Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 7:41:57 GMT -6
I almost always use MCM to differentiate from BECMI As BX could mean/be used for either (and often was in the early internet days of discussion around places like DF) I definitely see a lot of terms being used different when I look back at older internet threads that still exist, especially at DF, but in the modern RPG discussion sphere, nobody ever really conflates B/X with BECMI any more. There's a firm line. Somebody new might mix them up but they're quickly corrected. It would appear that MCM fell by the wayside at some point by the mid-2000's. This is likely a result of people becoming more connected via high-speed internet and the proliferation of various spaces to discuss the burgeoning OSR and the history of the hobby. Eventually accepted terms and definitions solidify. 20 years ago, people lumped B/X and BECMI under the OD&D umbrella all the time, but we wouldn't classify them that way at all now, would we? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 15, 2021 7:50:31 GMT -6
I almost always use MCM to differentiate from BECMI As BX could mean/be used for either (and often was in the early internet days of discussion around places like DF) I definitely see a lot of terms being used different when I look back at older internet threads that still exist, especially at DF, but in the modern RPG discussion sphere, nobody ever really conflates B/X with BECMI any more. There's a firm line. Somebody new might mix them up but they're quickly corrected. It would appear that MCM fell by the wayside at some point by the mid-2000's. This is likely a result of people becoming more connected via high-speed internet and the proliferation of various spaces to discuss the burgeoning OSR and the history of the hobby. Eventually accepted terms and definitions solidify. 20 years ago, people lumped B/X and BECMI under the OD&D umbrella all the time, but we wouldn't classify them that way at all now, would we? Not to sound rude, but I am the last person on earth who is really concerned what terms are accepted by the OSR community at large. I use the terminology that is natural to me, and what I prefer. If people ask, I explain. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 15, 2021 8:34:36 GMT -6
Not to sound rude, but I am the last person on earth who is really concerned what terms are accepted by the OSR community at large. I use the terminology that is natural to me, and what I prefer. If people ask, I explain. I get that, but there is also the factor that it takes two to communicate and it's also helpful to use terminology that others understand as well, otherwise you spend half your time explaining what you said.  That has become more of a communications issue recently, as more editions have been lumped together. What exactly is "classic" D&D on DF, for example? I guess "anything not AD&D but pre-3E", but now there is also an OD&D sub-forum there so perhaps "everything not AD&D but pre-3E not including OD&D, which has its own spot."  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 10:26:38 GMT -6
Not to sound rude, but I am the last person on earth who is really concerned what terms are accepted by the OSR community at large. I use the terminology that is natural to me, and what I prefer. If people ask, I explain. I get that, but there is also the factor that it takes two to communicate and it's also helpful to use terminology that others understand as well, otherwise you spend half your time explaining what you said. That has become more of a communications issue recently, as more editions have been lumped together. What exactly is "classic" D&D on DF, for example? I guess "anything not AD&D but pre-3E", but now there is also an OD&D sub-forum there so perhaps "everything not AD&D but pre-3E not including OD&D, which has its own spot." Having been doing a ton of reading here and at DF, I have come to the conclusion that everything was and is mislabeled and there is no correcting it. Humor me here I offer the following based on what I have been reading on both forums. Hobbits, ents, balrogs, ERB critters OD&D first five printings Holmes 1st print D&D lite w/minor revisions Mostly no hobbits, ents, balrogs, ERB critters OD&D 6th print+ redacted version - quite a few mentions were missed and not deleted, seems like hobbits and ents were the main target Holmes 2nd print+ D&D lite w/redacted/minor revisions B/X redacted, revised BECMI redacted, revised, expanded RC redacted, revised, expanded and contracted, by contracted my reading suggests that some things in BECMI were not in RC, but RC has some things not in BECMI. OD&D WotC pdf version is well scrubbed Having done a lot of reading, I wonder why way back when on DF, the first two were not called classic and the last five were not called something else. You would think that classic would be before the redactions/deletions occurred. The last one is as noted well scrubbed. I have not seen all of these, just going by what I was reading. I have only seen the OD&D WotC pdf version. Usually in most things "classic" refers to the original thing, but in D&D it does not. I have not figured out the why of that yet, but I still have a huge amount to read on both forums. BTW, is there any document that lists all the things in the first five prints of OD&D that are not in the WotC pdf version that I have? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2021 10:27:13 GMT -6
Not to sound rude, but I am the last person on earth who is really concerned what terms are accepted by the OSR community at large. I use the terminology that is natural to me, and what I prefer. If people ask, I explain. I get that, but there is also the factor that it takes two to communicate and it's also helpful to use terminology that others understand as well, otherwise you spend half your time explaining what you said. That has become more of a communications issue recently, as more editions have been lumped together. What exactly is "classic" D&D on DF, for example? I guess "anything not AD&D but pre-3E", but now there is also an OD&D sub-forum there so perhaps "everything not AD&D but pre-3E not including OD&D, which has its own spot." I think the way it goes is that there's AD&D, there's OD&D, and then there's just "D&D" which is also "Classic". That's one of those grey areas. Some people take offense to lumping B/X and Holmes together, saying Holmes is more OD&D, etc. I really don't think these rough edges will ever 100% be smoothed out, but yes, my point was about being understood and understanding others. Like, for instance, if you say "the third edition of D&D" most people assume you mean the first edition WOTC put out and not the third print run of 3lbb, or Moldvay Basic for that matter. It's terminology used by the overwhelming majority of people online who discuss RPGs, and it's convenient to have a common set of terms like that. If I say "3e" people know what I mean. If I say "The first post-wotsee acquisition rules, pre-revision" I might have to explain myself. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 15, 2021 15:39:00 GMT -6
I call Classic Coke, Original Coke, so I guess I'm just weird.
