Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 01, 2021, 03:51:09 PM

Quote1: I think for some the problem with multiple editions past 2e is that the changes are too large. Before that the differences from AD&D to 2e were not huge. And the transitions from O to B to BX to BECMI were also not so large as to put some fans off. On the flip side Gamma World has not had a consistent setting or rules ever from edition to edition.

Sure, but then one can agree that there are four separate games under guise of D&D. Each is well still playable.
And even then changes are less that between Warhammer 2 and 3 XD.
Maybe people should well not expect new editions to be just erratas.

QuoteIt is not so much that people dont like new editions. They hate obvious cash grabs trying to milk the customer base. Or changes so extensive its barely recognizable. This was 4es problem. Its not D&D.

I consider making edition 6 of CoC that is refined version of 5e that is... and so on, much more obvious cash grab than making basically new game under the same logo. With new game you get you know - new ways to play.

Quote2: The retcon disease did not start till DC did Crisis. And even after that things were still overall the same. But then DC got the "Crisis Disease" and so far theres no cure in sight and the patient is starting to look terminal. Marvel was for a loooooong time fairly stable. You just got big uphevals to individuals or on rare occasion larger events. But nothing totally world changing. That changed in the 2000s. But Marvel has been self destructing with its feminist agenda and then SJW agenda disease and its well past terminal at this point.

I always have a feeling that custom of retconning - by convoluted explanations - any mayor changes that endangered stability of main lines for both Marvel and DC are quite old practice.
Not speaking only about whole world - retcons and reboots - but things like constant fake deaths and resurrections.

1: Keep in mind that with D&D the initial split was mostly a legal one. AD&D was primarily Gary's thing and B/BX and nominally BECMI were Daves thing. The transitions from O to B to BX are relatively small overall. While the transition from O to A was alot larger unless you had been following Dragon where alot of this stuff saw its beginnings in some form. But from A to 2 the change was surprisingly small.

And actually erattas and expansion books are really what players would rather usually. This is why 5e has done well as its been putting out at least one expansion a year so far. New rules, new class paths, new monsters. WOTC seemed to just not grasp this at any level till late in the game.

2: You do not need to slap D&D on a new game to get new ways to play. This is what expansion books are for. Gary knew this and to some degree post Gary TSR knew it too. WOTC, not so much. And Gary warned WOTC that too big a change would fracture the fan base and cost them upwards of 50% of sales. WOTC kinda-allmost listened as 3es changes are overall not huge ones and chunks of text are near verbatim from A and 2. I suspect that helped ease people into 3e where otherwise they might have been more resistant.

3: The so called "revolving door of death" is actually just made up term by idiots. What you are actually seeing are essentially micro-reboots of this or that character or group due to ever changing writers. You get a new writer who for whatever reason messes up the character. Eventually you get one who hated the changes made prior, such as the death of a character, or misuse of a character and they set out to fix it. Then someone else comes along and does the same. Its cyclic and the warring between writers goes a ways back.

This whole current woke rape of Marvel characters will eventually get swept away as someone else gets the helm. Assuming theres a helm left to get at this point.

DC on the other hand was for ages fine with just doing "elseworld" stories that could go in whatever directions and not impact the core where people tended to stay dead or in jail/asylum alot longer. That seems to have gone out the window as well somewhat.

x: Bottom line is new editions damage the brand and sales when the changes are too severe.

QuoteWe can't even say Old Games vs. New Games as a logical divide because storygames aren't new anymore. Even the divide between Traditional RPG vs. Narrative RPG barely works anymore.

All those are sort of murky and wibbly-wobbly categories - they never works if you try to be strict and lead them to absolute logic consequences. They only work and are useful for describing things when VAGUE.

QuoteIt seems they can't be satisfied with just playing D&D. They need to cripple all aspects of what the game is. Hence, I ask the OSR to stand strong ---- because D&D as we know it, might fail.

