|
|
Post by calithena on Apr 26, 2011 9:04:08 GMT -6
I actually like having multiple conflicting rulesets in play, though I admit it can lead to some trouble here and there. But it gives you more tools to work with, as both player and GM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 26, 2011 23:21:02 GMT -6
I’m aware most of us are here because words like homebrew, gonzo, and eldritch are more exciting than frightening. But, at the risk of sounding like a troll (but I’m not…you guys all know me…), there is one definite advantage that AD&D (1e) has over OD&D, at least if you allow yourself to good-naturedly buy into its rhetoric: words like official, standard, and legal are comforting, in a way. If you are looking to quit the meta-game of agonizing about exactly which rules set to use as your “base” and second-guessing yourself about what house rules to apply, and would like to simply give in to a rules set that will constantly, soothingly reassure you that you are in safe and capable hands, AD&D is the way to go!
|
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Apr 27, 2011 2:49:26 GMT -6
You have a good point, Falconer. And a lot of the choices made for AD&D are good ones IMO. Of course, even there it was possible to leave stuff out and still be more or less 'official' (lots of people, including EGG, ignored the weapon speed factor and mods vs. AC rules, for example). And in my experience even in AD&D days every DM had his own house rules. So in practice it only sorta-kinda worked as a standard - yet, paradoxically, I agree with you that it did somehow provide a more helpful baseline even so.
I've always regarded AD&D as the greatest OD&D supplement ever written, in other words. I realize that there are those who treat it as more of a fixed system, and you can have fun playing it that way, but I have to say that in the thousands of AD&D games I played in the eighties, I didn't encounter exact purity ever, and common sense level rules purity only a few times. It did replace OD&D as the baseline standard, but most people effectively were still playing something more freeform. I never even understood segment initiative until Hackmaster came out and I went back to the original books to see what they had based it on and how they had changed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 27, 2011 13:02:37 GMT -6
...If you are looking to quit the meta-game of agonizing about exactly which rules set to use as your “base” and second-guessing yourself about what house rules to apply, and would like to simply give in to a rules set that will constantly, soothingly reassure you that you are in safe and capable hands, AD&D is the way to go! You have just concisely stated something that I've never quite been able to put words to. Thank you. That is also brilliantly put. Especially as I've come to understand the history of the game and how it developed, that's exactly how I view it, too. Man, I LOVE the brains around here! |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Apr 27, 2011 18:39:59 GMT -6
I've always regarded AD&D as the greatest OD&D supplement ever written I never played OD&D back in the day, but the more I learn about the history of the game and the closer I look at things and think about them, the more I think this is true. Despite the status that being published in hardback gave it, looking at AD&D with 30+ years of hindsight makes it look more like a collection of charts, tables, and musings from notebooks and campaign logs than a true core game system. And I mean that as a compliment. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Apr 27, 2011 20:27:10 GMT -6
I’m aware most of us are here because words like homebrew, gonzo, and eldritch are more exciting than frightening. But, at the risk of sounding like a troll (but I’m not…you guys all know me…), there is one definite advantage that AD&D (1e) has over OD&D, at least if you allow yourself to good-naturedly buy into its rhetoric: words like official, standard, and legal are comforting, in a way. If you are looking to quit the meta-game of agonizing about exactly which rules set to use as your “base” and second-guessing yourself about what house rules to apply, and would like to simply give in to a rules set that will constantly, soothingly reassure you that you are in safe and capable hands, AD&D is the way to go! Well put! This is one reason why I love these games: 1ed for the comfort of "official-ness" and OD&D for the relief of "freedom". I know that with these two games, I can always contentedly play with any particular group, appealing to what I feel is that group's style. And this is also why I love the retro-versions like S&W and OSRIC as well (since these are pretty close and are easily accessible by new players). So what if you muck up a rule by +/-5%? This is D&D!! |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 27, 2011 23:13:57 GMT -6
I don't have a problem with the current "rules glut" of retro-clones.
But that's because I pretty much ignore them.
