|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 20, 2021 11:13:35 GMT -6
I'm with simrion in theory, but for some reason most players and DMs cannot come to terms with that. I understand why, as the game itself is confused about HP in the ways rules are applied to it (e.g. Ben's pit of lava example) Because most players in my experience equate a roll of the dice with a swing of a weapon, and the damage dealt the injury caused by that successful hit. That what D&D's abstraction is fighting. The truth is that characters/monsters with bags of hits points being whittled away round after round is a pretty useful and straightforward way of handling combat. Provided one keeps a handle on how hit points totals stack up compared to damage dealt as the character gain experience. So useful that it far outweighs the "huh?" reaction when one is trying to picture what just happened after a successful hit. One could try to fix hit points but what you get in the end is something like GURPS or Runequest. A skill based system where hit points represent the capacity to withstand injury and the hp totals are low compared to the damage dealt. That an experienced character has higher skills that allows them to avoid damage but only has a marginal improvement at best to actually take damage.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 20, 2021 10:59:45 GMT -6
Questing Beast has made a new video about an alternative to hit points as presented in D&D. He uses 5e as an example, but this can work for older editions as well. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qju_l8XlzAsIf you don't know the history of the game, then understanding hit points is going to a be a problem. But if even if folks get that they measure only combat endurance not actual injury. Even with that many still won't be satisfied. How D&D represents combat doesn't represent their mind eye's view of combat. The exact same reasons that propelled Runequest who was written and played by people who experienced combat in the Society of Creative Anachronisms. Along with a host of other RPGs that reflected the views of their authors.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 7, 2021 9:27:14 GMT -6
The consequence of not sharing a rule book is that the burden is on you to verbally communicate what the players know about what their character can do. If you are an excellent verbal communicator, and coach likely it will work out.
Personally I rather not spend my time verbally expanding details like the reductions of the odds when you are a veteran swordsman fighting on a muddy slope in the middle of the rain. A detail that a veteran swordsman would really know or guess at.
The problem isn't that there are rule books, the problem is the common assumption that everything you can do as a character in a campaign is defined in the rules. I make it clear what determine what one can do as a character is determined by the setting and the description of the character. For convivence some of these details are tersely communicated as mechanics of a game. But the final authority as far as consistency goes is how I describe the setting. Doing means I can use pretty detailed RPGs like GURPS and still run the campaign the way I did with AD&D and currently run with the Majestic Fantasy (a variant of Swords & Wizardry).
If one doesn't do this or does it well, the results is on average a bunch of hesitant players who will try to play it safe because they don't want to lose the time they have invested to what they view as a "gotcha" situation. I found players hate feeling that their choice amount to little more than throwing darts in a dark room. The way around that is give some context on which to base a decision. The most important element is what are the odds of success for the various things I can do as my character.
You see this all the time if you play live-action roleplaying and try to deal with adventuring situation in-person. There were times when I was hidden in the brush on the edge of the clearing looking at a bunch of NPC staff playing Orcs and weighing whether I can sprint across before they can catch me. Could sneak around? Or could take the group in a fight. Even at my first events, I had a good enough idea of my physical capabilities, personal skills, and what game abilities I have, to come to a reasoned choice because I played sport and fought in reenactments prior to my first LARP event.
However when a 16-year old teenager show up for the first time, they are lot more hesitant unless they have a experienced player as part of their team coaching them. But they are not completely lost due to the fact it is live action. With tabletop, it is all verbal with some visuals if one uses minis and props. So without knowing at least the basic rules the players will be completely lost.
Now having said all this, there are some for this is appealing and enjoy starting from ground zero in every which way. But it is a small niches of the hobby that enjoys this both today and back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 5, 2021 17:05:38 GMT -6
Yes it was the OSR, if by that you mean the phenomena of people returning to the roots of the hobby. That not quite what I mean by using the term OSR. People returning to the roots of the hobby was only part of it. There were people who like the systems for themselves. There were folks that never quit playing. And so on. I literally mean the hobbyists who play, promote, and/or publish for the classic editions. I don't try to figure out their motivations or why they are using or tying something to the classic edition mechanics and themes. If pick and use up one of these systems whether it the original or something related to the original by theme or mechanics, you are part of the OSR. Play, publish, share, and promote. I don't want to belabor this. Personally I don't get why folks have to attribute a deep meaning it all. Why can't folks realize the correct answer is "all of the above". Yes my own particular focus is on "players trashing the setting". Yes it originated in what I did in the early 80s and before that wargaming in the late 70s. But what I write about it now is leavened by four decades of experience of using multiple systems some of which are very different than the classic edition. So I do not feel a deep connection with what many call "old school". Where the OSR material was useful to me was realizing that what I do is not connected to any particular system at all. I don't need GURPS do what I need to do. I can use say OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. Maybe not quite 'as is' but still remain compatible. Others found their own connections in their own way including returning to the roots after learning about how it was done, and seeing examples of actual play. Some never stopped but now found more people to play with or to referee for. Hence "all of the above". But again there is a center in the form of several out of print editions with enough pull so that the sense there a larger community of folks using these systems persists.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 5, 2021 11:47:33 GMT -6
