TheRPGSite

I see D&D changing again. From the 3e BS that transformed the game, to something closer to FATE. DIY classes and races. 6e COULD BE a fully freeform game where players make characters from pure imagination, with ability bonuses being WTF.

I could see the 6e Monster Manual being five pages. Describing one monster: The White Man. That's the SJWs main threat. Orcs, Dragons, demons --- they're the PCs --- and the white man is their "Monster".

"He's SO evil".

So a party of Orc, Kobold and Bugbear PCs combat the evil white man in his dungeon created for personal convenience. Because white men are that ULTIMATE EVIL. This is where it's going.

The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

Insert "that's bait" meme here

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

I want D&D to be like poker or chess. A game people play with friends that isn't changing everytime there's a new corporate trend.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 29, 2021, 09:24:59 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

I want D&D to be like poker or chess. A game people play with friends that isn't changing everytime there's a new corporate trend.

Same, but with the caveat that, like playing games with buddies, houserules are encouraged and embraced, and sometimes published for others

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
I see D&D changing again. From the 3e BS that transformed the game, to something closer to FATE. DIY classes and races. 6e COULD BE a fully freeform game where players make characters from pure imagination, with ability bonuses being WTF.

I could see the 6e Monster Manual being five pages. Describing one monster: The White Man. That's the SJWs main threat. Orcs, Dragons, demons --- they're the PCs --- and the white man is their "Monster".

"He's SO evil".

So a party of Orc, Kobold and Bugbear PCs combat the evil white man in his dungeon created for personal convenience. Because white men are that ULTIMATE EVIL. This is where it's going.

The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

I see you subscribe to the Star Trek Movie model of releasing DnD editions.

https://images.app.goo.gl/GM91bwwPT5VdgbG99

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
So a party of Orc, Kobold and Bugbear PCs combat the evil white man in his dungeon created for personal convenience. Because white men are that ULTIMATE EVIL. This is where it's going.

The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

I had a D&D campaign two years ago that was like this - the PCs were an orc paladin, kobold sorcerer, yuan-ti cleric, and a hobgoblin fighter. It was set in a mirror version of Greyhawk where those were all good-aligned races, while humans, elves, and dwarves were evil. I had a thread here about whether it was politically correct, or just a change of pace.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/politically-correct-stuff-in-your-gaming-worlds/

As an alternative, I liked it. We didn't go that far with it, but it was fun to play out the action. In general, I think supporting different sorts of worlds and PCs is good. That said, I don't think it's that big a change. D&D has long supported different worlds and settings, not just Tolkien ripoffs - like Planescape, Spelljammer, and Maztica.

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PMThe greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

Not particularly, but I thought "resistance to 'new-school' RPG philosophy" was already one of the key planks of the OSR, wasn't it? Where does the OSR need to "hold stance" that it hasn't already been quite cheerfully holding?

For myself I admit I can't see D&D going down the road you imagine and still being even semi-successful, if nothing else because the same foe all the time would get boring. "Penthouses and Patriarchies" just doesn't evoke the same thrill. (And I say that as a person who was never particularly into the OSR myself, if only because I always had a weakness for point-buy systems.)

QuoteI want D&D to be like poker or chess. A game people play with friends that isn't changing everytime there's a new corporate trend.

This is basically impossible, and never was a thing. House rules were around from the get go - even encouraged - and that's exactly changing the game, even without corporate trend just by will of DMs and players. D&D by grace of being RPG cannot be like poker and chess. Never was, never will be, even if no new edition would be published ever. Deal with it. This is RPG. Learn new rules, improvise, read dozen games and so on. Wanna have STABLE RULES - play board games.

QuoteI see D&D changing again. From the 3e BS that transformed the game, to something closer to FATE. DIY classes and races. 6e COULD BE a fully freeform game where players make characters from pure imagination, with ability bonuses being WTF.

I could see the 6e Monster Manual being five pages. Describing one monster: The White Man. That's the SJWs main threat. Orcs, Dragons, demons --- they're the PCs --- and the white man is their "Monster".

"He's SO evil".

So a party of Orc, Kobold and Bugbear PCs combat the evil white man in his dungeon created for personal convenience. Because white men are that ULTIMATE EVIL. This is where it's going.

The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

As a conservative player who was planning to make so call evil humanoid races to be socially and culturally diversed since 2005, and as Professor Tolkien was deeply troubled by intelligent mortal beings being "always good" or "always evil" - I'd say I will very gladly enjoy orcs, kobolds and bugbears as core adventuring races in D&D.
Demons and dragons not so much - but I'd gladly get rid of dragon strict subtypes as well, instead making them embodiments of primordial chaos, and make big random tables deciding shape, colour, horns, wings, breath weapon, magic abilities and so on of each and every dragon around :3

But of course I also want to keep White Men as diversed as they were - Germanic should be LE, Balts TN, Slavic CG, Celts CN, Greeks LN, Romans LG, Aryans NG, Semites NE and Albanians CE.

Also:

>3,5
>close to FATE

How about: bullshit.

QuoteSame, but with the caveat that, like playing games with buddies, houserules are encouraged and embraced, and sometimes published for others

Which exactly makes it impossible.

Also: and that's very important thing. Lots of people around seems to be somehow pained there are multiple editions.
While in comics or films, retcons are sort of destroying story, destroying continuation - I mean in terms of DC and Marvel it doesn't matter because continuity of their worlds was gangraped multiple times each 2 years since 60s, but in other situations it can be annoying. But with RPG - it doesn't matter. It fucking doesn't matter.
You have 35 editions of D&D. Good. They are vastly different - even better - you have a lot of material to pick your favourite. And if have some irrational need to be part of great world community of D&D players, and your ass hurts because each group plays different variation of RP game, then go to therapy or talk with your local priest, because that's some bullshit.

