Genuinely curious how others define this magical movement.
What 3-5 things define OSR in your eyes?
To my uninitiated eyes it seems to fall into two camps;
1. Clones of the original D&D games.
2. Standing on the shoulders of those games to try and do something a little original.
I've asked a similar question before but the answer was....nebulous and off point.
Indie projects based on the D&D engine. Seems pretty simple to me.
Have to say naming yourself a 'Renaissance' is mighty pretentious and smug. And people shit on Zak and WW for pretension?
Quote from: Voros;966627Indie projects based on the D&D engine. Seems pretty simple to me.
Have to say naming yourself a 'Renaissance' is mighty pretentious and smug. And people shit on Zak and WW for pretension?
lol I think it's the renaissance part that always gets my back up. I'm liking the look of a couple of things but I struggle with OSR when I already own everything printed for D&D.
Here's my take.
1) AD&D revival movement
2) Publishing your house ruled interpretation of a TSR D&D edition using the OGL
3) Publishing dungeons / settings / supplements for TSR era D&D
4) Jabbering about TSR era stuff
5) Reviving interest in other early RPGs
Revival might have been a better word at OSR's start, but Renaissance is a fine word for what the OSR has become. There is now so much variety and different avenues of design from people who have engaged with the OSR that Renaissance works. But none of it would have existed without the early dudes working on retroclones.
I think it's just an appreciation that classic games don't just become bad games because newer game ideas come along.
Someone once pointed out that the OSR has three general "waves". The first wave was strict retroclones - games designed to be practically identical to earlier, out-of-print versions of D&D. This had a two-fold purpose: to allow people to play ersatz AD&D 1st ed. (or what have you) without actually owning an old copy or a pirate pdf; and to allow people to write and commercially sell adventures and other material for these games, by saying that e.g. it's a commercial product for OSRIC, rather than for AD&D 1st ed. (the latter of which you arguably couldn't do legally). Examples include OSRIC, Swords&Wizardry, G.O.R.E., For Gold & Glory.
The second wave was/is games based on some flavour of old-school D&D or other, but with the author's personal touches and changes; "D&D my way", if you will.
The third wave is about using the fundamental ruleset of D&D and exploring new themes and ideas with it. Examples include Sine Nomine games ("D&D but sci-fi", "D&D but Call of Cthulhu-like", etc.) or White Lies ("OD&D but spy movies").
From the POV of the OSR people, it was a revival/rediscovery of a lost art, a lost way of doing things. These are mostly people who started in the 1990s with metaplot heavy railroad RPGing, or in the 2000s with insanely crunch-heavy 3e D&D, and looked for a better way. The movement grew out of the old school message boards, but only has fairly slight overlap with the never-stopped-playing 1e Grognards. The very earliest iteration, OSRIC, was all about legally publishing third-party 1e AD&D modules - usually the kind of high level modules Grognards might make use of - in the style of ca 1985, but it quickly moved on to a focus on Moldvay Basic (1981) and OD&D (1974-77) and an examination of those systems' intended playstyles.
It's a "Renaissance" because it's a rebirth/rediscovery, and building on the shoulders of giants, like the Renaissance in 15th century Western Europe, rather than a straight continuation of the Classical world like the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium.
Quote from: Premier;966636and to allow people to write and commercially sell adventures and other material for these games, by saying that e.g. it's a commercial product for OSRIC, rather than for AD&D 1st ed. (the latter of which you arguably couldn't do legally).
As an IP academic, I can't see any reason why a publisher can't legally produce 1e-compatible material, and some do. But most publishers are afraid of Cease & Desist letters to them and their distributors. These are almost always Trademark based not copyright based though, and the OGL doesn't give you any TM rights, quite the reverse - it bans nominative and descriptive uses that would otherwise be permitted. But with OSRIC a publisher could use the OGL, put "OSRIC" on the cover, and supposedly this would mean more to customers than a non-TM term like "1e". It does not make much sense legally, BUT there was a (correct) feeling that WoTC lawyers would not send C&Ds to companies who used the OGL and did not refer to WoTC TMs.
This allowed the OSR to develop, but most modern OSR games would be perfectly legal even without the OGL. Even without the OGL I can't see any basis for a C&D to the publishers of White Star or Apes Victorious, the two OSR games which arrived in my post yesterday.
