Quote from: ffilz;968762No it's not meaningless. OD&D, AD&D, D&D 3.x, D&D 4, and D&D 5 are all different games. Sure, they all are derivations from OD&D, but it is useful to distinguish games.

OSR to those who are interested in it implies either OD&D, AD&D, or a game that for the most part looks like one of those games, and to many it implies using a play style that was more common in the 70s than a play style that was more common in the 90s or later.

Categorization is useful. To some folks, D&D is used interchangeably with RPG, and I guess that's ok, but if I'm looking to play with some folks playing a specific game, genre, and play style, I want to know what they're playing. I don't want to be invited to a D&D game and roll 2d6 for Strength, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, Education, and Social, and then enlist in the Scouts and die in my first term of service. Now if I was invited to play Classic Traveller, I would be all over that...

And it's not about edition wars. While I have little interest in playing D&D 4 or D&D 5, I'm not going to have a fight with someone because one of those is their chosen game.

Frank

Are you for real?  Have you not seen the amount of outright bashing and dogpiling people get HERE for daring to like any edition of D&D that isn't sanctioned by the OSR crowd???  Which is to say anything after AD&D.

It totally is another form of the Edition Wars.  One that allows a small, supposedly significant crew of people here to swing their dicks on how their way is the best way, and everyone else is 'doing it wrong' because Gary didn't do it that way.  Arguments about how important Appendix N is and other bullshit.

Please, it's all just D&D.  Whether or not it's 'variations' or a direct lift doesn't matter, it's all D&D and there's nothing wrong with liking the little brown books to 4th and 5th editions no matter what grumpy, jealous old men whose so out of touch the only the can do whenever there's a thread about D&D is threadcrap about how it was back in their day and how stupid kids are for wanting to do it another way, or have questions.

Quote from: ffilz;968762No it's not meaningless. OD&D, AD&D, D&D 3.x, D&D 4, and D&D 5 are all different games. Sure, they all are derivations from OD&D, but it is useful to distinguish games.

More importantly, they have different play styles, which give different assumptions.  Even something as simple as opening a dungeon door changes drastically; in Pathfinder the door has a "Difficulty Level," so you have the strongest character bash it.  In OD&D, each person trying to open a door rolls a die trying to get a 1 or 2, so you clearly want as many people as fit bash it.

That's only one example, but there are many, many places where the play of the game has changed significantly across editions, and it's useful to specify what edition you'll use.  The key to success is careful management of expectations.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968778Are you for real?  Have you not seen the amount of outright bashing and dogpiling people get HERE for daring to like any edition of D&D that isn't sanctioned by the OSR crowd???  Which is to say anything after AD&D.

It totally is another form of the Edition Wars.  One that allows a small, supposedly significant crew of people here to swing their dicks on how their way is the best way, and everyone else is 'doing it wrong' because Gary didn't do it that way.  Arguments about how important Appendix N is and other bullshit.

Please, it's all just D&D.  Whether or not it's 'variations' or a direct lift doesn't matter, it's all D&D and there's nothing wrong with liking the little brown books to 4th and 5th editions no matter what grumpy, jealous old men whose so out of touch the only the can do whenever there's a thread about D&D is threadcrap about how it was back in their day and how stupid kids are for wanting to do it another way, or have questions.

I don't see the bashing. I see folks (including myself) getting frustrated with your insistence that it's all one game and that somehow they're out to get you... I really don't see the bashing...

No there is NOTHING WRONG with liking whatever versions of D&D you like. I DON'T CARE what you like (well, I might if we were likely to game together, but then only from the perspective of "do you like the same thing I do?"). But the different versions ARE DIFFERENT, maybe in ways that don't matter to some, but to others, myself included, the differences matter.

Right now I happen to be in a mode of being interested in finding out how these games from 1974 (D&D) and 1977 (Traveller) play (and tomorrow I might revisit 1978 RuneQuest, though I've been playing that essentially since the beginning [I might not have purchased it the first week it was available at Excalibre Games in Arlington MA, and they might not have got it the first week Chaosium shipped it]]). I've played several years of D&D 3.x (actually Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved) and enjoyed it (and while I have dumped crates of D20 stuff, I have kept all my Monte Cook stuff plus the 3.5 core books plus a few other things so I could run it again if the mod struck). I happen to have zero interest in 4e or 5e, but that's mostly because my time and money budget really leave no room for new games. I have other games I've purchased up to 20 years ago that if I ever had the time budget to play a new game for a bit would come out, but I'll probably won't have that time for some 20 years or so.

As to Appendix N, I agree that there's a bit of a fetish about it, but there's also a good point, for those who haven't read those books, and who are interested in seeing some of what influenced Gary Gygax, it's worth reading some of them. Personally, I'm reading some of the 50s ans 60s SF that inspired Marc Miller for Traveller.

I try not to let the various "OSR" folks dictate anything for me though. And yea, maybe there are a few jerks, but between the various boards I frequent, most folks are just interested in playing the game, but it's also fun to chat about how one might interpret the original game, or how one might make a new game or new setting or new adventure inspired by the original game. I've purchased a few such products. But again, I don't have time for a new game or setting.

Frank

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968779More importantly, they have different play styles, which give different assumptions.  Even something as simple as opening a dungeon door changes drastically; in Pathfinder the door has a "Difficulty Level," so you have the strongest character bash it.  In OD&D, each person trying to open a door rolls a die trying to get a 1 or 2, so you clearly want as many people as fit bash it.

That's only one example, but there are many, many places where the play of the game has changed significantly across editions, and it's useful to specify what edition you'll use.  The key to success is careful management of expectations.

Absolutely. And there's more than just the immediate mechanics that are different. In D&D3.x there was a definite feel of "designing" a character rather than playing what you got and seeing where it went. Other games are even more extreme, with some games even enabling players to "finish" their character's story as part of chargen. Then there are the play style changes, from sandbox, play to see what happens to the GM having a story in mind and engineering things so the players follow his plot and various things in between. There's also the various flavors of "indy" or "Forge" or "story game" games with their play styles that may include more collaborative play (though D&D play was collaborative from day 1, so in some ways it's just a matter of how you perceive the play dynamic) and a different focus on what is resolved by the mechanics. I've played a few of these games, and they're fun, but I also like D&D and Traveller...

Frank

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968778Are you for real?  Have you not seen the amount of outright bashing and dogpiling people get HERE for daring to like any edition of D&D that isn't sanctioned by the OSR crowd???  Which is to say anything after AD&D.

It totally is another form of the Edition Wars.  One that allows a small, supposedly significant crew of people here to swing their dicks on how their way is the best way, and everyone else is 'doing it wrong' because Gary didn't do it that way.  Arguments about how important Appendix N is and other bullshit.

Oh, for god sakes Chris, I just got done defending you on the high level thread, and you go around and make me wonder why I bother.

How is it that you do not recognize that what you are doing right now is the same bashing you are complaining about? Why is it that you are so good at finding ways that you, your tribe, or whatever it is you feel you are associated with are the ultimate victims and are always being unfairly targeted, yet somehow remain completely oblivious to your own behavior which is I.D.E.N.T.I.C.A.L., but is somehow okay in your book?  

You routinely make doing-it-wrong comments, categorical insults, and guilt-by-association comments about the OSR movement (like right now), OS rules, and OS figures. You have a knee-jerk reaction to things in OSR material that it must be bad. You drag your perennial one-sided arch-nemesis's name up to badmouth him in threads he hasn't even posted in. Every complaint you make about the OSR-dedicated individuals on this site towards newer games and newer game fans could just as easily and just as validly be made by the osr game fans about you. I'm sure you would tell me that they started it, but having come to this forum after it was a well entrenched norm, I can honestly say I don't care who started it, you're all just as awful to each other equally.

I thought we had made progress. With the gold for XP thread, it seemed like you finally recognized why a rule was made, how it made sense in context, and how it was gamer preference that had moved on that made it less reasonable, and not that it was a bad idea in the first place. I thought maybe you were moving towards understanding other perspectives on the game. I see my hopes were misplaced.

Again, I am not saying people are not abusive to you. I am saying that you are abusive right back. Either neither are okay, or both are (in which case both sides give as good as they get, and then shake hands afterwards, or whatever metaphor you like). Which is it?

QuotePlease, it's all just D&D.  Whether or not it's 'variations' or a direct lift doesn't matter, it's all D&D and there's nothing wrong with liking the little brown books to 4th and 5th editions no matter what grumpy, jealous old men whose so out of touch the only the can do whenever there's a thread about D&D is threadcrap about how it was back in their day and how stupid kids are for wanting to do it another way, or have questions.

Oh, but after that paragraph, it's you who are the one who is being insulted? How do you not see the hypocrisy of such statements?

The OSR ran over his dog when he was just a boy.

Quote from: Dumarest;968802The OSR ran over his dog when he was just a boy.

My karma ran over your dogma... (somewhere I may still have a button with that on it)

Personally I try to avoid having a dogma, though I'm sure most of us are dogmatic about something.

Q: What is OSR?

A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSR

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968779More importantly, they have different play styles, which give different assumptions.  Even something as simple as opening a dungeon door changes drastically; in Pathfinder the door has a "Difficulty Level," so you have the strongest character bash it.  In OD&D, each person trying to open a door rolls a die trying to get a 1 or 2, so you clearly want as many people as fit bash it.

That's only one example, but there are many, many places where the play of the game has changed significantly across editions, and it's useful to specify what edition you'll use.  The key to success is careful management of expectations.

Very much so.  1E and 2E are "close" only in the most superficial of ways.  They may seem closer if people heavily houseruled 1E, but for those who didn't the play product was changed significantly.

Of the top of my head, dropping gold for XP and increasing monster XP changed play in huge ways.

Simplifying the initiative system changed play in huge ways.  Some people liked it better, some people liked it less, but to say it was the same would be overstating by a lot.

Perhaps the biggest change that isn't grokked very well was surprise going from a number of segments each having full attacks (however many segments remained after closing distance) to simply being the other side getting to go once.  Upping your die roll to surprise, and limiting your die roll to be surprised, is huge in 1E.  You want to invest in magic or other means to get your chance to surprise up to 4-in-6 or better as much as you can.  Fights can be over before they begin.   In 2E where surprise is a fixed and flat condition, it isn't really worth gearing much of your party's resources to it.

The changing nature of illusions was huge.

These are just a handful, but anyone who says 2E is basically the same game as 1E is subjectively referring to how they used 1E, not objectively what it was.  They are very different games that share a fair number of mechanics except several that really matter.

Quote from: Dumarest;968802The OSR ran over his dog when he was just a boy.

Oh, look, it's "show us on the doll where the OSR touched you in a bad way" o'clock again.

All right, so each edition of D&D is so different, how?  Honest, sincere question.

Because when I sit down at a AD&D game, or a 5e game, or even the Rules Cyclopedia game, I expect a lot of dice rolling, exploration (usually a dungeon), and a lot of death and dismemberment.

I don't see the difference, I really don't.  And to ME, that's the great thing about D&D, you can pick it, drop it in front of another edition player, explain the minor changes and boom, you have a game.  And the only thing that changes the 'playstyle' is the person running the game.

Gronan you keep going on about how rules can't cure stupid (which I completely agree with.  They might help facilitate an already established mindset, but rules are there to help you, how they're used is up to you, and that's the general, not specific 'you'), and quite frankly, from my limited experience (32 years and counting), they also don't promote any specific 'playstyle' in as much people claim the OSR does.