QuoteI had a D&D campaign two years ago that was like this - the PCs were an orc paladin, kobold sorcerer, yuan-ti cleric, and a hobgoblin fighter. It was set in a mirror version of Greyhawk where those were all good-aligned races, while humans, elves, and dwarves were evil. I had a thread here about whether it was politically correct, or just a change of pace.

Cool :) I planned a setting - I have yet to build, where I decided 13 races will be max for all world (all other beings will be unique mutants, planetoucheds, fairies and so on, not mortals) - and went with adopting both traditionally evil and good races - as diffferent but morally diversed people. I find it... well more interesting.
And in my rather normal Faerun campaign I have orc paladin of Tyr in team :3

I see nothing politically correct it, nor false diversity, nor even sjw (I keep those words separate - PC would be avoiding calling people based on some minorities - like let's say Cthulthans of Faerun - savages or barbarians, false diversity would be race swapping of ethnic groups, making some ancient cities as diverse as modern London, and so on, SJWs would be shaping narrative in a way blaming equivalents of European/American for evils of the world - often used together but ultimately not the same).

QuoteNot particularly, but I thought "resistance to 'new-school' RPG philosophy" was already one of the key planks of the OSR, wasn't it? Where does the OSR need to "hold stance" that it hasn't already been quite cheerfully holding?

Well yes but neither OSR is fundamentally conservative, nor New School fundamentally SJW.
I'd even say considering thematic focus of New School, that OSR sandbox style usually lacks - new school is probably better for making really conservative games - you can make whole story about ninja Vatican exorcists fighting demons of gay ;)

And you can take OSR game and run it perfectly within leftist perspective - like old hippie FR of Greenwood, before TSR made it family friendly.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 30, 2021, 07:05:32 AMThis is basically impossible, and never was a thing. House rules were around from the get go - even encouraged - and -

There are an extraordinary number of variants of poker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_variants). And there is a difference between house rules and corporate rule changes.

Yes, there are also many variants of chess in fact.

QuoteAnd there is a difference between house rules and corporate rule changes.

Only if you are tournament player - which matters in poker and chess - but I have yet to see Corporate D&D Tournament. D&D is only amateur game - so it's all in hands of a group.
Unless you are afraid your players gonna like new rules better, but in such case that's kinda egoistical assholness - I want less diversity in possible rules, so my players were forced to play variant I like.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on January 30, 2021, 07:36:23 AMThere are an extraordinary number of variants of poker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_variants). And there is a difference between house rules and corporate rule changes.

Yeah, my post wasn't clear. I don't want D&D (or any RPG) to be standardized, just a regular type of game that people play without needing to play whatever is current just to find a group.

The only way I could see this happening is if there was some sort of PDF generation app. You load the app and start selecting options: race+class or race-as-class, vancian magic or spell points, hit points or wound levels, pick which races and classes you want, how historical your game world is, gold standard or silver standard, alignment or nah, etc. Then you click the button and it generates a pdf rulebook that includes every option you picked and none that you didn't. This way every group would have their own custom set of rules.

Other designers could create mods for the app to add things like sci-fi or horror or adding new monsters or spells, etc.

Sorta like a Skyrim for tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 30, 2021, 07:05:32 AMWell yes but neither OSR is fundamentally conservative, nor New School fundamentally SJW.
I'd even say considering thematic focus of New School, that OSR sandbox style usually lacks - new school is probably better for making really conservative games - you can make whole story about ninja Vatican exorcists fighting demons of gay ;)

(pedant)Strictly speaking that would be demons of lust, and they'd be after everybody.(/pedant) But yeah, I see your point.

That said, I think there is one way in which OSR has wound up on the "conservative" side of modern debates by default: OSR is all about preserving a specific type of entertainment experience for its own sake, without needing any kind of advocacy message -- even a conservatively agreeable one -- to be embedded in it to call it "worthwhile".

The New School seems to me very much about the idea that a game has to be about some important real-world topic to be worthy of respect and emotional investment, and while in principle the topic itself could be anything, in practice, this perspective on the world lines up so precisely with the whole "the personal is political / everything is political" stance of SJ philosophy that it's unsurprising most of those who approach game design this way do so with SJ planks in mind.

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
I see D&D changing again. From the 3e BS that transformed the game, to something closer to FATE. DIY classes and races. 6e COULD BE a fully freeform game where players make characters from pure imagination, with ability bonuses being WTF.
...
The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

I already have what I want, so I don't care what WotC does with D&D.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 31, 2021, 05:38:36 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
I see D&D changing again. From the 3e BS that transformed the game, to something closer to FATE. DIY classes and races. 6e COULD BE a fully freeform game where players make characters from pure imagination, with ability bonuses being WTF.
...
The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

I already have what I want, so I don't care what WotC does with D&D.

Same here.

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
Because white men are that ULTIMATE EVIL.

I'm a civic nationalist, so I'm hoping for multi-racial "white supremacists" of both genders to become the "ultimate evil" in the quaking hearts of SJWs everywhere as they shit themselves in panic.

But whatever happens, I look good in a black hat.

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
The greater hobby question is: Do YOU want that?

I want WotC to destroy itself and I'm cool with D&D being destroyed too by the SJW idiot fest. I don't care how that's achieved as long as WotC collapses under the weight of its own stupidity.