To me the OSR came to represent the following.
1: The claim to be setting up a platform to create fan-made modules and material for older editions of D&D.
2: The ideal of "preserving" the older style of gameplay and rules.
How long either of these lasted I dont know. But at some point it seems to have become just a platform for flat out stealing older games now and an endless spiel of "retroclones" to the point some OSR are now stealing from other OSR. Then people started using it to swipe non-D&D games.
Then you have the so called self apointed gatekeepers of what OSR even means. And I've seen at least one claim that any version of D&D using a d10 isnt realy OSR. Insert-every-deity-on-earth-here wept.
Theres still some honest people out there actually producing new modules and material. But sometimes it feels like they will be lost on the vast morass of "clones" and garbage.
To me though the whole thing comes across as pointless a pointless cover and if OSR had some sort of meaning way back its pretty much lost it at this point.
It about people playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D and anything else that interests them. It is a kaleidoscope because of it low barrier to entry due to the use of open content and digital technology for distribution. The only thing that prevents you reading this from distributing your own work is the time you have for your hobby and your interest in going the extra mile to polish your work.
The kaleidoscope that is the OSR defies and confuses a lot of people. For example people forget that many where making stuff for classic D&D prior to the release was of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. The initial spurt of clones allowed many of the authors of these works to use the clones as a safe harbor to go further and releasing their ideas as polished, more or less, commericial works.
Which is I view the ideas of any waves other than the expanding use of open content as hogwash. In short the OSR is what you want it to be no less and no more.
Quote from: S'mon;966638From the POV of the OSR people, it was a revival/rediscovery of a lost art, a lost way of doing things. These are mostly people who started in the 1990s with metaplot heavy railroad RPGing, or in the 2000s with insanely crunch-heavy 3e D&D, and looked for a better way. The movement grew out of the old school message boards, but only has fairly slight overlap with the never-stopped-playing 1e Grognards. The very earliest iteration, OSRIC, was all about legally publishing third-party 1e AD&D modules - usually the kind of high level modules Grognards might make use of - in the style of ca 1985, but it quickly moved on to a focus on Moldvay Basic (1981) and OD&D (1974-77) and an examination of those systems' intended playstyles.
It's a "Renaissance" because it's a rebirth/rediscovery, and building on the shoulders of giants, like the Renaissance in 15th century Western Europe, rather than a straight continuation of the Classical world like the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium.
My answer was going to be along these lines. In my mind it's a return to the simple systems of the early TSR days instead of the complex versions of the WotC days.
Quote from: Spinachcat;966633Here's my take.
1) AD&D revival movement
2) Publishing your house ruled interpretation of a TSR D&D edition using the OGL
3) Publishing dungeons / settings / supplements for TSR era D&D
4) Jabbering about TSR era stuff
5) Reviving interest in other early RPGs
Revival might have been a better word at OSR's start, but Renaissance is a fine word for what the OSR has become. There is now so much variety and different avenues of design from people who have engaged with the OSR that Renaissance works. But none of it would have existed without the early dudes working on retroclones.
I like revival, it's less pretentious.
Old D&D Good, Other Games Bad. Make all games old D&D.
The OSR seems to miss the non-D&D games that were popular in the early days, and to miss on original designs.
Quote from: DavetheLost;966671Old D&D Good, Other Games Bad. Make all games old D&D.
The OSR seems to miss the non-D&D games that were popular in the early days, and to miss on original designs.
Yeah. Several very cool games don't seem to get the same love.
Quote from: DavetheLost;966671The OSR seems to miss the non-D&D games that were popular in the early days, and to miss on original designs.
IMNSHO it simply recognises/views that OD&D or BX D&D is a much better rules chassis even for sf gaming than is eg Space Opera or other simulationist games of the 1970s & 1980s. Hence
White Star et al. Obviously there are well designed non-D&D early games like Classic Traveller & Call of Cthulu that do what they aim to do, but most frankly were not as good as D&D. D&D did a lot of things right, things that people complained about even in 1977 but that make for good gaming.
Quote from: HorusArisen;966625Genuinely curious how others define this magical movement.
A series of publishing projects, each separate but in total comprising a movement. It wasn't the original intent, but the renaissance part compares better to the Harlem Renaissance than the Renaissance Renaissance.
