|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 20, 2014 1:07:49 GMT -6
For those not hooked into the DD G+ Group, you may be interested to read a recent opinion piece on DD entitled "Faithfully Flawed" at Draconic Magazine here. Not exactly flattering to DD (or OD&D), perhaps, but does have a wider readership beyond the usual circles  |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Sept 20, 2014 7:58:58 GMT -6
Interesting review. Personally I like the fact that OD&D/DD needs house rules. I started with Modvay/cook BX then on to AD&D and house ruled those but I found it harder to house rule only because there are more rules to deal with. I find it easier to add then to take away. Besides anything added after OD&D is just someones house rules  I'm not sure what he found archaic, it's written much more clearer than the original booklets. |
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 20, 2014 9:04:18 GMT -6
I really don't see any need to houserule DD, personally, but I think I'd just add a fun thing or two like 'shields shall be splintered' and 'helmets shall be dashed'. I think the idea that the older rules being flawed is kind of a misconception... But of course all of the work that waysoftheearth did to 'clarify' certain things in the '74 rules may kind of fog my vision of that. As opposed to 'flawed' I might interject the word 'slim' or perhaps 'purposefully vague'. But I wouldn't say 'flawed'. But ya know what? Houserule if ya wanna... It's fun! Still, DD seems very, very playable 'out of the box' in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 20, 2014 10:41:10 GMT -6
The "review" is annoying.
Is it annoying because I disagree with its conclusions? Not at all. It's annoying because as far as I can tell, in more than 500 words there isn't a single actual argument for why OD&D or by extension DD is inferior to other versions. Unless it's just that OD&D is old, and newer must be better. But since I think the the author is an OSR person, his own attachment to AD&D or Mentzer or whatever he likes best (it's hard to tell) would seem to undercut even that weak argument. If AD&D is better than OD&D because it's newer, why stop, so to speak, at AD&D?
The author has elsewhere done some great work, and I think I've exchanged a few pleasant comments with him a few times. But I think I would look elsewhere for a useful analysis of OD&D or DD.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Sept 20, 2014 18:11:09 GMT -6
As someone who "didn't get" OD&D, at first I can somewhat understand an aversion to it. If you start with many bonuses for high abilities and variable weapon damage and such...the simple rules and d6 damage doesn't make sense.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...Delving Deeper was the gateway for me into really old school play. Once I gave it a chance I suddenly got it and haven't turned back since. I'm not saying I won't ever play other editions but I don't see myself running anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Sept 20, 2014 19:23:46 GMT -6
I really don't see any need to houserule DD, personally, but I think I'd just add a fun thing or two like 'shields shall be splintered' and 'helmets shall be dashed'. I think the idea that the older rules being flawed is kind of a misconception... But of course all of the work that waysoftheearth did to 'clarify' certain things in the '74 rules may kind of fog my vision of that. As opposed to 'flawed' I might interject the word 'slim' or perhaps 'purposefully vague'. But I wouldn't say 'flawed'. But ya know what? Houserule if ya wanna... It's fun! Still, DD seems very, very playable 'out of the box' in my opinion. Agreed I don't have very many house rules. I could easily play it as is. |
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on Sept 20, 2014 20:08:55 GMT -6
Yeah I think Ways' term "opinion piece" is accurate, it's definitely not a review. Although he apparently received a comped copy for the purpose of reviewing it (note at the bottom of article). At the risk of sounded defensive (as a fan of the work), calling something 'flawed' just because you admit you don't get it is, well, flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Sept 20, 2014 21:01:23 GMT -6
Sadly what is needed is to actually PLAY an OD&D game as run by someone who knows what is what.  Everything else is just talk talk. |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 20, 2014 21:22:02 GMT -6
Or even if you don't 'get' it.
I'd love to see a reasoned argument for, say, why 1e AD&D is a better game than OD&D (or, heck, why 2e, 3e or 4e is better). But I'm always disappointed. You either get a veiled sort of ad hominem assertion--'oh, you're one of those people, we've obviously moved beyond that now'--or it's an ad hominem attack that has the out and out gall to pretend to be a defense against an ad hominem attack--'you write that all weapons should do 1d6 damage? I call Edition Wars! How bigoted of you to challenge how I want to have fun with my friends!'
I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but the point stands. Listen to the first episode of Tenkar and the Badger where Matt Finch (with help from the Badger and Tenkar) rationally, meticulously and extremely non-aggressively makes the case for the old school approach. You don't see that from the other side*
That sort of thing alone persuades me that one side is more right than the other (though, logically, I suppose, it shouldn't).
