Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that roll. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I agree that they are milking IP for more decades now, but that's not a measure of originality of the studios. Obviously in the 1940s, feature film franchises couldn't have been going for 40 or 50 years, because feature films hadn't been around for that long. Also, the length of copyright has been extended, which has enabled keeping IP for longer.

In the classic era, there were still 40+ year franchises, they just weren't purely in film by necessity. The Wizard of Oz was published in 1900 - and had over a dozen stage and film adaptations before the 1939 MGM musical film. Similarly, Peter Pan was published in 1904 and again frequented stage and radio long before the 1953 Disney animated film. Fu Manchu was published first in 1913 with popular adapations in the 1930s through 1960s. Sherlock Holmes started in 1887 and has had hundreds of adaptations continuously into the 21st century.

Movie studios have had their ups and downs and different phases, but there's always been tons of exploitation and formulaic productions. Even in films that weren't technically a series could be highly formulaic. I love Fred Astaire musicals and Errol Flynn swashbuckling, say, but most of them don't get any points for originality. The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades. Looking back, people tend to only watch the most lauded films of each era - but every decade also had lots of forgettable and formulaic drek.

Quote from: Brigman on May 06, 2024, 12:20:59 PMEDIT: Refreshed the page and I did see it as an add in the "Hottest Small Publishers" banner strip, with a little green "own" flag across the top left corner (because I already bought it).

That's not an ad, just a ranking list. It's on there because people are buying it, not because money was spent for an ad. Which makes you wonder what the money spent on the ad actually bought.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMSo even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I don't think "expoiting" is necessarily the right term.

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that role. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2024, 06:23:07 AMIf you've become so jaded (or, as you put it, "old enough to see") that everything looks like crap to you, then some of the problem is that you will never be satisfied with anything aimed at newer audiences.

I don't think a romantic comedy starring two people in their 40s based on a TV show from the early 80s is really meant for a "newer audience". Unless by "newer" you mean "over 50".

I mean pick an OSR system and the thieves typically have skills.

If you don't like lock-step by level, then you could use points. In my home brew, I give thieves 6 points when they level up and they can add them to 3 or more skills, advancing per the chart.

If you don't like the mix of % and d6, then look at Lamentations of the Flame Princess which uses all d6. Hyperborea uses x in d6, d8, or d12 (and maybe d10).

Warlock! has a simple and effective skill system. It doesn't use the typical six attribute scores, so maybe it's not OSR. It does careers though and is a pretty slick system.

Quote from: SHARK on May 06, 2024, 06:49:37 PM

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 05:43:51 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.

No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.

Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating

[DMG p.86, my emphasis]

Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.

In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.

Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.

Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.

I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.

I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.

Greetings!

Hello there, Cipher! Indeed, throughout the AD&D 1E years, in my experience many gamers more or less interpreted the AD&D 1E game and rules as largely creating simplistic, one-dimensional characters. With the introduction of WFRP 1E, and the presentation of AD&D 2E, there was much more emphasis and focus on creating broader characters. More skills, more depth, more and different interpretations. Old grognards seldom like to admit AD&D's perceived flaws, but the fact is, by 1985 and onwards, there was a huge demand for richer, more complex characters. 2E AD&D was certainly seeking to lean into that era's new zeitgeist, and a spotlight on such characters as Sinbad was one such example. Perfectly valid, but at the same time, it can be seen how 1E had a more simplified focus. As usual, both arguments also flowed from Gygax, on one hand insisting on the more straightforward models, and then on the other hand, celebrating creativity and broader interpretations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hey, Shark!

I don't mind fighters that just fight. I was specifically responding to Kyle's claims that a fighter that doesn't fight is a 'crappy fighter'. A chivalrous knight that only draws his sword when there's no other option or to vanquish the scourge of foul undead is not a 'crappy fighter'. Kyle is the one claiming that if a character that is of the Fighter class uses his wits, cunning, diplomacy and guile to avoid conflict then is a 'crappy fighter', which I disagree.

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 05:43:51 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.

No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.

Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating

[DMG p.86, my emphasis]

Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.

In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.

Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.

Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.

I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.

I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.

Greetings!

Hello there, Cipher! Indeed, throughout the AD&D 1E years, in my experience many gamers more or less interpreted the AD&D 1E game and rules as largely creating simplistic, one-dimensional characters. With the introduction of WFRP 1E, and the presentation of AD&D 2E, there was much more emphasis and focus on creating broader characters. More skills, more depth, more and different interpretations. Old grognards seldom like to admit AD&D's perceived flaws, but the fact is, by 1985 and onwards, there was a huge demand for richer, more complex characters. 2E AD&D was certainly seeking to lean into that era's new zeitgeist, and a spotlight on such characters as Sinbad was one such example. Perfectly valid, but at the same time, it can be seen how 1E had a more simplified focus. As usual, both arguments also flowed from Gygax, on one hand insisting on the more straightforward models, and then on the other hand, celebrating creativity and broader interpretations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

All three of those sources of learning could be easily modeled.

Sometimes an epiphany results in a sudden increase in skill. That could be modeled too. I wonder if crits could factor into that.

The book keeping is annoying though. We normally just do it end of session while it's fresh. People help remind others what skills they used.

I like just a basket of points, though. The reason is that it seems more like a reward than practical and predicable slight increases in skill. It's more like leveling up in level based systems. I think that's an important consideration in games.

Ideally for me then would be a system where you get a bundle of points every now and then and you're allowed to distribute them based on several models of learning that could have happened. That would be perfect except for the book keeping.

Quote from: Valatar on May 06, 2024, 02:28:09 PM"Ancestry" makes little to no sense when it's referring to a species.  Being human isn't our ancestry, it's our species.  If you take a human and raise them with elves they don't suddenly get nightvision and pointy ears.  I've never had any particular objection to changing "race" to "species", as that just seems more accurate to me.  I get that it sounds more sci-fi than race does so may be jarring in a fantasy game, but it doesn't really bother me.  Ancestry, on the other hand, is wildly inaccurate.

Meanwhile, the dwarf's bonuses when fighting giants and their keen sense of natural and worked stone are due to their cultural upbringing and not dwarven biology. I don't have the time or the inclination to do a complete audit of various editions of D&D, let alone other fantasy RPGs. The point is, not all of those racial traits are genetic, some of them are cultural. We are not very good at drawing that distinction, either, because for the entire history of humans and our hominid ancestors, the majority of us have lived in racial monocultures.