The focus is in recapturing (and or expanding upon) a feel that the author feels represents their old school experience. Rules are roughly based on some version of TSR-era D&D*, except with the author's own spin, and any modern inclusions that the author considers acceptable breaks.
That's about it. Everything else is people trying to see more 'there' there than is really there.
Quote from: DavetheLost;966671Old D&D Good, Other Games Bad. Make all games old D&D.
The OSR seems to miss the non-D&D games that were popular in the early days, and to miss on original designs.
There is a more general OSR movement based more on focusing on all earlier era games. The D&D OSR movement is just D&D-focused because, well, it is comprised of D&D fans. They're not inherently saying other games are bad because they want to use D&D-like rules to play in different genres. They do so because they like D&D.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;966694There is a more general OSR movement based more on focusing on all earlier era games. The D&D OSR movement is just D&D-focused because, well, it is comprised of D&D fans. They're not inherently saying other games are bad because they want to use D&D-like rules to play in different genres. They do so because they like D&D.
Agreed and I find it ironic that critics of the OSR (all caps) don't berate fans of Classic Traveller and Runequest 2e for being more inclusive of D&D in their communities despite those being part of a larger osr (small caps). Imagine that! People have preferences.
I define it as one thing and one thing only: reviving and playing old school games, or continuing playing old school games if you never stopped. Everything else seems to be an attempt to define as new something that has always existed, as plenty of us never stopped playing the old games we already owned. Other than that, I suppose labeling things "OSR" is a marketing tool. And since I don't care about D&D at all, OSR has nothing to do with D&D aside from the fact that it includes people embracing old school D&D and using D&D rules to make new games in the same mode.
Quote from: Dumarest;966726I define it as one thing and one thing only: reviving and playing old school games, or continuing playing old school games if you never stopped. Everything else seems to be an attempt to define as new something that has always existed, as plenty of us never stopped playing the old games we already owned. Other than that, I suppose labeling things "OSR" is a marketing tool. And since I don't care about D&D at all, OSR has nothing to do with D&D aside from the fact that it includes people embracing old school D&D and using D&D rules to make new games in the same mode.
Except for the pesky fact that there a rather large group of folks focused on playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D. OSR (all caps) happens to be the label that won out to describe this group. Define it how you like but there still going to be hobbyists doing what I describe above. Along with hobbyist who are interested in all older editions, and hobbyist that only interested in particular edition of a specific RPG, along with hobbyists interested in merging newer mechanics with older mechanis and well just about every damn things inbetween.
Again because of digital technology the barrier to do something about their interests has dramatically lowered. Not just publishing or sharing either but finding fellow hobbyists to game with has been dramatically been made easier. If there is Open Content is involved the barrier it lowered to just the time one willing to devote to their projects. The OSR (all caps) is just one expression of this dynamic. There Pathfinder, the D&D 5e SRD, the D&D 5e DM's Guild, d100 Runequest style RPGs, Fate, Savage World publishing program, and more recently Cepheus for Traveller.
The number of RPGs whose IP is held tightly by their parent corporation or author is shrinking. And the amount of material for RPGs that have open content or a open Publishing program is expanding. That the major story here. The other one is that people are surprised that there is so much love for older editions and older games. That the idea of progress in RPGs in the former of new editions is mostly baloney.
There been a bunch of posts so far in this thread that are variants of
QuoteHow I view the OSR as ....
The thing is you are all right. Back in the day when the only way to distribute things was by buying a print run and convincing distributors to carry your book. When you had to create everything from scratch. When creating the final layout of the book involved days at a paste up table with glue and printed sections from a machine costing thousands. All these factors meant that you had to go in whole hog with an idea to make it worthwhile to pursue. There was considerable time and money invested to pull it off.
Today it a completely different story. Anybody with the drive can get their idea no matter how expansive or small it is into the hands of other people. And not just in the form of badly mimeographed copies, but in a form nearly indistinguishable from something made by a traditional printer. And with stuff like Print on Demand, even in physical bound books.
So the OSR is everything thing people been saying it is in this thread because it is the sum what of people do when pursuing their interest. And it undiluted material as well. Which as many of you note means there are a lot of crap. But it also means that the good stuff isn't compromised by consideration of limited shelf space, or limited money. Even limited manpower is somewhat mitigated by the labor savings enabled by digital technology. However stuff like editing, art, and actually writing still consume pretty much the same amount of times as they did back in the day.