Instead of writing up one of my typical big boring diatribes I came up with "JeffB's Laws of Gaming" list: Overall looks good, my nuances are different of course. The game is a construction kit, not a finished product. To a point, but I also view it as one of the way to tersely communicate to the players how the setting works especially the elements that will likely either come up in the campaign or that I know will interest the players. Your setting informs the rules, not the other way around. My view is that the setting defines what character can do, can't do, and what probable. The part that is probable means it not certain and thus needs to be adjudicate. And the most common way of doing this is by using the mechanics of a wargame i.e. what we call the system of an RPG. However if one starts with the rules first, then the setting in part arises from the rules. For many this is not an issue as referees and players just accept this and proceed with the campaign. But more than a few times, a referee will describe something for the setting, that doesn't work with or sit well with the rules as written. If the change is easy and straight forward then it becomes a house rule for that group or referee. If it takes more then often that element of the setting will get dropped in favor of how the rules describe things working. Every DMs game should be different. There is no one true way- that's boring. Yup, everybody thinks about this stuff differently. Most of the time it not how something happen but what details get focused on over other details. This is especially true if you use a more detailed RPGs like GURPS, or Basic Roleplaying. Play the game you like. If you like heavy story and minimal dice go for it. If you want maps and minis and procedures for everything, go for it. Again yup. A lot of folks made fun stuff in different way. The only flaw with this is not the "law" itself but too many can't imagine somebody handling what they do with a RPG in a different way. Rules lawyers are not tolerated (they can start their own game and bother everyone) This is not really applicable to me. For a variety of reasons but mainly because of the communication issues resulting from me being 50% deaf, I largely stick with rules as written. So if somebody notices a discrepancy I rather they speak up. Setting versus rules issue I fix before the campaign by picking a set of rules that work well with what I intend to do. But I have my limits. I had a player quit a 5e campaign I ran because they could not use hide and stealth to cross a otherwise bare room. I was using maps and token on Roll20 at the time so it was about as clear as these things get. The player totally lost his shirt. Just keep in mind that I been refereeing for 40 years and these instances are exceedingly rare. I had plenty "near misses" that was able to avert with patience and logic. If you use a published product, hack and change to your heart's content. Canon be d**ned. Sure but do let the players beforehand, that this campaign is your take on Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Tekumel, etc. Be open to new things and ways to do things to get the experience you want to have (again-there is no one true way) Again yup. For me it helps with running a sandbox campaign where I can say what the players will be pursuing. If they join up with say the City Guard, then I need to figure out to how to running a mission oriented campaign in a fun and interesting way. For a long time I could figure out a take on faeries, but between a specific convention and a tv show, things clicked and was able to come up with my own approach. My own "laws" would basically the above with the following tow. This is the heart of how I handle the setting versus rules issue. I ask the player to describe what it is they do as their character like I would describe to you how I would handle something in life. "OK I will stealth up to the door and listen." Then I will figure out a rules along with any rolls that are needed. This is first person roleplaying versus third person roleplaying. Now you can't totally avoid third person but for most thing you can always use first person. This does not mean a players has to be actor playing a distinct personality. It is fine that the character is basically the player's personality with the abilities of the character. This helps players a lot with my sandbox campaigns because it better engages their natural social instincts and life experiences. Things work out better in my campaign if the players things about the action as if they were actually there. As opposed to the character being a piece with a set of allowed moves. Good post there jeffbMy question is- What are YOUR 7 (or less) "Laws of Gaming"[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 4, 2021 21:56:25 GMT -6
Castles & Castles ...... was it own thing that happen also be able to use AD&D stuff 'as is' as long you use the C&C version of monsters and treasures. I don't recall hearing this kind of talk during the development of C&C, I'm surprised to hear that, Rob. I know for my part, I used the AD&D Monster/Monstrous Manuals with the C&C PHB and didn't even bother with M&T until it was out for a year or so. The AD&D books worked just fine....Flip AC, use HD for any bonus (like S&W), and make a quick judgement on whether a creature has Physical or Mental PRIMES. Same for the 3.0 MM- easy- just eliminate the extra HP granted by CON and look at FRW to pick what saves are PRIME. /Tangent I got Castles & Crusade well after the release of Monster & Treasure in 2005. And never really used it much as I found Swords & Wizardry Core more useful. I probably haven't cracked the book in a decade. But it doesn't surprise me there was a straight forward conversion from AD&D stats to be useful for C&C PHB alone.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 4, 2021 21:55:08 GMT -6
Much of this was happening despite the OSR. The thing is I don't consider the OSR to be a separate thing from everything you described. The only difference that in the late 2000s a shorthand label was developed that was easier to use rather than writing out "the group of hobbyists playing, promoting, and publishing for the classic edition." It wasn't happening despite the OSR, it was the OSR. Monetization is also the little spoken of catch to some of the "why" of the OSR. I don't mean this to sound conspiratorial either. It's a simple matter that people wanted to be able to get something in return for the things they created and the effort they put into it. I happened to be one of those who want to get a return for things I create. The point of which it allows me to expand the scope of what I do and do things like pay artists for their work. As a result, we have a hodge-podge of increasingly high quality products mixed with what could be considered nicely as less so. And this is somehow a gauge of the health of the OSR. hmmm. If folks are using it as gauge for the health of the community with plays, promotes, and publishes for classic editions of D&D then it is a stupid measure to follow. It long been obvious that in aggregate both the sharing and publishing aspect of the OSR are just as large as any 2nd tier RPG maybe even equal to a half dozen or so at this point. But whatever the number is, it is comprised of dozens of folks efforts and it is continually churning regardless whether it sharing, discussion, promotion, or publishing. My view there is no separate "OSR" there is just a group of hobbyist who are doing a bunch of things that can be traced back to one of the classic editions. If you or others don't want to use the label that fine. While I write about the OSR a lot and consider myself as part of the OSR, I don't use it as part of my branding because it doesn't tell anybody beyond a connection to a classic edition what I am about. So I am happy to use it as a shorthand.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 4, 2021 14:41:40 GMT -6
