have to worry (too much) that RPGPundit is going to kick you out because you called someone such as Mythmere a FUCKHEAD or you think his stupid fucking little D&D clone isn't worth the price of a sheet of toiletpaper or the time to download the  PDF and toss it in the garbage bin on your desktop.

Mythmere? I won't kick you out for calling ME a fuckhead.
But shit, its the quality of an insular philosophy that it cannot tolerate free debate or questioning of its values. OSR is a lot like the RPG.net Hipsters in that sense, they're engaging in a shared delusion, and their primary concern isn't reality or the future, its just making sure no one pops their little shared-reality-bubble.

Just like the RPG.net-hipster swine have this reality bubble where, in there, White Wolf's story-based gaming never went out of style, D20 was a flop and Exalted is the most popular and important RPG ever; in the OSR reality-bubble anything produced after about 1979 is tainted and useless and the only true pure gaming is a very particular way of playing very particular games created before that date, and everyone knows that there is NOTHING of value and NOTHING to be learned from anything else, and that these particular games and the particular way of playing them is SO PERFECT that nothing new need ever be made, one should only re-create the same games and material over and over again.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318646Just like the RPG.net-hipster swine have this reality bubble where, in there, White Wolf's story-based gaming never went out of style, D20 was a flop and Exalted is the most popular and important RPG ever; in the OSR reality-bubble anything produced after about 1979 is tainted and useless and the only true pure gaming is a very particular way of playing very particular games created before that date, and everyone knows that there is NOTHING of value and NOTHING to be learned from anything else, and that these particular games and the particular way of playing them is SO PERFECT that nothing new need ever be made, one should only re-create the same games and material over and over again.

Sounds fascinating. You do realize you're talking out your ass, right?

Quote from: T. Foster;318627The reason this position seems unreasonably extreme is because, of course, you're taking it to an unreasonable extreme and turning it into a strawman. Yeah, I think D&D went off the rails sometime around 1983, and the rpg industry as a whole sometime around 1990, and I think that while the 3E/d20 movement was in some sense corrective, that it was ultimately flawed by attempting to build upon, rather than repudiate, the bad stuff that had come before, and thus ultimately fell into a lot of the same traps (surfeit of splatbooks, overemphasis on metaplot and "canon," products aimed at readers and collectors rather than players, etc.). I think the best way to move the hobby forward is to make a clean break with the bad elements (what I consider the bad elements; obviously other people will have different opinions but I'm talking about my own preferences here), re-establish a "before the fall" baseline, and develop anew from there along the route not taken the first time around. The post-83 and post-90 material is still there as a negative example -- what not to do. This doesn't mean "progress" is impossible or all change is bad, it just means certain kinds of progress and change -- those that replicate the road the game/industry went down before that proved (at least IMO) to be aesthetic and commercial dead ends -- are looked down upon.

Likewise, I do think fewer books is generally better for rpgs, but that doesn't mean I think zero books is the ideal. I think an appropriate amount of books is a compact ruleset (ideally a boxed set of 2 or 3 books, or a single hardback, running no more than about 150 pp, that is complete and self-sufficient and theoretically all you'd ever need for an entire campaign) plus perhaps an open-ended adventure/setting or two to serve as an example and jumping-off point (the kind of product that has elements that can be used as-is with minimal prep, but also has openings for further individual expansion -- Griffin Mountain for RQ is my ideal example), a couple "toolbox" type accessories with lots of random tables and idea-nuggets that both take some of the prep-burden off the GM and also spur his imagination and help him create stuff (a la Midkemia Press' Cities and kellri's Old School Encounters netbook), and maybe a book or two of optional/advanced rules to add onto the baseline for people want more detail in a particular area (like the various Classic Traveller "Books": Mercenary, High Guard, etc.). And beyond that, rather than feeding players and GMs a endless stream of predigested modules, settings, and rules expansions, encourage them to create their own stuff. Have a website where GMs and players can share ideas and discuss the game with each other, encourage people to get together at conventions to play and explore how other groups are doing things, and so on.

As some groups come up with really good and innovative new rules and settings that stuff gets distributed and adopted (just like how in the 90s I had a whole collection of RQ house-rules gathered from various other folks' house-rules and modified to fit my tastes -- a set of alternate sorcery rules originally by Sandy Petersen, the personality traits and passions system lifted and modified from Pendragon, an alternate system for crits and special maneuvers originally by Steve Perrin, some alternate char-gen stuff by I-forget-who, etc.) and if it's really popular perhaps it gets published as a supplement (so fans who don't keep up with the online community can see it), and if it's both popular and too much different from the baseline perhaps it gets published as a separate game (because, I suppose it merits saying, I don't envision everybody playing the same game, but rather many different games all following more-or-less this same pattern -- various flavors of fantasy and horror and superheroes and sf, historical games, modern games, games with simple rules for beginners or casual players vs. games with complex rules for experienced and hardcore fans, games with more tactical emphasis and games with more story emphasis, and so on).

This seems like an extreme position now, because it's so at odds with how things have been done in the rpg industry for the past 2 decades, but really it's not much different from how things were done in the 2 decades before that, only with the internet communication is a lot easier and there's less need for centralization through magazines and fanzines and whatnot -- all that stuff can now be done informally, and much more quickly and efficiently.

So basically, you are absolutely unwilling to deny that there was any genius in game design at all after about 1990, it was all bad, its not that there were a great number of assholes out there and also some fantastic stuff being made?
That, and you are determined to believe in a model that would RUIN the industry and immediately reduce the entire hobby to a tiny group of very old men playing very old games?

That's the big plan behind your "renaissance"?

You stupid fucking cunt. You're worse than the Forgers.
The Forge-swine want to utterly destroy gaming too, but at least they want to replace it with something, however vile. You, on the other hand, just want the hobby to die on your terms, in a way that makes sure you get what you want and after that, nothing matters. What you want is just a long geriatric-care assisted-suicide, a slow drip of death juice to ease you and your buddies out of this world, and a nihilistic "who gives a fuck?" as to what happens after you're gone, aprez-vous le deluge.

And people wonder why I don't buy into this movement.

RPGPundit

Now you are just making shit up, Pundit. Reality bubble indeed.

Gee, in para one Pundy is spot the hell on.

Between that and Gnomemurdered, it ALMOST looks as though the old Pundit's back.

EDIT: I mean paragraph one of post 385. 387 is funny too, though.

Quote from: JimLotFP;318648Sounds fascinating. You do realize you're talking out your ass, right?

It seems to me you've recognized the problem yourself.

http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-osr-needs.html

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;318653It seems to me you've recognized the problem yourself.

http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-osr-needs.html

A lack of internal criticism is indeed a problem (I've hardly ever thought the OSR was perfect), but that's a completely different thing than what Pundit is charging us with, as a group.

Quote from: JimLotFP;318648Sounds fascinating. You do realize you're talking out your ass, right?

Really? You yourself just recognized on your blog that the Old-school movement is failing utterly at being sufficiently critical of itself.  That's part of the reality-bubble right there. No one questions whether what's being done is actually of any use or purpose, as long as it fits the parameters of what the hardcore old-schoolers define as "authentic".

BTW, if you want decent reviews of Old-School works, you'd have to send them my way. Its very telling that not one Old-schooler has ever dared send a product for Pundit review (though I've certainly reviewed old-school games aplenty, just not ones from your particular movement).

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318649And people wonder why I don't buy into this movement.

RPGPundit

Also, you do realize that T. Foster's opinions are not mirrored by the wide variety of people participating to the OSR and their own tastes in gaming, right?

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;318651Gee, in para one Pundy is spot the hell on.

Between that and Gnomemurdered, it ALMOST looks as though the old Pundit's back.

EDIT: I mean paragraph one of post 385. 387 is funny too, though.

I've never been gone, dude, I was just too damn good at beating the shit out of my opponents. None of the Swine dare to take me on anymore these days.

RPGpundit

Quote from: JimLotFP;318654A lack of internal criticism is indeed a problem (I've hardly ever thought the OSR was perfect), but that's a completely different thing than what Pundit is charging us with, as a group.

No, its a symptom of exactly the same problem.

RPGPundit

A cult-like groupthink?

Quote from: Benoist;318657Also, you do realize that T. Foster's opinions are not mirrored by the wide variety of people participating to the OSR and their own tastes in gaming, right?

That bullshit argument is wearing thin for overuse, crackerjack.

It's not as if the "OSR" people are all incommensurable snowflakes, with no generalization possible whatever. There are four or five identifiable positions, not an infinite number of them.

The snowflake argument is

a) contradictory: for either there are only snowflakes, hence there is no coherent OSR in any meaningful sense, or vice versa;

b) a turtling strategy of people who can't face criticism;

c) a misguidedly protective gesture of solidarity by people who can.

Quote from: Benoist;318657Also, you do realize that T. Foster's opinions are not mirrored by the wide variety of people participating to the OSR and their own tastes in gaming, right?

His opinion is tolerated, agreed with by many, and tacitly encouraged. I have not seen even ONE single old-schooler, here or anywhere else, actually stand up and criticize him or the people like him with these kinds of retrograde OSR-as-hobby-euthanasia mentalities.

The closest is jim, who pointed out that there is a lack of criticism.

Old school is failing to define itself effectively as anything other than its own fanatics' definitions. Because by refusing to actually stand up and say "no, I really don't think we should be all about wiping out our hobby and then talking about goblins until we die of old age", you are tacitly telling the world that this is in fact A-OK with you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318649That's the big plan behind your "renaissance"?

Emphasis mine.  You've missed a critical point here, I think.  This isn't T. Foster's movement to direct.  Nor mine.  Nor anyone else's.  To the extant that we have our own version of Ron Edwards, he's dead.  It's a completely decentralized non-organization.  Joethelawyer likes the spirit but not the games?  He ought to write a game that fits the spirit but better fits his idea of good rules.  Some folks might not consider it "old school" but who gives a fuck?  I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who think some of my favorite stuff falls outside their own personal definition of "old school".  So what?  Hell, I consider your game a viable part of the OSR even though you won't touch us with a 10 foot pole.

The problem with this discussion isn't criticism. The problem is criticism that has to rely on strawman arguments.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318666His opinion is tolerated, agreed with by many, and tacitly encouraged. I have not seen even ONE single old-schooler, here or anywhere else, actually stand up and criticize him or the people like him with these kinds of retrograde OSR-as-hobby-euthanasia mentalities.

May I be this guy? Because I disagree that there'd be a choice between exchanging ideas with other DMs on message boards and publishing game products like he seems to believe. I think that all ideas have a right to be published and shared. The customers make their choice afterwards. That's the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned. A product sucks? Don't buy it. People don't buy it? It bombs. End of story.

I support the OSR and many of things that are published under its umbrella. That doesn't mean I agree with everything T. Foster says. That's completely, utterly ridiculous. If half the guys who like and participate to the OSR on this thread agreed with him, there wouldn't be any Fight On! or Knockspell. Have you actually read these magazines? You need to.

What about First Edition products published by Pied Piper Publishing, some of which Eric Shook authored? Because under my definition of the OSR, Eric Shook is part of it, too.

You get people with different opinions and sensibilities posting here, and saying as much. And yet, you discard their opinions completely to go on with this idea that "Old School" means some type of scientology crap out there.

The freemason analogy was completely spot on. If you really are what you say you are, you of all people should know how labels from outsiders can be misleading.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318655Really? You yourself just recognized on your blog that the Old-school movement is failing utterly at being sufficiently critical of itself.  That's part of the reality-bubble right there. No one questions whether what's being done is actually of any use or purpose, as long as it fits the parameters of what the hardcore old-schoolers define as "authentic".

I don't think that last clause is true at all.

And the "yay, you did something, three cheers!" attitude is still a far cry from being "determined to believe in a model that would RUIN the industry and immediately reduce the entire hobby to a tiny group of very old men playing very old games."

I can't believe you think this OSR is some sort of coherent thing. This so-called monolithic group-thinking entity that can't even agree on whether the clones are worth anything with the original book available on Ebay, can't agree whether selling new product is a good idea or not, can't agree if AC should go up or down or if we should call ourselves "Old School" or "neoclassical", can't agree on whether Gold for XP is a good idea or if OD&D or Basic or 1e is the best version, can't agree if adult material should be published within the scene, can't agree about whether the industry has any relevance to us or not, can't agree whether can't agree on barely anything except one thing:

The old games are not broken and there is no reason to cast something aside because it's been around awhile. I think we can agree that the hobby would be better off if these types of games were the standard instead of the shit they've been shoveling.

They're worth playing and there's no reason they can't be popular. They didn't die off naturally. They were killed by neglect and incompetence.

But you come along and shove a pointy stick in the one thing we seem to be able to agree on, and take the response as evidence that we're all in lockstep with no ability to see past the ends of our own noses.

Also: I hereby declare that "I really don't think we should be all about wiping out our hobby and then talking about goblins until we die of old age".

There. I also promise not to maintain a secret agreement with Ron Edwards to undermine roleplaying, nor to join anonymous attack squads beating up people who dare to use 10-sided diced instead of (uninked) 20-siders numbered 0-9 twice. Finally, no "caller" or "Weapon vs. AC table" whatsoever.

Funny, we always used Weapon vs. AC.

Not weapon speed, though, that was obviously for perverts.

You got a PROBLEM with that??@//??!

Quote from: RPGPundit;318655Really? You yourself just recognized on your blog that the Old-school movement is failing utterly at being sufficiently critical of itself.  That's part of the reality-bubble right there. No one questions whether what's being done is actually of any use or purpose, as long as it fits the parameters of what the hardcore old-schoolers define as "authentic".

That's the nature of these sorts of movements. They sacrifice critical appraisal in exchange for the solidarity of a support group. And in the absence of critical appraisal, you encourage lots of timid types who may not otherwise submit work, but your movement is unlikely to yield anything of originality or really high quality.

Pierce: I believe the phrase you are looking for is "Strebertum bordering on pathology". ;)

Quote from: Melan;318668The problem with this discussion isn't criticism. The problem is criticism that has to rely on strawman arguments.

100% agreed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318649So basically, you are absolutely unwilling to deny that there was any genius in game design at all after about 1990, it was all bad, its not that there were a great number of assholes out there and also some fantastic stuff being made?

Sure there was good rpg stuff released after 1990 (when was Amber released? 1991?), but increasingly it was a smaller and smaller percentage of what was being released and seemed more and more out of step with the "mainstream," until eventually I decided it was more trouble to sift through all the stuff I didn't like looking for things I might. Whereas before 1990 it seemed like about 80% of rpgs had at least something in them that appealed to me, after 1990 it was maybe 40%, then 20%, then 10%, then I stopped paying attention. The trend from about 1990 on was in a direction I didn't like.

QuoteThat, and you are determined to believe in a model that would RUIN the industry and immediately reduce the entire hobby to a tiny group of very old men playing very old games?