Which is why the past decade been a golden age for RPGs in general not just D&D.
Few "OSR" books are any good. Most OSR writers think they are going to get rich by producing books with the D&D label scratched off. This all happened before with the d20 System books that collected dust.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;966758Few "OSR" books are any good. Most OSR writers think they are going to get rich by producing books with the D&D label scratched off. This all happened before with the d20 System books that collected dust.
Like who? Nobody I know expected to get rich. One, James Raggi of Lamentation of the Flame Princess, after his first year published planned out a path to make a living. A couple of others like Dyson Logos, Matt Finch, Kevin Crawford, and Dan Proctor make a substantial income from sales. Below that are dozens making enough to make a dent in their monthly bills and the rest are at my level where the income pays for our hobby. Unlike the d20 boom which lasted only 4 years, the OSR is in its tenth year.
Like usual you ignore inconvenient facts.
Define the OSR? Um, gee that's, um, like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow)
Quote from: HorusArisen;966630lol I think it's the renaissance part that always gets my back up. I'm liking the look of a couple of things but I struggle with OSR when I already own everything printed for D&D.
The term is a response to the early 2000s attitude in some places on the Internet that new games are necessarily objectively better, usually because reasons, and that the only reason anybody would play those stupid old games is nostalgia.
Almost 15 years later, it looks to me like what has happened is that the internet community has selfselected into subsectors by interest, and people really just don't hang around with people they don't mostly agree with.
I've never been part of any "renaissance," I'm just playing this sillyass game the way I always have.
Quote from: Dumarest;966726I define it as one thing and one thing only: reviving and playing old school games, or continuing playing old school games if you never stopped. Everything else seems to be an attempt to define as new something that has always existed, as plenty of us never stopped playing the old games we already owned.
Pretty much.
Quote from: estar;966738Except for the pesky fact that there a rather large group of folks focused on playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D. OSR (all caps) happens to be the label that won out to describe this group. Define it how you like but there still going to be hobbyists doing what I describe above. Along with hobbyist who are interested in all older editions, and hobbyist that only interested in particular edition of a specific RPG, along with hobbyists interested in merging newer mechanics with older mechanis and well just about every damn things inbetween.
Again because of digital technology the barrier to do something about their interests has dramatically lowered. Not just publishing or sharing either but finding fellow hobbyists to game with has been dramatically been made easier. If there is Open Content is involved the barrier it lowered to just the time one willing to devote to their projects. The OSR (all caps) is just one expression of this dynamic. There Pathfinder, the D&D 5e SRD, the D&D 5e DM's Guild, d100 Runequest style RPGs, Fate, Savage World publishing program, and more recently Cepheus for Traveller.
The number of RPGs whose IP is held tightly by their parent corporation or author is shrinking. And the amount of material for RPGs that have open content or a open Publishing program is expanding. That the major story here. The other one is that people are surprised that there is so much love for older editions and older games. That the idea of progress in RPGs in the former of new editions is mostly baloney.
None of which contradicts my definition, so I don't know why you needed three paragraphs to agree with me. :D
Around here, we agree with each other at the top of our lungs!
Quote from: gronan of simmerya;966794around here, we agree with each other at the top of our lungs!
i agree!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966794Around here, we agree with each other at the top of our lungs!
Except on the things that make not a whit of difference, in which case we will devote 300 pages to arguments that convince no one to change his position. :D
Quote from: Voros;966627Indie projects based on the D&D engine. Seems pretty simple to me.
Have to say naming yourself a 'Renaissance' is mighty pretentious and smug. And people shit on Zak and WW for pretension?
I think Voros pretty much has it, but would tweak it slightly:
Indie projects building on TSR era D&D engines (ie 2e and earlier).
I think 3e and later, Wotc etc is a convenient way of dividing what's "old school" and what's newer.
Quote from: cranebump;966769Define the OSR? Um, gee that's, um, like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow)
:D love it
Quote from: estar;966655It about people playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D and anything else that interests them. It is a kaleidoscope because of it low barrier to entry due to the use of open content and digital technology for distribution. The only thing that prevents you reading this from distributing your own work is the time you have for your hobby and your interest in going the extra mile to polish your work.