Any printed edition of any game cannot fail - even if 100 new editions totally changing rules will be published, as any once made edition is suitable to use it for all eternity by players.
This is not some novel series or tv-show where you can suddenly throw coninuity of the window and cripple storry without chance for recovery - because every single campaign is it's own singularity.

You have dozens OSR clones, even if OSR producers will move to make dunno retroclones of oWOD - you can still play retroclones of D&D till 2137 AD even if they stop being made in 2044 AD.

QuoteThe OSR can become, when WotC falls, EVERYTHING D&D. It's a hefty obligation, but if they're worthy, a good one. That generates wealth. Remember Paizo built a fortress when D&D fell.

And even PAIZO failed in that. And OSR shall as well - even more maybe, as PF the only one really successful was clone of 3,5 - which is already new D&D often hated by OSR-ians.
And considering how logo matters and how OSR is like 40 different games - it won't work like that. It lacks gravity.

QuoteAnd actually erattas and expansion books are really what players would rather usually. This is why 5e has done well as its been putting out at least one expansion a year so far. New rules, new class paths, new monsters. WOTC seemed to just not grasp this at any level till late in the game.

But how much can you take. WOTC drowned 2, 3 and almost 4 with expansions, until everyone was giving them shit for too much splat books, too much options, till retcon happen.
Any 2e, 3e, 4e fan have enough material to play for ten lifetimes without much repetition. At such point you either make new edition - and make it new enough to not be expansion of already oversaturated previous one, or you turn into self-parody. That's why 5e takes things slowly - this way they can milk 5e without any mayor reboot for way longer - while not drowning players in too many options.

QuoteYou do not need to slap D&D on a new game to get new ways to play. This is what expansion books are for. Gary knew this and to some degree post Gary TSR knew it too. WOTC, not so much. And Gary warned WOTC that too big a change would fracture the fan base and cost them upwards of 50% of sales. WOTC kinda-allmost listened as 3es changes are overall not huge ones and chunks of text are near verbatim from A and 2. I suspect that helped ease people into 3e where otherwise they might have been more resistant.

In theory you do not need - but in reality in late capitalism LOGO matters. LOGO sells.
4e would sell way way worse - as non-D&D in my opinion even if it pissed off many 3,5 fans.

QuoteThe so called "revolving door of death" is actually just made up term by idiots. What you are actually seeing are essentially micro-reboots of this or that character or group due to ever changing writers. You get a new writer who for whatever reason messes up the character. Eventually you get one who hated the changes made prior, such as the death of a character, or misuse of a character and they set out to fix it. Then someone else comes along and does the same. Its cyclic and the warring between writers goes a ways back.

Sounds like what I accused them for - just spoken in very diplomatic words

Quotex: Bottom line is new editions damage the brand and sales when the changes are too severe.

To some degree yes. I agree.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 01, 2021, 09:03:58 PM
The OSR can become, when WotC falls, EVERYTHING D&D. It's a hefty obligation, but if they're worthy, a good one. That generates wealth. Remember Paizo built a fortress when D&D fell.

Not gonna happen. For one thing Paizo's "fortress" collapsed the moment 5e was available. Likewise, those who didn't like 4E didn't flock to the multitude of OSR options available at the time, they flocked to a 3.5e clone.

I know the default here is to assume OSR is everyone's preferred system, but I've hated old school style D&D for decades as I've posted about before.

(short version; don't have assholes introduce your game system; players will associate your system with the bad experience... slightly longer version; there are lots of systems that do heroic fantasy better than the versions of D&D that the OSR fetishizes ever did).

I'm not alone in that assessment. If the OSR-style play were really the end-all-be-all of gaming we wouldn't have gotten games outside that style as early as the 80s.

Frankly, my impression is that the OSR as a movement is too stuck up its own ass with One True Wayists who despise any concepts outside of Tolkien-derived races, AD&D classes (or race-as-class) at most. Those types love to crap all over things like tieflings, dragonborn, warlocks and warlords or being able to customize a character in ways other than magic item acquisition. While this is a bit of a generalization, I've felt it a LOT from the developers of OSR products.

