Grognardia & Carcosa

[Zulgyan]

One is mechanical: deviate too much from the rules laid down in OD&D and you've crossed the line.

I see some deviations in the original supplements way more departing from OD&D than Carcosa.

For example:
Buffed up stats.
Thieves an the intro of a skill system.
Exceptional Strenght.
Hit Locations.
Psionics.
XP values for monsters.
Crazy Iniciative System.
Multi-classing.
Pantheons from all over the world and from literature. And special rules for them.

Not to mention stuff found in the magazines such as Witchcraft, technological items, racial classes, and more...


On the other hand, comparing Carcosa with 4e, I think that's going to far...

Anyway, happy gaming! Peace, the old-school community can't afford more divisions.

This will be my last word on the subject of Carcosa (at least for a while). I wanna say I never wanted to get into the moral issues of the supp. I was just analysing the non-controvertial parts.

[James Maliszewski]

Nov 11, 2008 12:51:04 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

On the other hand, comparing Carcosa with 4e, I think that's going to far...

OK, how about Arduin? Is it fairer to say that Carcosa is a lot like Arduin in its relationship to OD&D? If so, is Arduin D&D? If not, why not?

[Zulgyan]

I think Arduin inflates the powerlevel a lot and introduces a lot of coherency breaking (in the context of OD&D) subsystems.

Even though, I can see people cherrypicking stuff from it and I would consider those games being D&D.

(*gasp* I find this D&D/not-D&D discussions so pointless...)

I think that in you way of thinking, about 30% of what was published in the early Dragon for D&D is not D&D. Same with Fight On!

And that about 50% of the original supps. are not D&D, or OD&D.

I concede that the dice conventions of Carcosa are way to wild, but take that away (which has not effect on the rest) and I think it's just ok.

[James Maliszewski]

Nov 11, 2008 13:19:34 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

(*gasp* I find this D&D/not-D&D discussions so pointless...)

It's not pointless when Carcosa presents itself as "Supplement V." It's claiming a degree of affinity with OD&D that I don't think can be supported, not just mechanically (which, I agree, is the weaker argument) but also thematically. I have a very hard time imagining TSR publishing Carcosa and I think that's an important point. Can anyone sincerely tell me that they think Carcosa is the kind of supplement TSR would put forward to the public?

[dwayanu]

To a point, I considered Arduin to be just supplemented OD&D. After a while (I can't identify a neat dividing line), it just seemed natural to speak of "playing Arduin" instead.

Carcosa does not seem so suited to gradual and subtle accretion. There's a coherent vision behind it, as in EPT.

[korgoth]

Nov 11, 2008 12:05:39 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Also... you're familiar with Smith's Zothique, right? I find that at least as dark and depressing as Carcosa, if not moreso. