|
Post by jeffb on Jul 25, 2020 13:54:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 25, 2020 13:45:20 GMT -6
I do think that was covered in BECMI/RC.
I'd probably just go with a S&W approach (never had anyone who wanted to dual wield in D&D. Only 13th Age )
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 24, 2020 17:46:01 GMT -6
Thanks for the detailed response, Rob. I wasn't aware of the Blackmarsh/POL tie in.
Are you planning on a new book similar to SUPP VI that is edition free or will it be just for 5E? And do you think you'll crowdfund this one?
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 24, 2020 15:49:47 GMT -6
One the one hand, when there are very limited combat options, combat goes by very quick. I can crank up the Heavy Metal and push the players to react quickly to get that adrenaline rush of real hand-to-hand combat. But on the other hand, I really like giving fighters various manoeuvres to liven up the monotony of roll, roll, roll your dice. But I can always simply a lot of the AD&D 2nd ed. rules which is great, unlike later editions. This is my big internal struggle. For players who really are good at describing the fictional elements, fast and loose combat is great. But some players who are shy, not quick to think up something cool, etc- really benefit from having a to-do list of feats/powers/exploits/yaddayaddayadda Thus, I love both 4E, and TSR editions.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 23, 2020 18:07:58 GMT -6
I came to B/X really late. I started with Holmes in '79 and quickly transitioned to AD&D and stayed with that. When B/X came out I didn't understand what it was for. It was different, alignment was weird and I ignored it. Eventually when I went to college and, for the most part, stopped playing RPGs other than dabbling a little here and there. There were a lot of Traveller characters created (and killed in creation) at various points during those years. However, I eventually started getting interested in roleplaying again, first other games and then D&D type games. (Most of my original RPG stuff had disappeared into the depth of time. Sad story there.) In my searches I ran across Labyrinth Lord. I really liked it and when I found out it was based on Moldvay Basic I snagged a copy of the rulebook. I really liked it! Better than I ever liked Holmes or AD&D! Straightforward, clean and compact! I particularly liked that because I didn't have time for rules complexity anymore. I really wish I had payed attention to it back in the early '80s. It's my go to D&D game now. Along with Whitebox. Which I tweak to make look a bit more like Basic. Welcome to the forums! Thanks for relating your tale
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 23, 2020 17:56:19 GMT -6
Rob I see you mentioning "viz".
I'm a big fan of your Blackmarsh work, where I know you used "viz". Was this also in your original Supp VI book? My copy (tan cover) has been in storage, so I cannot look it up.
And do you consider/have you placed Blackmarsh in MW, or is it a separate entity?
For that matter, how much (if anything) has changed in MW compared to your original? (Besides the Title)
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 23, 2020 14:58:24 GMT -6
I think at the beginning there were differences, but it was mainly centered around clones/rules. There were stylistic differences. The whole TARGA and Carcosa made made that evident. Heck, I'd wager a large chunk of people today involved in the OSR never experienced the OS in OSR. They started with the RC, or 2E, or WOTC version of the game. Nothing wrong with that, at all- Let me repeat that cos I know we have people here who who are discovering OD&D as "new and shiny" NOTHING wrong with it. However it puts them in a very different headspace than say those of us whom played before TSR moved into the bigger office and sent Gary to CA. Or those of us who started before AD&D, or those of us who started before Greyhawk. I saw new blood since the begining. Folks who started playing well after the debut of AD&D 2e. With the growth of the OSR and the passage of a decade and more. Now we are seeing a lot of hobbyist who only seen D&D 3.X on up. As for being in a different headspace, it always been an issue to explain how to run campaign with the minimal detail and assumptions found in older edition. Remember that the AD&D 2e era was also during and after the expansion of rules detail and complexity that started in the mid 80s with many RPGs. In early 90s, you had Rolemaster, GURPS, and Hero System among others holding their own. A The OSR is pushing out the "O" at this point- or at the least, making it insignificant. For a brief period it was possible to track what was being done by everybody using the OSR label to describe their effort and include some that refused to use the label yet still were working with a classic edition. By 2010 that became hard. And by 2012 it became virtually impossible. And it doesn't help that Google Plus was shut down scattering the promoters across a half-dozen social media