It doesn't help that the "movement" has scattered itself across dozens of variant lines instead of a singular product (ex. D&D, Pathfinder, Vampire the Masquerade as only three lines to seriously capture non-trivial percentage of the RPG market).

No, if WotC goes under the bulk of those players will flock to an OGL 5e-based system or to a third party who licenses the D&D IP for their tabletop RPG from Hasbro (thus beginning the same churn as the Star Wars IP in rpgs where it inevitably collapses as soon as it starts making money because one side or the other gets greedy and mucks up the contract).

Barring a 5e-clone, some other modern mid-crunch system (likely several systems) with plenty of race/class and customization options is where most of 5e's audience will gravitate.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2021, 07:53:26 AM
I'm not alone in that assessment. If the OSR-style play were really the end-all-be-all of gaming we wouldn't have gotten games outside that style as early as the 80s.

80's?... There were all kinds of different games available from the 70's. Chivalry & Sorcery, Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest, Melee & Wizard, Empire of the Petal Throne, Bushido, 1980 itself featured The Fantasy Trip and Dragonquest, along with Thieve's World.

Quote80's?... There were all kinds of different games available from the 70's. Chivalry & Sorcery, Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest, Melee & Wizard, Empire of the Petal Throne, Bushido, 1980 itself featured The Fantasy Trip and Dragonquest, along with Thieve's World.

Aren't like half of them at least within the same league as most of OSRs?

QuoteFrankly, my impression is that the OSR as a movement is too stuck up its own ass with One True Wayists who despise any concepts outside of Tolkien-derived races, AD&D classes (or race-as-class) at most. Those types love to crap all over things like tieflings, dragonborn, warlocks and warlords or being able to customize a character in ways other than magic item acquisition. While this is a bit of a generalization, I've felt it a LOT from the developers of OSR products.

I generally agree.

Quote from: GameDaddy on February 02, 2021, 11:27:24 AM
80's?... There were all kinds of different games available from the 70's. Chivalry & Sorcery, Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest, Melee & Wizard, Empire of the Petal Throne, Bushido, 1980 itself featured The Fantasy Trip and Dragonquest, along with Thieve's World.

Fine, adjust my comment to include the mid-to-late 1970's. It doesn't change the fundamentals of the statement.

If the OSR was the end-all-be-all of rpg play you'd never have seen divergence from it. But we did. Skill systems, alternate casting systems, classless systems, different forms of task resolution, non-randomized character creation, character balance, etc.

In the mid-90's alternate approaches had gained enough steam that World of Darkness (mostly Vampire, but Mage and Werewolf were both popular in my area as well) was on the verge of unseating D&D as the king of RPGs (and would have too if not for WotC picking up the D&D torch).

The idea that the OSR is some mammoth movement that everyone would flock to if only 5e and the D&D brand's recognition weren't standing in the way is delusional. It has its fans certainly, but every stat I've ever seen where play can be measured has all of them combined eclipsed by even the "accursed" 4E and by wide margins to boot (with 3e/PF and 5e in leagues of their own).

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 02, 2021, 11:37:27 AM
Aren't like half of them at least within the same league as most of OSRs?

Pretty much my point. The fact of the matter is that if you want to push back against SJW insanity you need a much broader spectrum to take a stand than JUST the OSR. You need modern and even story game options that also cater to non-SJWs because the idea that everyone who plays modern systems is an SJW wanting to destroy tabletop roleplaying by refusing to accept the One True Way of the OSR is ridiculous. I know lots of conservative 4E fans and am aware of raging lefties in my area who only play old school D&D (though mostly genuine 1-2e and not OSR knockoffs).

QuotePretty much my point. The fact of the matter is that if you want to push back against SJW insanity you need a much broader spectrum to take a stand than JUST the OSR. You need modern and even story game options that also cater to non-SJWs because the idea that everyone who plays modern systems is an SJW wanting to destroy tabletop roleplaying by refusing to accept the One True Way of the OSR is ridiculous. I know lots of conservative 4E fans and am aware of raging lefties in my area who only play old school D&D (though mostly genuine 1-2e and not OSR knockoffs).

