Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AM
I'd rather put a gun in my mouth than sit and listen to someone's long list of house-rules for D&D.

Yeah, I'm pretty much with you on that. I have my own "BTB D&D + house rules," so a game that is someone else's approach to the same thing doesn't have much appeal.

Quote from: Theros on June 17, 2021, 09:56:13 AMThe first type of retro-clone also confuses me... if you are going to make a retro-clone that hews as close as possible to a TSR edition of D&D, why not just play a TSR edition of D&D?

Well, that's what I do (i.e., play my TSR edition of choice). That said, when the first batch of such retro-clones came out (e.g, OSRIC, etc.), it wasn't true that you could easily (and legally) obtain PDFs of those rules. And at that time, the intent of the retro-clone wasn't so much to publish a game, but to provide a set of rules that people could use to publish adventures and supplements that were compatible with the TSR rules. (That later grew into complete games, which was largely driven by public demand.)

Personally, I think that's the real value of the "close to the original" retro-clones: a means to publish supplemental material that is compatible with the original games. For example, when I'm running a 1e game I don't run OSRIC, I run AD&D. But I'm happy to use OSRIC adventures and supplements in my AD&D game.

QuoteAnd that brings up another issue... why is so much of the OSR obsessed with B/X?

I don't know for certain, but I'd guess there are multiple factors. B/X is easier to clone than AD&D. Also, since it has fewer rules, it offers a less "cluttered" foundation for house rules and variations, if the author is wanting to go that route. And apparently there's a significant segment of TSR D&D players that ran their games more like B/X than AD&D, even when using the AD&D rules. There's also a bit of an appeal to nostalgia, since many TSR D&D players started with one of the Basic boxed sets. So if you're "going back," there might be some tug towards that. I'm not certain that "nostalgia" factor is terribly significant, but it might be present.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.

There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.

The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.

And the proper answer should be, 'No.'

To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.

Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?

Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."

That sort of thing

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM
To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.

Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?

The problem with race is there isn't a good alternative. Species? Despite the earlier root of the word, that brings Linnean nomenclature and the shadow of Darwinism into fantasy, which isn't the best fit for many games. Origin, background, ancestry, heritage? That doesn't say anything. It's just taking a random general word and slapping onto a specific concept that was previous embodied by race. And on and on.

Race works for two reasons: One, it's pretty vague in real life, but it's also somewhat specific. Calling a warforged a "species" makes little sense, but race is sloppy enough that it kind of half works. And secondly and more importantly, it's tradition. Race has been used for fantasy races long enough that even if there are some problems with the mapping, people know what you're talking about, and it's not immersion destroying.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM
Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment."f Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."

That sort of thing

It would also also help to say what "no judgment" implies. Talk about how having only a few races is a good way to make a world unique and interesting, while worlds where every race is an option can end up feeling somewhat samey. Talk about the humans with bumpy foreheads phenomenon, and how race can sometimes be a substitute for developing a character, leading to more superficial games. But how that can also be an advantage, especially with new or more introverted players, for the exact same reason. Make it clear these aren't moral judgments. They're just different ways of playing the game. Each has a different set strengths and weaknesses, and people will have different preferences. And while it's okay to want to play games that reflect your preferences, it's also a group experience, and other people have difference preferences, so try to be flexible, and don't draw hard lines.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.

There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.

The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.

And the proper answer should be, 'No.'

To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.

Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?

Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."

That sort of thing

Except their ideas aren't those, their ideas are that: Orcs = Black People, Dwarves and Goblins = Jews, and so on. Because they say so.

I myself have said Race doesn't fit and Species is a "better" word for what it is. And In MY games it has been so for a long while, but then again I don't allow a lot of species and never a Half-X.

Drow, Orcs, etc have been PCs for a long time before the woke appeared, but it was never "sold" as if you don't allow them as heroes you're a racist.

So, no, their ideas are always wrong AND bad.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2021, 10:26:16 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.

There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.

The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.

And the proper answer should be, 'No.'

To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.

Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?

Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."