The way it looks to me the industry has already been ruined and the entire hobby is already pretty much a tiny group of very old men playing some new and some old games. Back in the 80s, rpgs were actually popular and actually played by young people (I was one of them). That pretty much fell off a cliff in the 90s. There was a brief resurgence in the early 00s but it was made up mostly of the same people from the 80s re-engaging with the game rather than actual new players, and it didn't last. Tabletop rpgs are likely in a terminal death-spiral as a commercial industry, and their future (to the extent there is one at all) is as a niche semi-amateur hobby, like model railroading. Recognizing that, and reorienting the hobby in that direction, rather than pretending it's still 1993 and that selling a full-color-interior hardback book a week to the ever-shrinking hardcore fanbase is a viable way to make a living, seems like a prudent idea to me.

Quote from: jrients;318667Emphasis mine.  You've missed a critical point here, I think.  This isn't T. Foster's movement to direct.  Nor mine.  Nor anyone else's.  To the extant that we have our own version of Ron Edwards, he's dead.  It's a completely decentralized non-organization.  Joethelawyer likes the spirit but not the games?  He ought to write a game that fits the spirit but better fits his idea of good rules.  Some folks might not consider it "old school" but who gives a fuck?  I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who think some of my favorite stuff falls outside their own personal definition of "old school".  So what?  Hell, I consider your game a viable part of the OSR even though you won't touch us with a 10 foot pole.

I think that's where you've got it backwards, Jeff. I do consider my game old-school. Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978.

The day a movement or a branch within the OSR (we could call it the "Old School Enlightenment", as in "age of enlightenment" when people actually sought to actively create progress not just relive the old) actually comes to exist that believes in taking all that was great about regular and traditional games and using those to create a NEW wave of games; a Reformation of the hobby, rather than just a nostalgia-trip, then I'm on board.

But you guys? Right now? You aren't that.

RPGPundit

For the record? I do consider FtA! Old School.

Quote from: Benoist;318669May I be this guy? Because I disagree that there'd be a choice between exchanging ideas with other DMs on message boards and publishing game products like he seems to believe. I think that all ideas have a right to be published and shared. The customers make their choice afterwards. That's the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned. A product sucks? Don't buy it. People don't buy it? It bombs. End of story.

I support the OSR and many of things that are published under its umbrella. That doesn't mean I agree with everything T. Foster says. That's completely, utterly ridiculous. If half the guys who like and participate to the OSR on this thread agreed with him, there wouldn't be any Fight On! or Knockspell. Have you actually read these magazines? You need to.

I read one issue of one magazine of those; it failed to impress me. It was just nostalgia, rehashing the old.

QuoteWhat about First Edition products published by Pied Piper Publishing, some of which Eric Shook authored? Because under my definition of the OSR, Eric Shook is part of it, too.

No, I haven't, by First Edition I assume you mean 1e AD&D? In which case, how is that not just nostalgia too?

Show me something, generally considered by people to be part of the OSR, which is actually an INNOVATION; ie. an old-school game that isn't just a clone or a direct reference to something invented 35 years ago.

QuoteYou get people with different opinions and sensibilities posting here, and saying as much. And yet, you discard their opinions completely to go on with this idea that "Old School" means some type of scientology crap out there.

When the "varying degrees of opinion" amount to there being one group of people that think variable weapon damage is acceptable, and the other think you need to have all D6 damage all the time, I don't end up being very impressed.

Come on, fucker, impress me. Say something that makes me feel that you or someone in the inner-circle of the OSR actually wants to do something other than wank off to his old white booklet and dream of a past that never actually existed that way?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318683I think that's where you've got it backwards, Jeff. I do consider my game old-school. Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978.

Or maybe we don't play your game because it's crap and we're all too timid to say that out loud.  I dunno.  Somehow we're managing to be insufficiently critical while having a mad hate-on for your game.

Quote from: JimLotFP;318671I can't believe you think this OSR is some sort of coherent thing. This so-called monolithic group-thinking entity that can't even agree on whether the clones are worth anything with the original book available on Ebay, can't agree whether selling new product is a good idea or not, can't agree if AC should go up or down or if we should call ourselves "Old School" or "neoclassical", can't agree on whether Gold for XP is a good idea or if OD&D or Basic or 1e is the best version, can't agree if adult material should be published within the scene, can't agree about whether the industry has any relevance to us or not, can't agree whether can't agree on barely anything except one thing:

The old games are not broken and there is no reason to cast something aside because it's been around awhile. I think we can agree that the hobby would be better off if these types of games were the standard instead of the shit they've been shoveling.

If that were true, then you wouldn't be a movement, sure; you also wouldn't be a "renaissance": You'd be a four-line statement somewhere.
But you ARE a movement. There are probably more old-school forums, blogs and such than there are Forge/storygames forums, blogs and such these days. You have entire forums with thousands of posts dedicated to the effort to DEFINE yourselves.

The fact that "we haven't managed to do so effectively yet" is not a valid argument for claiming that you're not a movement.  It just means that you're still in that stage of definitions. And it means that what you guys are doing could go in one direction, or it could go in another direction. The problem is that the directions I see you guys going in right now are between reactionary-dinosaurs and ultra-reactionary-dinosaurs. When the debate is between producing clones or just playing right out of the old booklets, that's not a wide berth of choice. There is NO ONE I've seen in your movement advocating for actual innovation. You all seem determined to say "we must live in the past", and the debate is about how far back in the past to live and how hardcore to be about it; rather than there being anyone saying "we must take what is awesome about the past and make NEW, DIFFERENT stuff with it" (and no, clones or rip-off games or modules for out-of-print games is not new, or different).

QuoteThey're worth playing and there's no reason they can't be popular. They didn't die off naturally. They were killed by neglect and incompetence.

But you come along and shove a pointy stick in the one thing we seem to be able to agree on, and take the response as evidence that we're all in lockstep with no ability to see past the ends of our own noses.

Ah, but see... here's where things get curious. If that's your mission statement, I NO WHERE poked any pointy stick at it. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that old games are not broken, and that the hobby would be better off if games like Basic/Expert D&D were still the standard.  In fact, I've made a career out of saying that.

So in fact, that can't be what's scaring you. Its something else. Which means that the "simplicity" of your manifesto isn't that simple at all. Its not just that romantic little phrase you summed up there, its also based on a principle of excluding the new.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318683I think that's where you've got it backwards, Jeff. I do consider my game old-school. Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978.

Traveller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveller_%28role-playing_game%29) is a series of related science fiction role-playing games, the first published in 1977 by Game Designers' Workshop and subsequent editions by various companies remaining in print to this day. The current edition is produced by Mongoose Publishing.

The oldest of the old school games:  rock paper scissors.  ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;318690rather than there being anyone saying "we must take what is awesome about the past and make NEW, DIFFERENT stuff with it" (and no, clones or rip-off games or modules for out-of-print games is not new, or different).

We must take what is awesome about the past and make NEW, DIFFERENT stuff with it.  I agree with this in its entirety.  I consider the "clone-mania" that swept the OSR publishers as a transitional phase that is almost entirely over at this point.  Someone might do a 2nd edition clone.  Maybe.

But the idea that something new and different is impossible within the context of a module for an out-of-print game is entirely preposterous.

Quote from: ggroy;318692The oldest of the old school games:  rock paper scissors.  ;)

No. That's a heap of dirty filthy lies.

The oldest of old school games was Troll Game (http://mystara.fr/kroc/us/ugly_kroc_us.jpg).

Quote from: jrients;318688Or maybe we don't play your game because it's crap and we're all too timid to say that out loud.  I dunno.  Somehow we're managing to be insufficiently critical while having a mad hate-on for your game.

Its because you're thinking like revolutionaries, the same way the Forge does: first you define what is "In" the movement, and what is "out". Then you declare that ANYTHING "in" the movement is good, and anything out of the movement is bad.

Because FtA! is not a clone or even directly based a specific old game, it was "out", and is therefore bad.  And FtA! is by far not the only one. You have Wayfarers, Epic, and tons of others; actual NEW games with old-school style, that none of you give a fuck about because you're too busy making up monster lists for brown-box D&D and debating the crucial issue of whether its permissible for AC to scale up or only down, and what should be done to someone who dares to use THAC0 instead of the attack matrix table.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;318691Traveller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveller_%28role-playing_game%29) is a series of related science fiction role-playing games, the first published in 1977 by Game Designers' Workshop and subsequent editions by various companies remaining in print to this day. The current edition is produced by Mongoose Publishing.

Ah, but Traveller is allowed to have skills BECAUSE its old. If I made a Traveller-clone, I would be allowed to have skills in my game too. But because my game is a fantasy game, it ought to be a D&D-clone, and in D&D skills are NOT allowed, or the Nostalgia Fairies will all die and no one will get their Magic Pixie Dust of Ignoring The Last Three Fucking Decades anymore.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318683I think that's where you've got it backwards, Jeff. I do consider my game old-school. Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978.

I am not touching your game because I don't see it relevant or novel for my purposes. I really like the idea of selling it on South American newsstands, and if you do that, you deserve every bit of monetary or creative success you get for it. I hope that project is going along and you will break through with it as soon as possible, encouraging a lot of young people to join the hobby. However, as it is now, it is one neat system among several neat systems. Mazes&Minotaurs. Encounter Critical. Zenobia. Barbarians of Lemuria. ZEFRS (granted, a simulacrum game, but one I never played the original of). I get from the reviews it's good. So are a lot of things - I, for example, am running two campaigns with my own system - coincidentally, one that's old-school in concept but light d20 in mechanics (including skills!) - producing supplements and building a community. I don't particularly need your system because I am happy with what I've got, and don't see FtA as such a leap of innovation. Maybe as an incremental one. But if it's really valuable, it is valuable as FtA the Affordable South American Newsstand Game.

$0.02.

Quote from: jrients;318693We must take what is awesome about the past and make NEW, DIFFERENT stuff with it.  I agree with this in its entirety.  I consider the "clone-mania" that swept the OSR publishers as a transitional phase that is almost entirely over at this point.  Someone might do a 2nd edition clone.  Maybe.

But the idea that something new and different is impossible within the context of a module for an out-of-print game is entirely preposterous.

Well, I look forward to seeing it. Show me a set of rules, a setting, or even an adventure campaign that is NEW, not just derivative, and of appeal to someone who would not usually go to the K&K Alehouse, and I'll be glad to jump aboard.

So far, nothing of the sort has come to pass.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318690that the hobby would be better off if games like Basic/Expert D&D were still the standard.  In fact, I've made a career out of saying that.

Then why do you have your panties in a wad about people actually holding up Basic/Expert D&D and saying, "Play this! It rules!"?

If it's there and it's good, why the need for NEW and DIFFERENT games entirely?

Why should I make my own distinct game or care about FTA! or Wanderer or whatever that is the "same spirit" when what I've got is well and good enough?

If I want new and different, I'll actually go to a Forge game because those are different, and not just a different way to scratch the same itch that I've already got well-scratched.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318700Well, I look forward to seeing it. Show me a set of rules, a setting, or even an adventure campaign that is NEW, not just derivative, and of appeal to someone who would not usually go to the K&K Alehouse, and I'll be glad to jump aboard.

So far, nothing of the sort has come to pass.

RPGPundit

PM me your address and I'll send you a package after my latest projects go to press (hopefully within the week).

Quote from: Melan;318699However, as it is now, it is one neat system among several neat systems. Mazes&Minotaurs. Encounter Critical. Zenobia. Barbarians of Lemuria. ZEFRS (granted, a simulacrum game, but one I never played the original of). [/B].

$0.02.

Of all the ones you listed, the only one that is both a) not a clone and b) actually an accepted part of the Old School Renaissance is Encounter Critical.

Ironically, EC is the most innovative and novel thing the OSR has ever produced, and it was meant as a practical joke, and isn't really all that playable.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318700Well, I look forward to seeing it. Show me a set of rules, a setting, or even an adventure campaign that is NEW, not just derivative, and of appeal to someone who would not usually go to the K&K Alehouse, and I'll be glad to jump aboard.

Hell, man.  I don't usually go to KKA either.  Is that what this all comes down to?  That one corner of the OSR has a higher-than-average level of rhetorical douchebaggery?  In that case, congratulation on running the mainstream version of Knights & Knaves, dude.

EDIT TO ADD: EC is completely playable.  It's just dumb.  Kinda like a Palladium book.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318700Well, I look forward to seeing it. Show me a set of rules, a setting, or even an adventure campaign that is NEW, not just derivative, and of appeal to someone who would not usually go to the K&K Alehouse, and I'll be glad to jump aboard.

So far, nothing of the sort has come to pass.

RPGPundit

Carcosa isn't obviously derivative of old D&D settings.

I've seen a Balrog and, recently, an Octopus class, both of which I thought were pretty cool ideas.

Eldritch Wizardry had several interesting and original spells.

There was a 'bard' class made for Labyrinth Lord which. Although the idea was obviously based on the AD&D bard class (the same people did a ranger and paladin at the same time), it wasn't a combination thief/fighter/wizard. I actually thought it was more like a (stereotype) 'gypsy'.

Quote from: jrients;318605More likely to see such fare where exactly?  It ain't at any of the old school dives I hang out at.  I can smell an adventure path from a mile away.  I don't mind people thinking the OSR stinks, but it's not that particular odor.

grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/08/old-school-adventure-path.html

Quote from: RPGPundit;318697Ah, but Traveller is allowed to have skills BECAUSE its old. If I made a Traveller-clone, I would be allowed to have skills in my game too. But because my game is a fantasy game, it ought to be a D&D-clone, and in D&D skills are NOT allowed, or the Nostalgia Fairies will all die and no one will get their Magic Pixie Dust of Ignoring The Last Three Fucking Decades anymore.

RPGPundit

I'm just saying that skills weren't exactly a post-'78 innovation.

On the other hand, what do skills bring to the vintage game aesthetic?  Arguably, the addition of skills to games are the mark of the decline of 'old school' style games.  You may not agree with the demarcation, but in any discussion, some kind of distinction must be made as to 'this group of characteristics' and 'not this group of characteristics' in order to have a meaningful exchange.

For myself, it's not particularly important other than a marker of vintage games.  Typically, they don't have skills, hence a game without skills has one facet of the 'old school' sensibilities.  This is due to the mechanics of skills taking the emphasis away from the players figuring something out, and onto substituting dice for interaction.  Implementing skills without a random element would be somewhat in keeping with vintage traditions, by directly comparing a skill 'rank' with a target number, high score wins.  Occasionally a randomizer could be involved, like under stressful conditions; picking a lock is more or less straightforward, but picking a lock in the middle of combat less so.

So, before I branch completely onto a different topic, push your game as 'old-school' if you want.  No one has a trademark on the term.  Talk it up on Dragonsfoot or K&KA.  Ultimately, your audience determines the category of your product.  Start your own 'middle school' revolution or something.

I mean, jeez, if you don't like the so-called OSR, stop trying to get invited to their party.

EDIT:  RuneQuest had skills in '78.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318683... I do consider my game old-school. Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978....

I own FtA! and consider it an 'old school game', and indeed, part of the OSR (although, since the OSR is very diverse, not everyone who contributes to the OSR would agree with that assessment).

This makes your hostility to the OSR -- based, as far as I can tell, on a deep misperception of what it actually is doing, and thus a willful caricature of it -- so ironic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318686I read one issue of one magazine of those; it failed to impress me. It was just nostalgia, rehashing the old...