talysman Is the OSR people or things? You seem to want to vacillate between the two. I don't think compartmentalizing the subject is actually helpful. For example, as you pointed out C&C is often noted as an early example of OSR, yet it's built on 3e. Likewise, you will find many roleplayers enjoy a variety of platforms beyond D&D. Are they only an active identified part of the OSR when they are enjoying a game modeled after pre-3e D&D? I can't answer for Talysman, but consider this. Once a upon time on a planet that lies beneath our feet, a bunch of folks who still played and liked some out of print editions of the world's most popular roleplaying game encounter each other on this relatively new thing called the internet. At first it was a bit hard because most discussion centered around the current edition which was AD&D 2e at the time with a healthy does of World of Darkness. All the RPG forums were general interest and those two among other dominated the topics on Usenet and AOL. Which only got worse when D&D got a shot in the arm with the arrival of D&D 3.0 in 1999. But the internet was also maturing and software that allowed you to run your own discussion forums became common. So these folks started their own and quickly one of them, Dragonsfoot, became popular. Along with this D&D 3.0 got the open content D20 System Reference Document and there was a handful of folks who got mileage out of the idea of new edition rules, old edition feel among them Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, and Necromancer Games. While nice that wasn't what most of these folks were looking, nor it was not what newcomers who were interested in playing the older editions 'as is' were looking for either. Then came wind circa 2003 that one of these "old edition feel" companies, Troll Lord Games, was making something that was going to be the 2nd coming of AD&D 1e. But as development progression it soon became obvious that while AD&D 1e compatibility was a priority the actual system, Castles & Castles was not a rebirth of AD&D. It was it own thing that happen also be able to use AD&D stuff 'as is' as long you use the C&C version of monsters and treasures. Also by this time many fans of older editions were starting to produce adventures and supplement and sharing like the file section of Dragonsfoot. Also zines started appearing like OD&Dities. So those who were unhappy with the direction of Castles & Crusade or just were inspired by what could have been started taking the next step, an actual clone of an older editions. Chris Gonnerman wrote Basic Fantasy, Matt Finch, and Stuart Marshall wrote OSRIC. OSRIC in particular stirred a lot of controversy and a lot of folks waited in 2007 for the other shoe to drop. But didn't stop Dan Proctor who wrote and released Labyrinth Lord. However while there were not many clone release the release of adventures, setting, and supplements started to pick up. Throughout 2008 it was becoming increasing apparent that Wizards wasn't going to shut down any of the clones. The debacle of 4th edition there was a bunch of hobbyist were looking for alternatives and started becoming interested in older editions. This further fueled a creative ferment and amount of material being shared or formally published started to take off including more clones. The release of two version of Swords & Wizardry covered the base of Original Dungeons & Dragons. The late 2000's also saw the advent of print on demand publishing. Lulu became the site of choice for many publishers releasing material for older editions Around 2009 to 2010, Lulu supported storefront that with permission can host a bunch of link to different authors books. And the Old School Renaissance store front was one of these. It was only around for a year or two. But it was a key waypoint on the path of OSR and Old School Renaissance/Revival/Rules becoming THE label for what folks were doing with older editions. But the use of a single label was always a poor fit. The folks who never stopped playing for older editions generally, but not always, didn't want to lumped in with the newer publishers. The different publishers used the older editions in very different ranging from the weird horror of Carcosa, my game of throne like Majestic Wilderlands, Dan Proctor's Mutant Future, and other which had a more traditional take on the material. So in the beginning, OSR was a label for both people and things. Then as it is now, what is actually happening depend on the group and individual you are talking about. It not a feel, it not a theme, it may not be even a set of mechanics. The only constant is generally OSR is applied to something that ties back to a theme or the mechanics of an older edition of classic edition.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 3, 2021 22:02:24 GMT -6
Traveller, I seem to recall, did have a particular edition that changed rules dramatically, creating a split in the fanbase, which sparked a movement similar to the OSR. I don't recall the name, but the point is that it does have a name of its own. It doesn't need the OSR. It called Cepheus and it came about because Mongoose screwed up royally the third party publishing program for the release of the Mongoose Traveller 2nd Edition. By that point the Traveller hobby finally had a robust niche of non Third Imperium setting created by the independent using the OGL and the Traveller Logo program. This was switched to the then new community content program of DriveThruRPG by Mongoose for 2e. The license for that program would have locked up all these original settings forever to that program. Every one said no way and continued with 1e until Jason Kemp did the work of mashing up the MGT 1e SRD with the Trav20 open content with bits of D20 Modern to create Cepheus. The. everybody switched to using Cepheus. Without the clauses that resulted in lock-in all of these authors would happily jumped to MgT 2e. After D&D 4e it is the hobby’s best example of a publisher shooting themselves in the foot with a fusion gun man portable.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 3, 2021 11:52:30 GMT -6
It seems that the key to your understanding and definition of the OSR is what you see as its intimate relationship with the SDR. This is what allows for a pretty broad understanding for some. The "hack" that allowed publishing to be added to discussion and informal sharing is not hard to understand. It does take enough work to replicate it for one's own idea so not everybody is interested in making clones. But to make an adventure, setting, or supplement it pretty easy to take that "hack" and use it for one's own purpose. Personally I think this thread only illustrates how the term has loss any clear focus. It has become a catch all that is increasingly becoming meaningless. There was never a clear focus. There was already deep disagreements about what was old school, what was D&D, and so on among the classic edition hobbyist communities around 2005 before OSRIC was worked on or released. The only difference between then and now, is that one could with reasonable efforts follow most of what was going on and hop in with the group that shared one's own taste. Since 2010 that ceased being true. It quite possible a classic edition fan can wander the internet and never encounter the OD&D discussion forum, dragonsfoot, knights and knaves, etc. And wind thinking that the classic edition community is very different than what it actually is. As for the OSR in general it is grounded by the fact that it is judged against the out of print classic edition. The less classic D&Dish a work is the less likely it will appeal or be useful for the group of hobbyist who plays, promotes, or publishes for one of the classic editions. Because there is a center there will be attempts at labeling the group of hobbyist that focuses their efforts on playing, promoting, or publishing for the classic edition. It is a subjective and aesthetic judgement so people are not going to agree where the line is. But when it comes to groups like this it is a different story. By listening and asking question one can figure what appeals to most folks here. Then inform them, when something is produced which is potentially useful.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 3, 2021 7:43:11 GMT -6
because at its core OSR is freedom to change and tweak, and that means there always MUST be differences from table to table. And the best part is that is built in as a result of how it came about in the first place. Discussion and sharing via the Internet combined with the judicious use of open content, the D20 SRD, that everybody has equal access too.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 25, 2021 14:15:49 GMT -6