It doesn't even matter if OSR games get "banned" from the hobby. As long as printers exist, you can introduce a table of deplorables to non-political gaming and there's always some people who enjoy what the OSR offers.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 31, 2021, 06:11:23 PM
It doesn't even matter if OSR games get "banned" from the hobby. As long as printers exist, you can introduce a table of deplorables to non-political gaming and there's always some people who enjoy what the OSR offers.

  Given current trends, I think non-Official/Progressive games may be best served by going 'underground' for a while--keep it to small circles of friends and the sympathetically minded, so folks don't call down cancellation strikes on you for Gaming Wrong in Public.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 31, 2021, 05:03:57 PM
That said, I think there is one way in which OSR has wound up on the "conservative" side of modern debates by default: OSR is all about preserving a specific type of entertainment experience for its own sake, without needing any kind of advocacy message -- even a conservatively agreeable one -- to be embedded in it to call it "worthwhile".

The New School seems to me very much about the idea that a game has to be about some important real-world topic to be worthy of respect and emotional investment, and while in principle the topic itself could be anything, in practice, this perspective on the world lines up so precisely with the whole "the personal is political / everything is political" stance of SJ philosophy that it's unsurprising most of those who approach game design this way do so with SJ planks in mind.

Politics aside, I don't think that there is any single "Old School" or "New School". New School includes narrow topic-specific games like Apocalypse World and Fiasco, but it also includes generic systems like Fate Core.

Quote from: jhkim on January 31, 2021, 09:52:05 PM
Politics aside, I don't think that there is any single "Old School" or "New School". New School includes narrow topic-specific games like Apocalypse World and Fiasco, but it also includes generic systems like Fate Core.

  I'd split the difference. There's definitely an "Old School" movement, although some of its boundaries get a bit fuzzy at times. "New School," by contrast, is meaningless beyond 'not Old School.'

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 01, 2021, 07:25:54 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 31, 2021, 09:52:05 PM
Politics aside, I don't think that there is any single "Old School" or "New School". New School includes narrow topic-specific games like Apocalypse World and Fiasco, but it also includes generic systems like Fate Core.

  I'd split the difference. There's definitely an "Old School" movement, although some of its boundaries get a bit fuzzy at times. "New School," by contrast, is meaningless beyond 'not Old School.'

I'd say there's an OSR movement, but it doesn't cover everything that is "Old School". It seems wrong to me to call stuff I played in 1981 as "New School". RPGs have had a lot of variety since very early on.

Quote from: jhkim on January 31, 2021, 09:52:05 PMPolitics aside, I don't think that there is any single "Old School" or "New School". New School includes narrow topic-specific games like Apocalypse World and Fiasco, but it also includes generic systems like Fate Core.

Fair point, but I would argue that in its own way, the entire design approach for FATE as a system rests on certain assumptions more common to what I've called the "New School" (stipulating here that all such retroactively assigned generalizations will have exceptions, outliers and oddities) than to its predecessors:

- The emphasis on a character's core abilities (aspects) as unique personal descriptors rather than impersonal numerical scores, whose game effectiveness relies not on straightforward higher-vs.-lower values (all aspects give only a flat +2 bonus when invoked) but on the frequency with which they can be justified as applicable, which is typically reliant on the player's verbal cleverness.

- The quantification of character power resources (fate points) not as an "internal" resource managed in theory by the character for primarily tactical reasons (e.g. hit points, fatigue points, mana points, willpower points, spells, ammunition etc.), but as an "external" resource explicitly deployed by the player for primarily dramatic reasons; all FATE games rely on a player deliberately allowing or even seeking out things that will harm, inconvenience or disadvantage his character precisely so that he can have the fate points he needs to succeed in the challenges and conflicts he really wants to win.

- The structuring of conflict not around long lists of established tactical options but around extremely generic action types (attack, block, maneuver) the effectiveness of which, again, depends not on analyzing permutations for the best option but on verbal cleverness in justifying applicability.

- The deliberate limiting of numerical quantification, when used, to the absolute minimum of single-digit addition and subtraction and nothing else, to the degree that even the standardized randomizer ranges only from -4 to +4.

To me these features highlight the design approach of the New School: the emphasis on verbal ability, fluidity and improvisation over mathematical ability, standardization and memorization. This in itself has no necessarily political dimension, but when such dimensions are overlaid upon the games thus produced, I don't think it's entirely arbitrary which philosophy finds which approach more congenial.

Quote from: jhkim on February 01, 2021, 10:45:24 AMI'd say there's an OSR movement, but it doesn't cover everything that is "Old School". It seems wrong to me to call stuff I played in 1981 as "New School". RPGs have had a lot of variety since very early on.

Yeah, by 1983 you had Champions with full point build characters and personality mechanics as well as James Bond 007 which gave players point that they could specifically use to change aspects of the game world. Both things that are considered "New School" today.

But I've always rejected the idea that D&D 3e was a "New School" game when it was nothing but a cleaned up version of D&D 2e. Everything the OSR complained about 3e could be found in 2e from point builds to feats and skills (WP and NWP).

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2021, 09:04:58 PM
I see D&D changing again. From the 3e BS that transformed the game, to something closer to FATE. DIY classes and races. 6e COULD BE a fully freeform game where players make characters from pure imagination, with ability bonuses being WTF.

Um... news flash... But there was an article in Dragon wayyyyyy back on a freeform system of creating characters for BX, and 2e D&D had the freeform class system in the core books.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 30, 2021, 07:05:32 AM
Also: and that's very important thing. Lots of people around seems to be somehow pained there are multiple editions.

While in comics or films, retcons are sort of destroying story, destroying continuation - I mean in terms of DC and Marvel it doesn't matter because continuity of their worlds was gangraped multiple times each 2 years since 60s, but in other situations it can be annoying. But with RPG - it doesn't matter. It fucking doesn't matter.

