Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 16:24:59 GMT -6
I've been thinking a lot lately about the tendency for many OSR authors to put out a really solid or unique core system, and then never publish any more content for it. No adventures. No expansions. No bestiaries or gazetteers. Pretty much just make a clone or hack and then never do anything else with it. Sadly, a lot of OD&D clones I really like which emulate 3lbb invariably end up this way. Nobody's making adventures for Whitebox: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game, for instance, but Swords & Wizardry and Basic Fantasy RPG have tons of content still coming out on a regular basis by comparison.
The more I think about it, the more value I see in playing and advocating for living systems as opposed to systems closer to my ideal game but which are ill-supported. Having an active community and pool of creators, I feel, is invaluable to the OSR experience as that brings us closer to the feeling of being a kid in the eighties when TSR was putting out adventures and splat books. It can still be a DIY, indie, mix and match affair but having official content to supplement your campaign is really a life saver in many instances. I've had more than a few affairs in my gaming life where people decide they wanna try a one-shot at short notice and I've grabbed something off the shelf handy, like Basic Fantasy's Adventure Anthology and ran them through something. It's a handy tool to have in one's toolbox.
How do you guys feel about this? Is it something you consider or does it not matter at all? There aren't any wrong answers here. Just another angle of retro-gaming to consider and discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 20, 2020 1:50:14 GMT -6
For most originals and clones ranging from OD&D through to BECMI, the tiny stat block (stat line, really) in adventures means every adventure is compatible with every rule set. I'd actually include AD&D in that, because our group played AD&D adventures with B/X for about 2 years before we even knew there was supposed to be a difference. I think for that reason groups should pick the rules they prefer, and then run any adventures they want with it. I don't even bother converting, the variation just adds interest and stops players from getting complacent and thinking they know it all. The fact that I'm really slow at putting out content is entirely coincidental to the above.  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 20, 2020 4:56:56 GMT -6
I don't even bother converting, the variation just adds interest and stops players from getting complacent and thinking they know it all. Much truth here. When I "run old school" for my players I no longer really know what rules set I am playing. I may have them create OD&D characters, or C&C characters, or whatever … but when I run the game I have my 2E Monstrous Manual and the RC and the C&C M&T books handy and often will just grab one at random and use their monster stats. (I convert AC to ascending, but basically nothing else.) Remember that the original purpose of the clones was to provide a rules set where folks could publish modules and support for games which were being kept dead by WotC. Now that WotC allows folks to buy PDFs or those rules (and for a while actual physical copies) the need for a clone is mostly gone, except for the ego factor. Back in the day folks would submit variant articles to Dragon; now they make a "new game" and market it as a clone. I feel like most of the clones are interchangeable overall, anyway, because they really are variants and not new at all. That does mean that most monsters and classes and magic and whatnot can be pulled from one and put into the other with minimal problems. The net effect of the "sameness" factor is that none of these clones are really dead because they can be used to fun a whole slew of modules published for any of the other clones. The funny thing is that some folks may have put out modules in the spirit intended, but others decided to copy the clonemakers and just make their own "new" games instead, which is the pattern that ampleframework noted in his OP. Just my two coppers. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 20, 2020 6:30:30 GMT -6
One of the things that kills me as a designer (and always has) is that I'm utter GARBAGE at writing adventure modules. I just don't like to do it, and I hate the level of detail that writing for wide consumption requires. When I run at home I run off of a few sheets of notes and go based on knowing my gaming group. Having to hand-hold novice (and poor) GMs through issues like the Locked Dungeon annoys the crap out of me. The several adventure modules I've put out for Amazing Adventures have largely been done under pressure and duress and while they're good and I'm proud of the results, I didn't enjoy a second of writing them. It's definitely something I need to work on.
|
|
eldrad
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 69
|
Post by eldrad on Dec 3, 2021 23:01:22 GMT -6
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 149 
|
Post by aramis on Dec 4, 2021 23:52:03 GMT -6
There is an industry-wide lack of competent playtesters. And a lot of would-be designers who think in-house is good enough for publication... and so a lot of stuff that would never have gotten past the slushpile in the 80's or 90's clouds DTRPG with lots of low quality stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 5, 2021 2:10:19 GMT -6
There is an industry-wide lack of competent playtesters. And a lot of would-be designers who think in-house is good enough for publication... and so a lot of stuff that would never have gotten past the slushpile in the 80's or 90's clouds DTRPG with lots of low quality stuff. I'd rather see a barrage of home-ground projects (most of which is rubbish, but with a few diamonds in the ruff) than over-produced, sanitized, committee approved, heartless blather. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2021 8:09:37 GMT -6
I don't see why there can't be a middle ground between two extremes. A lot of the better adventure and setting products I've seen that are old school compatible are definitely quirky labors of love, but they also had some thought put into their layout and proofreading process. Most of the LOTFP modules, for instance, fall into this ideal "goldilocks zone". They're very well presented but they're not soulless corporate products either.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Dec 5, 2021 21:32:33 GMT -6
I don't see why there can't be a middle ground between two extremes. A lot of the better adventure and setting products I've seen that are old school compatible are definitely quirky labors of love, but they also had some thought put into their layout and proofreading process. Most of the LOTFP modules, for instance, fall into this ideal "goldilocks zone". They're very well presented but they're not soulless corporate products either. I don't see how considering the layout and proofreading are incompatible with hobbyist sensibilities. I'm simply tired of the RPG industry and the OSR genre. My ideal adventure is some random dude thinking, "Hey! That one was pretty good. I bet others would like it, too." Then he releases it on his blog/website/forum. The entire idea of someone writing an adventure for the purpose of publication feels backward to me. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 6, 2021 1:00:28 GMT -6
My living system for D&D-styled one-shot games is usually my own house-ruled variant of OD&D (which is close to FMAG, incidentally), adding and removing parts as I see fit for the respective group/players and the scenario. I don't usually buy adventure modules for several reasons, in short, most old modules contain way too much text for my taste (and then lots of text which is irrelevant to the adventure unless you play it in a campaign) and lots of new community modules turn out to be half-baked. If I have to use my own time to make those playable, it's a waste of money for me as I could have done that from the start. I also like generic but evocative one-pagers, like many found on trilemma.com/Monte Cook Games also have very nice and short modular adventures (I know those for Numenera) which can easily be used for either science fantasy games, or adapted for high fantasy by swapping tech with magic. That said, I do run old B/X modules, AD&D modules (mostly Dark Sun) and a handful of new modules for OSE, also DCC modules and even some old Das Schwarze Auge/The Dark Eye adventures, using whatever system I like, converting on the fly if needed (decades of DM experience helps a lot there). For most improvised one-shot games I use a different game system, though, depending on the group. For a more narrative approach I use the system from Over the Edge 3E, otherwise a "classic" 2d6 system like Traveller. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2021 10:41:38 GMT -6
I can't personally imagine ever using any published rulebook or adventure 100% as written, but most anything can be mined for ideas or read for general inspiration. The maps and encounters can be hacked apart from their original context and tossed into a home brew campaign at thematically appropriate moments seamlessly in many cases. That's the same as crafting an idea based on a movie, book or dream as far as I'm concerned. Whatever works. They all have their place. I believe an old thing in a new context viewed by new eyes is essentially a new thing in every significant way.
|
|
