|
Post by kent on Jul 21, 2012 6:41:05 GMT -6
The value of these documents lies in other people breathing life into them This is what I say and louder than you too. Tinkering with the rules and writing adventures down on paper for people who can't develop their own campaigns does not qualify as 'breathing life into' for me. What a DM brings to his gametable of his own creation is much more substantial than isolated uprooted contextless depersonalised adventure notes. I prefer Isle of the Unknown to the World of Greyhawk folio. I much prefer the Random Esoteric Creature Generator to my favorite TSR monster book, the Fiend Folio. Michael Curtis outdoes B2: The Keep on the Borderlands with his Stonehell Dungeon. I prefer Gabor Lux's Garden of al-Astorion to any TSR module. I think the unquiet menace and uneasiness of James Raggi's Death Frost Doom are even better than Gary's Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. Geoffrey, you are a marvelous flake. You have appalling taste.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 21, 2012 7:14:03 GMT -6
Yet that's exactly what D&D original authors did, and you're happy to heap praise upon the products they bottled in the 70s and 80s. Curious. Where have I heaped praise on anything other than Gygax' three core texts? I have never used a TSR module. I have however chased down all the highly recommended ones to gain insight into how those who rely on modules might game and to gather up those of Gygax' comments which might have been better placed in the DMG. I won't deny there are moments of pleasure to be had reading some of the classic modules but there is nothing necessary there and they had a detrimental effect on the possibilities of campaign play by inadvertently encouraging emulation within the narrow bounds of the TSR house style. The much lauded OSR adventures are the fruits of that evolution which to me seems degraded mimicry. if you won't share ... with others then it is all for naught. It appears that I cannot get a simple notion across here. All the preparation that I do is for my gametable and my players. This is everything to me. If I did write down and publish something it would just be a small piece of my campaign and not terribly important to me. Frankly I think it is for you to explain why the reverse is true. Imagine if DA and EGG never bothered to write any of it down, but instead kept it to their own private gaming tables. Which is why I give them such high praise for getting the ball rolling with an innovation so wonderfully articulated within a few short years. To address the question as to how could better material be produced in the 70s-80s compared with the last few years, Im afraid there is a very simple and complete answer. Scale. There were a hundred times as many gamers back then and statistically far more talent at the top to select from not to mention the white heat of activity of a popular hobby out in the open. One of the signs that the OSR is straining to achieve lost heights is in the quality of the prose. The writing is universally dull. Writing is a naked discipline and writers are quickly exposed through their language.
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Jul 22, 2012 5:36:07 GMT -6
This is what I say and louder than you too. Tinkering with the rules and writing adventures down on paper for people who can't develop their own campaigns does not qualify as 'breathing life into' for me. What a DM brings to his gametable of his own creation is much more substantial than isolated uprooted contextless depersonalised adventure notes. I disagree with your assessment of adventures. While I don't use them in a straightforward way anymore, they have served me and continue to do so as both models and a source of inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 22, 2012 5:43:08 GMT -6
I disagree with your assessment of adventures. While I don't use them in a straightforward way anymore, they have served me and continue to do so as both models and a source of inspiration. waysoftheearth can't offer a response so I'll ask you. if you won't share ... with others then it is all for naught. Id like someone to explain why creation for the act of conducting your own campaign is less important than creating with an aim for publication. Implicit in many comments in this thread is the notion that the ultimate goal of a DM's creativity is publication. I believe the ultimate goal of this creativity is to create a rich environment for his players on game day. The one goal aims for universal or at least broad approval and must fit in formal presentation on A4 sheets, the other has a very specific focus on a tight group of gamers and their interests and can come in any form, maps being a very good example of this. The latter is a worthier goal for me. Do you disagree?