I wondered (on this very forum!) why we needed retro-clones in the first place. And the response I got was "So people could legally produce adventures for them".
Well, that's all well and good, but where are these adventures? Because I'm not seeing them.
On the other hand, I buy my copy of Fight On! every quarter (or so) (despite getting my contributor's pdf), and I see adventures galore that aren't tied to any specific game.
So again I have to wonder, why do we have so many retro-clones?
(Not that I'm really expecting an answer.)
In any case, I'm happy to just play D&D. No matter what edition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2011 23:42:18 GMT -6
but where are these adventures? Because I'm not seeing them. There are literally dozens of modules published for the various different clones and more being released all the time. Here's a good start, a thread here on this forum listing various old school publishers. And that list is a long, long way from being complete, there are many more out there. As for the question "why do we need the clones", it actually amazes me that it still gets asked these days. Now I don't mean this as a slight towards yourself coffee, but most of the folks who ask that question are those who have no interest in the growth of old school gaming. Here's some simple facts: - TSR D&D is out of print and not likely to be reprinted.
- Out of print D&D products are increasing in value as they become collectible. This trend eventually prevents new gamers getting hold of the original games, which is now pretty much the case with OD&D.
- If we old school gamers want to attract new, young players to our game. If we want to pass the old school baton to younger DMs, they're going to need rulebooks, not just modules.
- Even if we're heartless bastards and say "let them eat cake", or in other words who cares if new gamers have to pay collectors prices to play our game, over time books that get used regularly start to fall apart. At a practical level the hobby needs new rulebooks to replace the aging ones.
So basically, if our out of print game is to not only stay alive but grow, and I'm talking long term here, not just over the 20 to 40 years most of us old bastards have left on this world, old school TSR D&D needs to be supported with in-print rulebooks. As for the issue of too many clones and the confusion they cause, at this point there are in fact only TWO true TSR D&D clones - OSRIC (1e) and Labyrinth Lord (B/X). The various versions of Swords & Wizardry are "near" or "pseudo" clones, but not close enough to the original to be called "true" retro-clones. And all the others? Most of them are basically D&D + house rules, which is what most of us have been doing these last 30 years or so. The confusion comes through lack of understanding this. The clones are about more than just legally publishing modules, that can be done without using the OGL or clones. The clones are about keeping TSR D&D alive and growing by keeping it in print - and doing so for an audience beyond just us old farts and any collector of out of print D&D books. |
|
|
|
Post by Professor P on Apr 28, 2011 3:45:57 GMT -6
I, for one, being too young to experience anything before AD&D 2e, would never have 'gotten back into' D&D and especially OD&D and Classic D&D without the clones (S&W and LL). So, I guess I am an example of new, young players to our game. If we want to pass the old school baton to younger DMs, they're going to need rulebooks, not just modules. |
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Apr 28, 2011 6:49:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 28, 2011 9:49:00 GMT -6
P.S. Not trying to be snarky or anything. I'm just unemployed and bored this morning. Not to mention, a little taken aback by what you said.  (The no snark thing is pretty much understood on this forum, so no worries there.) That's really an eye-opening list. A lot of it I never would have come across, because I don't hang out in the OSRIC world, let alone many of the other publishers. And I should have remembered things like Raggi's stuff, because I have some of it. What can I say? I haven't seen them because I don't go looking for them. (But I still wanted to get the plug in for Fight On!) |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 28, 2011 10:38:38 GMT -6
I too would not have gotten back into old school gaming without the clones. The problem is, I've basically stuck to the TSR rulesets and haven't bothered to mess around with the clone much. In the last few years I've run:
3 OD&D games (one heavily modified)
1 Holmes Basic game
1 AD&D game
Swords and Wizardry got my foot back in the door, but I've never actually considered running it. Same with LL and OSRIC.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 28, 2011 10:40:44 GMT -6
Professor P, this has nothing to do with anything, but whenever I read your posts, I can't help but hear them in the voice of the character you took as your avatar...
|
|
|
|
Post by Professor P on Apr 28, 2011 11:08:35 GMT -6
Professor P, this has nothing to do with anything, but whenever I read your posts, I can't help but hear them in the voice of the character you took as your avatar... HAHA. I have no problem with that. But which voice? Every sentence Brutalitops speaks has a completely different sound. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Apr 28, 2011 11:13:01 GMT -6
jasmith, the more I think about your list, the more I think you should post it to the Links and Resources page. This is the kind of thing that needs to be collected in one convenient thread.