That sort of thing

Except their ideas aren't those, their ideas are that: Orcs = Black People, Dwarves and Goblins = Jews, and so on. Because they say so.

I myself have said Race doesn't fit and Species is a "better" word for what it is. And In MY games it has been so for a long while, but then again I don't allow a lot of species and never a Half-X.

Drow, Orcs, etc have been PCs for a long time before the woke appeared, but it was never "sold" as if you don't allow them as heroes you're a racist.

So, no, their ideas are always wrong AND bad.

Well, fantasy dwarves have been coded as Irish and Jewish for years now. Of course, they're considered a standard heroic archetype, so according to SJW rhetoric this coding would cause people to consider Irish Jews to be more heroic. Or something.

But It doesn't. Those groups still experience discrimination. Often from leftists.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 09:20:57 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 21, 2021, 10:26:16 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 21, 2021, 04:20:19 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 19, 2021, 08:42:46 PM
The problem has never been 'progressive tards make their own games'.

There are a bazillion game systems out there. You don't have to play them.

The problem starts when the wokeists demand you change YOUR game to suit them.

And the proper answer should be, 'No.'

To be fair, the problem with the woke is that they present ideas in the most obnoxious manner possible rather than the ideas always being inherently bad.

Like, does it really make logical sense to call fantasy races "races" when they're not actually comparable to the real world definitions? Racial packages are basically a weird mix of genetic and non-genetic stuff anyway. I've seen 3pp that included all sorts of weird "races" like human-sized dragons (rather than those watered-down dragonborns), ents, robots, giant spiders, giant snails, sentient crystals, sentient floating swords, etc. Does "race" really still make sense here? As opposed to, idk, birth/cultural/manufacture circumstance character option?

Same for non-evil versions of orcs, drow, etc. We've had them for decades already without anyone complaining. It should be simple to say "oh, and these traditionally villainous guys are available as heroic counterpart options if you want. No judgment." Or even a studious presentation like "orcs and drow are traditionally used as villains, but you're free to use them as heroes or whatever. Campaign worlds X and Y do so in the following ways."

That sort of thing

Except their ideas aren't those, their ideas are that: Orcs = Black People, Dwarves and Goblins = Jews, and so on. Because they say so.

I myself have said Race doesn't fit and Species is a "better" word for what it is. And In MY games it has been so for a long while, but then again I don't allow a lot of species and never a Half-X.

Drow, Orcs, etc have been PCs for a long time before the woke appeared, but it was never "sold" as if you don't allow them as heroes you're a racist.

So, no, their ideas are always wrong AND bad.

Well, fantasy dwarves have been coded as Irish and Jewish for years now. Of course, they're considered a standard heroic archetype, so according to SJW rhetoric this coding would cause people to consider Irish Jews to be more heroic. Or something.

But It doesn't. Those groups still experience discrimination. Often from leftists.

Have they been coded like that tho? Most Dwarven illustrations are a mix of Germanic and Irish tropes, tropes are ways to tell a story, there's nothing inherently bad in them. Where is the Jewish part? They like jewels and gold and so on? Well, that's a racist trope, and if you see any character that likes those things and think Jew it's on you (the general you and not YOU in particular) and not the writer/artist.

Always from leftists.

Also, they are self confesed racists, why should WE normal ppl take any advice from a racist as to how build a non-racist society?

IMHO that makes exactly zero sense.

The Jewish Dwarves thing actually comes from Tolkien. In The Hobbit, they are a diaspora who have lost their ancestral homeland (the Lonely Mountain). In Tolkien's works in general, they are a standoffish people who have their own secret language they only use among themselves, they have their own names in that language alongside the ones they use in outside society, they're an ancient culture and they do have an affinity with goldsmithing and gem-cutting, which in some parts of Europe were typical Jewish occupations. Also, Tolkien himself explicity stated in a letter that Khuzdul grammar was based on semitic languages. In fact, IIRC, he even stated that yes, his dwarves are based on the Jews.