|
|
bat
Level 4 Theurgist
Mostly Chaotic
Posts: 144
|
Post by bat on Jul 22, 2012 9:56:23 GMT -6
One of the positives that I believe is hard to dismiss about the OSR is that now there are many sets of rules in younger people's hands and they are seeing 'new and shiny' as opposed to 'old and moldy'. With games that are easier to play, like, S&W, LL, BFRPG, DCC, etc on shelves and in people's hands it is a boost for the older style of play. Even the WotC reprints are limited edition and will only be in x number of people's hands, anyone can go to a place like Lulu and download core rulebooks or find a (for free) pdf to download, print and work with. I do agree that the three AD&D books are classics, but the utility of the OSR is also noteworthy. I have a huge amount of TSR material that I reread from time to time, but for a game on the fly? I can grab something I had printed at Staples, a few 3x5 cards with scribblings on them, a few character sheets and go. I can wear out a Staples print without feeling bad, but a TSR book?
Originally the OSR and its community group, TARGA, were meant to educate, encourage and assist people in getting gaming materials into their hands and getting people playing. And then a great thing happened after a really dumb thing and people can find this stuff on their own, and play their own games. Any amount of growth in oldschool gaming I am not going to dismiss.
edit: not such a big brain before waking up, corrected spelling and grammar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 18:25:03 GMT -6
I had to think hard about this question and so it was a couple of days before I voted. When I did vote I gave mine to the OSR. It then took me some more days before I left a comment as this thread became borderline worthy of a Dragonsfoot thread, with the TSR fundies rising up in righteous indignation in their defence of all that is right and proper - despite the vote itself being pretty evenly split (and with the OSR even in the lead a couple of times). It's always interesting in these polls how the vote often doesn't reflect the comments, with the latter often seeming more one-sided.
I can't be stuffed with all that juvenile I'm right/you're wrong crap anymore.
Thinking about it all however and why I voted the way I did I reached the following conclusions:
- I have a sentimental love for the original stuff that is stronger than that for the OSR.
- I'm fully aware that sentimental love doesn't infer that the products are better written.
- Much of the original stuff was written by amateurs (just like the OSR), whose writing styles aren't polished (just like many in the OSR), whose writing was in most cases badly in need of a decent editor (like much of the OSR), and whose products were in so many cases so badly disorganised that they actually drove a decent percentage of gamers away from the game into the arms of rival game publishers - and any elitist tripe about them being not intellectual enough to grasp the game and therefore unworthy in some way is just pure and simple wankery.
- On that final point, I'm of the opinion that most OSR products are better organised and formatted than the originals - and therefore often more practically useful at the gaming table.
- Unlike the "official" products of TSR, the writers of the multitude of OSR products aren't constrained by company policy and limited in their imaginative freedom. They are actually more free to be creative.
But my biggest revelation with all this is the value of the rules themselves - they are just a toolbox.
I'm a 30+ year veteran of D&D having spent most of that time passionate about 1e, but now preferring the 3LBB as my favourite version of the game. However, over the last few years I have instead played D&D using the Labyrinth Lord rule books more than the originals.
The rules are just a toolbox for me to play the game with. And to be honest after 30 years I don't particularly need them, as it would be a simple enough task to write up my own. But having a printed rule book is convenient. And there's the rub, what I want for my game these days is utility and convenience - something that most OSR rule books can provide much better than the originals.
I love the originals, I'm passionate about them, but the OSR not only makes my gaming easier and therefore more enjoyable, but continues to give year after year, unlike TSR.
Final confession. I'm not a hardcore collector but I have just reached the point where I'm now storing my old RPG stuff in ziplock bags. Not so my large and growing collection of OSR publications. This perhaps says it better than I have done above.