The kaleidoscope that is the OSR defies and confuses a lot of people. For example people forget that many where making stuff for classic D&D prior to the release was of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. The initial spurt of clones allowed many of the authors of these works to use the clones as a safe harbor to go further and releasing their ideas as polished, more or less, commericial works.
Which is I view the ideas of any waves other than the expanding use of open content as hogwash. In short the OSR is what you want it to be no less and no more.
Late to the game here, but for me OSR really is about playing and appreciating the early RPGs, whether that is playing using a physical or digital version of one of those early games, or a game that was published using open content. There is no question my interest in those early games is fueled by the open content publications, but I really don't use much of that material. I have physical AND digital versions of the three early RPGs of interest to me (OD&D, Traveller, and RuneQuest - you could also add AD&D to the list though it is currently no on my play list). Yea, I've borrowed stuff from the open content publications, and I've purchased a fair bit of stuff.
But that's just me.
What is OSR?
It is a glorious wellspring of new material that I can pick and choose from at my leisure, written with rules that I already understand.
The OSR is a framework, founded on design concepts from pre-2e D&D, that allows one to create almost any kind of rules or settings to suit their tastes.
So as a follow on why pre 2nd edition?
1e and 2e weren't that fundamentally different, what makes 1e the cutoff point?
Quote from: HorusArisen;968389...what makes 1e the cutoff point?
Caprice.
Quote from: HorusArisen;966625What 3-5 things define OSR in your eyes?
*) Minimalistic rules based off D&D that would be labeled "broken" or "incomplete" if they didn't have the OSR tag.
*) Cheap production values from a visual design/art stance.
*) A way for people to claim their D&D supplement/adventure/etc. can be used in any version of D&D, without having to actually make it work in any version themselves.
*) Some actually good and surprising ideas
I'll be honest, I don't like the OSR. I remember when they were called "Fantasy Heartbreakers", and we made fun of them for being D&D clones that thought the world needed a whole new game so elves could have a d8 for Hit Dice instead of a d6 (and whatever other house rules the author felt important). I like and respect BECMI D&D, I just don't see why the world needs people to make derivatives of it.
That said, while I'd never buy or play Lamentations of the Flame Princess (I liked it better when it was called the D&D Rules Compendium), I make it a point to look at most of the adventures that come out for LotFP. Likewise, I find Kevin Crawford to have done some neat things with Godbound and Silent Legions that push the OSR idea into some new territory.
So if other people are having fun, more power to them. For me I don't see the appeal in using a knock-off when I can play the original.
Quote from: Dumarest;968541Caprice.
Wasn't a sudden change of interest. A fair amount of folks were playing classic D&D between the time they went out of print to when the OSR start to ramp up.
Quote from: ffilz;966976Late to the game here, but for me OSR really is about playing and appreciating the early RPGs, whether that is playing using a physical or digital version of one of those early games, or a game that was published using open content. There is no question my interest in those early games is fueled by the open content publications, but I really don't use much of that material. I have physical AND digital versions of the three early RPGs of interest to me (OD&D, Traveller, and RuneQuest - you could also add AD&D to the list though it is currently no on my play list). Yea, I've borrowed stuff from the open content publications, and I've purchased a fair bit of stuff.
But that's just me.
Sounds great. Open content as a philosophy is about freedom to share or to do what one wants with the material. What you describe sounds like entirely reasonable way to go.
Quote from: HorusArisen;968389So as a follow on why pre 2nd edition?
1e and 2e weren't that fundamentally different, what makes 1e the cutoff point?
Nothing. It just an observation of what people elect to do with the available open content. The solution is for somebody, like you, to write some material, or encourage others to write some material targeting AD&D 2e.
One problem with 2e isn't the rules but part of it what makes it distinct was the various settings. So there is an issue there in making something to appeal to 2e fans.
Quote from: estar;968566Nothing. It just an observation of what people elect to do with the available open content. The solution is for somebody, like you, to write some material, or encourage others to write some material targeting AD&D 2e.
One problem with 2e isn't the rules but part of it what makes it distinct was the various settings. So there is an issue there in making something to appeal to 2e fans.
That makes sense.