platform. Mostly facebook but more than a few on Reddit, MeWe and twitter. However we have a good way of taking a "core sample" so to speak. Just hop over to DriveThruRPG and uses the OSR category. www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45582_0_0_0_0If you look you will see that there are 5831 products that the author labeled as OSR. That quite a bit and grows If you go here you will see as of Apr 2019 there were 3902 products. So in a year plus a few months over 1800 products were added by author labeling their work as OSR. web.archive.org/web/20190401185451/https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45582_0_0_0_0So what about OD&D which folks in this forums are most interested in? For that we will have to use Swords & Wizardry as a shorthand. Right now there are 673 products in that category. www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45583_0_0_0_0&sort=4aI have my search setup as 50 items per page and sorted by date added. If I jump to page 3 then I see there was a product added on 7-30-2019 about a year ago. www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45583_0_0_0_0&sort=4a&page=3So in the past year 150 products were release where the authors labeled it as Swords & Wizardry. Which would also include my release of Wilderlands of the Fantastic Reaches. A little self promotion there. The elephant in the room is just how many of them are really OD&D products. The category only get policed infrequently when the publishers complain about. However I will say that even if it is only a quarter of them, 35 products a years for a 40 year old system is a very good number to have. And going back through the history it not slowing down. So that is why I respectably disagree with the idea that the Old in OSR is being lost. That fans of the oldest editions have lost anything in recent years compared to the beginning. Of course to prove somebody has to be willing to come through DriveThruRPG, Blogs, and social media and try to figure year by year the number of OD&D release there been. What may be missing is somebody who has a trusted reputation promoting various OD&D compatible release in a way that all of us here can read up on in the time we have for a hobby. Personally I keep tabs on the following two. OSR News osrnews.blogspot.com/ and Tenkar's Tavern www.tenkarstavern.com/Along with the occasional glance as Hoards and Hordes docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0From the author The list is for print & pdf products published since the year 2000 (approximately) for Gygax-era flavors of D&D: OD&D, Holmes Basic, AD&D, B/X, and BEMCI. Castles & Crusades, for example, is not included. (But the Castle Zagyg products are included because of their strong thematic relevance to Gygax-era D&D.) (There are fewer after Apr 2012 only because I stopped searching for them, except where various specific interests took me.) For example how many of you aware of Castle Xyntillan (which I did the interior maps for). beyondfomalhaut.blogspot.com/2019/12/module-castle-xyntillan-now-available.htmlAnother bellweather are reports by the various Virtual Tabletop companies For example the Roll20 Orr Report blog.roll20.net/post/617299166657445888/the-orr-group-industry-report-q1-2020You bring up several good points. However, I feel you are looking at this from a publishing standpoint as a creator, and seeing things as "a numbers game", more or less. Valid, but different viewpoint/approach than my own. To keep things from veering off, I will just say I agree to disagree in key areas such as degrees of change over the years, and stylistlic diversion from the early days and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 21, 2020 15:34:41 GMT -6
I think the OSR in general has become so fragmented, that seeing it all as one big bucket,is no longer practical or accurate. From my experience it been that way from the beginning. But the good news there are still folks who promote, publish for, and play the classic editions including OD&D irregardless of what the label means in the view of the wider hobby. I think at the beginning there were differences, but it was mainly centered around clones/rules. I'd say the disparity now is far greater as the stylistic differences, playstyle differences, and where the inspiration is coming from is completely different. Heck, I'd wager a large chunk of people today involved in the OSR never experienced the OS in OSR. They started with the RC, or 2E, or WOTC version of the game. Nothing wrong with that, at all- Let me repeat that cos I know we have people here who who are discovering OD&D as "new and shiny" NOTHING wrong with it. However it puts them in a very different headspace than say those of us whom played before TSR moved into the bigger office and sent Gary to CA. Or those of us who started before AD&D, or those of us who started before Greyhawk. The OSR is pushing out the "O" at this point- or at the least, making it insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 20, 2020 16:14:32 GMT -6
I voted.