1: 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.

It 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.

2: 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.

QuoteThe only way I could see this happening is if there was some sort of PDF generation app. You load the app and start selecting options: race+class or race-as-class, vancian magic or spell points, hit points or wound levels, pick which races and classes you want, how historical your game world is, gold standard or silver standard, alignment or nah, etc. Then you click the button and it generates a pdf rulebook that includes every option you picked and none that you didn't. This way every group would have their own custom set of rules.

Other designers could create mods for the app to add things like sci-fi or horror or adding new monsters or spells, etc.

Sorta like a Skyrim for tabletop RPGs.

That's cool idea, but I doubt it's possible to do it clearly. Too much of wibbly-wobbly parts.
And of course fans of any given edition would whine that they cannot find a group as their table wanna play some different lame combination not True D&D ;)
At least with specific editions is easier to get overall vibe and rules are planned to go together.

Quote(pedant)Strictly speaking that would be demons of lust, and they'd be after everybody.(/pedant) But yeah, I see your point.

Implying mighty and vicious demons of gay would agree to be classified with mere straight succubi and incubi. Ha!

QuoteThat said, I think there is one way in which OSR has wound up on the "conservative" side of modern debates by default: OSR is all about preserving a specific type of entertainment experience for its own sake, without needing any kind of advocacy message -- even a conservatively agreeable one -- to be embedded in it to call it "worthwhile".

Agree.

QuoteThe New School seems to me very much about the idea that a game has to be about some important real-world topic to be worthy of respect and emotional investment, and while in principle the topic itself could be anything, in practice, this perspective on the world lines up so precisely with the whole "the personal is political / everything is political" stance of SJ philosophy that it's unsurprising most of those who approach game design this way do so with SJ planks in mind.

That I disagree quite strongly. For me first and foremost of what's called The New School are games Powered by the Apocalypse and/or Forged in the Dark.
For me decisive elements of this style of game are a) game should simulate story and progress of story, not singular actions b) importance of possition and effect as elements negotiable with DM - how risky are your deeds, and how rewarding for your purposes. c) more varied roll results than win/lose usually with win with consequence. d) limited simulating of PC character, most specific skills and so on are assumed based on fictional description and position/effects can changed base on who's trying to do what, e) usually more narrow focus of gameplay and more structured scenarios.

QuoteNew School includes narrow topic-specific games like Apocalypse World and Fiasco, but it also includes generic systems like Fate Core.

Not sure if Fate counts, though it was most definitely important for it. But then as other guys here noted - most of NS elements were around in various forms for a long time before they become more unified trend.

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.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 31, 2021, 12:24:58 PM
The only way I could see this happening is if there was some sort of PDF generation app. You load the app and start selecting options: race+class or race-as-class, vancian magic or spell points, hit points or wound levels, pick which races and classes you want, how historical your game world is, gold standard or silver standard, alignment or nah, etc. Then you click the button and it generates a pdf rulebook that includes every option you picked and none that you didn't. This way every group would have their own custom set of rules.

Other designers could create mods for the app to add things like sci-fi or horror or adding new monsters or spells, etc.

Sorta like a Skyrim for tabletop RPGs.

The way you do that is build a kitchen sink system with some well defined optional rules that allow you; between curated options and optional rules; to have the system you want.

It's honestly why I did take the time to include an optional rules section in my own system so it could be tailored towards different styles of play. By default it's Big Damned Heroes in style, but there's optional rules for beginning at anywhere from level 0 to a level -3 where you're literally a non-combatant without even a class.

Likewise, default attributes are a choice of arrays, but I also included point buy and a couple methods of random generation as optional rules for those who prefer that. The same for rolling random species and background. For those who don't want class customization there's an option for default talents. For those who prefer Theater of the Mind combat, there's options for that (truth do tell, I've used those more in playtests than the default battlemap rules).

In the opposite direction, for those who like 3e style skill point allocation, there's an optional rule for that.

Throw out the more gonzo species and limit the classes and you can emulate the more limited options of really old school games quite easily.

The trick is to build in a lot of options for the system initially so making changes is more about curating and selecting rather than having to build from scratch. That way it's easy for GMs/Players to adjust the system to fit.

I had hoped OSR would grow beyond "games built on TSR D&D", but that did not happen much. The fan built D6 and D100 games never got much traction in the hobby compared to how many TSR clones have been adopted and played.

We 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.

Like everything else in society, it's really about the political divide now.

As I've said before, survivors of the "Satanic Panic" now having to deal with
the SJW Storm.

It 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.

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.

The right adaptation of the Rules Cyclopedia + 5e should do well. Keep your minds open to a new generation of gamers.

I refuse to limit myself to a single rpg. I will play all of them. I prefer Savage Worlds and OSR (B/X).

When 6E comes out, I will probably play that too. I don't care about putting things in boxes, that's a progressive problem

Quote from: Spinachcat on February 01, 2021, 08:22:07 PM
I had hoped OSR would grow beyond "games built on TSR D&D", but that did not happen much. The fan built D6 and D100 games never got much traction in the hobby compared to how many TSR clones have been adopted and played.
...

That was the absolute intention of the d20 OGL.

It was great for the proliferation of D&D based systems, but also heavily marginalized most other systems before they gradually realized what was happening and released OGL's of their own.

Now it's probably too little too late.

Systems like OpenQuest d100, open d6, etc... need a "flagship" complete game to lead the way first like D&D is to OGL, to get people to take notice of what they can do.

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 :P

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.