I love the original stuff more, but if I was forced to choose I would go with the OSR stuff for utility and practicality. If the rulebooks are just tools for me to craft my game, I want to have the best and most convenient tools at hand. The old wooden moulding plane might be an object of both beauty and utility, but an electric router is going to make the job vastly easier.
|
|
bat
Level 4 Theurgist
Mostly Chaotic
Posts: 144
|
Post by bat on Jul 22, 2012 18:49:24 GMT -6
Dave so eloquently said it all better than my rambling. All of these are toolboxes, he is absolutely right. It really makes no difference in the end, because all roads begin the in the same place.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 22, 2012 19:18:38 GMT -6
Short version: "I like the OSR 'cos it gives me simple tools to use." Longer Version As short version, but includes several sly remarks vaguely critical of previous comments without direct quotation because that would require reading and understanding what has been said and invite a specific response.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 22, 2012 19:50:30 GMT -6
waysoftheearth can't offer a response so I'll ask you. It's not that I can't Kent. It's that I would prefer not to get be drawn into a futile argument. However, since you goad me I will do the courteous thing and reply none the less. FWIW -- I actually agree with your position on core D&D books, but I do find your style abrasive. Id like someone to explain why creation for the act of conducting your own campaign is less important than creating with an aim for publication. Nobody has said publication is any more or less "important" than running your own game. I haven't mentioned "publishing" at all. What I am talking about is SHARING gaming ideas. I believe that sharing gaming ideas is naturally complementary to gaming at the table, and is an equally big part of the hobby. The two parts -- gaming and exchanging ideas -- feed each other, refining and reshaping and making it whole. Either one is poorer without the other. On the other hand, you seem bent against hobby publishers doing their thing. You denounce their works, label them uncreative, and even proclaim they shouldn't have the right to shape the future of D&D. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news Kent, but those "uncreative" gamers are the future of D&D. When we are all dead and gone, they will (hopefully) still be playing D&D, and teaching the next generation how to play. I can see your angle Kent. You are focused on your own gaming table. And if you happen upon a neat idea in a gaming mag, or on some gamer's blog, or maybe even this forum, that's great -- your game will be richer for it. But you are not interested in feeding your own ideas back into the mix. That is fine Kent, but you must realise that there are other gamers who are interested in the health of the hobby as a whole. They realise that if the hobby itself dwindles, their own game table will eventually suffer for it. But, if the hobby itself grows, their own game table will be richer for it. Sharing their ideas, and contributing to the wider gaming community is one mechanism by which individual gamers can help keep the hobby alive. It seems (from your comments above) that you are interested only in the gaming part of the hobby. But you might also consider for a moment that there are also people who simply enjoy putting their their ideas out there. Some like to write, or blog, or publish about the hobby. Other foolish sorts seem to waste hours on internet forums discussing the hobby. None of these activities are any less (or any more) "important" to the hobby as a whole than is gaming at the table. They are all mechanisms for sharing gaming ideas, which in turn keeps the hobby vibrant. The fact that YOU might disapprove of what other people are publishing hardly matters at all in the big scheme of things. You (like me, and any of us) are just one gamer among thousands, and it would be foolish of us to think that all gamers want exactly the same thing. They clearly don't. Which is why gamers sharing all sorts and all standards of stuff from the grass roots up is the life blood of gaming; there's something in there for everyone's taste (or a near approximation of it). That is also why you enjoy the privilege of being able to dismiss other people's work as rubbish. Because it IS out there. The OSR has contributed to raising awareness, making materials readily available, putting free/cheap options out there, providing gamers with a plethora of choices they otherwise would not have, giving gamers a forum to discuss and share. All this sharing of gaming ideas and creative output is, in my view, a "good thing" for the hobby, and ultimately for your individual game table too. And so it grows. That's my OSR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 20:42:44 GMT -6