Rantish-
I think the OSR in general has become so fragmented, that seeing it all as one big bucket,is no longer practical or accurate.
IMO- it is no longer dominated by the "nostalgia" or "clone" group and instead has become the face of those wanting to flaunt how "edge-y" or "old school punk" they are. Another stupid clique. It's a design space for the way out there stuff that would never get published prior to the SRD/OGL, and has veered way off even from the weird fantasy of D&D's literary roots. These writers needed something to latch on to, and the OSR took the hit.
Certainly some good stuff is still being written , but it is largely overshadowed by the biggest mouths,podcasts and social media accounts.
On a positive note, we have sites like this- without the piss-poor signal to noise ratio of reddit, discord, and social media platforms.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 10, 2020 9:43:19 GMT -6
It seems to be the fate of D&D books that some people will always want to ban them. However it is now the people in charge of D&D, and the community they have groomed/built I don't see this ending well- Open content or not- the 3PP and OSR is going to be impacted by this. WOTC went after something they saw as "out of bounds" before- The Book of Erotic Fantasy, back in the D20 days. What is happening now is on several orders of magnitude greater scale.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 10, 2020 8:36:23 GMT -6
I'm intentionally staying out of this discussion, because I cannot separate the politics from this series of events.
However, it is going to get much worse
This is culture war, folks- And we are in WOTC's sights.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 9, 2020 10:19:37 GMT -6
Please don't misunderstand- I am a HUGE fan of C&C and The Trolls (though I've had my personal hang-ups about some things they do/don't do). Steve, Davis, et all are good people. That Gary felt the OK to work with them in his last days, give C&C the thumbs up, etc- speaks volumes (for me anyway).
I have a massive stack of C&C books and modules, and frankly I find it the most tweakable system out there among the OSR-dom. I've taken many things from newer systems (Feats, 13th Age Backgrounds, Icon Rolls and Monster Specials) reworked the math via charts and tables, whatever- plugged it all in and the d**n thing works, and works well. It can be really gritty or super heroic just by some number tweaking- AND you can use any OSR/TSR products as well as 3.0 and convert on the fly with ease.
I find C&C a paint set just as much as OD&D- it's just C&C decided to use a more modern dice mechanic tied to it's 3.0 SRD roots. You can run it out of the box as is, but it's made for you to hack it to what YOU want. On top of that, they have alot of interesting adventures and adventure tools to use with any D&D-esque game.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 9, 2020 7:31:42 GMT -6
I don't think an OSR that rallied under a single system would have been nearly as successful, if at all. I don't think it would have ever happened.
Right away we saw several systems- and people doing their thing, their way. THAT is the spirit of the OSR. Providing a publishing tool was already an "issue"- One guy wanted to do AD&D, then a guy from that project went on to do OD&D (in a few flavors!- Including one extremely popular version by our very own Fin), another did Moldvay D&D but with a couple 3E-isms, then came the "That's not close enough to the actual rules" crowd or "That's too sanitized" or "I want to use the rules for a specific setting/genre/playstyle" and we got a second wave. And now we have a million different games, some markedly different, some are just a personal houseruled D&D game.
At this point the number of games/clones is ludicrous, IMO but especially with the way things are going in the greater RPG community these days, I Thank God for Ryan Dancey every single day- that he opened up the game so we can all choose to have fun and buy products from any number of writers, or even write ourselves. That we don't need to be part of the bigger community and all it's issues. He did us a massive service. Even for those not using the license- he showed us it was possible, without the worry.