I'd be curious to know which issue you read.  I think that a lot of new, creative material is being published in FO! and KS.

Oh, you do realize, as well, that Calithena has invited you (and anyone else who is interested) to submit FtA! material to FO!, right?

Instead of attacking the OSR by relying on ludicrous strawman arguments, why not try to contribute positively to it?  

Quote from: RPGPundit;318686...Come on, fucker, impress me...

It's not about impressing you.  Get over yourself.  The OSR is a healthy, vibrant movement that will continue to develop and grow whether you contribute to it, sit on the sidelines and bitch and moan about it, or ignore it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318703Of all the ones you listed, the only one that is both a) not a clone and b) actually an accepted part of the Old School Renaissance is Encounter Critical....

I would say that "Mazes & Minotaurs" is very much considered part of the OSR.  Possibly ZeFRS too.

Quote from: JimLotFP;318701Then why do you have your panties in a wad about people actually holding up Basic/Expert D&D and saying, "Play this! It rules!"?

If it's there and it's good, why the need for NEW and DIFFERENT games entirely?

Why should I make my own distinct game or care about FTA! or Wanderer or whatever that is the "same spirit" when what I've got is well and good enough?

If I want new and different, I'll actually go to a Forge game because those are different, and not just a different way to scratch the same itch that I've already got well-scratched.

This is you, making my point for me.

So, fundamentally you're admitting that there's no real difference between you and T.Foster except that he's not afraid of sounding like an ass (either through courage or some kind of dysfunction), whereas you are. But fundamentally, you're in agreement with him, that the future is old men playing old games till death takes them?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOf all the ones you listed, the only one that is both a) not a clone and b) actually an accepted part of the Old School Renaissance is Encounter Critical.

Incorrect.

Contrary evidence:
1) Threads discussing Mazes&Minotaurs on Dragonsfoot, with overwhelmingly positive commentary:
example one (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=36412&p=735142)
example two (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35983)
example three (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32302)
example four (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=31923)
example five (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=31689)
example six (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15501).

Threads discussing Barbarians of Lemuria, also overwhelmingly positive:
example one (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32482)
example two (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7185&p=108968)

So much for that point.

2) Here is a 2008 Knights&Knaves Alehouse thread (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4622) discussing the subject of "clone" and non-clone games. A few selected comments from regulars:

Quote from: DwayanuI don't expect my opinion to stem the tide, which does me no harm in any case.

I'd just like to see such awesome energies redirected ASAP away from doing again what has already been done (too many times, really) and toward producing "old-school" works as new -- in their creative vision and personal touch -- as the booklets and boxes that inspired me 30 years ago.

I have some regrets about my own squandering of resources in tinkering with rules rather than unleashing my imagination more on the ends to which mechanics are but a means.

Quote from: JamesEightBitStarActually I rather agree (assuming I didn't just miss the point of your post, which I very well might have). There is nothing meaningful or creative about openly aping an old style. It's better to simply do your own thing. If your own thing happens to be inspired by someone else's and some similarities show, so be it. But open, intentioned aping should never be done.

Quote from: Jerry MapesI think you have a very good point and I tend to agree. Of course I am not sure how much I am agreeing to. If in the case of so many retro-clone games, well as they say, boys will be boys and as long as someone gets an idea to do one - even if it has been done a dozen times before they of course will do it.
...
But, yes. I do agree that we are reaching a glut point, at least where it comes to D&D. Although I am sure someone will eventually do a 3.x retread after it has been OOP long enough. But in other areas, I still see openings for retreads as it were, with companies now licensing old game titles and putting out new and not so good versions then following in the wisdom that must not be faulty since it came from WOTC, they soon publish their own OGL for said retread. Which obviously opens the door for someone again to put out a better version of the old game, with new publishing possibilities for joe's like myself.

So, IMO retreads are needed - to an extent.

But when the retread is available then yes it is time to start cranking out a bunch of NEW old school material. I think we are starting to see this happen. How many OSRIC modules have hit the printer? I think there should be more, I need to get off my duff and get my old material and new material ready to be peddled around for publishing if not do it myself.

But it will take time to get more new old school material out there. Not everyone can write a module - sure they may be able to design an adventure, a damn good one - but it is a long ways between designing an adventure and getting it to a publishable condition (at least for me).

Quote from: MythmereIf we're talking about the nature of the products being too "old school," that's what people are writing, for whatever reason and for various reasons. I love you like a brother, Dway, but it doesn't do any good to exhort a particular form of creativity, nor, in particular, to exhort people into buying something. Literally the only way to move publishing in a particular direction is to publish - and then people will consider following the new direction you've opened up.

(T. Foster on A&E, arguably a new old-school system in some respects)

Quote from: T. FosterI didn't buy this because it was expensive and I knew for a fact I'd never play it, but I did give it a fairly good looking-over in the FLGS and was pretty impressed. The main thing I didn't like was that it was set in an "alternate history" Old West where (as far as I could gather) the Civil War was never fought and there was a separate USA, CSA, and Republic of Texas. I found that annoying (and borderline offensive) and if I were to play the game I would absolutely change that, and if it were so deeply ingrained into the game that I couldn't easily change it (which didn't seem to be the case) I wouldn't play. Also, the game was oddly silent on the subject of Indians/Native Americans, which seemed an odd oversight in an otherwise very detailed and encyclopedic game (my assumption was that they were saving this for a splatbook but AFAIK no such book has been released, so maybe it was just a blind-spot for the designers?).

Those are the bad points. Everything else was somewhere between interesting and awesome. The art and physical production are gorgeous -- leatherette cover like a Time-Life coffeetable book, full-color reproductions of period art (Remington, etc.) and photographs. The rules feel like something out of 1979, completely oblivious to current "fashion" in rpg design, very reminiscent of the AD&D DMG and/or Dangerous Journeys -- tons of color and detail and distinct modular"mini-game" procedures covering things like prospecting, cattle drives, and jury trials. Plus a gunfight procedure that involved using a deck of cards as a randomizer (which is a gimmick, but a fun one).

Quote from: rogatnyWhile hellbender might not have used the best example, he's certainly correct in that a game doesn't have to be a clone to do the old-school thing.

Mutant Future, Encounter Critical, and Mazes & Minotaurs are all examples that qualify in spades.

So much for the K&KA retrogrades.

These quotes are all from people I consider to be important in the old-school community. Hell, some of them are credited in my game's special thanks segment - along with multiple people currently arguing against them:

Quote from: Kard és Mágia

Special Thanks: I owe my thanks to posters on the forums of Necromancer Games, Dragonsfoot, TheRPGSite and RPG.HU, especially Sean "Calithena" Stidd, Geoffrey, rogueattorney, T. Foster, Haffrung and Pierce Inverarity. The staff of Troll Lord Games for Castles&Crusades, which I can recommend to everyone. Zsolt Kornya for debates on game theory. The late Bíborhold Magazine. Last but not least, the creators of Harc és Varázslat, the first Hungarian roleplaying game - with gratitude and thanks!

Dedicated to the memory of Pierre Menard.

(If I were to write this today - I wrote it in 2006 - I would also include Jeff Rients and Matt "Mythmere" Finch, whom I got to know since that time.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;318655BTW, if you want decent reviews of Old-School works, you'd have to send them my way. Its very telling that not one Old-schooler has ever dared send a product for Pundit review (though I've certainly reviewed old-school games aplenty, just not ones from your particular movement).

RPGPundit

We had traded emails about that earlier, but you only wanted to review a printed copy. If you'll review from a pdf, I'll send you a bunch of stuff if you're interested.

I'm with Jim (and possibly with you too, Pundit) - the greatest risk to a general rise of old-school MATERIALS is a lack of information and an unwillingness to criticize. (The rise in old school GAMING, if that's actually happening, and I don't know, is a different thing from the "products" being produced).

But I have said for a long time that the greatest problem we have is actual, fair, unbiased reviews of the resources being written. If you PM me with your email address I will start sending you things.

You too, James, if you're interested.

Matt

Quote from: RPGPundit;318644I mean shit, have you ever had someone come from another country just to get a chance to play YOUR game, fucker?

That's a pretty unjustified way to respond to someone who's tried to give you constructive criticism.

I haven't noticed any particular negativity towards FtA! on the part of 'old-school' blogs.

I suspect it just comes down to the fact that there's an over-supply of core rules, especially for fantasy games.

Hence, my ideas for making your game stand out.

The thing is that Jim actually IS an innovator. He hasn't written a game, but his Death Frost Doom adventure is brilliant. And it is that because it's original instead of giving us yet another faux-mono-covered romp through a mini-dungeon full of kewt wittle kobolds that bored me to death the first time around and of which I DO NOT WANT TO SEE A RENAISSANCE.

It's just that he's a nice guy who feels protective of the kewt wittle kobolds faction.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318709This is you, making my point for me.

So, fundamentally you're admitting that there's no real difference between you and T.Foster except that he's not afraid of sounding like an ass

This is stupid. You're acting like there's only "entirely new and different games" or "completely equal clones with no variation whatsoever".

If one likes old school games in any capacity, that means one thinks these games got something, anything right in the first place. So, if you think these games got something fundamentally right that some of the more recent designs didn't, why want to reinvent the wheel and create something "entirely new and different"? This is nonsensical.

It's not a black and white issue, the strawman argument you're trying to pull here, Pundit. It's about all the shades of grey in between, and how all the people interested in the OSR are in fact interested in different shades therein, rather than go for black because it's black, or white because it's white.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318709This is you, making my point for me.

I'm still sort of scratching my head at what your point really is. You spend too much time ranting or hinting or alluding or calling Foster a cunt. So are you saying we should be moving on to new games that emulate an old-school feel but with more "updated" mechanics?

If that is your point, then yeah, the OSR isn't for you. There is a group of people who did that, and you can find them over on the Troll Lord Games forums. As another example, look at Lejendary Adventures. That game was even written by Gary Gygax, and still it couldn't get much of an audience in the scheme of things. Why? Because the system is more important than the creator. It was yet another fantasy game out there, and it is a damn tough to sell a new fantasy game no matter who you are.

The OSR is definitely diverse in opinion but the whole thing is based on that fundamental idea that there is no need for an "updated" system. Rehashing the old systems is only the first step in making sure they are available as open game content to everyone under the OGL, and currently in print.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318709But fundamentally, you're in agreement with him, that the future is old men playing old games till death takes them?

I've had numerous under-18 players in my regular weekly games and my convention games this past weekend (26-27 hours of running games over 2 days) had a shitload of teens and early 20s players, with the youngest being a 14 year old girl.

So no, I don't agree that my approach leads to your endgame scenario there.

Quote from: JimLotFP;318716I've had numerous under-18 players in my regular weekly games and my convention games this past weekend (26-27 hours of running games over 2 days) had a shitload of teens and early 20s players, with the youngest being a 14 year old girl.

So no, I don't agree that my approach leads to your endgame scenario there.

Yeah, I don't either. There were several kids at the North Texas RPG Con, which was all old-school, and I know that on the S&W boards lots of people are in their 20s-30s. Or say so, but that's all I've got to go on. :)

Full disclosure, I got into the whole of pre 2e D&D because of Pundit.
because he fucking played the RC from zero to 36 with his posse.

To me, Pundit has more D&D-credibility than certain bloggers, Kellri classified them best.

That said, this makes Pundit´s arguments pretty disingeneous.

Bonus dishonesty: FtA! is EXPLICITLY reviewed and wanted and talked about in Calithena´s venue & zine.

Also true: D&D needs non-encount4rded modules, more than anything else. Some folks deliver those.

Quote from: jrients;318704Hell, man.  I don't usually go to KKA either.  Is that what this all comes down to?  That one corner of the OSR has a higher-than-average level of rhetorical douchebaggery?  In that case, congratulation on running the mainstream version of Knights & Knaves, dude.

EDIT TO ADD: EC is completely playable.  It's just dumb.  Kinda like a Palladium book.

Actually, I'd never been to KKA in my life before yesterday.
My feelings and impressions about the OSR came mostly from what I'd seen from people on here, Enworld, RPG.net, and very rare forays into old-school blogs or other forums.

As for our similarity, the big difference is that here we tolerate debate and free expression. From what I've heard, over there the groupthink is strong.

And yes, I should have qualified "playable" for EC. You're right about that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Age of Fable;318705Carcosa isn't obviously derivative of old D&D settings.

Carcosa? really? you're going to rely on the shock-gore pedo-fantasy ultra-violence setting as your first line of defense in this argument? I can see it now: "OSR: The Innovative Movement That Brought You the PCs-Raping-11-year-olds Magic System!"
And if I recall correctly its still made to run from OD&D.

QuoteI've seen a Balrog and, recently, an Octopus class, both of which I thought were pretty cool ideas.

Eldritch Wizardry had several interesting and original spells.

There was a 'bard' class made for Labyrinth Lord which. Although the idea was obviously based on the AD&D bard class (the same people did a ranger and paladin at the same time), it wasn't a combination thief/fighter/wizard. I actually thought it was more like a (stereotype) 'gypsy'.

Again, all still for either old or derivative material. These aren't innovations so much as "neat tweaks".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318723Carcosa? really? you're going to rely on the shock-gore pedo-fantasy ultra-violence setting as your first line of defense in this argument?

You quite obviously haven't read the piece, so rather than spread fairly stupid rumors about it, I would shut the fuck up on this line of thought. But hey, what do I know, right? I only ACTUALLY read the God damn book in the first place, right?

Quote from: StormBringer;318707I'm just saying that skills weren't exactly a post-'78 innovation.

On the other hand, what do skills bring to the vintage game aesthetic?  Arguably, the addition of skills to games are the mark of the decline of 'old school' style games.  You may not agree with the demarcation, but in any discussion, some kind of distinction must be made as to 'this group of characteristics' and 'not this group of characteristics' in order to have a meaningful exchange.

No, I think making a demarcation of system in that sense is a stupid trap. You say "skills", others might say "THAC0", others might say "variable weapons damage"; some might say "the cleric class", eventually you get to people saying that anything other than Gary Gygax's original unpublished crib-notes is NOT "true" old school.

I think the clear alternative to this is to agree that Old School is a style, and that it has certain particular landmarks that can note it. You can define old-school for what it MUST have, rather than what it must not.

As for starting my own movement, I have. Years ago. Its the biggest one around. Its called "regular gamers". That's my movement.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mythmere;318711We had traded emails about that earlier, but you only wanted to review a printed copy. If you'll review from a pdf, I'll send you a bunch of stuff if you're interested.

Its not that I wouldn't want to, its that I get too many books for review to be able to accept PDFs. Obviously, if I'm going to choose between getting free books or getting free PDFs I'll choose the books, so if one or the other has to be chosen because of time constraints due to my popularity as a reviewer, its the Books I'll be sticking with.

If someone wants to send me free pdfs, I'll certainly look at them, and I may make a mention of them on my blog if I find them to be really cool (or maybe really awful) but I won't be doing a full review of them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Age of Fable;318712That's a pretty unjustified way to respond to someone who's tried to give you constructive criticism.