To have a measuring stick for something, first you must be willing to exclude.  Otherwise there's no point in measuring.  This is where gamers' competing desires to classify, and also to never be called mean, collide like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object

I'm fine with OSR failing to qualify as a precise classification.  I don't really care if anyone is included or excluded.  But the reason there is no measurement is because any time one is proposed it goes something like this:

"I propose OSR is defined as X"

"What?! I like Y, and think I should be able to call myself 'old school' too.  Are you saying I'm not old school?"

"Uh, no.  I wouldn't want to make you upset by defining you outside of 'old school'"

And so it's just an adjective that anyone can use for any reason on themselves or what they sell, but also one that enough people use a certain way that it still is understood by most to mean "early D&D"

Like "story", "old school" is only useful as a more precise term when it is used in a small group discussion where everyone agrees (if only for sake of that discussion) on the boundaries.  Outside of that environment, it can be useful as a signal that one would enjoy participating in such a discussion.  Of course, it is right at the boundaries where the most interesting discussion takes place.  If, for example, nearly everyone accepts that a dungeon crawl with a lot of chances for character death is probably old school, then there isn't much to say about it beyond why that it is true.

Waitaminnit.

The New School idea of "Telling Story ®" is bullshit. They're "participating in happenings." Happening isn't story. Story is what comes after happenings.

So don't advance that BS. It's logical fallacy. The SJWs so much enjoy transmuting words to mean what THEY WANT despite what the words have always meant to Humanity.

You want to practice Deconstructionism, let's do it. And I'll crush you. This is the idea of what playing an RPG is, the very foundation of the battle.

SJWs want D&D to be FATE. It isn't that game. Orcs can't be Black people in a setting with Black adventurers who are human. It's only white, priveledged SJWs projecting their inherited racism on the game.

Stop.

Step back and ask yourself does your crusade make sense. It doesn't.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 03, 2021, 01:54:30 PM
Step back and ask yourself does your crusade make sense. It doesn't.

My only crusade is that One True Wayist OSR nuts can die in the same fire as the SJW One True Wayist nuts. Both are more concerned with telling other people they're having fun in the wrong way than in actually HAVING FUN.

If the first goal of your game is not "how do we ensure everyone participating will have an enjoyable experience", but pushing some agenda, then you have failed as a game designer.

I would think we would all agree that unspecified and unnamed people who act like dicks should stop acting like dicks.

Quote from: TJS on February 03, 2021, 03:37:37 PM
I would think we would all agree that unspecified and unnamed people who act like dicks should stop acting like dicks.

But if I stop acting like a dick, and the other dicks here did the same, our traffic would plummet!

;D

QuoteAs 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.

Well only not... that is not matter of creative agenda, it's matter of political agenda. Fact that there is somehow more, and more visible anti-SJW element among OSR, flows from simple fact, lot of OSRians are well older players, not used to SJW nonsense, and raised on old D&D. This is not a war between OSR and PBTA, this is a war between SJW and non-SJW, and pushing one true gaming-wayism in a way is just turning it into edition flame.

QuoteWhenever 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.

Well being fanatic in terms of variant of leisure is a foolishness, worthy of complain. I encourage political, religious and philosophical fanatism. Being fanatic of leisure type is WEAK AS FUCK.

QuoteThe DM is to have no agency

DM has the same agency as usual. Being honest and judging rules, and having rules is not taking agency from DM. Otherwise we can just play storygames where DM can judge anything in any way.

QuoteFor 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";

I must say spell descriptors from older editions does not look any more mystical and mysterious compared to 3e. I mean... if you want mysterious magic - any edition of D&D is about worse choice you can take. Ever. Unless your DM full of agency randomly changes spell effects then sure.

QuoteThe New School idea of "Telling Story ®" is bullshit. They're "participating in happenings." Happening isn't story. Story is what comes after happenings.

Primo, there were RPGs for a long time that really was storytelling basically without gaming.
Second, difference between happening and story is a narrative structure - any game that have mechanism maintaining narrative structure of a session - is a narrative, storytelling game in a way. Like Blades in the Dark for instance.

QuoteSo don't advance that BS. It's logical fallacy. The SJWs so much enjoy transmuting words to mean what THEY WANT despite what the words have always meant to Humanity.

Words for humanity shifted meanings and context almost every few generations.
Now this is just pointless, authistic wordgames.
People understand what narrative/storytelling games are, and no matter how much you gonna cry those are happening games... people won't use it. Also because it just sounds lame, while storytelling game sounds cool and rock and roll.

QuoteYou want to practice Deconstructionism, let's do it. And I'll crush you. This is the idea of what playing an RPG is, the very foundation of the battle.

That's just perfect comedy, I have to admit.

QuoteSJWs want D&D to be FATE. It isn't that game. Orcs can't be Black people in a setting with Black adventurers who are human. It's only white, priveledged SJWs projecting their inherited racism on the game.

OK, but what does it have to do with storytelling problem?

I'm kewl with One True Way for myself and my table. I know what I like, I know what works best for me as a GM, what works best for me as a player, and I know that other players keep coming back to my table to dance and play in my One True Way.

I never gave a shit how others play at their table, except when the retard brigade started declaring what is / was / will be the hobby.

BTW, I think D6 would do "heroic fantasy" better than OSR D&D which isn't built to be cinematic. For me, OSR D&D works best as "dungeon horror" or "brutal apocalypse" or other genres where death is very present for the player characters. In my mind, "heroic fantasy" is more akin to Star Wars where few heroes die, even when they fail.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 02, 2021, 07:53:26 AM(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).

1: Oh so very true and sad that some here cannot grasp that at all.