Quote from: Premier on June 22, 2021, 11:26:28 AM
The Jewish Dwarves thing actually comes from Tolkien. In The Hobbit, they are a diaspora who have lost their ancestral homeland (the Lonely Mountain). In Tolkien's works in general, they are a standoffish people who have their own secret language they only use among themselves, they have their own names in that language alongside the ones they use in outside society, they're an ancient culture and they do have an affinity with goldsmithing and gem-cutting, which in some parts of Europe were typical Jewish occupations. Also, Tolkien himself explicity stated in a letter that Khuzdul grammar was based on semitic languages. In fact, IIRC, he even stated that yes, his dwarves are based on the Jews.

So, the man who hated allegory and metaphor was indeed using both... Sources? Trust me bro won't cut it. Basing a grammar of of something doesn't make a fictional race a stand in of that something, also any proof that he did say that?

Wait...you're saying dwarves are often a blend of Jewish and Irish tropes? Why then have I always thought they were usually a blend of Jewish and Scottish tropes?

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 22, 2021, 11:33:43 AM
Wait...you're saying dwarves are often a blend of Jewish and Irish tropes? Why then have I always thought they were usually a blend of Jewish and Scottish tropes?

Well, ambiguously Celtic. It's not like anybody who isn't Scottish or Irish can tell the difference. Racists. /sarcasm

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 11:57:22 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 22, 2021, 11:33:43 AM
Wait...you're saying dwarves are often a blend of Jewish and Irish tropes? Why then have I always thought they were usually a blend of Jewish and Scottish tropes?

Well, ambiguously Celtic. It's not like anybody who isn't Scottish or Irish can tell the difference. Racists. /sarcasm

From now on, all my dwarves will wear little green suits with shamrocks on their hats.

I'll just comment that you miss option #3: play the original games. AD&D is still in print through POD, so there's not really any good excuse not to.

B/X was  actually around for a lot longer than you imply, and was available coterminously with AD&D all the way up through the final boxed set editions. It was easier to figure out than AD&D at every step and was often the only edition easily attained in many corners of the country. When I got B/X D&D in 1981 I played it briefly then picked up AD&D, but I never got rid of the B/X rules because when I couldn't figure out what the hell Gygax was going on about in the DMG (and trust me at age 10 the AD&D combat mechanics were sometimes inscrutable) I simply picked up the Basic book and used that. I ended up running a hybrid of the two systems for a good couple years, using Basic rules for simple stuff mechanically and AD&D for the class/race combos, monsters, spells and magic items.

Anyway, the net result is that even though I only really used B/X rules for about a year or two before I finally grokked AD&D for what it was, that was enough to leave a lasting impression on me. Returning to B/X after decades passed left me with a greater appreciation for how important that ruleset was to D&D's general accessibility back then.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 22, 2021, 11:30:26 AM
So, the man who hated allegory and metaphor was indeed using both... Sources? Trust me bro won't cut it. Basing a grammar of of something doesn't make a fictional race a stand in of that something, also any proof that he did say that?

One, I did not say "allegory", "metaphor" or "stand-in". Don't try putting words in my mouth. Tolkien was influenced by Jews in his depiction of the Dwarves, which is very different thing from both allegory and metaphor.


Two:

BBC interview with Dennus Gueroult, recorded in 1964, broadcast 1965:
"The Dwarves of course are quite obviously - wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic obviously, constructed to be Semitic."

Also, cut from the interview but surviving in transcript:

"a tremendous love of the artefact, and of course the immense warlike capacity of the Jews, which we tend to forget nowadays."

Letter to W.R. Mathews, 1964:
"The language of the Dwarves . . . is Semitic in cast, leaning phonetically to Hebrew (as suits the Dwarvish character)." (Emphasis mine.)

Letter from September 1947:
"Now Dwarves have their secret language, but like Jews and Gypsies use the language of the country"

Letter from December 1955:
"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their native tongue"

I prefer retroclones over the original rules because of better organization.

OSE is formatted way better than original B/X ever was.

The OP seems to conflate all OSR with retroclones. Games like Worlds Without Number are OSR and derived mainly from B/X, but is by no means a retroclone.