I haven't noticed any particular negativity towards FtA! on the part of 'old-school' blogs.

I suspect it just comes down to the fact that there's an over-supply of core rules, especially for fantasy games.

Hence, my ideas for making your game stand out.

Your "ideas" hit me as thinly-veiled snark, when all you're "suggesting" is "Make it a REAL old-school game, make it a retro-clone".

RPGPundit

Pundit, if you want to show them how it's done (lol), then you should write something for Fight On.

I guarantee they would publish it.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;318715I'm still sort of scratching my head at what your point really is. You spend too much time ranting or hinting or alluding or calling Foster a cunt. So are you saying we should be moving on to new games that emulate an old-school feel but with more "updated" mechanics?

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

QuoteIf that is your point, then yeah, the OSR isn't for you. There is a group of people who did that, and you can find them over on the Troll Lord Games forums. As another example, look at Lejendary Adventures. That game was even written by Gary Gygax, and still it couldn't get much of an audience in the scheme of things. Why? Because the system is more important than the creator. It was yet another fantasy game out there, and it is a damn tough to sell a new fantasy game no matter who you are.

Those games were failures (relative failures, I should say, I don't think LJ was exactly a failure), not because of their design principles but because they didn't really let you do anything with them that you couldn't already do with D&D; or offered something new either system or setting-wise that D&D didn't have.

QuoteThe OSR is definitely diverse in opinion but the whole thing is based on that fundamental idea that there is no need for an "updated" system.

That line of thought demands that one believe that there is absolutely nothing truly new that can be produced anymore.

QuoteRehashing the old systems is only the first step in making sure they are available as open game content to everyone under the OGL, and currently in print.

I see.. and what's the second step? Is the third step "profit"?
Because I think you haven't really thought this through.  Many of you have already said:
1. There is no need for innovation.
2. Retroclones are the "first" step.

If there is no need for innovation, then retro-clones are doomed to be the ONLY step, aren't they?
It feels like none of you really know what you're going to do when there's nothing left to "clone", because your own conditions of exclusion have ruled out absolutely anything else.

RPGPundit

3) More material... another refutation to the "old school is monolithic" fallacy, based on micro-reviews of the article selection in the latest issue of Fight On!, and demonstrating the variety of different approaches and aesthetics at play:


Background Professions (Akrasia): a "what did you do before adventuring" article; partly a reinvention of a skill system concept from the 1e rulebooks, but with more explicite information on what the professions involve.
The Scholar (Zachary Houghton): a short example of how to turn the above into a full character concept.
The Wuuky! (Moritz Mehlem and Frank Ditsche): LL race-class based on the obvious, didn't find it too interesting.
Distinctive Magic (Houghton, Dörfliger, & Calithena): suggestions to reconfigure the game's spell selection along character themes - article includes notes on a jester type option, a custom spell list for elves, and a spell failure table.
The Deck O' Stuff (Jeff Rients): random starting items for player characters; some allowing for some pretty creative experimentation (I didn't use this article specifically, but it inspired me to do something very similar for my recently started secondary campaign).
The Tomb of Ixtandraz (Lee Barber): contest-winning adventure module; lizardman and lost temple theme - some good traps and set-piece encounters here.
Delvers Delve: Extended Crawling (David Bowman): rules suggestions and guidelines to allow for prolonged dungeon expeditions and reduce lethality. Not my cup of, but comprehensive and usable without radically changing the game.
Tables for Fables (Age of Fable): highly specific this time ("effects of hearing a swan-song"), but genuinely in the realm of the fantastic.
Dungeon Motivations (Paul Vermeren): random "so why am I in the dungeon?" table; both hilarious ("character is actually a magically-created organism designed only for dungeon crawling") and a very efficient way to introduce motivations and conflicts into a random dungeon exploration party. Very oracular.
Knights & Knaves (Del L. Beaudry): arctic NPC adventurers of the "ice princess and hairy monster" type.
Black Blood (Gabor Lux): investigative dungeon crawl module based on themes of identity loss and greed; concepts based on the works of C. L. Moore; maybe a bit too railroady if the GM is inflexible with it.
Pentastadion (Gabor Lux): brief writeup of coastal swords&sorcery city state, tried to give GMs a good starting points through obviously dysfunctional yet powerful NPCs and sites of interest.
Creepies & Crawlies (Alex Schröder, Wayne Rossi, Jeff
Rients, Terje Nordin, and Geoffrey McKinney): the obligatory monster section; from Japanese-themed critters to a highly abstrat Carcosa entity.

A Few for the Road (Michael Curtis): three detailed travel encounters; maybe a bit too detailed. OTOH, pretty much immediately usable.
A Giant Dilemma (Frank Farris): mini-dungeon based on the popular "you are on the side of the monsters this time" theme; since I don't like that so much, have not read in detail.
Clarisseth (Tony Dowler): a dungeon side-cut; only a one-page illustration, but inspiring and fun.
It Used to be a Hobbit Hole (Baz Blatt): one-page dungeon combining map and key; as cool as hobbit-related adventures can get - authentic to the original source material and D&D as well. Beauty.
The Barrow of Therex (Erin "Taichara" Bisson): small tomb-robbing scenario; standard.
The Devil's in the Details: Pygmy Folk (Baz Blatt): notes and instructions for playing a Tékumel race. Entertaining reading material walking a good balance between Tékumel exoticism and game relevance, although unlike the penguins in Issue #2, unconvincing on the "you can use this for D&D" front. If you are playing EPT, however, this is solid gold.
Seven Kings Mountains (Judd Karlman): campaign writeup around Nordic theme with dwarves and dragons. I like these home campaign summaries, since they give a good scope of what a certain group has developed. This time, the article is also profusely illustrated with some seriously good stuff.
The Darkness Beneath, Level 2 (Calithena): a level of the F-O! collaborative megadungeon, AD&D 1st edition vibe.
The Tower of Thalen Garh (John Hitchens): fiction, haven't read
Oceanian Legends (Del L. Beaudry): haven't read
Guest Editorial (Timothy J. Kask): Tim Kask reminiscing (the issue is dedicated to him and Dragon Magazine)
Merlin's Mystical Mirror (Jeff Rients): review section, with an overview of old-school periodicals.
Artifacts, Adjuncts, & Oddments (Greg Backus,
Terje Nordin, Jeff Rients, and Calithena): magic items

All in all, I think this list demonstrates that the accusations of a monolithic community are patently false; even in one issue, we've got a wide array of different materials, some of which hew close to old precedents, but some which stray fairly far from them, or reinterpret them in new ways. It must also be noted that there is also Knockspell out there with a slightly different profile and editorial outlook, plus a lot of blogs, forums, publications and personalities which offer yet more variety.

Quote from: Settembrini;318718Full disclosure, I got into the whole of pre 2e D&D because of Pundit.
because he fucking played the RC from zero to 36 with his posse.

To me, Pundit has more D&D-credibility than certain bloggers, Kellri classified them best.

I did indeed, and not to toot my own horn, but I think I do have a certain bit more credibility in the question of "old school" than some of the OSR-ers (maybe not all, but certainly some).  

So if I'm saying "something isn't quite right with the current way of thinking" it can't just be dismissed as "He hates OD&D!!".

If this movement makes a guy like me an undesirable, then they've lost the battle before it started.

QuoteThat said, this makes Pundit´s arguments pretty disingeneous.

I don't think so. It makes my arguments particularly a product of LOVE for old-school style and yes, old school games themselves. It means I can't just be dismissed out of hand as a "hater".

QuoteBonus dishonesty: FtA! is EXPLICITLY reviewed and wanted and talked about in Calithena´s venue & zine.

I've heard that, and that's great and welcome personally, but it doesn't discount anything I've said about the overall tone I've perceived from the OSR-crowd.

QuoteAlso true: D&D needs non-encount4rded modules, more than anything else. Some folks deliver those.

It sure does, but not just that alone. It also needs these modules to be quality, and to be relevant.
OD&D/1e/RCD&D really doesn't need another "Keep on the borderlands" or "temple of elemental evil" or "isle of dread"; its NEW games that desperately need these aesthetics.
We should be making adventures and sourcebooks and settings inspired by this aesthetic for NEW games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;318725You quite obviously haven't read the piece, so rather than spread fairly stupid rumors about it, I would shut the fuck up on this line of thought. But hey, what do I know, right? I only ACTUALLY read the God damn book in the first place, right?

Are you claiming that carocosa doesn't have magic rituals who's "material components" involve child rape and child sacrifice?

RPGPundit

Quote from: FASERIP;318742Pundit, if you want to show them how it's done (lol), then you should write something for Fight On.

I guarantee they would publish it.

That would require a time commitment I don't have. I've been doing FtA! writing sporadically on my Blog, currently details on the city of Urbansko and on using FtA! to run a "Nobles" campaign set in the Bowlands. I'm going to introduce some new monsters, and may have some more setting material in the Tribelands of the Hong (which to me is THE lawless adventuring region par excellence).

But right now, besides being swamped with my regular work, I'm also going to be busy writing a new RPG for Precis Intermedia.  It will be old-school too, in my opinion, but will be NOTHING like anything that the old-school movement has done so far, and most of the OSR-ers would probably disagree about it deserving the "old-school" moniker.

Again, though, I think that this is due to a very different concept of what makes up old-school. On the one hand you have this mentality that Old School is a set of design paradigms for systems that must predate a certain year in history; and on the other, my definition is that old school is a mentality and an aesthetic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Melan;318746The Deck O' Stuff (Jeff Rients): random starting items for player characters; some allowing for some pretty creative experimentation (I didn't use this article specifically, but it inspired me to do something very similar for my recently started secondary campaign).

Awesome.  It is so good to know that someone got the point of my article!

Quote from: RPGPundit;318683Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978.

RPGPundit

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7909&highlight=forward+adventure

QuoteI think the idea of it just being an outline interests me more than some indepth examination of the fluctuation in the price of hobbits bollocks down the quayside at Freeport. Too more source material gives me the fear (Forgotten Realms, fuck's sake) and keeping me from buying into it all. If I can just buy a rulebook and a setting book I'll be well chuffed.

Sounds great. I'd buy it and I'm dead stingey, always end up buying the sole gamebook rather than Gnomekin volumes 1-3 - and usually end up disappointed. FTA! could be what I'm after.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=8316&highlight=forward+adventure

QuoteYes, of course there are older games that try for or acheive that sense of wonder. But there are new games that do the ol-skool shuffle with a bit more style - you deal me Tunnels and Trolls, I'll raise you Forward to Adventure!

Eventually FtA! led me back to D&D, so it's all your fault ;)

Its because of the lack of visibility FtA! has, (and the revamped T&T 7th ed.) that it's hard to find gamers who'll commit to it. Couple that with the lack of a vibrant online FtA! community, and the OSR became more attractive to me - because they're doing stuff.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318655Really? You yourself just recognized on your blog that the Old-school movement is failing utterly at being sufficiently critical of itself.  That's part of the reality-bubble right there. No one questions whether what's being done is actually of any use or purpose, as long as it fits the parameters of what the hardcore old-schoolers define as "authentic".

BTW, if you want decent reviews of Old-School works, you'd have to send them my way. Its very telling that not one Old-schooler has ever dared send a product for Pundit review (though I've certainly reviewed old-school games aplenty, just not ones from your particular movement).

RPGPundit

Kezerco did... and quite honestly, HM4 was very Old School... but K&Co tries hard to add value.

Quote from: Melan;3187463) Guest Editorial (Timothy J. Kask): Tim Kask reminiscing (the issue is dedicated to him and Dragon Magazine)

Fight On! dedicated an issue to frikkin' Tim Kask before they dedicated one to Ken St. Andre or Greg Stafford.

That's the kind of bullshit Pundit should be railing on.

Quote from: jrients;318752Awesome.  It is so good to know that someone got the point of my article!

For me, it was:
# four bottles of colourful liquid in a wooden box [no, not potions; way more complex]
# scimitar inscribed with the name "Talhuris Khan"
# green cloak with the mark of a white hand impressed upon it
# map of the City of Vultures
# jar of balm
#not actually the item, but the PC's canines have been replaced with sharpened sapphires
...and a few others I don't recall
Also, the characters started out as amnesiacs ("How convenient..."), in the room of a rich palace, sitting on cushions and holding strange tuning fork things... with their host dead at their feet, bleeding from all orifices.

After that, mayhem. :cool:

So what about 4e? Isn´t that the bigger problem?

Pundit you have reviewed a Old School product and that my Points of Light. Before you head explodes, it happens that the one area that 4th edition D&D and original D&D intersect is the style of presentation settings. For whatever reason the designers of 4e D&D have adopted a location based stat lite approach to describing regions and towns.

I pitched it as an old school product to Goodman Games and he accepted at such. The change came after the Rich Baker article and we realized that what I proposed is what Baker was talking about. Hence the decision to make sure the marketing appealed to 4e GMs.

I didn't have a problem with this as it involved no change in the writing or maps. Also at the time I could cover all the Old School fora myself and let them know the scoop. Which was Points of Light was designed for them in mind.

The reason for me creating Points of Light wasn't to return to some mythical golden age. I felt that the original Wilderlands format was a nice compact way of presenting a lot of USEFUL information on a setting that was ready out of the box to use.

However original format was too terse. From my experience with Traveller a coded stat line was a good start but it was way way better if you added a paragraph or two of information. Any more and your product becomes too unwieldly and you wind up in the same boat as other settings. Part of this came after I ran the Traveller Adventure which fleshes out much of the Aramis Subsector in the one or two paragraph level of detail.

During the run up to the Boxed Set of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, there was considerable debate how to do it. I took a slice out of the City-State Map and wrote it up as Rorystone Road. Clark got excited about it after reading it. Then he took it a step further, and finalized the format. This was used for all 18 maps of the Boxed Set.

Note: He added the geography entries, the lairs and ruins which I neglected in my initial version. Plus he revised several of the more important entries, like City-State, as he had access to Bob's notes.

The Wilderlands was well-received but it just was too expensive at $70. I was gratified that my initial idea panned out so well but felt that there was more that can be done with the format.

About two years ago I attempted to get permission to use the Outdoor Survival Map. Wizards was helpful but the people in charge of the Avalon Hill stuff gave me a polite brushoff. The combination of the high priced Boxed Set and that brush off drove me to create Southlands. I used Southlands to pitch the Product to Goodman Games and that resulted in Lands of  Adventure (my proposal) name. After the Rich Baker the line name was finalized to Points of Light.

I am not interested in making my own RPG. It is neither interesting to me nor I am good at it. What I am interested is world building and how to make accessible during actual play.

If that not NEW enough for you then "The Setting" is nothing more than a hack piece of writing cribbed off the legitimate work of historians. But we know that not true and you put some serious creative effort into it.

To me your stance is born out of ignorance of what is happening with the people involved in making Old School product. It understandable considering that there been a lot of change in the past two years. Heck in the past year.

But with this issue you keep digging yourself a hole. For some reason your persona "the RPGPundit" can't be wrong. So do yourself a favor and uninvest yourself from your ego and look at what actually happening instead of what you think is happening.