Quote from: estar;968563Wasn't a sudden change of interest. A fair amount of folks were playing classic D&D between the time they went out of print to when the OSR start to ramp up.
Go back and re-read what I responded to as you clearly misunderstood the question and thus the answer.
Edit: I'm assuming you know what caprice means.
Quote from: estar;968566Nothing. It just an observation of what people elect to do with the available open content. The solution is for somebody, like you, to write some material, or encourage others to write some material targeting AD&D 2e.
One problem with 2e isn't the rules but part of it what makes it distinct was the various settings. So there is an issue there in making something to appeal to 2e fans.
Yeah and although some are loathe to admit it 2e is so close to 1e a clone would hardly have that many changes to the core rules. Ironically one of the main justifications for the 1e clone is that it presents the rules in a clearer and more easy to reference way. Which is exactly what the 2e core books do.
It's a meaningless term that tries to rename the Edition Wars by couching it in BadWrongFun terminology. It's all D&D, whether it was created in 1974 or 2014, it's all D&D. Go have fun playing it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;968725It's a meaningless term that tries to rename the Edition Wars by couching it in BadWrongFun terminology. It's all D&D, whether it was created in 1974 or 2014, it's all D&D. Go have fun playing it.
No 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
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?
And once you add the rules for Surprise on pgs. 61-62 to the stew...
I don't find it all that hard to understand. (It does help if you bold the headers and space the paragraphs - formatting makes a difference.) But someone going back and looking at excerpts of the 1E DMG who already have a lot of modern RPG experience aren't perhaps fully cognizant of what all they already know. That excerpt from the initiative rules was meandering perhaps, but it was an explanatory meandering; talking to someone who wouldn't have much background knowledge. That's the voice and style I was used to adults using with me when I was learning something from them - advance, pause, talk about some corner cases to clarify the "why", and advance again.
Example:
QuoteThe higher of the two rolls is said to possess the Initiative for that melee round. (While it is not accurate to roll one die for all individuals comprising each party, it is a convenient and necessary expedient. Separate rolls could be made for each member of two small groups, for instance, but what happens to this simple, brief determination if one party consists of 9 characters and 6 henchmen and the other of 7 giants and 19 dire wolves, let us say?)
The sentence in bold is completely unnecessary from a purely expedient POV. And perhaps if it were separated out into another section all its own under a header labled "Is rolling individual initiative a good idea" it would have been clearer for some people. But I don't lose the bead reading through it, and I really enjoy the conversational writing style of 1E AD&D. Others don't - I know it's a common complaint - but works with more clarity and less personality don't hold my attention like the 1E DMG does.
Yeah I wish I could clean up the formatting, I'll just add the page numbers instead. I don't recall the modules being written in this rambling, parentheses ridden, often grammatically garbled manner.
For instance:
"In such circumstances the non-surprised (or less-surprised) party has an immediate advantage which is reflected in the granting of 1 or more segments of initiative, during which the active (non-or less surprised) party can take actions 4. A. through H., wholly or partially depending on several modifying factors."
The parentheses are redundant and actually cloud instead of clarify the statement.
It's odd as many other sections are well written.
In any case, that's a style preference. I'm not going to base what game I play on what I think of a writer's style. In terms of priorities it's way, way below what happens at the table. It doesn't even register.
As far as the 1E/2E thing, it's interesting. You mentioned "narcissism of small differences". Now, you don't play 2E as far as I can tell, so I don't think you'll take personally my using your statement in an example.
If you go up to a group of 2E enthusiasts, say at a con, or a 2E-specific forum, in such a manner that they don't already know you're a 1E enthusiast, and begin a conversation about all the way that 2E is different and better than 1E, they will be able to provide a lot of details. The conversation can go on for hours, or dozens of forum posts, where they will talk about all the improvements great and small that 2E made over 1E, and how said improvements greatly changed play for the better. If you ask them if they are indifferent to playing in a 2E or 1E game, most will say no - that the improvements that 2E made were significant, and they wouldn't want to go back to a straight 1E game. Some don't really care, but they are a minority.
However if you present yourself as a 1E enthusiast who feels that 2E and 1E are very different games, all these differences suddenly go away, and 2E is just 1E better organized. They will argue against there being any significant differences at all.
It seems that the differences between 1E and 2E are as if seen through a spyglass - whether they are huge or tiny depends on what end is picked up at the beginning.