Have an exalt for this.
|
|
terrex
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108 
|
Post by terrex on Apr 28, 2011 12:18:16 GMT -6
...would like to simply give in to a rules set that will constantly, soothingly reassure you that you are in safe and capable hands, AD&D is the way to go! I pretty much played AD&D from the beginning and that never changed (we rejected 2E on first glance and ignored everything that followed). AD&D is the D&D language my group has alway spoke and always will. For us, changing that language would be an unwanted distraction from play, which it never seems like we do as often as we like. AD&D is just so robust. We never tire of it. Nor, did we ever stop to question whether or not we were playing AD&D if we didn't use weapons v. AC, speed factor, etc. Clearly, we're playing AD&D even if we're not using everything. Regarding that mention of segmented initiative, we do use it. In intermediate to high level combats involving casters on both sides of the initiative die, it is one of the more interesting nuances of AD&D -- Do I go with the 1 segment magic missile in attempt to disrupt the enemy spell caster's potent, but longer casting time spell? OR Do I risk casting the longer casting time but more potent spell? It's like a poker game within the combat... It's just one example of something I'd miss if I wasn't playing AD&D (as we play it). Honestly, I know very little about OD&D specifically, except what I know via the fact AD&D evolved from OD&D. But, I suspect the spirit of those two versions of the game aren't all that different. Personally, I don't find the AD&D framework constraining as seems to be occasionally implied. |
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Apr 28, 2011 12:55:23 GMT -6
If you are looking to quit the meta-game of agonizing about exactly which rules set to use as your “base” and second-guessing yourself about what house rules to apply, and would like to simply give in to a rules set that will constantly, soothingly reassure you that you are in safe and capable hands, AD&D is the way to go! I totally disagree. Sure AD&D was intended to work that way, but it doesn't. It demands house rules all over the place. My house rules doc is 40+ pages long. BECMI and 2E are the TSR rulesets that could be played without modification, and B/X to a lesser extent. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Apr 28, 2011 20:38:45 GMT -6
I respectfully disagree, kenmeister (not that I wish to persuade you, because there is nothing wrong with your preferences). I think that (IMO), Falconer and terrex are spot on. AD&D was the first game for me that I could play out-of-the-box (I went from Holmes to a Cook/AD&D mesh in my youth, so I never experienced the proper Moldvay/Cook version that many are fond of). I know some folks feel that the AD&D rules are too cryptic or restrictive (I know I used to think the same), but after carefully rereading the core books and studying them, I really do think that they are the definitive D&D (if you're looking for a set of concise rules that do not require any house rules). I mean, sure, you can house rule it, and many do (and not that there is anything wrong with that), but most house-rules for AD&D that I've seen are born from a lack of satisfaction with the way the game handles certain aspects, and not because it needs to be house-ruled because there is a big gap in the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 28, 2011 20:39:41 GMT -6
No-one is going to make the case that you can’t house-rule AD&D, but it demands it? I really don’t care to debate the point, but let’s just say that’s not my experience at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Apr 29, 2011 8:50:02 GMT -6
Well, I will cede the point that though the rules in use in any given AD&D game varied wildly, you could generally port your characters from one DM to another (until Unearthed Arcana came out).
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Apr 29, 2011 10:25:12 GMT -6
jasmith, the more I think about your list, the more I think you should post it to the Links and Resources page. This is the kind of thing that needs to be collected in one convenient thread. Have an exalt for this. I might clean it up do just that. I think someone was doing something similar at one point, but I'm not sure if he followed through. |
|