Quote from: T. Foster;318682Recognizing that, and reorienting the hobby in that direction, rather than pretending it's still 1993 and that selling a full-color-interior hardback book a week to the ever-shrinking hardcore fanbase is a viable way to make a living, seems like a prudent idea to me.

My God Foster, you really are one major fucking dork. Maybe if more people actually bought a book and didn't STEAL them on bittorrent sites, we would have a a thriving publishing industry like we use to have a decade ago. Your mindless attitude of " let's play free D&D" is more then asinine, it's actually damaging and hurting the Industry as a whole. Publishing is a business and  people do try to make a living at it.  But obvious you don't,  or that matter, even care and only think about how you see things in your self contained bubble world.  Really, your bullshit  hippy-dippy ideology is sickening me more and more.

My personal interest in the OSR is all about D&D.  That is, I don't give a rip about a general push to promote "old games or systems."  I'm interested in games I like, be they old or new.  D&D is my favorite RPG.  My favorite "flavor" of D&D is the older stuff (OD&D and early 1e AD&D); it suits my preferred approach. (The skills thing comes up a lot.  Here's my take: I don't like skill systems in D&D.  I've got no problem with them in other games, but I like D&D as a class based system.)

I'm not against innovation or new ideas in gaming.  But I repudiate any idea that new ideas, new systems, etc. are always progress, and therefore we should play modern systems (even if in an old style, whatever the hell that means).  I play an older edition of D&D because I like it; I like that game.  I like playing other games, too, but that doesn't mean I want to leave my preferred version of D&D behind because it's old.

The problem with "innovation in gaming" isn't the innovation part, it's the "burn what has gone before" baggage that seems to accompany it.  The new edition replaces the old.  You should play "old style" with "modern systems."  I think that's a load of shit.  I think the OSR has its roots in an effort to promote old versions of D&D and encourage people to publish new material (e.g. adventures) for them.  It's not about stagnating the industry or stifling innovation.  It's about games we like.

Quote from: Sean !;318753Its because of the lack of visibility FtA! has, (and the revamped T&T 7th ed.) that it's hard to find gamers who'll commit to it. Couple that with the lack of a vibrant online FtA! community, and the OSR became more attractive to me - because they're doing stuff.

I do often wonder if I shouldn't have started an FtA! subforum on here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318683I think that's where you've got it backwards, Jeff. I do consider my game old-school. Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978.

Erm... no. They won't touch your game because they've never heard of it. And that, in turn, is because you badly failed to reach that segment of the market, simple as that. Where is your post on DF announcing a cool new old-school product and telling folks to check it out? Where's the post on K&K, ODD74 or the other old-school forums? Where are the review copies sent to the major bloggers of grognardy blogosphere? Where are your follow-up posts in the threads started on these forums by other people for your lazy-ass benefit (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=34404) saying  "Hullo, I'm the guy who made the game, thanks for checking it out, let me answer your questions"? The guys behind Labyrinth Lord, BFRPG, OSRIC, Barbarians of Lemuria, etc. etc. do this, and lo and behold, the grogs are aware of their products.

EverythingotherthanFtA isn't getting more attention than FtA because the OSR crowd is nasty, narrowminded and plays favourites, but because EverythingotherthanFtA put an amount of effort into the advertising that can be numerically described as "maybe very little, but still more than fucking zero". As opposed to FtA, which put "exactly fucking zero" effort into reaching this market. I know I only even heard of your game because I happen to frequent these forums. Were it not that I happen to be visiting these forums - and most old-schoolers don't, hardly surprising with the attitude you show towards them in this thread -, I would have never even bleeding heard about it.

But of course that sort of marketing activity is out of the question for someone whose stance on the market segment is, and excuse me for not quoting your specific post to this effect a few pages before: "I've never even been to any of these forums until last week, but I sort of hear from the grapevine they're nasty people; so I'm just going to talk shit at them out of my ass based on all the first-hand experience I don't have." And after that you have the cheek to whine about how they don't talk about your game.

Quote from: estar;318759Pundit you have reviewed a Old School product and that my Points of Light. Before you head explodes, it happens that the one area that 4th edition D&D and original D&D intersect is the style of presentation settings. For whatever reason the designers of 4e D&D have adopted a location based stat lite approach to describing regions and towns.

I pitched it as an old school product to Goodman Games and he accepted at such. The change came after the Rich Baker article and we realized that what I proposed is what Baker was talking about. Hence the decision to make sure the marketing appealed to 4e GMs.

Ok, fair enough. I hadn't considered it as such, but let me say now that without a doubt Points of Light is a good example of a step in the right direction; it is DEFINITELY old-school in aesthetic, but is not bound by limitations of demanding that the person using it fulfill some kind of old-school system purity-test.

RPGPundit

Quote from: aramis;318755Kezerco did... and quite honestly, HM4 was very Old School... but K&Co tries hard to add value.

Yes, Kenzer has sent me A&8s (already reviewed) and HM Basic (review next in line). And I see them as certainly being old school, but its not very obvious to me that Kenzer is involved in the specific "OSR" movement.

RPGPundit

Quote=Philotomy Jurament ] I'm not against innovation or new ideas in gaming.  But I repudiate any idea that new ideas, new systems, etc. are always progress, and therefore we should play modern systems (even if in an old style, whatever the hell that means).  I play an older edition of D&D because I like it; I like that game.  I like playing other games, too, but that doesn't mean I want to leave my preferred version of D&D behind because it's old.

There's no problem playing a game you bought 2, ,5, 10  or even 35 years ago. The problem is these dipshits like Foster who say you shouldn't buy published material and just play these free crappy retro clones like S&W. You wanna play old school D&D? go buy a copy of  the real shit and help keep the publishing Industry alive.

Quote from: mrk;318777There's no problem playing a game you bought 2, ,5, 10  or even 35 years ago. The problem is these dipshits like Foster who say you shouldn't buy published material and just play these free crappy retro clones like S&W. You wanna play old school D&D? go buy a copy of  the real shit and help keep the publishing Industry alive.

but OD&D isn't in the shops - so how is buying 'the real shit' off ebay or some other auction site keeping the publishing industry alive ?

Quote from: mrk;318777There's no problem playing a game you bought 2, ,5, 10  or even 35 years ago. The problem is these dipshits like Foster who say you shouldn't buy published material and just play these free crappy retro clones like S&W. You wanna play old school D&D? go buy a copy of  the real shit and help keep the publishing Industry alive.

FWIW, I do play the "real shit," although I don't see how that helps the publishing industry at all.

From my point of view, the main value in the retro-clones isn't the ability to purchase the rules (I already have the rules).  It's the way the retro-clones have encouraged adventures and community around the games I enjoy.  

The "industry" and "keeping it alive" is another question, entirely.  First, I don't see any virtue in buying crap just to keep an industry alive.  If the industry is supplying something of value to the market, it will stay alive and doesn't need my help and charity.  If I buy crap to "help the industry" I'm encouraging the industry to produce crap.  I only buy things I value.

The problem with the current approach of the industry is that it encourages the production of crap just to be producing something (see that thread where TSR's 2e production schedule approach is described), and encourages change for the sake of "something new" (which also seems to include throwing out the old).  I don't think that approach is very good for the D&D I like.

Quote from: Sean !;318778but OD&D isn't in the shops - so how is buying 'the real shit' off ebay or some other auction site keeping the publishing industry alive ?

There's still inventory and backorders on everything. Go on amazon or ebay, even if you buy something that's used, if enough people start buying it,  it allows for publishers to justify putting the cash up to publish the material once again.  If WOTC/HASBRO had any smarts, the would put out  new version of the  D&D core rules cyclopedia and kick all these clone systems to the curb.

Quote from: mrk;318780If WOTC/HASBRO had any smarts, the would put out  new version of the  D&D core rules cyclopedia and kick all these clone systems to the curb.

If WotC reprinted the original D&D books (maybe the OCE boxed set, again), I'd definitely buy them.  Same with the original AD&D books, although those are still pretty easy to find.  My play copies aren't getting any younger, though...

Quote from: RPGPundit;318774Ok, fair enough. I hadn't considered it as such, but let me say now that without a doubt Points of Light is a good example of a step in the right direction; it is DEFINITELY old-school in aesthetic, but is not bound by limitations of demanding that the person using it fulfill some kind of old-school system purity-test.

I am not only person in the OSR who works like this. Does the fans of the older edition have it's crazy ass fundamentalists yeah it does. But that not the point of what we do. Which is to make products (including rulebooks) that support older editions of D&D. This is a subtle but important distinction.

Because ultimately it is those who DO who are going to be the face of the Old School Renaissance. So if you want to know where the OSR is going look at the products being made right now.

And it going to be messy and confusing. Have controversy (like Carcosa), duds, hits, misses, and solid performers. But the aggregate will what define the OSR.

Unlike the forge it is a DIVERSE effort. It not centered around a single individual or forum. Indeed it is fragmented enough that marketing is a pain in the ass at times. I believe that, D&D being what it is, allows enough of a common base to allow us to overcome that issue.

As a DIVERSE effort there are a lot of people trying different things.

Recently Jim Raggi has gotten into publishing in a big way. Now I read his stuff and they are not my style. But I think they are well crafted for people who like his style they are pure gold. In addition it is style that I haven't seen really done well for D&D. That in time his work is going to really add something to the playing of D&D and RPGs in general.

I think that Carcosa was crippled by the Geoffery's choice of being so graphic with his rituals. That no matter how interesting the rest of his Carcosa stuff is it will always be overshadowed by that fact.

Fight On! and Knockspell are outstanding efforts. And I know I failed to mention several authors but there are many more working hard on their own ideas. Some of them look backwards, some look forward. The main common element is that we are using the older editions of D&D as our foundation.

Frankly I don't know which direction all of this is going to go. But at this moments the signs of health are good. People have been switching from "Need rulebooks to buy" to "what can we do now that we have rulebooks" But it not certain exactly where things will wind up.

In the end it will be defined, live and die by what people DO not say.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318775Yes, Kenzer has sent me A&8s (already reviewed) and HM Basic (review next in line). And I see them as certainly being old school, but its not very obvious to me that Kenzer is involved in the specific "OSR" movement.

It doubtful because one of the other things that defines us is the Open Gaming License. And despite being a friendly nice bunch of folks they definitely keep a tight rein on the stuff they create. Which is OK but will hinder acceptance in the OSR.

My recommendation is that you should try reading Hackmaster BASIC with supplementary amounts of wild ass.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;318779FWIW, I do play the "real shit," although I don't see how that helps the publishing industry at all.

From my point of view, the main value in the retro-clones isn't the ability to purchase the rules (I already have the rules).  It's the way the retro-clones have encouraged adventures and community around the games I enjoy.  

The "industry" and "keeping it alive" is another question, entirely.  First, I don't see any virtue in buying crap just to keep an industry alive.  If the industry is supplying something of value to the market, it will stay alive and doesn't need my help and charity.  If I buy crap to "help the industry" I'm encouraging the industry to produce crap.  I only buy things I value.

The problem with the current approach of the industry is that it encourages the production of crap just to be producing something (see that thread where TSR's 2e production schedule approach is described), and encourages change for the sake of "something new" (which also seems to include throwing out the old).  I don't think that approach is very good for the D&D I like.

I never said you didn't play  an older version nor am I saying you should buy something just for the sake of keeping the Industry alive. But if something is of you liking  and you want a copy of it then you should buy it. Pathfinder is a perfect example as Paizo put out a product that is not only top notch but supports the needs of people who still want to play 3.5E. It even  sold out on their first printing.

WOTC/HASBRO really dropped the ball by not  supporting older versions of D&D and should taken a lesson from Nintendo and Sony  who still produce older models of their game systems( in fact, I read the PS2 still outsells PS3 even though it's close to 10 years old). A  book like D&D Cyclopedia containing all the rules dating back from  0e to 3.5 would a be mighty cool and I'm sure would be a big seller.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318744That line of thought demands that one believe that there is absolutely nothing truly new that can be produced anymore.

Not at all, it just means some people don't care. Some of us have no interest in new edition after new edition, or yet another "innovation." We just like certain games and stick more or less with them. I suppose I understand the difficulty in grasping this concept since the majority of modern gamers suffer from gamer ADD, flitting from one system to the next looking for "that thing" that will finally give them the "best game." "Innovations" seem to be the mythical avenue for finding the best game. I think more gamers should either try to be confident enough in themselves to have fun with a system, any system just pick one, or just admit to themselves they really don't like gaming as much as talking about it and move on.

Hell Pundit, the way you talk about the need for "innovation" and "progress" I'd think you're a closet Forgite.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318772I do often wonder if I shouldn't have started an FtA! subforum on here.

RPGPundit

I'm honestly shocked you haven't done so yet.

Quote from: Melan;318668The problem with this discussion isn't criticism. The problem is criticism that has to rely on strawman arguments.

It's easier to win debates if you make up not only your arguments but your opponents'.

Hey, it worked for Socrates and his Dialogues [sic].

Quote from: RPGPundit;318683I think that's where you've got it backwards, Jeff. I do consider my game old-school. Its the people in the OSR who won't touch my game with a 10' foot pole, because it isn't a direct copy of any older game, and because it has some things (like SKILLS!! The horror!!!) that were innovations in gaming invented after 1978.

Wait, so Classic Traveller is not "old school"? Nor RuneQuest? Nor yet AD&D1e? Writing GAMERS doesn't make me a "retro-clone" writer?

Who's defining "old school" anyway? If it's just D&D, can't we just call it D&D?

Or could it be that you're just taking the narrowest possible slice of the whole thing, so you can scrunch that slice up into absurdity?

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;318797Not at all, it just means some people don't care. Some of us have no interest in new edition after new edition, or yet another "innovation." We just like certain games and stick more or less with them. I suppose I understand the difficulty in grasping this concept since the majority of modern gamers suffer from gamer ADD, flitting from one system to the next looking for "that thing" that will finally give them the "best game." "Innovations" seem to be the mythical avenue for finding the best game. I think more gamers should either try to be confident enough in themselves to have fun with a system, any system just pick one, or just admit to themselves they really don't like gaming as much as talking about it and move on.

This is something that I agree with. Basic D&D works for me and several others nearby as a game, so when Labyrinth Lord came along it allowed us to keep playing and look forward to the possibility of new material coming out for a system that we enjoy which has a proven track record with us as gamers.

Sometimes I play one shot evening or long weekend length games, where I've used Labyrinth Lord as a substitute for the Moldvay B/X books.  Several players lost their old Moldvay basic books over the years, or they're in storage or still at their parents' home.  Easier to send them a link, instead of searching for their old books.

I usually just make up a game on the fly for the one shot evening games, without using any modules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318772I do often wonder if I shouldn't have started an FtA! subforum on here.

At last, all your crazy rants lead to a good idea.

If you have a pure vanity subforum, you should definitely have an actually useful and constructive subforum here, one that discusses a game people play. Your promoting your ego is boring for us, promoting your game is much more fun for us.