2: um. Theres been all sorts of RPGs practically right out the gate. Themes, Systems, Settings, etc. But one of the reasons D&D gets copied so often is because it is a surprisingly solid system at its core and gets the job done with the fewest moving parts for that core. Yet is flexible enough you can add on endless widgets or retheme it and run with little effort. But even without that the nature of the game will tend to push design to certain patterns that can and will look rather similar. Stats, Classes, Races, Damage, etc.

3: Unfortunately true for some. Not all. But theres some definite bad eggs in the lot who have positioned themselves to try and lord it over everyone else. Luckily that just does not really work when all someone has to do is step around them and do as they please. And people have.

4: Well then which do you want? The OSR locked down into one pattern? Or the OSR fractured into dozens of patterns, some of which are direct attempts to bypass the OSR gatekeepers?

The dividing line for Narrative / Storytelling games and Traditional RPGs is easily defined by WHEN the story happens. If the story of what happened can only be told after the RPG play is done, it's a traditional RPG.

It's also easily defined by the role of the DM. In Traditional RPGs, the DM controls the world and the players dictate their characters' actions. If players can dictate what happens in the world beyond their own PC's actions, then it's a narrative/storytelling game.

The stupidity is trying to make believe these two very different games are both RPGs. It's equally dumb as trying to pretend CRPGs and LARPS are the same game. We can call a dozen things "rpgs", but improper and sloppy naming isn't going to make them the same.

Spell descriptions in 3e onward do not appear any more mystical, that is true, but in prior editions players did not insist to me that a poorly worded description in a spell write up should work exactly as written with a legalistic/rules lawyer/computer logic reading of such, if they a expected a spell to have an effect and you ruled a slight variation for the circumstances they did not spaz out and insist they were entitled to exactly the possible summons listed in the phb. They also never tried to diplomacy roll a king into giving up his crown or a dragon into having sexual relations and then insist if this did not occur that you'd cheated them of skill ranks. The problem was never descriptions, the problem was a mindset carried by players that had no experience with prior editions and made "builds" rather than "characters".

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 03, 2021, 01:54:30 PM
Waitaminnit.

The New School idea of "Telling Story ®" is bullshit. They're "participating in happenings." Happening isn't story. Story is what comes after happenings.

Except its not a new concept in any way shape or form.

Instead what you have is a new cult trying to push it as TRUE role playing. And invariably as all fanatics do. They eventually extend RPG to mean "everything on earth" and the term no longer has any meaning when they use it.

THIS is the problem. Not storygamers themselves. Its this cult that treats RPGs like a sex fetish and sets out to infiltrate and co-opt everything they can to push that agenda. And we are allready seeing the exact same thing forming in the OSR, just not as pervasive or hostile. Yet.

There may well come a time when we will be sitting here discussing how bad the OSR cult is as it co-opts and damages more and more games. Unlikely to be sure. But considering how these cults keep gaining momentum, it is still a possibility as long as we have more than a few nuts in the OSR.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West
Well only not... that is not matter of creative agenda, it's matter of political agenda. Fact that there is somehow more, and more visible anti-SJW element among OSR, flows from simple fact, lot of OSRians are well older players, not used to SJW nonsense, and raised on old D&D. This is not a war between OSR and PBTA, this is a war between SJW and non-SJW, and pushing one true gaming-wayism in a way is just turning it into edition flame.

WTF?  I thought one true wayism is about playing games?  Not politics.  The OSR is not fundamentally anti-SJW - that's just the Pundit.  The OSR as a whole has always been fundamentally anti-political and that's what it must hold to.

QuoteWell being fanatic in terms of variant of leisure is a foolishness, worthy of complain. I encourage political, religious and philosophical fanatism. Being fanatic of leisure type is WEAK AS FUCK.

Excluded middle.  Thinking that A is better than B doesn't make one a fanatic, it makes one a human being with a fundamental ability to recognise one's own mind.

An awful lot of political bullshit about games and any kind of media is because people have bought into the fundamentally stupid idea that one cannot talk about aesthetic preferences at all without it being fundamentally abritrary.

Of course being humans, people do have opinions so they channel it into bad faith arguments.  Rather than try to make a case for why my aesthetic preferences should be upheld I will instead try the bad faith tactic of moving the conversation to the political realm and accusing you of evil.

Quote from: Omega on February 04, 2021, 07:21:22 PM
2: um. Theres been all sorts of RPGs practically right out the gate. Themes, Systems, Settings, etc. But one of the reasons D&D gets copied so often is because it is a surprisingly solid system at its core and gets the job done with the fewest moving parts for that core. Yet is flexible enough you can add on endless widgets or retheme it and run with little effort. But even without that the nature of the game will tend to push design to certain patterns that can and will look rather similar. Stats, Classes, Races, Damage, etc.

Yeah, already corrected a few posts back. I was speaking in a general not a literal sense. The point beyond the specific date applies regardless.

Quote from: Omega on February 04, 2021, 07:21:22 PM4: Well then which do you want? The OSR locked down into one pattern? Or the OSR fractured into dozens of patterns, some of which are direct attempts to bypass the OSR gatekeepers?

It's not a matter of what I want; I know the OSR is not for me, so its also not for me to say which way it should go.

My point was more about WHY the OSR won't be able to take over the position of D&D if WotC were to collapse. The only systems that have ever come close; Pathfinder c. 2008-2013 and Vampire the Masquerade in the late 90's; were singular systems, not a gaming movement with dozens of different variant systems.

You could sit down at any Pathfinder or VtM table and know what the rules are and you only really the core book for the most part. There is no one singular core rulebook for the OSR... each OSR game has its own slightly different core rules book and while collectively you might have some numbers, the odds of finding another table playing the exact same OSR system in the same area are pretty slim (whereas in any reasonable population center you could find multiple Pathfinder or, back in the day, Vampire tables... just as you can find multiple 5e tables even in smaller cities/towns).