As for C&C- I have a hard time categorizing it as OSR too. It is essentially AD&D through the lens of the 3.0 SRD, and occupies a unique place. The Trolls say the same too- they don't consider themselves OSR. I'd say it appeals to people who love/d the feel and spirit of AD&D play, but didn't care for the rule mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 2, 2020 14:29:23 GMT -6
He also did some work on MERP for ICE.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 2, 2020 14:27:22 GMT -6
Wonderful tribute Allan. Thanks for posting the link.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 29, 2020 14:33:24 GMT -6
RIP Mr. Holloway.
I was not as enamored of him in my youth, but over time came to appreciate his work so much.
His facial expressions were awesome. The pic of the Cleric in Dragon magazine wielding two maces beating up that Fighter.
Of course those facial expressions were perfect for Paranoia.
And ZARGON. My fave, most overlooked D&D villain of all time.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 26, 2020 11:02:40 GMT -6
He was brief and extremely effective when talking fiction/fluff/description- the opening bit of B2 "The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted...." And say the intro to Hommlett, are far better than reams of description in later products. That was his strong suit. Conveying imagery.
But otherwise I think I'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think Gary could be brief, matter of fact, and effective when it came to rules in print-unless he was shutting something (or someone) down for whatever reason. At least not without somebody putting the screws to him.
Even if we say OK- those were the first books of their kind and cutting him some slack.
Looking at his later gamebook works-
He didn't do a good job with Mythus. Great Gary prose, but a wreck of a rulebook. I'm guessing GDW went pretty easy on him for editing.
Mythus PRIME, for "beginners"- Nope, not well written for beginners, at all.
Lejendary Adventures- the original volumes from Hekaforge are wonderful and awful like Mythus and that's after some editing by Chris.
The Trolls' Lejendary Adventures Essentials line is slightly better, but still not heavy handed enough.
I'm guessing most folks didn't want to be heavy handed on him with editing for a variety of reasons- and certainly not during his time at TSR 1979-ish and beyond.
Which brings me back to -Tom and Zeb/Steve were the perfect folks for producing a set of clear and concise rules based on the OD&D books for a generation of new people.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 25, 2020 16:12:57 GMT -6
Well I know before they were having a GoFundMe to help cover medical expenses, etc. Maybe they got everything squared away by now, Idunno. Yeah, I guess I would just see that as strange for a Bundle of Holding- I think those are for nationally recognized charities, and not for personal gofund me type things for funeral expenses/medical bills benefitting the publisher/company directly (more or less).
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 24, 2020 16:29:04 GMT -6
Congrats Jason. I got an email earlier today from The Trolls.
Still rocking my SIEGE version, tyvm, but wish you big sales from the 5E Crowd!
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 23, 2020 18:53:52 GMT -6
Ohhhh yeah, almost forgot to grab that. I bought it last time (and posted it here, I believe), but it says they added two new books to it that anyone who bought last time can grab for free. I'm kind of surprised the charity isn't going to Rick Loomis Do you mean his family/estate?
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 23, 2020 18:52:03 GMT -6
I largely agree. What I miss most in B/X is Gary's voice. I can see that, but, "Gary's voice" was part of the hurdle of understanding the LBB's and 1e AD&D. Editing was not his strong suit. As big as a Gary fanboy that I am, and that's HUGE- I agree 100%. Neither BX or BECMI would have been nearly as successful at accomplishing what they set out to if Gary had done them.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 23, 2020 8:18:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 23, 2020 7:35:52 GMT -6
For example, people I played with wanted to be Hobbit Thieves, instead of Fighters. But every munchkin in the world liked Elves, and most people it seemed who played Dwarves wanted to play them as Fighters anyway. Can't recall anyone who wanted to play a Dwarven Cleric or Elven Cleric at the time. But my memory is not what it used to be. My experience was coloured by reading What is Dungeons and Dragons by Butterfield et al. a short while before getting the Moldvay boxed set. This right away exposed me to the idea of house-rules even before I'd seen the actual rules. One that stuck with me was splitting race and class, though what I actually did was keep race-as-class and just switch the halfling base from fighter to thief. Who'd pick a halfling fighter with all those weapon restrictions? As you say, most people were happy with playing dwarves as fighters, and elves as fighter-mages. Nobody thought the trade-off in XP was worth playing an elf fighter or elf magic-user instead of the combo, because in practice you were only ever one level behind the rest of the party. All that said, however, most of us only tried out the demi-humans for a bit - before long we were all playing human characters. Good stuff here- And I had that book, though long after I had started playing D&D. I haven't seen it in nearly 40 years though. There was also "Dicing with Dragons" or somesuch.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 23, 2020 7:33:47 GMT -6
The errata was not really an interesting point for me. I was just wondering if he had any "inside info" or any changes made after publishing. Anything juicy Nah, not that I can tell. And Frankly, no pun intended, I'm not super familiar with the nitty gritty changes in Franks revisions. I never played it BITD, and I really never read/studied it or it's differences. I did find all Frank's noodling interesting- Thanks to Zenopus for the in depth look here in this thread!