Go do it :)

I am ashamed for those whom I recognise here meekly dancing around this gunslinging prick. I can't think what hold he has over you that you would sheepishly try to reason with him, so desperate for his praise, when he insults you so openly.

RPGPundit/RPGugnant: When people tell you to "Stick That In Your Pipe and Smoke It" that is not a signal for you to indulge your affectation. They are telling you to Shut The Fuck Up because you have just lost another argument. Think about that the next time you sulkily chew the stem.

Look you selfish half-wit your game looks shit based on your free skills pdf. Your use of language is childish and your descriptions are pointlessly banal. Its a long time since Ive read commentary as obvious and redundant as in your skills section. Yours is not a step forward for gaming but a step backward towards infancy and naivety. For any that know AD&D, Gygax discusses each of the below with such sophistication that I laugh when I think this guy wants to charge for his game.

Examples:

Disguise:
Training in techniques for altering
your appearance to go unnoticed or
even look like someone else. Difficulty
depends on the degree of change of
appearance required.

Climbing:
This skill represents training in
climbing sheer surfaces. The steepness
and smoothness of the surface should
determine the degree of difficulty of
the check.

Researching:
Investigating, through studying texts
or speaking with people, to learn facts
or get details of important events.
Difficulty depends on the obscurity of
the facts being sought.

Diplomacy:
Training in negotiation and rhetoric,
the formal skill at arguing and
convincing others of your point.
Checked to convince someone who is
hostile to your position, with the
difficulty depending on the degree of
hostility, or in the case of a debate, an
opposed check.

Quote from: FASERIP;318756Fight On! dedicated an issue to frikkin' Tim Kask before they dedicated one to Ken St. Andre or Greg Stafford.

That's the kind of bullshit Pundit should be railing on.

All I have to say to that is that if I was the one who edited and laid out Fight On! then I might hold Tim Kask, who did the same thing with paper and glue, in much higher esteem.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318801Wait, so Classic Traveller is not "old school"? Nor RuneQuest? Nor yet AD&D1e? Writing GAMERS doesn't make me a "retro-clone" writer?

Who's defining "old school" anyway? If it's just D&D, can't we just call it D&D?

I was going to bring this up.  From what I can see, it's not precisely an 'old school' renaissance due to the narrow focus.  It is more of an 'old school D&D' renaissance.  Sure, Mutant Future is an homage to Gamma World and all, but they made no secret that it was based on Labyrinth Lord.  4C isn't getting much traction, I don't see anyone scrambling to re-make Top Secret or CyberPunk, for example.

I dunno, I am trying to pull some more of these games into the spotlight and all, but D&D will always be the 800lb gorilla.

Quote from: _kent_;318805RPGPundit/RPGugnant: When people tell you to "Stick That In Your Pipe and Smoke It" that is not a signal for you to indulge your affectation. They are telling you to Shut The Fuck Up because you have just lost another argument. Think about that the next time you sulkily chew the stem.

Well Kent, at least you have the privilege to tell Pundit to shut the fuck up and not worry about it.  Surely he'll tell you to shut the fuck back but he won't  NOT  tell you  to fuck off and boot you out. Unless  maybe you  post a picture of your dick or worse...

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;318797Not at all, it just means some people don't care. Some of us have no interest in new edition after new edition, or yet another "innovation." We just like certain games and stick more or less with them. I suppose I understand the difficulty in grasping this concept since the majority of modern gamers suffer from gamer ADD, flitting from one system to the next looking for "that thing" that will finally give them the "best game." "Innovations" seem to be the mythical avenue for finding the best game. I think more gamers should either try to be confident enough in themselves to have fun with a system, any system just pick one, or just admit to themselves they really don't like gaming as much as talking about it and move on.

Hell Pundit, the way you talk about the need for "innovation" and "progress" I'd think you're a closet Forgite.

Dude, the average length of one of my campaigns is TWO YEARS of weekly play. My legion game has been going for almost FOUR years now.
You can hardly claim I've got "gamer ADD".

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrients;318808All I have to say to that is that if I was the one who edited and laid out Fight On! then I might hold Tim Kask, who did the same thing with paper and glue, in much higher esteem.

I know what you're saying, but who gives a fuck?

Knockspell and Fight On are only kissing his ass because of his involvement on Dragonsfoot. This guy is a fucking nobody who stopped playing RPGs years ago. He's TSR's first corporate non-entity bureaucrat: he was staunchly anti-fanzine (by his own admission), and apparently never had any interest till the Dragonsfoot jocksniffers got him to post regularly.

M.A.R. Barker actually permits FO to publish EPT stuff. Are you really going to tell me Tim Kask deserves to be honored ahead of him?

When does Mike Breault get an issue of FO dedicated to him? When does Penny Williams get her issue? or Roger E. Moore? or Kim Mohan?

I'm not picking a fight with you, Jeff--- I understand what you're saying--- I just think this guy is very obviously unworthy of veneration, when there are older, more creative, more important persons still alive from the beginning of the hobby. They should be honored while they still might enjoy these minor accolades.

Just look at this list FO honorees: Gygax, Arneson, Bledsaw, Hargrave, Kask. Tell me who doesn't fit there?

Honoring Kask seems to show that it's just a message-board clique. That selection ought to be ammo for the likes of Pundit and other critics of the OSR.

I'm still unclear about what exactly the Pundit thinks the people involved in the OSR should be doing.  :pundit:

1. Coming up with new adventures, house rules, campaign settings, etc., for old school D&D games?  

Yeah, the OSR is doing that, as Melan, estar, JimLotFP, myself, and many others have pointed out.  Read any issue of Knockspell or Fight On! and this is obvious – let alone the many modules, campaign books (like PoL and PoL2), variant rules, and so forth, that are available.

2.Coming up with new games with an ‘old school’ flavour?  

Yeah, the OSR is doing that.  Check out ‘Ruins & Ronins’, ‘Mutant Future’, ‘Mazes & Minotaurs’, ‘Microlite74’, and many others.  Hell, check of FtA!

But, as Philotomy Jurament, Goblinoid Games, and others, have pointed out, many (perhaps most) people involved in the OSR are happy with ‘old school D&D’ as it is.  They’re happy playing old school D&D, and simply aren’t interested in coming up with ‘innovative’ new games.

As someone who likes Classic D&D, and recently ran a full-blown RC campaign, I’m puzzled why the Pundit would object to such an attitude.

In any case, this is a hobby for most of the people involved in the OSR.  They’re under no moral obligation to create ‘new’ games.  They just want to play, support, and share ideas about the games that they love.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.

3. Introducing ‘old school’ games to new players?

Yeah, as Mythmere, JimLotFP, and others, have pointed out, many people in the OSR are doing that.

In short, I have no idea exactly why the Pundit is so opposed to the OSR.  I mean, I can understand not liking particular individuals involved in it, or specific products (e.g. Carcosa).  But the OSR overall?  I’m baffled by the hostility.  :confused:

Quote from: RPGPundit;318740Your "ideas" hit me as thinly-veiled snark, when all you're "suggesting" is "Make it a REAL old-school game, make it a retro-clone".

RPGPundit

If you want fans of retro-clones to pay more attention to your game, and clearly from this thread you do, then yes, my suggestion would be to make a version that's compatible with a retro-clone.

In any case that's not all I'm suggesting. I also suggested that, if you want an introductory product to sell to South Americans, which again you've said you do, that you could make a HeroQuest-like game. I said this firstly because you emphasised how 'roguelike-like' FtA was, and secondly because of RPGQuest (http://geekdo.com/boardgame/18590), a Brazillian product along the same lines.

I don't see where the 'thinly-veiled snark' comes in, unless you count any suggestion that you change the product as an attack. But getting a different audience response is going to involve changing the product. I could have given you a non-threatening non-suggestion like "change the cover artwork", but that wouldn't be helping.

Quote from: FASERIP;318831I know what you're saying, but who gives a fuck?

Knockspell and Fight On are only kissing his ass because of his involvement on Dragonsfoot. This guy is a fucking nobody who stopped playing RPGs years ago. He's TSR's first corporate non-entity bureaucrat: he was staunchly anti-fanzine (by his own admission), and apparently never had any interest till the Dragonsfoot jocksniffers got him to post regularly.

M.A.R. Barker actually permits FO to publish EPT stuff. Are you really going to tell me Tim Kask deserves to be honored ahead of him?

When does Mike Breault get an issue of FO dedicated to him? When does Penny Williams get her issue? or Roger E. Moore? or Kim Mohan?

I'm not picking a fight with you, Jeff--- I understand what you're saying--- I just think this guy is very obviously unworthy of veneration, when there are older, more creative, more important persons still alive from the beginning of the hobby. They should be honored while they still might enjoy these minor accolades.

Just look at this list FO honorees: Gygax, Arneson, Bledsaw, Hargrave, Kask. Tell me who doesn't fit there?

Honoring Kask seems to show that it's just a message-board clique. That selection ought to be ammo for the likes of Pundit and other critics of the OSR.

Here is probably the first criticism in this thread I wholeheartedly agree with. I have no idea what Tim Kask has done for me. I don't think The Dragon was that good back then to begin with (yes, I've got the Archives, read a lot of it - there is more good stuff in the first six issues of The Dungeoneer than the first CD of the collection); his contributions today amount to a Q&A thread. Even Jim Ward - gods! Jim "Angry Mothers from Heck" Ward! - is at least editing The Crusader and writing something.

Lee Gold. Paul Jaquays. M.A.R. Barker (especially M.A.R. Barker). Ken St. André.

Quote from: FASERIP;318831Just look at this list FO honorees: Gygax, Arneson, Bledsaw, Hargrave, Kask. Tell me who doesn't fit there?

Of the five, Kask is the only one still breathing.

I'm aware of his Dragon run. So *ing what?

He must have some import to the staff of FO, but since this thread is the first I've heard of it, it, too is a "so what?" entry to me.

Perhaps it would be better if there were only one or two "OSR Voices"... at least then, material would be visible enough to be of import.

The OSR has subdivided itself into near irrelevance.

My question would be more along the lines of why not Kevin Siembieda, or is he not old-school enough?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;318856My question would be more along the lines of why not Kevin Siembieda, or is he not old-school enough?

Dedicating an issue to someone guaranteed to issue legal threats if the magazine published material for his games...

... not bloody likely.

Quote from: FASERIP;318831I'm not picking a fight with you, Jeff--- I understand what you're saying--- I just think this guy is very obviously unworthy of veneration, when there are older, more creative, more important persons still alive from the beginning of the hobby. They should be honored while they still might enjoy these minor accolades.

No fight to pick here.  I thought it was an odd choice as well.  I would have gone with Tom Moldvay myself, but it's Calithena's baby and he wanted Kask.  It had zero impact on my own submissions for the issue.

QuoteHonoring Kask seems to show that it's just a message-board clique. That selection ought to be ammo for the likes of Pundit and other critics of the OSR

Maybe that's the perception but it's an erroneous one.  No clique selects the honoree.  It gets discussed on OD&D Discussion but the decision is made solely by Calithena.

Also, I think a Siembieda-dedicated issue would be great, except he'd probably insist on the rights to the entire issue.  I mean, the dude demanded ownership of the friggin' interview Zachary did, for chrissake.

Quote from: jrients;318865Maybe that's the perception but it's an erroneous one.  No clique selects the honoree.  It gets discussed on OD&D Discussion but the decision is made solely by Calithena.

Too true. Molehill --> mountain.

QuoteAlso, I think a Siembieda-dedicated issue would be great, except he'd probably insist on the rights to the entire issue.  I mean, the dude demanded ownership of the friggin' interview Zachary did, for chrissake.

And if a honoree demands that, I am not submitting anything for that particular issue. ;)

Quote from: FASERIP;318831Honoring Kask seems to show that it's just a message-board clique. That selection ought to be ammo for the likes of Pundit and other critics of the OSR.

I understand where you are coming from but so what? The OSR is a melange of people doing their own thing who happened to use older editions of D&D as their rules. Sometimes not even that. So you going to get stuff that controversial, stuff that just plain weird, and everything else as well.

Yeah it true that the most of people involved with Fight ON! interact through the OD&D message board. But is it a clique? Well look at the table of contents of the authors. What are your experience in submitting stuff? If the same people keep writing over and over again then yeah maybe you have a point but if there a continual influx of new authors then so what they use the OD&D boards.

Moreover if in the worst case it doesn't stop somebody from putting out their own Old School Magazine.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318829Dude, the average length of one of my campaigns is TWO YEARS of weekly play. My legion game has been going for almost FOUR years now.
You can hardly claim I've got "gamer ADD".

RPGPundit

...but no acknowledgment of the other part of my post. This isn't a discussion after all. Oh well, back to lurking.

Quote from: aramis;318565I'm wonderin' if there's a masonic ring on him... ;)

There is.

(http://imagonem.net/images/stories/pipe.jpg)

He presented it proudly in this interview (http://imagonem.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=320&Itemid=1).

Ah, that interview... those were fun times.

I appear to have misjudged the tone of the discussion. Masochists can't be bullied, right?

Having read the rather entertaining interview it appears the pundit is a genuine character and he likes to stay in character on the forum.

Quote from: interviewHere I [...] have a maid, and there are people shining my shoes. It's disgustingly exploitative, but I can't say I don't enjoy it.

And here at rpgsite too. Quite a feat. Hat tipped.

Having said that I stand over everything I said except for the 'tough-guy' swearing, the licence for which I now return to the pundit for his exclusive use.

Quote from: mrk;318811Well Kent, at least you have the privilege to tell Pundit to shut the fuck up and not worry about it.  Surely he'll tell you to shut the fuck back but he won't  NOT  tell you  to fuck off and boot you out. Unless  maybe you  post a picture of your dick or worse...

It turned out you were right.

I found your first post quite funny/'yeah!' Kent.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;318871...but no acknowledgment of the other part of my post. This isn't a discussion after all. Oh well, back to lurking.

I noticed that he stopped acknowledging posts that directly refuted his claims a while ago.  I guess burning down straw men is more enjoyable for him than trying to understand what actually is happening with the OSR, or explaining clearly what he thinks the OSR 'should' be doing.
:shrug:

Why do I get the feeling Kent is one of those guys who never fucking heard of theRPGsite before, came here because of this specific thread because its been mentioned somewhere on some OSR-forum (which one?) and had no fucking clue what he was getting into.  I bet he even thought he was going to really shock people with that first post, or that it would seem a really impressive feat of daring telling me to fuck off like that. He was ready to become "an hero".

Well, Kent, my boy, you are in for an education over here... welcome to the rabbit hole, motherfucker; you're not in Kansas anymore!

RPGPundit

Don't ever change, Pundit. You're fuckin' adorable. No site has a more representative mascot than you. :)

Quote from: _kent_;318893It turned out you were right.

That's right. Now try posting over at the Kunts & Kocks Shithouse and tell Mythtator what a fuckwad he is or one of this assbuddies and see how long you''ll last.

Quote from: RPGPundit;318913... welcome to the rabbit hole, motherfucker; you're not in Kansas anymore!

I understand you bear your reputation as a pustulant anus with enourmous pride, but your spittle-flecked bombast really doesn't make your point nearly as well as your occasional fits of quiet lucidity.