We all have creative agendas Early on I once tried to define OSR on my blog because I was getting so confused what it was (or wasn't), so I wrote an "OSR Manifesto" and tried to define it as anything remotely compatible with OD&D. Boy, I never made that mistake again. OSR is whatever you want it to be my friend. You have your OSR, I'll have mine. thankyouverymuch Yeah I hear you. However I still stand by this from 2009 batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/07/old-school-renaissance.html
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 25, 2021 14:13:12 GMT -6
robertsconleyThanks for the insight- the only reason K&K came up is because it was brought into the discussion as some sort of list of bullet points about what the OSR is/should be. Sure thing. I will say that the OSR as it currently stands is hard to wrap for many to wrap their heads around. Because it flies against how things were done in the past. Not just in the RPG world, but how creative stuff and business are handled in general. For example IP is owned by various folks in the OSR, like I own Blackmarsh, but there is so much sharing of open content that there are things to be had ranging from complete systems to complete settings. That the barriers are so low for playing, promotion, sharing or publishing it boils down to are you willing to put the time to X, and do you have the interest to do X. And it rare that something like this touches on the most popular IP in the hobby, Dungeons & Dragons. In the world of computers you have Linux but it own things and not like Windows or the Mac Operating System. So people keep looking for the man behind the curtain. The answer that simplifies and explain everything about the OSR. My goal when it comes to these type of discussions is to pull back the curtain to reveal a mirror and show that it is you along with everybody else. Otherwise, I'm guessing this thread would be at the bottom of the page again. If it's simply the creative agenda for their community and product output- awesome, I hope they make a ton of cash with it. Well there are folks willing to self-label their works as OSRIC on DriveThruRPG. Sure probably not everything on that list is truly OSRIC/AD&D related but even if you cull it, it is still a heck of a lot of stuff for something that went out of print in the mid 80s. And the there is the sharing that goes on like the list of stuff over on Dragonsfoot. www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=10094_0_0_0_0&src=fid10094And thanks for the "definitions" clarification- I'm looking forward to the KS for the BIG OSR BOOK OF EPIC PSIONIC FEATS, PRESTIGE CLASSES, and DIVINE MINIONS (maybe some K&K folk are working on it right now?) Actually it is Dangerous Dungeons. Kellri is the lead on that, while development is slow, what been released is pretty slick. www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewforum.php?f=50
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 25, 2021 13:18:51 GMT -6
I think the post makes some useful definitions and valid assertions which address some of your concerns. Who put them in charge of the definitions? And to be clear, I'm not "concerned", I'm just bewildered that anyone would have the audacity to make such claims. I'm also trying to establish that it is indeed meant to be a set of bylaws for the OSR movement, and not just for their own community. And it seems I cannot get a straight answer on this. The answer is that this www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35*is licensed with this media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdfwhich mean at any time if somebody gets too puffed up, one can say go to hell. Add in the internet, digital technology, VTTs, and print on demand. There is literally there no power to be had or grabbed. That is about as straight an answer I can give. OSR is what creative freedom look like, a kaleidoscope that is joyous, and messy all at the same time. Nobody owns the OSR, everybody owns the OSR. *Yeah, Rob isn't that D&D 3.5? It is but if you look and omit all the newer mechanics like feats, etc, what you have left is a hop and a skip from a particular classic edition. Add some elbow grease, you have enough to do whatever most of what you want with a particular edition. Now that we are 15 years in, the elbow grease is optional as most of the work has been done and is open content in of itself.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 25, 2021 13:13:07 GMT -6
Also, to address your second paragraph- I specifically quoted the part from K&K that said even if it existed in the 70s, there are elements are not old school according to them- I'm slandering no one. I'm simply reacting to EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID. THEY are the ones who choose to ignore it willfully and purposefully to suit their agenda. I'm calling BS. We all have creative agendas, I am known for being the guy who like sandbox campaign and who let's players trash his setting for example. And what I publish reflect that. I focus and talk a lot about things that suit my creative agenda. It not the only thing I ever talk about when it comes the hobby but it is a large portion of it. The individuals at K&K all have their own creative agendas and they share a lot of overlap hence the existence of the forum. Individually and as the group they ignore and focus on things that suit their agendas. I don't see having a creative agenda or tailoring things to suit as being an issue. You do bring up something relevant that Trent talked about, "what is and isn't old school". My experience is that I want to put out a thesis in his hobby talking about what old school never ends well. Rolling a d6, you would have to roll a 6 otherwise the conversation will devolve into a debate about what is and isn't old school along with folks getting annoyed, upset, etc. The sentiments expressed in your post are exactly what I would expect when something trying to talk about what old school. But, when it comes to me it doesn't matter. No matter how annoying it is. Why? Because none of has the power to stop or hinder what any of us do creatively. When I do speak up, it about some other negative behavior that accompanies the assertions of what is old school and what is not. For example, participating on a forum and derailing every topic whenever old school is mention even if it is in passing. In which case I rather focus on the derailing of topics as that is more serious issue causing problems. As for Trent, K&KA, and the post in question, keep in mine they largely keep to themselves and work on their own project. They will listen and discuss if you have something relevant to their interests. If you don't or try to call bullshirt, then most of the folks I know there will either ignore you, sling it back just as hard, or just shut down the conversation on the forum. I say this knowing that half the things I do wouldn't be considered school under Trent's post. That my use of stuff like an ability system (skills) is on the slippery slope to the stuff that occurred in the 90s and 2000s. Personally I find a lot of their discussion useful and food for the creative fodder. I don't use much of it directly but it helps in deciding how to approach various aspect of my campaign and work to keep it compatible with OD&D and the other classic edition, yet still do what I want it to do. More issues arise from folks who discovered AD&D for themselves recently and not aware of how ground was trodden already on its strengths and weaknesses. Rather than the hard core hobbyist fans.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 24, 2021 18:48:37 GMT -6
What I don't get is why folks don't realize it doesn't matter what the others think of you. I guess if one wants to be next Wizards or Paizo, I get why that a concern. But as far is doing what you like in the form you like doing in this we are in a post-scarcity environment as far as the RPG hobby does. Hell even geographical separation can be overcome now with VTTs. This forum is partial proof of that. Can you imagine a bunch of hobbyists who like OD&D getting together and sharing in 1985 as we could in 2015?