For "classic", I make the distinction by Author, or RC.
Otherwise , it's A,A2E, 3,4,5.
In the grand scheme of things, Im pretty sure we all get the gist, if not I can elaborate if people are that confused. I know in some other forums, I've not had an issue using MCM. :shrug:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2021 6:08:53 GMT -6
It's a regional dialect, then. |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Jul 30, 2021 3:43:40 GMT -6
Technically, [6] is a revised edition of [1]. Charlie took my WB, did some tweaks and such, and created a better product.  You're too humble. S&W White Box is fantastic. It lead me to reassessing the original LBB, and learning to appreciate its greatness. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 10:11:18 GMT -6
Yeah, I wouldn't objectively say FMAG is an improvement. It's a reorganization and an expansion, sure, in the same way "Greyhawk" was for 3lbb. Both have their proponents. If I run Whitebox again, it's gonna be Fin's version. It's got all it needs to have.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jul 30, 2021 11:28:28 GMT -6
Yeah, I wouldn't objectively say FMAG is an improvement. It's a reorganization and an expansion, sure, in the same way "Greyhawk" was for 3lbb. Both have their proponents. If I run Whitebox again, it's gonna be Fin's version. It's got all it needs to have. Picking nits here- feel free to shoot me down but I would not call FMAG, Whitebox's "greyhawk". GH dramatically changes OD&D. FMAG is extremely minor in the grand scheme of things, and while the layout/org may be better it's not like the original WB or the BHP versions are poorly organized (like say the LBBs compared to SVE)* I wasn't very happy with the BHP boxed set at all, but I've had a BHP 2nd print single volume of WB since...12 years ago?? It's actually perfect for me as a gaming copy** Same for my Complete 1st print. *I often scratch my head at the folks who complain about original WB or MCM (BX). I guess I'm not that picky when it comes to small volumes like these. Now a WOTC edition, or OSRIC, or AD&D- heck yes- I want great layout with proper TOC, appendices, spells listed a certain way (or various ways), etc. That I get picky about. **As I've said elsewhere (ad nauseum) I prefer the Mythmere Games' Mullen covers from Original and WB. I'd like to have a hardcover with the Green King on the cover, and the Giants Attack on the back (or better yet- as a flyleaf!). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2021 15:11:45 GMT -6
Yeah, I wouldn't objectively say FMAG is an improvement. It's a reorganization and an expansion, sure, in the same way "Greyhawk" was for 3lbb. Both have their proponents. If I run Whitebox again, it's gonna be Fin's version. It's got all it needs to have. Picking nits here- feel free to shoot me down but I would not call FMAG, Whitebox's "greyhawk". GH dramatically changes OD&D. FMAG is extremely minor in the grand scheme of things, and while the layout/org may be better it's not like the original WB or the BHP versions are poorly organized (like say the LBBs compared to SVE) That's fair, but I'm pretty comfortable standing by what I said. When Charlie Mason put FMAG together, he made explicit a lot of the things the original Whitebox left completely open to referee interpretation. For instance, there are now exact mechanics for the chances for a Dwarf to note a slanting passage, or for how traps work, and any number of other things. These things were all in the 3lbb, sure, but they're not really necessary for the S&W Whitebox experience, especially when coupled with the advice from the Old School Primer. That's the way I initially ran this, and the way I intend to revisit it later. I really like FMAG and have had a lot of fun with it, but I do feel like it adds another layer of "completeness" on top of S&W Whitebox, hence my statement about Greyhawk, which some people consider to "complete" 3lbb. Not in the same way or to the same extent, but it's the closest comparison. |
|