...a lot more stuff than I did... ...went on to say... Longer Version As short version, but includes several sly remarks vaguely critical of previous comments without direct quotation because that would require reading and understanding what has been said and invite a specific response. Actually I thought my comments were quite blatant and not sly at all. If you felt they were partly aimed at you then you have good reason for believing they were and perhaps you should have a good think about why that is so. Here's another blatant statement. Kent, you do such a good job of taking an enjoyable thread and totally spoiling it with your high-handed criticism, negativity and snobbery. You live by double standards, for example, you accuse me of "sly remarks" and then reply with one: "because that would require reading and understanding what has been said", slyly suggesting that I am not intelligent enough to understand my betters (namely your towering intellect - and yes, that's sarcasm Kent). Not to mention blithely dismissing all that I said with a quick quip. Well done you. Geoffrey has posted a few of these fun "what if..." threads on this forum and you consistent carpet bomb them with a barrage of posts putting others down who don't agree with your personal opinions and preferences. You may enjoy the sound of your own voice and bask in the radiance of your self-obvious superior intellectual writing skills, but for most of us it's F UCKING tiresome, ruins a good forum, and is the height of wankery. The saddest part of all is that anything of value you may say gets lost in your negative, pompous blah, blah, blah. Feel free to dismiss my angry response Kent as the hysterical rantings of an obviously inferior intellect, it'll no doubt make you feel better about yourself. Not that I think you have any problems in that area. Apologies Fin for the rant, but Kent is lowering the tone of your otherwise most excellent forum. It would be a shame to give up coming here because of one egotistical git, life is simply too short to waste time with such.
|
|
rleduc
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by rleduc on Jul 22, 2012 21:38:16 GMT -6
I guess I'm going to break the rules because I'd insist on both. In some sense, TSR was very much like OSR early on, along with the crazy fun stuff from Judges Guild and weird fan zines. And that's a lot like OSR now.
Nobody complained back then that TSR or JG charged for their stuff. I'm not going to complain now about various OSR people charging for theirs.
If anything, the internet and desktop publishing has made things even cheaper and more widely available than they were in the late 70s and early 80s. It's more of a Golden Age than the Golden Age in that sense.
But what you like - or not. Make up the rest. Play games. Have fun. That's both TSR and OSR in my view (and maybe less so WOTC, but even there, different strokes and all).
|
|
rleduc
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by rleduc on Jul 22, 2012 21:39:05 GMT -6
Sorry - that's "Buy what you like..."
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Jul 22, 2012 22:04:57 GMT -6
austrodavicus's reasons for voting for "OSR" mirror my own and I've already said my whole piece on the DF thread. But, also this: ...but Kent is lowering the tone of your otherwise most excellent forum. *edit - Meh. Unimportant. Suffice it to say:* He once referred to his group as "serious role-playing men". Don't feed the troll.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 22, 2012 23:06:26 GMT -6
Wait, are we talking about playing OSR material as if TSR never existed, and all our memories of TSR material erased? Versus playing TSR material today without the option of a lively hobbyist support system?
Because that choice is unacceptable.
If you're talking about "you're going somewhere and only have room to pack a bunch of TSR material and a bunch of OSR material, but not both," I suppose I'd pick TSR, but it's marginal. There's a lot of TSR stuff I never saw, never used, and probably would never use... and a lot of OSR material that's redundant or focuses on stuff I'm not interested in. That's why I prefer picking from both, and I'm glad both exist.
But really, the basic material is in my head at this point, and I could reconstruct anything I needed, assuming one or the other were lost. It doesn't matter which I pick, as long as I have the memories TSR gave me and the vision revealed through the OSR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2012 1:09:29 GMT -6
d**n. For me it's about the compiled references. And frankly, the OSR has Dungeon Alphabet, Tome of Adventure Design, and Tome of Horrors, which is great. You could combine those with an old school game and be mostly there.
But nothing, and I mean nothing I've got beats the 1e or BECMI combo with the encyclopedia magica/spell compendium. So I have to go TSR.