Sure I participated and contributed to my share of debates over the nature of the OSR, what it means, etc. I have my opinions about what ought to be. But I also realize at the end of the day. I can sit down and type more chapters to my Manual of Puissant Skill my next MW RPG volume, add more to my Majestic Fantasy Realms, and so on. I respect the fact those I talk with or debate can do the same.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 24, 2021 13:11:29 GMT -6
I think this gets back to the big issue with the various OSR "factions"- For some reason each faction wants to define, clarify and codify just what the OSR is and stands for. So are we here in the OD&D Discussion a "faction"? Having been here for quite some time, I would characterize the folks on this has sharing an interest in OD&D. But beyond that, well how many different grains of sands are there in a beach? Each of has our own interests and take on OD&D, the RPG hobby, and industry for those of us who participate. I submit, the OSR is exactly the same. Beyond an interest that ties back to one of the classic editions of D&D, the only thing a person can say about the OSR depend on who you are talking about. Myself? James Raggi? Kevin Crawford? Melan? Some folks share more than just a interest in the classic editions or a specific edition. They share similar tastes and styles as well in how to approach classic edition. Even then there is a lot of variations. Why is it this way? Fundamentally is a result of what gave birth to the OSR in the first place. The Internet and the D20 SRD. The internet allows efficient communication and easy distribution of material to support even the narrowest of niches. If you knew a handful of folks who like gonzo OD&D using only the 3 LBBs, you could get together, talk about what you like and maybe even grow the circle of folks who like that specific taste from there. Consider trying to do something that specific circa 1980. Now there is a critical mass beyond which a group will grow naturally because word of mouth creates more word of mouth and so on. But because it so easy for a niche of a niche to support itself, you get folks splintering off into their own thing all the time. And all too often the split is acrimonious as this group is well aware of. Next is the D20 SRD. Gonnerman, Marshall, and Finch all figured out that if you strip the D20 SRD of the newer mechanics the result is a hop and a skip away from any particular older edition. This allows people not only to talk, and meet about their interest but to share far more extensively, and publish as well. But the Internet and the development of Digital technology means that a little as a single individual has the means without putting a lot of capital, other than time, to realize their project in the form they like in the time they have for a hobby. Whether it just to share or to publish and sell. And like splinter groups mentioned above, this means folks are off doing their own thing all the time down to and including the individual lone author level. Overall this means for the most part, one can decide what it they want to do, and just go ahead and do it, and not be concerned how most folks in the hobby think. Often if you get a regular customer in the hundreds you can make a go of it. For sharing dozens will often suffice.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 24, 2021 11:09:22 GMT -6
Though I agree with the sentiment, I actually don’t recognize the conscious effort to “cleanse” the hobby. Could you elaborate in the most general of ways. When and why do you think this is the case? It happened to Bob Bledsaw jr. because he posted some rather odious political positions. His facebook posts (multiple) was the straw that broke the camel's back but also there was his fumbling of the CSIO Kickstarter debacle after taking over from his son. Which included among other thing opening a webstore to sell physical copies of maps that the Kickstater project owed to its backers. And this was before I spoke to him and the other JG licensees about his facebook posts. As for the facebook past, the ones that I objected where racist and anti-Semitic not political. I knew about his right wing beliefs for years as I seen his post crop up on my facebook feed periodically. What didn't appear until Jan 2020 was the racist and anti-Semitic posts that were sprinkled throughout. Then when I searched his public posts, the ones anybody can see, I saw why because there were one or two of them for every dozen or so post on politics. So the odds were not good for them to crop especially I was an infrequent user of facebook and most of my feed was originated from family. So when I did the search, there are dozens of these posts stretching back years. And the content this post were not a little anti-Semitic or racist. They were filled with tropes that I read about from history like stuff from the Protocols of the Elder Zion and so on. So the situation for me was a little more clear cut than not liking somebody's political views. As for the ensuing events, I talked to RB2 privately first, and then the licensees, Goodman Games, and Frog God Games privately second, then it became public, then I made my public post about the matter. As far as I am concern Bob Bledsaw 2 dug his own grave on the matter. He had people actively trying to help him by either licensing usable IP, or pitching in directly (myself). Yet when it came to the CSIO itself, RB2 just would not get going on it.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 23, 2021 10:52:34 GMT -6
*The disparity in success rates between Prime/Non Prime which gets pretty bad as you get into the mid to high levels. Honestly, that's one of my biggest complaints about 3E and 5E as well - how bad non-proficient saving throws get as characters get to the higher levels. 5e save works on bounded accuracy, So a CR 20 Lich has a DC20 spell save. Sound bad if you don't have a +6 proficency right? Well you still have your attribute bonus. Even with proficiency you often only have a 50-50 chance of making the save. Some high level abilities Lich, Paralyzing Touch DC 18 Con save Balor, Death Throes, DC 20 Dex save Tarrasque, Swallow, DC 20 Con Save Tarrasque, Frightful Presence, DC 18 Cha Save. Kraken, Tentacle, DC 20 Escape(Dex) Check And so on. The worse one I seen is the Kraken Ink Cloud which has DC 23 Con Save or take 3d10 damage. The cloud last one turn and take 3 legendary actions (so it the only legendary thing a kraken can do that round). Most of the other high level DC are in the 18 to 20 range. Yeah if you are non-proficient your odds suck, but they are not that much better even you are proficient.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 13, 2021 9:45:24 GMT -6
Tbut I ran into a lot of murder-hoboism in all these instances. Perhaps that was simply poor luck on my part. No it not poor luck. I run into all the time throughout the decades myself. My fix for it is that regardless of the system I use is that insist on first person roleplaying. I don't require one to "act" like a actor, but I expect that act as if they are there in the situation. Long ago I found that many players don't want to be actors but play a version of themselves with the abilities of the character. Maybe with one or two "quirks" to change things up. So to make that work, I experimented and found all that I needed to do is get the player to first person roleplay. I consider first person roleplaying key because it engages the player's social instincts. They are less apt to treat their character as a piece on the gameboard. The first person focus is just enough to make them consider the situation before deciding to act. It still could be a murder fest but now it would be a considered murder fest. I.e. there was a point for why combat happened. The result is the campaign I run flows more naturally. It not predictable by any means but the choices made better sense in hindsight. I agree that 5e can in theory be anything a group wants it to be, but there are an awful lot of mechanics that support 5e as a combat-oriented day, down to a specific suggestion for fights per day in the core book. (Wasn't it something like eight encounters per adventuring day?) In a earlier post I was critical of how OD&D was written, that it didn't explain enough. Well 5e has that as well in some areas. And of those areas is the encounter per day guidelines. I think the 4e DMG did a better job of this of course with 4e wizards ignored their own advice in the follow-up products and rigorously followed it. I think it useful to know how long a full strength party will last at certain level against X foes. But not for adventure design but rather to calibrate the campaign to how I depict my setting. See I dragged my Majestic Wilderlands setting through multiple systems and