*Jim Wampler (DM Jim of Save or Die!) once completely disputed one of Matt's points in A Primer on Old School Gaming. Now, Jim is old school if anyone is. He just didn't agree completely with Matt. I think it had to do with the idea of judging on the fly or some such. But he gave a coherent and substantive argument as to why Matt was wrong, or at least why he (Jim) preferred to look at that issue a bit differently. I wish there was more of that sort of thing.
|
|
idrahil
Level 6 Magician
The Lighter The Rules, The Better The Game!
Posts: 398
|
Post by idrahil on Sept 20, 2014 23:26:57 GMT -6
In my head, I tend to chalk it up to roll players vs. role players.
|
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 21, 2014 0:24:53 GMT -6
Update: I just read through the comments regarding Vengar's review on google+. Everyone was polite and nice, including Simon, who as the author, should of course be polite and nice. But no one, with the possible exception of our own Mike and perhaps Pete Frolich, said anything of substance whatsoever. It seemed all just about respecting other people's preferences, while being as snarky as possible within those parameters. I know I sound like a broken record, but if that's all that it should be about, why write a review in the first place? How depressing. Oh wait- (White Box) is light years behind the curve.Now, there's an argument! Just kidding. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 21, 2014 2:54:09 GMT -6
Hey, well, from my perspective Venger stated OD&D/DD wasn't his cup of tea, and asked why anyone would still choose the original edition over never editions. I gave (what I thought to be) a modestly substantive account of why I prefer the original edition in reply but, realistically, there's not much point arguing about an opinion. If someone prefers blue over green, that's just how it is.
Yes I would have liked to hear more specifics but, bearing in mind that Venger speaks to a wider audience than the original edition home crowd, I thought it a worthwhile exercise and am grateful for the "airtime".
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Sept 21, 2014 4:04:36 GMT -6
Ain't no such thing as bad publicity. Ask those "D&D" guys back in the late 70s and early 80s.  |
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Sept 21, 2014 9:53:09 GMT -6
I gave (what I thought to be) a modestly substantive account of why I prefer the original edition in reply but, realistically, there's not much point arguing about an opinion. If someone prefers blue over green, that's just how it is. And I meant it in the best spirit when I said your role was to be nice. You never want to look like the bitter author, or whatever. And you're right, the publicity probably was useful. But, with respect, it didn't seem to be merely a difference of opinion, but an almost stubborn determination to make normative claims without defending them. You gave your substantive analysis, and then the author chose to comment without responding to any of it. Mike also tried to draw him out. Nothing. But the author did toss around terms like "antiquated", "obsolete" and even "sucks" (describing bad house rules) at will. It's not that I'm a partisan (okay, I am but still). It's that I would honestly be interested in reading an informed substantive argument against White Box/OD&D/DD (and by implication, my own game, sort of). That would be useful, and for wonky-geeky people like us, well, fun. Also I have this weird mental tick (well one of them) about what I see as glaring instances of illogic. Pete Frolich politely called the author out on his snark against house rules--the author's products basically are house rules. I also note that one of the reviews of his module seemed to imply that his spell descriptions were too short and (implicitly) OD&D-ish (!) But the most obvious inconsistency is this. It seems like the author likes the Moldvay/Cook or Mentzer sets but not White Box. Why? Well, White Box is 'antiquated'. Okay, White Box is 40 years old. But Moldvay/Cook is 33 years old and Mentzer is 31 years old. 97% of all role-playing text ever written came after all of them. Using his terminology, Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer are 'light years' behind, say, 4e--that great and brilliant culmination of role-playing advancements and informed design. So, yeah, his whole schtick just seems completely illogical from the beginning. Okay, end of rant. Now I go to Mass. |
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on Sept 21, 2014 10:58:19 GMT -6
Sadly what is needed is to actually PLAY an OD&D game as run by someone who knows what is what. Everything else is just talk talk. There is no possible way that I can state this any more plainly or truthfully. This, in spades. Very well said, mgtremaine!!! I concur heartily. |
|
machpants
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Supersonic Underwear!
Posts: 259
|
Post by machpants on Sept 21, 2014 23:00:50 GMT -6
Sadly what is needed is to actually PLAY an OD&D game as run by someone who knows what is what. Everything else is just talk talk. There is no possible way that I can state this any more plainly or truthfully. This, in spades. Very well said, mgtremaine!!! I concur heartily. Applies to all RPGs, gotta play it (and have it run by a good DM) to really know it. |
|
Everything else is just talk talk.