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 20, 2020 7:23:34 GMT -6
I understand those who dislike race as class. For example, people I played with wanted to be Hobbit Thieves, instead of Fighters
But every munchkin in the world liked Elves, and most people it seemed who played Dwarves wanted to play them as Fighters anyway. Can't recall anyone who wanted to play a Dwarven Cleric or Elven Cleric at the time. But my memory is not what it used to be.
That said, BITD, I don't know any of us who ran the game by the book. Up until Moldvay released we were playing a hodgepodge of O & A D&D leaning towards AD&D. When I went back from AD&D to Moldvay, I just used the bits from AD&D with it that we liked. Spells, Race/Class, MOnsters, Magic, etc. Some of my group however stuck with AD&D as rules (but again, it was AD&D "lite"- we never played by the book with weapon vs. ac, segments/initiative/casting, all the rules hidden away in the DMG, etc)
One thing that never seemed to be so prevalent as it is today is the idea of the character, it's building, it's story, etc integral to the D&D experience. For us, they were just a tool that allowed us to experience the adventure/wonder of the game- not a whole lot different than a monopoly piece. Thus none of us protested too much about things like race as class or limitations of classes and races based on the campaign setting, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 17, 2020 8:22:01 GMT -6
In retrospect I think TDM and Mongoose did a better job. Maybe not as pretty and full of filler as NuChaosium, but RQ and CoC used to be games I wanted to sit down and play, and not some real life cult you have to "buy in to" , only to spend hours reading volume upon volume to start a game. Glorantha has become too unwieldy for practical use by any but Gloranthan Scholars (tm)*. And the amount of useless bloat in the new CoC is over the top. Purely pretty cash grab products.
Anyhoo, Thanks for the heads up.
*Granted- the NuChaosium did not invent this- it's been an issue since the late 1980s. However they have taken the ball, run with it and spiked in the endzone.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 16, 2020 15:53:47 GMT -6
Chaosium has expressed displeasure with my comparison document. At the moment it's still public, but if I don't resolve something with them, I will have to take it private. If you are interested in the document, please go to the document and request comment access and I will add you and then you will continue to be able to see it even if I have to take it private. Unfortunately it's impossible to do such a comparison document and follow their guidelines, so maybe they will find a way for it to still be available, but I'm guessing not... Frank Unbelievable. a Change document is a problem?? While I am glad that the RQ KS happened (despite it being FUBAR), I have been sorely disappointed with the way they have handled things since the buyout (and I used to blindly defend them, in those early days).
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 14, 2020 19:35:25 GMT -6
The errata was not really an interesting point for me.
I'm more curious about the little things- the grid dots on either side of the map. The methodical way he ticked off spells in the spell lists, The path he drew on the one map- is that the way the PCs went?
etc.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 13, 2020 6:54:12 GMT -6
and.... that's not all his corrections, etc. But at the time this is what I snapped pics of. The Expert book had much less issues it seems
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 13, 2020 6:51:58 GMT -6
……..
|
|