You know, Kent, I'm not catering to 'uncreative people' when I release OSR stuff. I'm creatively outputting that for me and then choosing to share it. Your comments make it sound like that is a bad thing. I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 23, 2012 6:13:51 GMT -6
However, since you goad me I will do the courteous thing and reply none the less. Heh, well I had reason. Nobody has said publication is any more or less "important" than running your own game. I haven't mentioned "publishing" at all. What I am talking about is SHARING gaming ideas. Having discovered this misunderstanding there is no need to pursue the matter further. Take a look at what Geoffrey posted in the OP. I don't believe there is any ambiguity over what he meant. He is talking about 'published' material. I think it is obvious that by 'free stuff' he means adventures such as those of Gabor Lux which many admire and which are 'published' and 'free' and not scraps and pieces of rules post ad hoc on forums and blogs. On the other hand is everything A/D&D related that has ever been published by the OSR (Old School Renaissance) from 2001 to today (starting with the HackMaster Players Handbook). This includes free stuff (such as downloads here on dragonsfoot). The responses in the thread bear out this understanding of the OP. I understand why you brought a broader definition of 'the OSR' to this discussion, the broad definition did used to be the only sensible definition but in the last couple of years there has been such a flurry of (pointless imv) publications that the default understanding of the term has moved enough that Geoffrey's definition is probably a more reliable one currently. I have taken a look at your rules modifications for the Moria PBP and think there are some high quality innovations there and I think its great that you didn't puff it out and try to sell it. You may be tolerant of those who would do such a thing but I am not. What you are doing is sharing, what the OSR is at right now is charging, which creates a different environment online and it is the mentality that I oppose abrasively. === So you can see why when you said, if you won't share ... with others then it is all for naught. I said, Id like someone to explain why creation for the act of conducting your own campaign is less important than creating with an aim for publication.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Jul 23, 2012 8:01:26 GMT -6
What you are doing is sharing, what the OSR is at right now is charging, which creates a different environment online and it is the mentality that I oppose abrasively. You know, Kent, when people no longer need Magic Tickets to feed their children, keep a roof over their heads, you know, to live, then I might consider looking askance at those who want to make a little extra pocket change, doing something they enjoy. There's many, many people out there, creating free stuff. Sharing. So... what exactly is your beef? Do you dislike capitalism? Yeah, capitalism is pretty far from perfect. Maybe D&D is just too sacrosanct to sully with commercial interests? Or it all just Sucks! Because I'm sure you've bought and read many, many commercial OSR items. And they ALL, absolutely ALL of THEM SUCK, SUCK, SUCK and only Kent, YDIS and their peers, possess the necessary acumen to perceive the depths of the OSR's insignificance. It's paltry, utterly base existence. It's perfidy? Whatever. Crusade away. Meanwhile, so long as the OSR keeps producing works like Vornheim, Tome of Adventure Design, The Dungeon Alphabet, ASE1, Carcosa, Monsters of Myth and many an other quite worthy, entertaining and useful gaming product, I'll remain pleased. To borrow a simile from another, you're merely Fiddling, while the OSR Burns! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 23, 2012 8:28:57 GMT -6
Its hard to argue James with someone whose 'sunny disposition' is very important to them. I'd say you're a great lad to have a few beers with but I would be slow to pay any attention to your recommendations or your critique of gaming material, being such a friendly guy and all.