Indeed.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2021, 07:53:26 AM
Not gonna happen. For one thing Paizo's "fortress" collapsed the moment 5e was available. Likewise, those who didn't like 4E didn't flock to the multitude of OSR options available at the time, they flocked to a 3.5e clone.

I know the default here is to assume OSR is everyone's preferred system, but I've hated old school style D&D for decades as I've posted about before.

(short version; don't have assholes introduce your game system; players will associate your system with the bad experience... slightly longer version; there are lots of systems that do heroic fantasy better than the versions of D&D that the OSR fetishizes ever did).

I'm not alone in that assessment. If the OSR-style play were really the end-all-be-all of gaming we wouldn't have gotten games outside that style as early as the 80s.

Frankly, my impression is that the OSR as a movement is too stuck up its own ass with One True Wayists who despise any concepts outside of Tolkien-derived races, AD&D classes (or race-as-class) at most. Those types love to crap all over things like tieflings, dragonborn, warlocks and warlords or being able to customize a character in ways other than magic item acquisition. While this is a bit of a generalization, I've felt it a LOT from the developers of OSR products.

It doesn't help that the "movement" has scattered itself across dozens of variant lines instead of a singular product (ex. D&D, Pathfinder, Vampire the Masquerade as only three lines to seriously capture non-trivial percentage of the RPG market).

No, if WotC goes under the bulk of those players will flock to an OGL 5e-based system or to a third party who licenses the D&D IP for their tabletop RPG from Hasbro (thus beginning the same churn as the Star Wars IP in rpgs where it inevitably collapses as soon as it starts making money because one side or the other gets greedy and mucks up the contract).

Barring a 5e-clone, some other modern mid-crunch system (likely several systems) with plenty of race/class and customization options is where most of 5e's audience will gravitate.

Agreed and very much seconded. The OSR has it's place in the hobby for most they will either play 2E or 1E D&D before even thinking of buying an OSR clone.

Quote from: sureshot on February 02, 2021, 05:55:52 PM
The OSR has it's place in the hobby for most they will either lay 2E or 1E D&D before even thinking of buying an OSR clone.

That's what I do. For D&D, I *run* original D&D or 1e AD&D with the original rulebooks. For me, the value in "OSR" materials is not so much complete games to run, but as a source of resources for use with the D&D games I run. So I appreciate things like OSRIC adventures and supplements, for example, since those are compatible with my games. Just as important as rules compatibility (and arguably more important) is the tone and approach of the adventures or supplements. It's not just about the rules that are used. I only use adventures and supplements that match the tone and approach of my games.

That said, I have referred new players who wanted copies of the game rules to the OSRIC rulebook (both the free PDF and the physical copies available from Black Blade). It's not reasonable to expect a new, casual player to hunt for used rulebooks on ebay or pay through the nose at Noble Knight, and OSRIC works well as a stand-in. This is what I did with my most recent 1e AD&D group, which had 10 new players (and one experienced player). Several of the new players ended up downloading the OSRIC rules for their own reference.

And I'm not *against* running a clone-type set of rules. There are some that I'd happily run (e.g., Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea).

To me one of the best elements of the OSR is getting rid of so much of the AD&D cruft or treating it as optional (as it originally was) Paladins, Rangers, Orcs - all the boring shit.


As for one true wayism - thank god for that.  You can't actually push any kind of worthwhile creative agenda unless you think you have a better way.

The problem is not that people think they have have found a better way.  The problem is the idiotic tendency to take offence rather than put up and show that No, your way is better!

Quote from: TJS on February 02, 2021, 08:36:56 PM
To me one of the best elements of the OSR is getting rid of so much of the AD&D cruft or treating it as optional (as it originally was) Paladins, Rangers, Orcs - all the boring shit.


As for one true wayism - thank god for that.  You can't actually push any kind of worthwhile creative agenda unless you think you have a better way.

The problem is not that people think they have have found a better way.  The problem is the idiotic tendency to take offence rather than put up and show that No, your way is better!