You're a grown man; trying showing a little self-restraint.

A few pages back it looked like a brood of mothers were wringing their hands wondering how to placate a violent snarling youth. The dignity of Man was taking a pounding. I don't think avatars allow for 'daring' exactly but it is possible to raise another's heartbeat by about one beat a minute.

These guys are no slouches and you have something they want so I'll lurk till I find out what it is.

Path:
LotFP blog
Melan comment
New German Forum
Here.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;318771My personal interest in the OSR is all about D&D.  That is, I don't give a rip about a general push to promote "old games or systems."

See, that's exactly what I was referring to when I wrote this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=316249#post316249).

For a little while there, the "vintage gaming resurgence" included a critical evaluation and burgeoning appreciation for a spectrum of older games. Talk about AD&D and Traveller moved off boards like Dragonsfoot and Citizens of the Imperium and onto more mainstream gaming boards, and a range of systems began to get props again.

Then the retro-clones proliferated, and "Olde School Renaissance" was coined, and now we have a Lulu storefront that a quick scan appears to offer thirty-one flavors of D&D.

That D&D would come to dominate the discussion isn't all that surprising: it was then as it is now, the mainstem of the hobby. It does seem to me that some of the discussion as to what defines old school is being sharpened to too fine a point, though. There is an undercurrent of "olde school = OD&D" that creeps into the discussion at times: the varous threads on the "dungeon-as-mythic-underworld" has taken on a bit of this at times.

It may not be the dominant meme - really, there is no dominant meme, which is what the Pundit seems to be completely missing in his frothing ravings - but it is there, and I think it needs to be called out to some degree as an overly narrow and restrictive view of vintage games and gaming.

Akrasia noted that most of the "OSR" discussion is taking place off the general rpg boards, and I tend to agree. I don't know if that's really a good thing: as I said, I think getting the vintage game discussion off the niche boards and onto the main discussion groups was a big part of what generated interest in the "OSR" in the first place. Retreating into the corners of the intreweb seems like a step backward, not a step forward.

Anyway, that's my take-away from this thread.

Quote from: The Shaman;318939There is an undercurrent of "olde school = OD&D" that creeps into the discussion at times...I think it needs to be called out to some degree as an overly narrow and restrictive view of vintage games and gaming.

If anyone says "old school == OD&D" then I agree, that could be called out as a narrow and restrictive view.  I don't think anyone is saying that.

Quote from: The Shaman;318939See, that's exactly what I was referring to when I wrote this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=316249#post316249).

For a little while there, the "vintage gaming resurgence" included a critical evaluation and burgeoning appreciation for a spectrum of older games. Talk about AD&D and Traveller moved off boards like Dragonsfoot and Citizens of the Imperium and onto more mainstream gaming boards, and a range of systems began to get props again.

Then the retro-clones proliferated, and "Olde School Renaissance" was coined, and now we have a Lulu storefront that a quick scan appears to offer thirty-one flavors of D&D.

That D&D would come to dominate the discussion isn't all that surprising: it was then as it is now, the mainstem of the hobby. It does seem to me that some of the discussion as to what defines old school is being sharpened to too fine a point, though. There is an undercurrent of "olde school = OD&D" that creeps into the discussion at times: the varous threads on the "dungeon-as-mythic-underworld" has taken on a bit of this at times.

It may not be the dominant meme - really, there is no dominant meme, which is what the Pundit seems to be completely missing in his frothing ravings - but it is there, and I think it needs to be called out to some degree as an overly narrow and restrictive view of vintage games and gaming.

Akrasia noted that most of the "OSR" discussion is taking place off the general rpg boards, and I tend to agree. I don't know if that's really a good thing: as I said, I think getting the vintage game discussion off the niche boards and onto the main discussion groups was a big part of what generated interest in the "OSR" in the first place. Retreating into the corners of the intreweb seems like a step backward, not a step forward.

Anyway, that's my take-away from this thread.

I think much of this is pretty accurate, although the 31 flavors of D&D was there already in the edition wars on DF ... that sort of fragmentation has been duplicated in the retro-clones. Which isn't a downslide, but it's not necessarily an improvement, either.  There ARE lots of modules and other resources in there, though, and when you actually threaten violence I think most out-of-print D&D players would grudgingly admit that all those editions are actually compatible in terms of running a module.

I think I disagree about the benefit/loss of moving away from more mainstream sites. The signal to noise ratio increases and the amount of "hate" posts decreases, but on the other hand you lose the benefits of wider-based "generic" fantasy discussions. For me, the higher signal to noise ratio is preferable.

I think the focus on 0e is a fad that will recede. Many more people played AD&D than OD&D. At the moment, many people are trying out OD&D, many will like it, but more will just say, "interesting," and move back to AD&D in the long run. I prefer 0e, but AD&D has a different set of advantages. Fads for one thing or another sweep the community: first megadungeons, then sandbox campaigns, now OD&D. Each leaves good material in its wake, but people find another thing to focus on after 6 months or so.

Quote from:  from  the King of Kocks& Kunts I think the focus on 0e is a fad that will recede.

Really,and what are you? Some grand genius who  created a game no one has ever seen before?. How are you  to even think that any aspect of D&D is going to be a fad when all you are is some talentless hack plagiarist, doing no more then ripping off the work of someone else from over 35 years ago. Your are not original, unique or even have a sliver of talent and in the eyes of Gary Gygax you would be a considered a fucking crook! You limp dick cocksucker.

Quote from: mrk;319084Really,and what are you? Some grand genius who  created a game no one has ever seen before?.  The never of your scrawney live-at-home geek ass to even think that any aspect of D&D is going to be a fad when all  you are is some talentless hack plagiarist, doing no more then ripping off the work of someone else from over 35 years ago. Your are not original, unique or even have a sliver of talent and in the eyes of Gary Gygax would be a considered a fucking crook. You limp dick, cocksucker!

"I am informed that in play it is OAD&D. If that is the case, of course I find it excellent." (http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=19381&p=351406&hilit=osric#p351406)

-Gary Gygax on OSRIC, via Dragonsfoot.org.

Mythmere, you're really trying to tell me this guy got banned?

Quote from: Age of Fable;319090Mythmere, you're really trying to tell me this guy got banned?

I'm having a hard time believing it myself.

I know.

Mythmere, you're a moderator at the Tourettes Syndrome forum right?

Read between the lines, he's avoiding the question by refusing the say anything negative because it meant people were still playing his version of D&D and it help keep his fanbase alive. But deep down he resented it. Not only as a loss of revenue but that it symbolized the company he founded didn't give a shit about his original game anymore.



-

Quote from: StormBringer;319091I'm having a hard time believing it myself.

Quote from: Age of Fable;319092I know.

Mythmere, you're a moderator at the Tourettes Syndrome forum right?

So, I guess the gay sex session between you two is over now and your checking on the thread,  right?

I like the way he edited his last two posts, as though they were lacking in nuance and subtlety.

Also, apostrophes are your friend.  Don't be afraid to use them

Quote from: mrk;319095So, I guess the gay sex session between you two is over now and your checking on the thread,  right?

 :diarrhea:

Keep it coming, mrk!

A period would work well for you too. So, how's virginity treating you at your age?

Quote from: Akrasia;319099:diarrhea:

Keep it coming, mrk!

Do you have any copies of S&W that I can wipe my ass with?

The village  (http://zip.4chan.org/tg/imgboard.html)called.  They want their idiot back.

Quote from: mrk;319095... is over now and your checking on the thread,  right?

"Your" is the possessive form of "you", while "you're" is the contraction of "you are".

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hit below the belt.

So...gay sex doesn't count as losing your virginity?

Quote from: StormBringer;319104"Your" is the possessive form of "you", while "you're" is the contraction of "you are".

So, " you are" done or "you're" done getting hammered in the ass am I correct?

Your fascination with the same sex relationships of others, at the same time as expressing contempt for them, is something often found in those with same-sex attractions they don't know how to deal with.

You should explore your sexuality more and come to terms with it. This isn't the 1950s, you don't have to hide in the closet. Nobody cares what you do with your genitals in private with other consenting adults. Relax. Cast away your shame.

Quote from: mrk;319105I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hit below the belt.

No worries. None of what you've said has hit at all.

And so, it ends ... :taz:

You're probably right. My final word: Pundit, you really should respond to constructive criticism better.

When I did my small business course, I saw people who got into similar problems because their idea was 'their baby', and it wasn't subject to change.

Consensus!

Oh, pshaw, Melan, I'm sure there must be some harsh little patch on the underbelly of the beast we haven't flayed yet...let's see. YOU! Yes, you...sitting there all smug with those copies of FO! festooned about your pad, always making your "little comments" and trying to, well "Hungarian-ize" old school D&D. There. I've said it. It's all you and your damned Magyar gaming theory besmirching a good old American game. Well, lemme tell you something mister...I'm not eating ghoulash again, like EVAR!

'A Proud Kunt-Kocksuker'
Kellri

I don't believe I am particularly interested in what obvious Communists have to say, Che. :emot-clint:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319111Your fascination with the same sex relationships of others, at the same time as expressing contempt for them, is something often found in those with same-sex attractions they don't know how to deal with.

You should explore your sexuality more and come to terms with it. This isn't the 1950s, you don't have to hide in the closet. Nobody cares what you do with your genitals in private with other consenting adults. Relax. Cast away your shame.

Hey Kyle, has anyone told you what a fool you look  like with your folded arms and ray band shades posing as Mr.Tough guy gamer?  If you don't believe me, then ask your mother the next time she's wondering when are you going to move out of the basement and get a job.

Quote from: Age of FableNo worries. None of what you've said has hit at all..

Do I need to actually explan that wasn't meant for you cause your that stupid?

Quote from: mrk;319169Hey Kyle, has anyone told you what a fool you look  like with your folded arms and ray band shades posing as Mr.Tough guy gamer?

It's meant to look foolish. I should look serious and profound while posting about our hobby of pretending to be elven princesses and stalwart dwarven warriors? Come on! It's called "self-deprecating humour", which is like irony unknown to Americans, Arabs, Germans, and a few other races; this probably accounts for those same races' tendencies to run around killing people who never bothered them.

Now go away and deal with your sexuality.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNow go away and deal with your sexuality.

Hi I'm Kyle Aaron, world's toughest gamer.

Quote from: mrk;319093But deep down he resented it.

Wow, all this and you're a mind-reader.

Why are you sitting here wasting your powers?  The city is in peril!  Go to its rescue!  Go!

Quote from: mrk;319169Do I need to actually explan that wasn't meant for you cause your that stupid?

Priceless.

Quote from: Age of Fable;319117You're probably right. My final word: Pundit, you really should respond to constructive criticism better.

When I did my small business course, I saw people who got into similar problems because their idea was 'their baby', and it wasn't subject to change.

I've accepted all kinds of constructive criticism. "Turn your game into a retro-clone" is not constructive criticism; its based on the faulty assumption that FtA! is somehow doing badly (its not) and its sole purpose is to try to score cheap points in this debate.

In other words, you're a cunt.

RPGPundit

Quote from: thedungeondelver;319178Wow, all this and you're a mind-reader.

Why are you sitting here wasting your powers?  The city is in peril!  Go to its rescue!  Go!

So, you think someone who makes his living as a publisher likes to see his work given out for free. You really are one pathetic, old, fatbeard.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319173It's meant to look foolish. I should look serious and profound while posting about our hobby of pretending to be elven princesses and stalwart dwarven warriors?

D&D is serious business. Especially on the internet.

Quote from: mrk;319175Hi I'm Kyle Aaron, world's toughest gamer.

Not tough, but brave enough to post a pic of myself, and post under something resembling my real name - unlike most people here, and certainly unlike you. I put myself out there openly and straightforwardly, and you're hiding behind net anonymity.

So while I am no tough guy, I definitely have bigger balls than you. Which isn't saying much, of course.

Quote from: Fifth ElementD&D is serious business. Especially on the internet.

Yes, it is serious business... among those whose main experience of roleplaying is pretending to be a gamer on rpg.net Tangency.

Quote from: mrk;319299So, you think someone who makes his living as a publisher likes to see his work given out for free. You really are one pathetic, old, fatbeard.

Bullshit you're a publisher.  Your grammar and writing skills are terrible, and you've done nothing but abuse a community of potential customers.  If you're going to lie to try and impress us, why not go the whole hog and say you're an astronaut?

Quote from: Hairfoot;319334Bullshit you're a publisher.  Your grammar and writing skills are terrible, and you've done nothing but abuse a community of potential customers.  If you're going to lie to try and impress us, why not go the whole hog and say you're an astronaut?

He never wanted to be in this silly thread anyway...  He always wanted to be...  to be... a lumberjack!

Quote from: Hairfoot;319334Bullshit you're a publisher.

I believe the "publisher" mrk referred to was Gary Gygax.

Quote from: mrk;319299So, you think someone who makes his living as a publisher likes to see his work given out for free. You really are one pathetic, old, fatbeard.

Hm.  I have the word of Gary Gygax regarding OSRIC, and I have the word of you, an angry, anonymous subliterate on the internet.

Guess who I'm going to go with?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;319366Hm.  I have the word of Gary Gygax regarding OSRIC, and I have the word of you, an angry, anonymous subliterate on the internet.

Guess who I'm going to go with?

Ooooh!  I know!  I know!  Call on me!  I know! IknowIknowIknow!!

Quote from: RPGPundit;319188I've accepted all kinds of constructive criticism. "Turn your game into a retro-clone" is not constructive criticism; its based on the faulty assumption that FtA! is somehow doing badly (its not) and its sole purpose is to try to score cheap points in this debate.

In other words, you're a cunt.

RPGPundit

'Badly' is relative. It's obviously doing 'badly' enough that you have a problem with the fact that the OSR doesn't, in your opinion, accept it.

'Constructive criticism' is criticism where the recipient could follow the advice, and achieve their aims. That makes what I said constructive criticism.

I'm not trying to do anything in this debate. I'm not that interested in the debate. Or in old versions of D&D for that matter, except in as much as they inspire people to create interesting things.

Quote from: Age of Fable;319412'Badly' is relative. It's obviously doing 'badly' enough that you have a problem with the fact that the OSR doesn't, in your opinion, accept it.

If Mike Mearls came here and complained that the OSR doesn't accept 4e would you interpret that as meaning 4e is doing badly?!
Now, we're not doing 4e-level sales, and shit, I'd be over the moon if the OSR-crowd were to buy FtA! in droves.
I'd be over the moon if the GURPS fandom or the Palladium fanboys or the Swine or the Women's Auxilliary Balloon Corp were to buy shitloads of my books.
I would be pissing my pants with glee if some eccentric millionairre bought 40000 copies of my book to use a toilet paper.
I don't give a fuck where the sales come from, and for hte last fucking time THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT IDEOLOGY, NOT MY BOOK.

No amount of you trying to make it about my book to hide the fact that you have no ideological argument to make is going to change that.

Quote'Constructive criticism' is criticism where the recipient could follow the advice, and achieve their aims. That makes what I said constructive criticism.