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 23, 2012 9:46:44 GMT -6
What if we reframe this question not in terms of the false dichotomy of one or the other ("Shakespeare or Dostoevsky, choose!") but rather in terms of empirically what do you actually use the most? What would you keep, if you could only keep a few things (ignoring concerns like rarity and value)? Here is my top ten list, in rough order. The 3 LBBs, the Gygax DMG, Ready Ref Sheets, Tome of Adventure Design, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st ed, LotFP Grindhouse Referee book, Vampire: The Dark Ages, and Carcosa. That's 4 TSR, 1 Judges Guild, 3 OSR, one White Wolf, and one alternate take on fantasy from the 80s. More discussion, along with some runners-up, here: untimately.blogspot.com/2012/07/only-ten.html
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Jul 23, 2012 9:59:34 GMT -6
I won't deny there are moments of pleasure to be had reading some of the classic modules but there is nothing necessary there and they had a detrimental effect on the possibilities of campaign play by inadvertently encouraging emulation within the narrow bounds of the TSR house style. This is certainly true and well-put, mostly because of the flaws of first the tournament style module, and then the story module. The much lauded OSR adventures are the fruits of that evolution which to me seems degraded mimicry. Most of the OSR offerings are far more site-based than the original TSR modules though, and so are much more useful to drop into an original campaign. Find me the TSR modules that Tower of the Stargazer, Death Frost Doom, or Demonspore are mimicking (maybe there are some published in Dungeon, which I am not very familiar with). One other thing that is worth mentioning is that the OSR is an active phenomenon. Time and repute have not had a chance to sort the truly excellent from the average or poor. It takes more than a few years for that to happen. We are comparing a vibrant, current community (which will certainly churn out some duds) to the diamonds of the past.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Jul 23, 2012 11:28:20 GMT -6
Its hard to argue James with someone whose 'sunny disposition' is very important to them. I'd say you're a great lad to have a few beers with but I would be slow to pay any attention to your recommendations or your critique of gaming material, being such a friendly guy and all. A lot of my reviews at the old site are over-enthusiastic. They were also written before I realized I really needed some experience running modules, if I were going to keep reviewing them. As to my disposition, my thoughts and feelings are aligned with my intent. My intent is always important to me, Kent. But, "sunny disposition," is far too facile a descriptor, to even begin to describe what I'm up to.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 23, 2012 12:09:42 GMT -6
"sunny disposition," is far too facile a descriptor, to even begin to describe what I'm up to. Of course it is. I was riposting, dude.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jul 23, 2012 12:58:25 GMT -6
"I'd rather listen to The Beatles than to Oasis"
I get what you're saying, but I don't think this comparison holds water. A better one might be "I'd rather listen to the Sugarhill Gang than to Odd Future" - both initially DIY efforts, the first making an almost inconceivable creative leap (i.e., sampling Chic and expanding the tradition of toasting to new dimensions) and the second taking advantage of an unprecedented availability of competences and technical resources (i.e., releasing singles on Tumblr) to propagate its efforts. These two acts do us the favor of approximating the timings of TSR and the OSR more closely than the Beatles and Oasis, who are in each case about ten years too early (not an insignificant point—the cultural conditions of the early 1960s couldn't have produced TSR, and those of the early 1990s couldn't have produced the OSR). On the other hand, there's still a problem with the metaphor: TSR was a company, and the OSR is a thing that a whole bunch of more or less unaffiliated people do, often with no expectation of pay.
By the way, it goes without saying that the OSR could never have existed without TSR. In that respect, to vote "TSR" is to vote, in effect, for the abolition of all of our creative impulses in favor of a finite canon, and to vote "OSR" (as I did) is to vote for something to have happened that can't possibly have happened without mad rending of the space/time continuum. And yet here we are, calmly and civilly (for the most part) holding forth.
To unfurl my scroll of Pierre Bourdieu summoning: When we talk about this poll, we are talking about ourselves.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Jul 23, 2012 13:07:58 GMT -6
"sunny disposition," is far too facile a descriptor, to even begin to describe what I'm up to. Of course it is. I was riposting, dude. Yeah, but I didn't feel like taking it further. Regardless, point to Kent for catching me by surprise in using the word "dude."