For my part, I'm not concerned about pushing any agendas or showing that my way is better. (Perhaps it's better for me, but not for someone else, for example -- preferences and tastes differ.) I just like to play games I enjoy with people I enjoy. That's pretty much it.

Quote from: TJS on February 02, 2021, 08:36:56 PM
To me one of the best elements of the OSR is getting rid of so much of the AD&D cruft or treating it as optional (as it originally was) Paladins, Rangers, Orcs - all the boring shit.


As for one true wayism - thank god for that.  You can't actually push any kind of worthwhile creative agenda unless you think you have a better way.

The problem is not that people think they have have found a better way.  The problem is the idiotic tendency to take offence rather than put up and show that No, your way is better!

Whenever someone complains about the strength of others' opinions, it is just a sign that their belief in their own opinions is weak.  The weak-minded hate self-assuredness.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on February 02, 2021, 08:26:40 PM
That said, I have referred new players who wanted copies of the game rules to the OSRIC rulebook (both the free PDF and the physical copies available from Black Blade). It's not reasonable to expect a new, casual player to hunt for used rulebooks on ebay or pay through the nose at Noble Knight, and OSRIC works well as a stand-in. This is what I did with my most recent 1e AD&D group, which had 10 new players (and one experienced player). Several of the new players ended up downloading the OSRIC rules for their own reference.

Fortunately if one is not opposed to scanned copies of the 1E core books one can buy them from Drivethrurpg for pretty cheap imo . A link to the 1E PHB from their site: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17003/Players-Handbook-1e

10$ for PDF or 22$ for regular hardcover is pretty good. For some odd reason Wotc refuses to do their entire 1E and 2e stock as POD. Makes me laugh when I see the outrageous prices online.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on February 02, 2021, 08:26:40 PM
And I'm not *against* running a clone-type set of rules. There are some that I'd happily run (e.g., Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea).

Myself as well though with 5E of D&D to choose from I'm set for any version of D&D I would want to run

Quote from: TJS on February 02, 2021, 08:36:56 PM
As for one true wayism - thank god for that.  You can't actually push any kind of worthwhile creative agenda unless you think you have a better way.

One True Wayism isn't thinking you have a better idea, it's actively belittling anyone who doesn't play the game the way do. If you don't play their way you're not just wrong, you're a bad person for not agreeing with them. SJWs are One True Wayists with the cultural leverage to actually punish those who don't comply with their whims.

If you think a system is good and argue passionately for it, but can accept that because people have diverse interests not every system is a good fit for everyone, then you're not a One True Wayist.

Don't be a One True Wayist.

We still really don't have a measuring stick for what constitutes OSR;

People say "Tonal Fidelity", and despite being a college educated hillbilly I still don't quite grasp what this means unless it means "tone, thematics, style", which itself can be kind of subjective.
Many would say that because I use D6 rather than D20 (even if a numerically proper translative process exists between the two) that no amount of using class or archetype, or gold found contributing to advancement, or harsh combat/injury/death rules will make it OSR rather than just my preferred flavor of D6 Fantasy / OpenD6.

But, we know what OSR is not, for the most part. It's not blue haired tieflings being as common as half-elves once were. It's not the trope of subverting tropes for subversions sake, this new-age need to recast everything that was once a solid foundation as now being overdone and needing to be flipped on its head solely because it may be deemed a norm.

For me, one of the "tells" that something is not OSR is the sense that there is no longer wonder in magic, that magic is just another perfectly predictable "effect" to serve as a mechanical piece for a "build"; something I first saw appear in 3e, and not from the books themselves, or from long time players, but from the new crowd coming largely from magic the gathering who had not played prior editions. It was, IMHO, a symptom of a differing outlook on the game as a whole, one where the DM is supposed to be an organic computer for a tabletop vidya-not-vidya game. The DM is to have no agency and players calculating number of create water casts needed to fill a swimming pool is rote exactitude; tis not a miracle, tis no wonder in the magic, tis but a dry humorless algebraic calculation of aquified entitlement.