Quote from: EOTB on February 03, 2021, 01:08:47 AM
To have a measuring stick for something, first you must be willing to exclude. 

Exclusion is the road to excellence!

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2021, 09:04:53 PM
My point was more about WHY the OSR won't be able to take over the position of D&D if WotC were to collapse.

That's simply an issue of economics. If the Troll Lords guys win a billion dollar Powerball lottery, then Castles & Crusades could totally replace D&D. Any game company with $50M to blow on marketing could dethrone D&D. It's just not worth the ROI for anyone to try.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2021, 09:04:53 PM
There is no one singular core rulebook for the OSR... each OSR game has its own slightly different core rules book and while collectively you might have some numbers, the odds of finding another table playing the exact same OSR system in the same area are pretty slim

The differences between most OSR systems are no more than codified house rules that were beyond common in the TSR days. I've run many OSR games - especially Swords & Wizardry: White Box - and more than half the time, players familiar with AD&D will just assume I'm running AD&D. For new players, they assume OSR is just a rules-light Pathfinder.

Also, since the OSR is built upon "rulings, not rules", the majority of players join for the experience, not the rules. Other than Ascending/Descending AC, most players would be hard pressed to start rattling off the rules differences between AD&D, B/X, LL, S&W, etc. Outside of the Siege Engine, most players couldn't tell you what C&C does differently than 2e or OSRIC.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 04, 2021, 10:32:51 PM

Quote from: EOTB on February 03, 2021, 01:08:47 AM
To have a measuring stick for something, first you must be willing to exclude. 

Exclusion is the road to excellence!

This is why 1E will always be the best.  It was willing to say "no".

QuoteThe dividing line for Narrative / Storytelling games and Traditional RPGs is easily defined by WHEN the story happens. If the story of what happened can only be told after the RPG play is done, it's a traditional RPG.

To certain extent yes.
But only partially - I mean games called "Storytelling" (ironically enough Storyteller System do not helps Storytelling in any significant way) will have more predictable elements (as they are more bound by structure of play) but those are still RPG's, there are still rolls (or different sorts of resolutions), which mean there is still quite a lot of undpredictability. So you cannot really tell this story beforehand. Like "Blades in the Dark" - it falls under storytelling umbrella - as it means to emulate certain type of histories, and you know there has to be some SCORE - but well you don't know how score will work - what consequences shall happen, and so on.

Like Agatha Christie novel - you know there's gonna be a murder, detective and solution - but that doesn't mean you can get whudunnit before reading.

QuoteIt's also easily defined by the role of the DM. In Traditional RPGs, the DM controls the world and the players dictate their characters' actions. If players can dictate what happens in the world beyond their own PC's actions, then it's a narrative/storytelling game.

No... not really. There are games that are otherwise very traditional that gives extra options to players to control enviroment/narrative for instance with exceptional successes, and there are narrative games that does not give players any specific power beyond that - as mentioned Blades in the Dark, really.

QuoteThe stupidity is trying to make believe these two very different games are both RPGs.

But of course they are - they both fail under this wide, wide, wide umbrella.
You have roles you play both in FATE and in D&D you are bound to PC you created in general sense, and you're playing this character, and both are games with sets of rules allowing for your PC to achieve some goals or fail miserably in them. Some umbrellas are narrow, some are wide. RPGs are wide as hell.
You'd have to remove gaming elements - ergo conflict/trouble resolution mechanism of any sort - that is not based on DM's/players pure FIAT, to went beyond RPG elements by removing G-thing.

QuoteWe can call a dozen things "rpgs", but improper and sloppy naming isn't going to make them the same.

No one wants for RPGs to be the same. They are wide category - like vehicles. I don't want my trucks and planes to be the same - yet they are all vehicles doing vehicle purpose - moving me from point A to point B.

QuoteSpell descriptions in 3e onward do not appear any more mystical, that is true, but in prior editions players did not insist to me that a poorly worded description in a spell write up should work exactly as written with a legalistic/rules lawyer/computer logic reading of such, if they a expected a spell to have an effect and you ruled a slight variation for the circumstances they did not spaz out and insist they were entitled to exactly the possible summons listed in the phb. They also never tried to diplomacy roll a king into giving up his crown or a dragon into having sexual relations and then insist if this did not occur that you'd cheated them of skill ranks. The problem was never descriptions, the problem was a mindset carried by players that had no experience with prior editions and made "builds" rather than "characters".

I have mixed feelings about it. I prefer clarity of rules, over DM fiat, but then if rules are not already clear then it's hard to be angry for GM on them.
Then I have a strong feeling most of Diplomancers simply have not read Diplomacy rules really.
I mean I read Pathfinder rules now: Diplomacy have 3 basic options here: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy/ - and neither of Core options in any way allows you to diplomance King to give you your crown or seduce a dragon. The non-core options get more wonky - but well that's why they are non-core.

QuoteExcept its not a new concept in any way shape or form.

Instead what you have is a new cult trying to push it as TRUE role playing. And invariably as all fanatics do. They eventually extend RPG to mean "everything on earth" and the term no longer has any meaning when they use it.

THIS is the problem. Not storygamers themselves. Its this cult that treats RPGs like a sex fetish and sets out to infiltrate and co-opt everything they can to push that agenda. And we are allready seeing the exact same thing forming in the OSR, just not as pervasive or hostile. Yet.

There may well come a time when we will be sitting here discussing how bad the OSR cult is as it co-opts and damages more and more games. Unlikely to be sure. But considering how these cults keep gaining momentum, it is still a possibility as long as we have more than a few nuts in the OSR.