edition. Key that process is figuring what is an apprentice, journeyman, master, etc. Then I can convert my notes over into the mechanics of the new system and get something that in the same ballpark. The same with adventures, if the chief foe is a master swordsman, I would like to know what is a master swordsman in that system without having to actually playtest. So the mechanics that surround Encounters per Day help with that. But What I don't feel behold to only having X of anything per day. I consider that part advice not rules. And aid not something hard and fast like rolling 1d6 for initiative. I know some treat that material as rules but that represent a failure of the author to explain thing. I know for a fact that the authors of 3e, 4e, and 5e did not hew to encounter building rules. But rather like me used as guideline in creating adventures and campaigns. I'd like to give 5e another shake some day. I think I'll purposely run a game on a forum with experienced and mature players. Perhaps here or DF if people were interested in a "Greyhawk flavored" 5e with the free Basic rules only. Should be a fun experiment. Sure but my strong recommendation to consider anything out of rolling 1d20 for initiative, you get x spells per day, etc style mechanics to be advice only. To be used when useful, ignored when you want to do something different. I've been meaning to look into your rules variant for a while. I keep getting distracted by other shinies when I spend my monthly self-imposed allowance on books and games. PM me, and I will comp you a copy of the PDF. If you find it useful then get the phyiscal book In the meantime there is this which is a free download focused on what players need. www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 13, 2021 9:27:53 GMT -6
This was a feature, not a bug, and intended by the designers. They didn't feel people needed rules for roleplaying. I agree. That the player base was unable to/unwilling to actually read the books and figure that out is another story. Unfortunately D&D players have been groomed since AD&D to need rules for everything (maybe since Greyhawk). And when they got a game that didn't do that, they just assumed the whole game was about combat. * I thought the 4e DMG was the best D&D DMG since Gygax's AD&D 1e DMG. And as you mentioned in your asterisk comment. Wizard screwed the pooch and didn't follow their own advice in the supplemental products. As for players being groomed. My considered opinion is that after reading all the different D&D history book, anecdotes, this forum, etc what made the late 60s and early 70s work as far gaming was how the novices were taught via word of mouth. Due to the relative dearth of published products, being taught by word of mouth was the primary gateway into the hobby. Basically an outsized Founder's Effect But when the industry matured and published product got out there, their reach far outstripped the ability of word of mouth to spread the hobby. For wargaming this wasn't too bad because the trend there was to play out a scenario by it rules which generally focused on emulating reality or in some cases a specific piece of fiction. One could judge fairly whether the mechanics for a WW II German Tiger tank was in the ballpark or not. However for RPGs being more flexible and expansive a set of rules wasn't sufficient. You needed the written equivalent of Dave Arneson or Gary Gygax sitting beside you to get how the rules were meant to be used. Even then, one would quickly realize, especially with Arneson, that rules are being updated or amended to account for different things as the campaign progressed. But this explanation wasn't that detailed in OD&D. So the default reaction to somebody encountering D&D outside of the early 70s gaming community was "Well it game, you play the game by its rules or you are cheating". Thus an important foundation for more rules was sunk into the ground of the new born hobby. And more important the reasoning behind why stuff like hit points, armor class, etc wasn't in OD&D. But that not the sole reason. Another was that on average, a gamer likes to have option, mechanics to fiddle with while playing. You can see this in wargaming even with those based on fiction. Over time Avalon Hill and SPI wargame became ever more complex. The RPG hobby was not immune to this. And gamers are competitive and because D&D didn't have a lot of competition at the time, naturally folks wanted to try their hand at D&D tournament to see who was the best D&D players. If you attempt that then fairness and consistency become paramount in the rules you use. Having run various gaming tournaments especially as fundraiser for my college gaming club, you want to make sure everybody feels they had a fair shot at winning or the next tournament will be a bust. We don't see that as much anymore because there are other games, like Magic the Gathering, First person shooters, that scratch that itch better. Now the focus of organized play on is on the shared experience of hundreds if not thousands players tackling the same adventures in the same setting. And because it organized play, then the rules need to be fair and consistent. Which was one of the major drivers behind D&D 4e design. With D&D 5e they backed off that somewhat and better segregate what is done for organized play and what is done for general sale. To sum it up, the blame is on us the hobbyists. Luckily we have this little thing called the Internet which for all its ills has allowed the old word of mouth culture of game to be reborn and grow. I would say the fanbase an order of magnitude larger thanks to what folks in this forum and elsewhere have time. Because communication is cheap and distribution channel are no longer bound by physical shelves. It doesn't matter what the "mainstream" is doing. Those who are interested in the style of gaming talking about here can effectively support this specific niche in the time one has for a hobby. Not just support but make works to share (or sell) that publishers and fans in the early 70s could only dream of doing. So I consider the glass not just half full but overflowing in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 13, 2021 8:11:40 GMT -6
[In my experience, things that are buried in the DMG are seldom used or referenced. Your thesis is not supported by several actual play videos where 5e is played. For example Critical Role. There is a lot of fighting and there are a lot of non-violent encounters as well. My experience in refereeing 5e in game stores and conventions versus OD&D in the same setting is that it all about the what the players is interested in doing (or not). And what the referee does in response. It has little to do with the specifics of the mechanics. Assuming that rules govern how players and referee play out a campaign is a fallacy. Instead the rules are used to back up what referee and players want to do already. If the rules doesn't do that they they are not used. Case in point, D&D 4th edition. Sure players and referees circa 2010 love playing out combat. But that not all they want to do and not at the expense of all the other things you could do. Fourth edition outside of combat was about as lite as OD&D as to what you could do. And it exception based design made it difficult to tweak. Individual element were easy to make but to make something different you had to come up with dozens of new element even it is just a new option for an existing class. So players grew tired of 4e' one note wonder of fantasy superheroes 24/7. As a result D&D 4e didn't have any legs and was eclipsed in popularity by Pathfinder. D&D 5e avoided that by making sure that players had plenty of options for non-combat roleplaying. As for specific mechanics. D&D 5e doesn't handle social encounters in the same way as OD&D. As far as mechanics goes they both have Morale and NPC Loyalty. Instead of a reaction table modified by Charisma, 5e has Charisma Ability check and a task resolution system. Both are equally good ways of doing the same thing. Determining how a group of NPCs interact with the players. Furthermore the 5e DMG and PHB devote sections to giving advice about the possibilities one can do as one's character both combat wise and non-combat wise. Mostly in the context of adventuring. Last I don't appreciate the comment about it being buried in the 5e DMG. I was addressing the claim that D&D 5e didn't have any mechanic about morale. It not hard to find and it in a section of the DMG that all about various mechanics the referee can use during an adventure and not the advice section. I.e. the part of the DMG devoted to crunch not fluff. And yes 5e doesn't have reaction table it has equivalents that a long history in the hobby starting with Traveller and Runequest. And on further reading it has a loyalty