Well there's no doubt the core mechanics of 1e are solid. Just always mystified that the core books are so unevenly written.
For the kind of "Palaces & Princesses" feel 2e was going for, I kinda think they would have been better off dropping monster & gold XP both and go for some kind of abstract Quest Award type XP system where you get say 1/10 of a typical level's advancement per significant achievement, or around 1/5 of a level per play session. At least as an option. They'd have needed a 9 or 10 level table of awards for achievements, much like the Monster Level I-X system, but I think it could have worked well for that edition. Something like:
Quest Award XP
I 250
II 500
III 1000
IV 2000
V 4000
VII 8000
VIII 12000
IX 16000
X 20000
Quote from: EOTB;968966In any case, that's a style preference. I'm not going to base what game I play on what I think of a writer's style. In terms of priorities it's way, way below what happens at the table. It doesn't even register.
As far as the 1E/2E thing, it's interesting. You mentioned "narcissism of small differences". Now, you don't play 2E as far as I can tell, so I don't think you'll take personally my using your statement in an example.
If you go up to a group of 2E enthusiasts, say at a con, or a 2E-specific forum, in such a manner that they don't already know you're a 1E enthusiast, and begin a conversation about all the way that 2E is different and better than 1E, they will be able to provide a lot of details. The conversation can go on for hours, or dozens of forum posts, where they will talk about all the improvements great and small that 2E made over 1E, and how said improvements greatly changed play for the better. If you ask them if they are indifferent to playing in a 2E or 1E game, most will say no - that the improvements that 2E made were significant, and they wouldn't want to go back to a straight 1E game. Some don't really care, but they are a minority.
However if you present yourself as a 1E enthusiast who feels that 2E and 1E are very different games, all these differences suddenly go away, and 2E is just 1E better organized. They will argue against there being any significant differences at all.
It seems that the differences between 1E and 2E are as if seen through a spyglass - whether they are huge or tiny depends on what end is picked up at the beginning.
You see the same thing with discussing narrative mechanics. On forums where those types of games are predominant, there's no question at all that these games contain completely different types of mechanics, that provide a completely different experience from games that don't have them. After all the focus of the board is discussing those types of gamesand mechanics, why they are different, how, and how they can be better. System matters.
Over here though...there's no difference at all. ;)
I'll chime in here to note that it is possible to appreciate and benefit from the OSR movement even if one is not directly running an OSR game. 5E is probably the closest mechanical base to what I want in D&D (usually, it varies). But I predominately ran AD&D 1E and BECMI/RC in the past. The way I run 5E is not exactly by the book, but someone familiar with 1E and RC could clearly see the source of most of my changes. My house ruled initiative, for example, is basically the RC rolling for each side, with a few tweaks to fit 5E for a larger group of players.
More than mechanics, though, is the GM mindset. WotC did a mostly good job for players quickly, and has gotten slowly, grudgingly better at writing GM advice, but they still haven't captured the glorious, lightning in a bottle, mess that is the overall impression from earlier, especially 1E. It's almost as if they need a disclaimer in the front of the 5E DMG that says something like: "After you run a few sessions and get some your feet wet, here are some other games we think you should try. After you run those a few times, go back to 5E and apply the lessons learned."
Quote from: EOTB;968966It seems that the differences between 1E and 2E are as if seen through a spyglass - whether they are huge or tiny depends on what end is picked up at the beginning.
That my observation as well. My conclusion for the moment is there are two components that one could talk about.
One is fairly objective in that it ask "How much work does it take me to use a work written for X system for Y system."
The other is highly subjective and ask "How does this feel like my favorite system and the constellation of supplements around it?"
My experience for #1 the difference between 1E and 2E is trivial unless you bring Skill and Power into the mix. Even then the vast majority of the PUBLISHED 2e works did not use Skills and Powers so that is a non-issue. But might be of importance for somebody wanting to use their home-brew material.
For me this is driven home by the nearly 20 years I spend adapting material for my GURPS Fantasy campaign and the past decade of using OD&D as the foundation for my campaign. Compared to converting Tomb of Horrors to GURPS converting Tomb of Horrors to OD&D was trival.
My experience with #2 is that when it comes to personal preferences the differences between 1E and 2E can be of huge importance.