Paradoxically I think important problem is D&D 5e. Which is in no way storytelling game. I mean it's less storytelling game than 4e, because 4e at least have those epic destinies and so on, which sort of forced GM to included in story and skew it a bit - as it was end-goals for PC's bound to mechanics of their advancements.
In 5e I see nothing storytelling really. No mechanics for it.

But because 5e is promoted by various hired actors and other goons, people overall, especially left-leaning drama queens get really bad ideas about it.
I do not consider what let's say Mercer do with his characters backstories and so on, to be bad per se, in fact in a way that's sort of cool - problem is of course it's in no way bound to mechanics of 5e - that's his pure fiat as GM, to create quests based on those backstories, and moments for characters to evolve in some direction. That's neither bad or good, problem is when people starts to think - that's how 5e should be played. And multiplicity of various mostly D&D shows, streams and so on makes this swamp even murkier.

Then of course SJW agenda to take over RPGS is not directly connected to it - I mean storytelling boom would happen even without SJWs because simply we have much more nerds now, much more geek stories, much more fantasy and sci-fi in mainstream, so lot of new gamers will come to gaming with promise to relive or make equally cool new stories. That would happen even without SJWs, as it's desire to fullfil certain hunger.

QuoteWTF?  I thought one true wayism is about playing games?  Not politics.  The OSR is not fundamentally anti-SJW - that's just the Pundit.  The OSR as a whole has always been fundamentally anti-political and that's what it must hold to.

Agreed.
And tbh not just OSR.

QuoteExclusion is the road to excellence!

Intelligent Design is a road to excellence. You can say "no" and still make wonky system.

QuoteThis is why 1E will always be the best.  It was willing to say "no".

It also openly allowed GMs to ignore any edition "no" that was written down. Which basically was like saying "no but you know really it's up to you". And so we get all other editions and D&D clones.

Quote from: EOTB on February 04, 2021, 11:39:07 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on February 04, 2021, 10:32:51 PM

Quote from: EOTB on February 03, 2021, 01:08:47 AM
To have a measuring stick for something, first you must be willing to exclude. 

Exclusion is the road to excellence!

This is why 1E will always be the best.  It was willing to say "no".

Deny by default, permit by exception. That is the only way to do chargen.

In play, you can try anything, and the dice determine the outcome.

The rest is commentary.

QuoteDeny by default, permit by exception. That is the only way to do chargen.

And boom - empty character sheet because by default you denied everything :P

Some day you'll let go of however 1E disappointed you personally, and not feel compelled to respond to every post praising it by people who use it by preference

The look isn't quite what you imagine it to be

QuoteSome day you'll let go of however 1E disappointed you personally, and not feel compelled to respond to every post praising it by people who use it by preference

Nah, just contrarian banter towards OTWs ;) Personally I've just read 1e, as I went into RPG only 15 years ago. Nevertheless read of book was enough for me.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 05, 2021, 05:53:22 AM
But of course they are - they both fail under this wide, wide, wide umbrella.
You have roles you play both in FATE and in D&D you are bound to PC you created in general sense, and you're playing this character, and both are games with sets of rules allowing for your PC to achieve some goals or fail miserably in them. Some umbrellas are narrow, some are wide. RPGs are wide as hell.

By your definition, the umbrella covers everything because you are desperate for wanker PtBA bullshit to be mistaken for RPGs. How shocking. Not like we haven't seen this dance repeatedly endlessly since the earliest days of the Forge.

Definitions matter because otherwise, BitD = Soccer as both are games played by people, and surprise, surprise words become useless as anything means anything we want.

QuoteBy your definition, the umbrella covers everything because you are desperate for wanker PtBA bullshit to be mistaken for RPGs. How shocking.

No. By my definition this umbrella covers everything where players control some fictional character and there is any mechanism to resolve conflicts/challenges such characters met by fiat of DM, or any other possible challenge-making-mechanism. And this is commonly accepted definition in 95% of RPG-world, and that's enough. Why - well because umbrella terms does not work on basic of some authistic wordplays and definition-games but based on social consensus of what given word mean. That why some words tends to change definitions every few generations.
So both Vampires true-drama LARPers claiming D&D is not true RPG but simply combat tactical boardgame, and OSR OTW-ist authist claiming PBTA is not RPG, are just fools.

And I'm in fact mostly Warhammer, Call of Cthulhu and D&D players, quite dissapointed with my Blades in the Dark trials, so believe me I have no personal love for "New Wave" even if few mechanisms of it picked my attention.

QuoteDefinitions matter because otherwise, BitD = Soccer as both are games played by people, and surprise, surprise words become useless as anything means anything we want.

Yes by soccer lacks what we call role-playing which is commonly understand as well having PC, that is controled by player in fictional situation.
As I said linguistic consensus - that's how language works - even in professional dialects of philosophy, science or theology - consensus arise in time, not always concioussly often by simple custom to name certain things in certain way, often without any strict logic behind it. And it's fine. That's how it works.

Both OSRs, Warhammer, FATE, PBTA and even freaking Microscope are widely regarded as RPGs. And consensus of society decides therefore they are, and no amount of internet authists with their own tiny authistic definitions won't change it, because their internal authistic logic is not how real language, how real word works - so of course no - it cannot be anything you want, but if it's something 90% of society wants, then yes meaning changes. And it's still USEFUL, because there is still meaning behind word, even if new one, recognized by majority of society, which means it's USEFUL FOR COMMUNICATION, and that's all words are really useful for.

And in this case anyway non-simulationist narrativist games are way older than PBTA, and they were always accepted by majority as form of RPG, even if not very popular till last decade.