scale mechanic for NPCs. Wrapping it up.From the late 70s to present day, if I had to bet on how a unknown player would act when they walk up to my table the odds would be in favor of that they are 'shoot first ask question later' type. I seen this from AD&D 1e, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, OD&D/Swords & Wizardry, and 5e is no exception. But that not all players or even the majority. Most fall in between and are willing to talk it out with many things they are encounter. It highly situational. Less likely with orc, ogres, and trolls, more likely with human, elves, and dwarves. As I said above the major exception I found in the four decades I been playing is D&D 4e. It achieved that exception by being difficult to modify in the time one has for a hobby, and by it laser focus on fantasy superheroics 24/7. But if fantasy superheroic was one's thing, then it is a excellent RPG for that. It offered a lot of detail in a way that wasn't complex borrowing heavily from Magic the Gathering approach. Outside of combat 4e was pretty lite but didn't get in your way. For stuff happening outside of combat you would have to run things pretty much like you would in OD&D. As for 5e. Most of it is easily modifiable within the time one has for a hobby. It offer support and details for doing stuff outside and inside of combat but not going overly deep in any one area. It secret sauce is two-fold. It assume players are generally competent through the proficiency system*. It inflated hit points and damage while clamping the range for to-hit rolls which allowed detailed mechanics (Warlock and Fighter-Battlemaster) to exist equally along more straight forward mechanics like Fighter-Champion or Wizard-Evoker. The two in conjunction resulted in a system that I found through actual play that is the most faithful to how OD&D handled relative power between levels and between PCs and monster. I can easily flip my stuff between 5e and my Majestic Fantasy RPG which is based on Swords & Wizardry. Now this doesn't mean that OD&D fans should like 5e. For my part I have a Majestic Fantasy supplement in the works for 5e. But I like my Swords & Wizardry based Majestic Fantasy RPG a lot better. I feel it does what 5e does with a lot less fiddly bits. *I was told that Mearls had a copy of my Majestic Wilderlands supplement and really like the philosophy behind my Ability section.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 12, 2021 22:02:54 GMT -6
That's true, but I think it misses the part about how 5e entirely lacks a suggested procedure for Reactions and Morale for said Orcs. Page 273 of the 5e DMG The section is around 5 paragraphs and covers the basics of morale. As for reactions there are no formal rules beyond what there for Persuasion and Intimidation ability checks.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 8, 2021 21:06:51 GMT -6
Just a heads up. The link to the Swords & Wizardry version loops back to this thread. Thanks and fixed the link.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 2, 2021 10:49:21 GMT -6
1. Having a single "core mechanic" that is expected to work for just about "everything" is the antithesis of 0e (which instead has unique bolt-on bits and pieces all over the place). Unless of course the alternative happened to work out as +/- 5% increments. At which point you have to ask why? It not just a OD&D thing, Runequest has a lot of this as well. Which is why I converted everything to 1d20 rolls or a d20 roll high when I made my Majestic Fantasy Rules. For example Contact Higher planes and it Swords & Wizardry variant. Plane # of Questions Chance of Knowing Veracity Insanity 3rd 3 25% 30% nil 4th 4 30% 40% 10% 5th 5 35% 50% 20% 6th 6 40% 60% 30% 7th 7 50% 70% 40% 8th 8 60% 75% 50%
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 25, 2021 5:41:30 GMT -6
I'm just wondering, what do you guys think about this dynamic? Have you tried any of these approaches and would you recommend any of them? I definitely wouldn't personally ever do away with classes altogether, but for a certain type of campaign this might be fun. (Disclaimer - I'm fully aware there are entire classless systems out here that perhaps do this better. Runequest, etc. I'm specifically interested in hacking D&D for this purpose, as an intellectual exercise.) My recommendation is to look at D&D 3.0 style multiclassing but with OD&D numbers and capabilities. Use Swords & Wizardry as a source because it uses to-hit bonus and ascending AC as an option. Let's look at GURPS, character creation in the base system is based around each players having a pool of points and dividing it among attributes, advantages, perks, and skills. Even in GURPS 1e/2e where the list of stuff (skills, etc) were not quite as overwhelming a lot of time character creation was the referee or experienced player coaching the novices on what to take to be effective at something. Late in the GURPS 3e era and fully embraced by GURPS 4e, the template was developed. It is a pre-defined list of attributes, advantages, skills, etc for a particular character type. The GURPS system wasn't changed but presenting the options like this made character generation quicker and easier without losing the strength of the system. Also template often had lenses which are small packages that can be taken to present a variant or even a more experienced character. When I started doing my Points of Light style settings, I decided use classic editions of D&D as it made sharing and stuff easier as most of the hobby plays D&D in one form or another. Plus it was easier to use the IP. As I continued to write and started to flesh out more of what I did specifically with the Majestic Wilderlands, I couldn't use my GURPS notes 'as is'. So I used what I learned, much of it learned here , about classic D&D, took Swords & Wizardry, took my GURPS Notes and template, and translated as a bunch of Swords & Wizardry classes. And it worked out nicely both in terms of writing and all the campaigns I ran for the past decade or so. Taking what I did a step further there is no reason that you can't take the 3.0 idea of different class levels stacking on each other and using that to build characters. Trick is to use OD&D numbers not 3.0 numbers.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 23, 2021 11:58:14 GMT -6
Likely, had I not started play with people who knew what they were doing (relatively speaking) and using GH, I'd probably have given up on D&D. I feel based on what I read that how Gygax and Arneson figured how the 3 LBBs would be handled in the long run. Popular within the wargaming community and novices would learn from those who played. But then it became a cross-country hit.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 16, 2021 18:20:46 GMT -6
What do you really think the differences are that matter between OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECMI? I mean the major ones of significance that can cause an issue when converting on the fly? Basically the answer I gave on Stack Exchange a decade ago. rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/13212/what-are-the-big-differences-among-the-dd-editionsD&D (1974) - The original game had only three classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic User). Cleric spells up to 5th level, Magic user spells up to 6th level. Every attack except for certain monster abilities did 1d6 damage if it hit. There wasn't a lot of difference between characters in terms of combat capabilities. Characteristics didn't have many modifiers. OD&D plus Greyhawk Supplement (1975) - The Greyhawk supplement transformed OD&D into a form of older edition D&D that is recognizable by most gamers today. Characteristics have more modifiers and exceptional strength was introduced. Variable damage dice for different weapons and creatures was introduced. The number of spell levels increased. Holmes Edition, B/X D&D, Mentzer D&D (1977, 1981, 1983) - Similar to OD&D plus Greyhawk including selected elements from other supplements, with the rules rewritten for clarity and organization. Playing a Race meant playing a class. For example a Dwarf used only the Dwarf Class. Both B/X and Mentzer were divided in distinct books that focused on a specific range of levels. Later the Mentzer version was combined into the Rules Compendium. The biggest difference between these rules and AD&D was found in higher level play. Mentzer D&D had specific rules for running domain, mass combat, and even becoming a immortal i.e. god. AD&D 1st Edition (1977) - OD&D plus Supplements plus Strategic Review articles are combined, rewritten, and organized into a three book set. One of the reason behind this edition was to standardize how D&D was played to make running tournaments easier. The most popular version of older edition D&D. Bonuses for