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Jul 23, 2012 15:38:48 GMT -6
I disagree with your assessment of adventures. While I don't use them in a straightforward way anymore, they have served me and continue to do so as both models and a source of inspiration. Id like someone to explain why creation for the act of conducting your own campaign is less important than creating with an aim for publication. Implicit in many comments in this thread is the notion that the ultimate goal of a DM's creativity is publication. I believe the ultimate goal of this creativity is to create a rich environment for his players on game day. The one goal aims for universal or at least broad approval and must fit in formal presentation on A4 sheets, the other has a very specific focus on a tight group of gamers and their interests and can come in any form, maps being a very good example of this. The latter is a worthier goal for me. Do you disagree? Yes, I disagree, not about the order of importance between a campaign and published material, but the assumption that they are mutually exclusive, or that publication diminishes or damages a campaign. It can, and a lot of RPG writing is corrupt (actually, what is considered "professional game writing" is almost completely corrupt), which I have posted about elsewhere. What matters is that adventure modules and game-relevant supplements can have cross-campaign relevance. Even when I don't use them, they are useful because they help me break out of my usual patterns. Can a module capture the breadth of a campaign? No, but it does not have to do it to be useful. In fact, that is a good thing, because it can be tailored to individual expectations. To me, a good module is one which provides sufficient blanks to fill in myself, but sufficient interesting and solid reference points to retain its own structure and style. Modules are invaluable in disseminating gaming practice. The first time I saw The Isle of Dread, my mind was filled with possibilities. Well, I did think much of the content was lame, which was why I created a tropical island adventure of my own. But if it were not for the module, my module would not have materialised either. There is a saturation point for certain kinds of modules; the "goblin basement" kind of adventure doesn't really offer much anymore. But there is still a lot of open space, and the potential ideas are far from exhausted (even within the framework of traditional D&D). Modules can be useful at different levels of detail and with different approaches, and the same goes for supplements. A recent favourite, Towers of Krshal, presents the outlines of a city through random tables, which serve as reference points to the "facts" of Krshal. It is a very light supplement, yet very promising, and has some of the magic of Invincible Overlord. And then there are modules with the usual room key format. Finally, I am not opposed to products, as long as they serve to convey ideas and give useful content, not the other way round. [And now to read the rest of the thread!]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2012 15:42:12 GMT -6
I voted TSR. I'd rather run white box OD&D and I wouldn't want to give up the AD&D DMG for any amount of OSR stuff. White box? Why that new-fangled stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Jul 23, 2012 15:53:44 GMT -6
To add, I also prefer to think on the campaign level (discrete vs. continuous game space et cetera et cetera). That's why supplements in the early JG style are particularly interesting for me. The City State is an open framework for adventures. It is without definite limits, and it is open for accommodating scenarios and whole campaigns. Now that is something.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 23, 2012 20:58:07 GMT -6
to vote "TSR" is to vote, in effect, for … a finite canon I actually like the idea of a finite canon, for me personally. I’m constantly purging and pruning my RPG collection. At the end of the day, how many thousands of pages of published material do I need in order to run a competent game? More importantly, with less published material upon which to rely, won’t my own creativity kick in more?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2012 22:50:56 GMT -6
I am so glad that no one can make me choose and I can use anything I want to. However, if I could only choose one thing it would be the original D&D boxed set, I don't see anything supplanting OD&D for me. And unlike the OP I consider Judges Guild, Arduin, etc. to be TSR products because bitd that is how I thought of them then. The same way it will always be hobbits and not halflings for me regardless of how many hissyfits Chris Tolkien has. IMO I think the proliferation of both free and for sale OD&D material is a wonderful thing. Love the free stuff and wish I could afford all of the good (IMO) for sale items, especially the fan magazines. I wish there were a dozen Supplements as original as Carcosa and at least as successful as Carcosa. The more great stuff - free or for sale the better. I really don't care what you do or don't call it and thank goodness we are not forced to choose one camp or the other, since to me it is all one camp to begin with. I also think that for free or for sale, both are in the spirit that the original 3 lbbs were written in. No one was throwing up "fences" in the very beginning (the fences all came later) and within the limits of what is legal we don't need to put up any now either.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 24, 2012 11:19:46 GMT -6
it will always be hobbits and not halflings for me regardless of how many hissyfits Chris Tolkien has. You mean Saul Zaentz.
|
|