Let me repeat:  In MY anecdotal experience, it's not the rules that make the playstyle, but the people playing them.

So OSR, AD&D on up, it's all D&D with minor changes in between.

And frankly, I LIKE THAT!  It's why it's one the systems I come back to, because I know that despite the difference in how some things are done, I can make a character, get some popcorn and a pop, and away we go.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968861Oh, look, it's "show us on the doll where the OSR touched you in a bad way" o'clock again.

Mom! The OSR is touching my taint again!!!

Quote from: EOTB;968840Of the top of my head, dropping gold for XP and increasing monster XP changed play in huge ways.

Simplifying the initiative system changed play in huge ways.  Some people liked it better, some people liked it less, but to say it was the same would be overstating by a lot.

Except they didn't drop XP for gold, just made it optional. And I've never met anyone who could make sense of 1e iniative let alone actually use it. Did you?

Quote from: Voros;968939Except they didn't drop XP for gold, just made it optional.

They may have made it optional, that was a dusty footnote not commonly utilized.  Because they did rebalance the system as if you weren't.  And if you did utilize it you had other problems.  

XP for random selection of monsers in 1E (pick others if you think I'm cherry picking)

demon, type III 2,400+14/hp (average 3,030 total xp)
ghoul 65+2/hp (average 83 total xp)
giant, stone 1,800+14/xp (average 2,395 total xp)
lamia 1,700+12/XP (average 2,180 total xp)
sahuagin 35+3/hp (average 68 total xp)
wyvern 575+6/hp (average 731 total xp)

Same monsters in 2E

demon, type III 44,000
ghoul 175 XP
giant, stone 7,000
lamia 3,000 XP
sahuagin 175 XP
wyvern 1,400 XP

So if you double or triple (or more) the XP for the monsters (because you know that most DMs are going to ignore the footnote that they optionally can use gold for XP) but then tack the gold for XP back in - what happens to the rate of advancement?  It goes way up.

It's changing the game either way.  And if you'll notice - it's never the ones who prefer 1E who say that 1E and 2E were essentially the same game.  It's the ones who don't prefer it.

Quote from: Voros;968939And I've never met anyone who could make sense of 1e iniative let alone actually use it. Did you?

Did?  I've always played 1E.  Yes, I use it.  Pretty much all of it.  Some stuff that just doesn't come up very often like low weapon speed weapons getting bonus attacks against high weapon speed weapons on a tied die roll ends up getting dropped in the heat of play, but yes.  

1E initiative has a lot of corner case rules that don't come up all the time.  But for your more standard rounds - some melee, some spells, a couple of people shooting a bow - I don't find it all that hard.  "Difficulty" and "differentiation" aren't the same thing.  1E differentiates between activities more than 2E.  But none of the differentiation is super complex.  You're not doing differential calculus.

1E initiative is arguable in that there's a few sections with a handful of competing interpretations.  So 1E DMs can debate whether or not casting starts at the start of the round or is affected by the roll result, for example.  (DMs who began with 0E tend to read "casting starts at the beginning of the round" into it since that's what they were used to.) But none of these interpretations are intrinsically complicated in and of themselves.  They may be more complicated than "roll a die and one side goes before another", but I want my combat to be tactical when it happens.  1E initiative and segments give a lot of tactical possibility that 2E glossed over.

I agree these rules can have some effects on play but their significance is often overblown and full of insider baseball or just reflective of the narcissism of small differences.

I don't have the 2e DMG at hand anymore but as I recall XP for Gold wasn't a footnote but a blue sidebar right there on the same page that suggested a whole range of XP awards. I used both monster, story and gold awards as I was never one for the almost glacial pace of advancement the rules were often predicated upon.

Perhaps the iniative rules for 1e play better but they are very poorly written.
Combined with surprise they are near incomprehensible.

...Edited: Can't copy and paste it correctly, see page 62-63 of the 1e DMG...

Was Gary gobbling mushrooms when he wrote this?