characteristics roughly go up to +4 and are capped at 18 except for exceptional strength. A lot of extra details are added in Gygax's distinctive writing style. Some sections are poorly designed or understood like the unarmed combat rules, initiative, psionics, human dual classing, etc. While other are widely adopted, classes, races, spells, magic items, etc. Characters select a race and a class. Non-human race can multi class which involves splitting experience between multiple classes. Non-humans were generally limited to a max level (often low). AD&D 1st Edition plus Unearthed Arcana (1985) - This version shifted the power level of the game upwards by allowing increased level limits for non-human, new classes that were slightly more powerful, and weapon specialization for fighters. Later AD&D hardback books (the two Survival books) expanded the use of non-weapon proficiencies as a skill system. AD&D 2nd Edition (1989) - Still basically AD&D 1st Edition but the rules have been reorganized and rewritten for clarity. Some content like half-orc, demons, and assassins were removed or changed due to media pressure. Character customization was expanded by using non-weapon proficiencies as a skill system and by allowing characters to take kits that confer various benefits. Combat has been redesigned to overcome the issues with initiative and unarmed combat that were part of the previous edition of AD&D. Because of the success of Dragonlance, much of AD&D 2nd Edition run was focused on customizing the rules for specific settings or themes. TSR released a lot of different settings like Dark Sun, Birthright, and others. AD&D 2nd Edition Skills and Powers (1995) - Player's Option: Skill and Powers introduced several rule systems that allowed extensive customization of a character. D&D 3rd Edition (2000) - The first edition created by Wizards of the Coast, 3rd Edition took the idea of Skill and Powers and developed a cleaner system for customizing characters by designing the classes so a level of one class can stack on top of another class. A single level chart was introduced and a each level a character could take a new class or add another level of a class they already had. In addition feats were added to allow characters to further customize their abilities. A true skill system was introduced and integrated into the game. The underlying d20 system worked by rolling equal to or higher than a target number and adding various bonus. This was used across the game in a standard way. Problems developed at higher levels as the number of options increased to the point where players had a tough time resolving their actions. In addition, when various supplements were combined, characters could be built that were considerably more powerful than other combinations. This version was also noted for releasing the d20 system under the Open Game License, which ignited a vigorous third party market. D&D 3.5 Edition(2003) - This edition featured only small changes to the core game (and was mostly-but-not-entirely compatible with books written for 3rd Edition), but had its own extensive line of supplements which magnified the role of feats, prestige classes, and multiclassing in character customization. This version of D&D is still the baseline for many D20 games some still in print and active development. Notably the Pathfinder 1st edition game by Paizo is based on the System Reference Document for D&D 3.5. D&D 4th Edition (2008) - This edition is a completely new game with only a few game mechanics carried over from the 3rd Edition. It has a simple set of core rules and defines all character and monster abilities as exceptions which are described in standard terms. Higher level combat has been simplified, and each class has been designed to have a specific role in combat. Every class has a diverse set of combat options to use. The use of a battlegrid and miniatures is part of the core rules. Classes and monster generally have a high fantasy flavor. There are multiple ways to heal centered on a new mechanic called healing surges. Combat takes noticeably longer than any prior edition except perhaps for high level 3rd edition combat. While not present at the game's launch, this edition is noted for popular use of on-line computer tools, particularly an online character builder that integrates content from all the supplements. Wizards of the Coast originally intended to create a "virtual tabletop" as well, but the project was never completed. D&D Essentials (2010) - This was an alternative set of core books for 4th Edition, with simplified classes intended for first-time players. Essentials was designed to be cross-compatible with 4th Edition, with different versions of the classes usable side-by-side. D&D 5th edition (2014) - This is the current edition of D&D. This edition is being released when the market leader is not the previous edition of D&D but rather a rival product made by Paizo called Pathfinder. Unlike D&D 4th edition this edition draws on much of the mechanics introduced in classic D&D (OD&D to AD&D 2nd Edition) and D&D 3rd Edition. It allows for more character customization than classic D&D but less than 3rd edition. The distinct features of D&D 5th edition are flexibility and bounded accuracy. D&D 5e has a simple core along with several options that allows referee to make their game feel more like a particular past edition. Options include allowing feats (3e), tactical combat (3e & 4e), multi-classing (3e), and backgrounds (2e). Bounded Accuracy is the most distinct feature of D&D 5e. As stated in this article the d20 rolls to see if the character hits or succeeds in a task have been changed to an absolute scale where the difference between the highest level and the lowest is drastically reduced compared to previous editions. In its place, higher levels characters and creature have more hit points, more options for completing tasks, and increased damage along with more ways of doing damage. An immediate consequence is that the difficulty of the to hit roll or the task is not expected to increase as the character levels.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 22, 2021 6:29:46 GMT -6
Based upon the above definition of the OSR (and what folks like geoffrey have said as well), I am finally ready to vote: all in. I have gotten crap for consistently using OSR as a shorthand for the group of hobbyists who plays, promotes, and publishes for the classic editions of Dungeons & Dragons. My counterpoints are: 1) That is what the label was first used for when I first started using it back in 2008. 2) That regardless of the label there will continue to be a group of hobbyists who plays, promotes, and publish for the classic editions. 3) That the Old School Renaissance is part of a larger old school renaissance. 4) That the OSR, as I use the term, was never just about the classic edition. It also include individual other interests but only the interest in the classic edition can be considered universal among this group of hobbyists. Everything else depends on the group or individual being talked about. For example I like Traveller, GURPS, Hero Systems, Harnmaster, etc and regularly talk about them and support these systems on my blog. 5) Finally the OSR is an organic term that grew because it was fun to use for example TSR versus OSR. As such anybody is free to try to impose their own definition or read whatever they want into it. But even limited to stuff surrounding the classic edition, it has to be qualified because not all classic editions or classic editions material are the same (thank God). So people wind up using or marketing other more specific terms, like AD&D, OD&D, Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Old School Essentials. Some use some form of OSR trademark but most, like myself rely on getting their name out there or another terms (like OSRIC) out there.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jun 22, 2021 6:19:14 GMT -6
A counter-question: Do we really? This forum is pretty active. Dragonsfoot is pretty active. There are active Reddit and (I'm told) Facebook groups for all the TSR-era games and old school RPGs in general. It seems to me that plenty of people are still enjoying these games, or discovering them for the first time, with or without a label attached. Plus all the material we can use for specific older editions remains open content. Free (in both sense of the word) for anybody to use to realize their idea for a specific edition in whatever the form they like, commercial, or just shared. Alongside that there are examples of people successfully publishing or sharing works that don't use the Open Game License that also target older editions. While other can't build on those due to copyright, they can serve as a template for folks who don't like the idea of using the OGL.
|
|