So when somebody goes X is better than Y, is it because X takes them less time and work to run the kind of campaign they want? Or it is because as a form of entertainment X is just more appealing?
Quote from: CRKrueger;969025You see the same thing with discussing narrative mechanics. On forums where those types of games are predominant, there's no question at all that these games contain completely different types of mechanics, that provide a completely different experience from games that don't have them. After all the focus of the board is discussing those types of gamesand mechanics, why they are different, how, and how they can be better. System matters.
I was astounded over the amount of rules lawyering that goes on these forums. They are like and unlike the optimization threads that 3e and Pathfinder forum invariably have. Like in that they focus on the nuts and bolts of obsessively manipulating mechanics to achieve a desired outcome. Unlike that for 3e/Pathfinder it is about making badass characters to kick monsters asses and take their treasure, while in storygames forums it is about making badass narratives where the characters shine like Twilight Vampires.
Quote from: estar;969043That my observation as well. My conclusion for the moment is there are two components that one could talk about.
One is fairly objective in that it ask "How much work does it take me to use a work written for X system for Y system."
The other is highly subjective and ask "How does this feel like my favorite system and the constellation of supplements around it?"
My experience for #1 the difference between 1E and 2E is trivial unless you bring Skill and Power into the mix. Even then the vast majority of the PUBLISHED 2e works did not use Skills and Powers so that is a non-issue. But might be of importance for somebody wanting to use their home-brew material.
For me this is driven home by the nearly 20 years I spend adapting material for my GURPS Fantasy campaign and the past decades of using OD&D as the foundation for my campaign. Compared to converting Tomb of Horrors to GURPS converting Tomb of Horrors to OD&D was trival.
My experience with #2 is that when it comes to personal preferences the differences between 1E and 2E can be of huge importance.
So when somebody goes X is better than Y, is it because X talk them less time and work to run the kind of campaign they want? Or it is because as a form of entertainment X is just more appealing?
For me the experience of the game (mood, what style of play the mechanics support, etc.) is what is most important. The #1, well, I ran a long Gloranthan RuneQuest campaign frequently borrowing D&D modules, sometimes for not much more than the map. So yea, my collection of modules is useful in almost any game (I really should pick a D&D module other than the Thieve's World boxed set to drop into my Traveller campaign just to see what happens... Oh, and don't worry, I'll probably drop Thieve's World in also, after all, it already has a Traveller conversion section...).
So from that perspective, yea, I consider 2e to be a different game than 1e, though honestly, my biggest reaction to it was "why should I start over purchasing books when I just recently purchased the Dungeon and Wilderness Survival Guides for 1e? Though certainly the elimination of the Assasin and playing evil PCs also played in. Plus I was getting turned off from D&D at the time 2e came out. I've got a smattering of 2e material, but never bought any core books (I picked up some of the race and class books, and a number of modules).
Frank
Quote from: estar;969043That my observation as well. My conclusion for the moment is there are two components that one could talk about.
One is fairly objective in that it ask "How much work does it take me to use a work written for X system for Y system."
The other is highly subjective and ask "How does this feel like my favorite system and the constellation of supplements around it?"
My experience for #1 the difference between 1E and 2E is trivial unless you bring Skill and Power into the mix. Even then the vast majority of the PUBLISHED 2e works did not use Skills and Powers so that is a non-issue. But might be of importance for somebody wanting to use their home-brew material.
For me this is driven home by the nearly 20 years I spend adapting material for my GURPS Fantasy campaign and the past decades of using OD&D as the foundation for my campaign. Compared to converting Tomb of Horrors to GURPS converting Tomb of Horrors to OD&D was trival.
My experience with #2 is that when it comes to personal preferences the differences between 1E and 2E can be of huge importance.
So when somebody goes X is better than Y, is it because X talk them less time and work to run the kind of campaign they want? Or it is because as a form of entertainment X is just more appealing?
These are good points, because I agree I could run just about any 2E adventure using 1E without a thought (thus bypassing all of my issues with how the rules effect tactics and strategy), and yet I can only think of 2 or 3 that I would care to.
Although I do agree that those who love that style of play and rules needed a system geared toward their profiles. The "Role play not roll play" divide when everyone was stuck in the same tent was tiresome. (It's still around, but much easier to ignore.)