No, it doesn't you stupid fuck.
Going to someone who's talking about difficulties in their GURPS campaign and telling them "play WUSHU instead!" is not constructive criticism, its you being enough of a cunt to merit having a fucking ice chipper shoved down your throat.
Telling baseball fans worried about the red sox "become a hockey fan instead!" is not constructive criticsm. An architect whose advice regarding a housing crisis is "build an abatoir instead" is a fucking idiot.

You, in other words, are a fucking idiot. Do you understand me now? Do you get how you are a fucking idiot?

QuoteI'm not trying to do anything in this debate. I'm not that interested in the debate. Or in old versions of D&D for that matter, except in as much as they inspire people to create interesting things.

Then you are only posting here to troll? Or specifically to attack me?

RPGPundit

I have a similar problem with the "retro beer" movement.

I understand rebelling against the Big Corps, and their bland-ass beer.  I can even understand being turned off by beer snobs (I am a beer aficianado, but I try REAL HARD to avoid coming down on the "One True Way of Beer Drinking) and annoyingly pretentious beer "sommeliers".  But for the love of fuck, Pabst Blue Ribbon was a SHIT beer at the time.  There was nothing "nostalgically good" about most of the beers that are falling into this "retro beer" movement, save maybe Yuenglings, which had/has some really good styles.  The stuff these guys are wisting nostalgic about were beers that sold by the case for next to nothing, because they were cheap beer and were made to get poor people drunk fast.  Nothing more.

Theres LOTS of excellent beer out there.  Why limit yourself to fucking PBR, just because you don't like the tweed wearing motherfucker in the corner wisting pretentiously about Fuggles Hops and how lager is the "beer for the masses" and how his Pilsner Urquell that smells like stank-ass bongwater is the "smart beer drinkers choice", sneering at your choice of "pleb lager".

Quote from: RPGPundit;319478If Mike Mearls came here and complained that the OSR doesn't accept 4e would you interpret that as meaning 4e is doing badly?!

If he was as 'emotionally invested' as you've been then yes, I think most people would conclude that something was up, and that it was probably to do with disappointing sales.

QuoteNo amount of you trying to make it about my book to hide the fact that you have no ideological argument to make is going to change that.

In my last post I said I have no ideological argument to make, so I don't think I'm hiding it.

QuoteNo, it doesn't you stupid fuck.

Yes it does. Ask anyone.

And of course suggesting a new system to someone who's frustrated with their existing system can be constructive - provided the subject of the suggestion could switch to that system and like it, rather than the person doing the suggestion just promoting their favourite system regardless of what anyone else wants. Old D&D isn't my favourite system particularly. Hence, constructive criticism.

QuoteThen you are only posting here to troll? Or specifically to attack me?

If by 'attack' you mean 'offer constructive criticism', then yes, I'm only posting here to 'attack' you.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo while I am no tough guy, I definitely have bigger balls than you. Which isn't saying much, of course.

That's right,  and you're only half way to realizing just how much of a fucking donkey your are. Just keep looking at your photo a little bit more and it will sink in...

Quote from: HairfootBullshit you're a publisher.  Your grammar and writing skills are terrible, and you've done nothing but abuse a community of potential customers.  If you're going to lie to try and impress us, why not go the whole hog and say you're an astronaut?

Yeah  your right. Maybe I should get into another profession. Such as  explaining to old,  senile, fatbeards  like yourself  that I was actually TALKING ABOU GYGAX!  You fucking mule.

Quote from: thedungeondelveHm.  I have the word of Gary Gygax regarding OSRIC..

...By regarded that it was a "brilliant" rip-off of his own creation. Do you really think he was happy that people were taking is original game naming it something else and giving it out for free or even making a profit from it? When he was running TSR he was  going after other companies for even less.  Just like T. Foster, you have no  clue how the real world works without your rose colored glasses plastered to you fat heads.

Hackmastergeneral: I believe your analogy to be inconsequential to roleplaying games. I could just as easily invent something to the contrary - like "OD&D is a good Czech Budweiser and X.Y.Z. is a Bud Light*" - but it would be just as strained, since it is entirely impossible to determine what was Budweiser and what was not.

Quote from: mrk;319619Yeah  your right. Maybe I should get into another profession.

Only because the foaming, semi-literate web-cretin industry is over-supplied with talent, although you're (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tinyyapper.htm) clearly at the top of your game.

Quote from: mrk;319619...By regarded that it was a "brilliant" rip-off of his own creation. Do you really think he was happy that people were taking is original game naming it something else and giving it out for free or even making a profit from it? When he was running TSR he was  going after other companies for even less.  Just like T. Foster, you have no  clue how the real world works without your rose colored glasses plastered to you fat heads.

QuoteParenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games.

- Gary Gygax

This was his sentiment on the direct "piracy" of original D&D when the game was in its' critical early growth stage and he was relying on profits from it.  So we're to believe your obscenity laced thesis that Gary hated OSRIC and its creators despite the fact that we have a quote from him saying that he "found it excellent" and another that peripherally indicates even when he relied on making money from D&D, which he most certainly was NOT doing when OSRIC was published he was more positively inclined towards "piracy" than not.

Moreover, Gary wasn't in charge of TSR when the company started to "go after" others for the use of (A)D&D on their products.  Intelligent people (IE, not you) will remember that Judges Guild produced (A)D&D compatible works and labeled them as such for years.  Under the Blumes did TSR's legal department engage in adventurism against Mayfair et. al.  You would do well to remember this before continuing to make yourself look even more foolish than you already do!

Once again, I'll go with the word from Gygax and not your screwed up interpretation of it.

So to recap: Gygax & OSRIC - 2.  You - 0.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;319680So to recap: Gygax & OSRIC - 2.  You - 0.

You're too kind.  Look at his posts.  It's reality - 1.  Mrk - 0.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Persistent fails on saving throws of will vs. delusion.  :p

Quote from: Melan;319621Hackmastergeneral: I believe your analogy to be inconsequential to roleplaying games. I could just as easily invent something to the contrary - like "OD&D is a good Czech Budweiser and X.Y.Z. is a Bud Light*" - but it would be just as strained, since it is entirely impossible to determine what was Budweiser and what was not.

I'm saying the majority of the OSR is nostalgia for nostalgia's sake, dressed up in some other stuff.  Just like the "retro beer" movement that tries to gussy up shitty PBR as some beer nirvana.  Those beer makers went out of business for a REASON (the beer was shit the first time, and it's shit now - other than Yeunglings and Anchor and a few others).

Now, I can appreciate nostalgia, and some good ideas come from looking at stuff we liked way back when, and building from that.

But theres a reason why the vast majority of the game industry, who once tried desperately to copy the old D&D rules, have moved on to other rules systems and no longer try to copy those rules.  They sucked.

Add to that that a large majority of OSR proponents are not content to have fun with their games and make their stuff, but have to go out of their way to act like jackasses to more modern D&D fans, and have whole websites dedicated to denegrating anything made since 1981, and troll web forums acting like assholes.

Actually, you're right.  My analogy fails.  OSR isn't "retro beer" - retro beer enthusiasts are content to drink their beer and leave you the fuck alone.  OSR is more the beer snob that sees you drinking your Bud or your Keith's and has to stop over and tell you what swill you are drinking and have you tried the IPA from Annoying Cunt Breweries?  It's made with Fuggles Hops and gets beer back to what it's supposed to be - not this large corp overly pasteurized common lager that strips all beer falvor out so it can get churned by the gallon, and oh there's a delightful stout and bitter down at Flappy Balls and Vag brewpub across the way that is SO superior to that swill you drink.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319692But theres a reason why the vast majority of the game industry, who once tried desperately to copy the old D&D rules, have moved on to other rules systems and no longer try to copy those rules.  They sucked.

Mind cluing us the unwashed what those reasons may be?

Just when I thought that this thread was finished, I let myself get sucked back into it.  I should know better ... :duh:  

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319692I'm saying the majority of the OSR is nostalgia for nostalgia's sake...

And in saying that you'd be wrong.

The "nostalgia" argument about the OSR has been debunked thoroughly in countless threads.  To understand that it is wrong, simply understand that people are playing these games now, often for the first time, and enjoying them.  If the OSR was all about reliving some memories from 1978, entire campaigns would not be sustained over time.  

Look, it's fine that you don't like older versions of D&D.  Nobody is forcing you to play them.  Just don't be so arrogant as to assume that you know the reasons why other people like them.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319692But theres a reason why the vast majority of the game industry, who once tried desperately to copy the old D&D rules, have moved on to other rules systems and no longer try to copy those rules.  They sucked.

It's your opinion that the old D&D rules "sucked".  An opinion that is not universally shared.  Opinions are not facts.  :teacher:

Based on past interactions, I realize that pointing out to you that your personal preferences (in RPGs, beer, whatever) do not amount to "facts" is likely a futile effort.  But hey, I try to remain optimistic about human nature.  :)

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319692Add to that that a large majority of OSR proponents are not content to have fun with their games and make their stuff, but have to go out of their way to act like jackasses to more modern D&D fans, and have whole websites dedicated to denegrating anything made since 1981, and troll web forums acting like assholes.

Doctor, heal thyself.  

Nobody forced you to post your insulting and inaccurate claims about the OSR in this thread.  Indeed, nobody is forcing you to look at any thread , blog, or website on the OSR.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319692Actually, you're right.  My analogy fails.  OSR isn't "retro beer" - retro beer enthusiasts are content to drink their beer and leave you the fuck alone.  OSR is more the beer snob that sees you drinking your Bud or your Keith's and has to stop over and tell you what swill you are drinking and have you tried the IPA from Annoying Cunt Breweries?  It's made with Fuggles Hops and gets beer back to what it's supposed to be - not this large corp overly pasteurized common lager that strips all beer falvor out so it can get churned by the gallon, and oh there's a delightful stout and bitter down at Flappy Balls and Vag brewpub across the way that is SO superior to that swill you drink.

Wow.  You are one angry camper, no?  

Have a Guinness and relax.  :emot-cheers:

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319692I'm saying the majority of the OSR is nostalgia for nostalgia's sake...

I'm saying you're mistaken.

Pabst Blue Ribbon is bad? Huh? Eh, I think American beers lost their novelty to the pretensious but they didn't go under because of flavor. Thats just BS, what were they popular for in the first place? The beer didn't change just the mindless cattle that watch professional sports religiously changed. Had nothing to do with the beer.

Buh-buh-but?!?? Where is this guy coming from?!?!?

HELL. SO SHADDAP!!!

In regards, to whats coming out in RPG land.

Wheres the beef?

Thats what I want to know.

You can tear apart a bunch of "mimickers" who are just "tools" because you disagree with the original games premise of what they are doing. But they're making utility for continuance for people with ideas. At least thats a step in the right direction from.... NOTHING.

But where is the beef?

Or rather what is the alternative?

Well, Gene! Modern games get a bad wrap. They need to be understood by people with unlimited patience and manners for kindliness.

YAP! YAP! YAP! Come on! Where's the beef?

Well, Gene. I've invented something that is very popular and its called SKILL-AY and you spend a few days in prep time but its well worth it.

I'm sick of this cock and bull crap.

RPGs are not "all good"! You want "unity"? Well, then consider them all bad then. In general, RPGs suck ass. If there is a movement to stop this "suction" then why not?

Sure old school might be a "bunch of clerks delivering grocery bills" but there ain't nobody else out there in the jungle except a "bunch of warped sickos cutting off kid's arms". At least somebody is doing something about the problem. The word usage is off for sure lets try "Clarity School" versus "Busy Buzzing Bullshit School". See? Now we don't have to worry about comparisons with elder things.

GIVE ME THE NEW GAME

Where is it, you Nazguls? Find it and serve it up to me.

Otherwise, strap on your "Clarity School" feed bags, pardners, because there ain't an alternative.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;319692But theres a reason why the vast majority of the game industry, who once tried desperately to copy the old D&D rules, have moved on to other rules systems and no longer try to copy those rules.  They sucked.

The point of the many fans of original D&D is that there is nothing broken about the game. A game is a game and doesn't age. D&D in its original form is a timeless game that can still be as fun to play today as it was yesterday. Much in the same way that Chess and Go have been played unchanged for hundreds of years. That only because of business and marketing reasons that it is perceived as obsolete.


From my perspective there are several reason why the industry "moved" on.

1) The original book did a poor job of explaining the game. Starting with Holmes BASIC D&D down to today's Swords & Wizardry there have been several editions that remained D&D yet explained it better for a novice. This is one of the reason behind D&D 2nd edition.

2) More Options. RPGs by their nature are customizable to whatever point the DM and player have time form. It only natural that companies take a advantage of this and supply their own options for customization. D&D 2nd edition kinda of did this with kits, further expanded it with Skill & Powers, and was THE major reason behind D&D 3.0, and changed yet again for D&D 4th edition. This is the major design focus behind products for the largest gaming companies (Wizards, White Wolf, and Games Workshop)

3) More realism, D&D never went down this road in fact went backwards with D&D 4th edition. But is often a major design goal behind other RPG

4) Setting specific RPGs. This can also be better emulation of a genre or subgenre. AD&D 2nd edition sorta of this did this with all the setting they supported. Chaosium was especially noted for designed their RPGs with this in mind (Call of Cthulu, Stormbringer, Pendragon, etc). White Wolf as well as the Ars Magica people created their own subgenres of fantasy.


5) Universal Mechanics, D&D 3.0 sorta of did this with the D20 system coming out with D20 Modern. For RPGs like GURPS, Hero System, and Rifts it was a major design goal. Many rules lite system also have universal mechanics.

6) Rules Lite - Deliberately designed a RPG that was quicker to prepare for and easier to play. This differs from #1 where a game is easier to learn. Savage Worlds is a good example, and it was a major design goal of D&D 4th edition.



The only one out of all these that I see applying to the 1974 rules of D&D is #1. Most agree that the original rules are hard to learn and incomplete in many places. That it could have been written more clearer and more accessible to novices. Note the original rules are incomplete not because they lack what successor RPGs had but the fact it relies on another product Chainmail. And if you didn't know chainmail a lot of 1974 D&D doesn't make sense.


The remaining elements really boil down to personal perference.

For example Axis & Allies vs Third Reich (Avalon Hill wargame) vs Hearts of Iron (a computer wargame for WWII). All of them involves fighting world war II but at different levels of complexity in different forms. To me which one you like is a matter of personal preference and you can't argue one is better than another. Sure the original edition by Axis & Allies had some broken rules and strategies that was later fixed but it not the same game nor it has the same goals as Third Reich and Hearts of Iron. And as for Third Reich and Hearts of Iron each of them differs due to design goals and the limitations of the media they were designed (board and counters vs computer)

The main difference between now and 1974 is that people have a lot more experience to draw on. We have a dozen examples of rule lite RPGs, the same for ones that have realism as a goal. But it doesn't change the fact that the older RPGs are just as playable now as they were first released.

YOU may not like the older edition but other do. And it doesn't change that they would like to see some support for their favorite game. And they get defensive because it doesn't help that the leading companies get it into people heads that games magically become obsolete when a new edition is released.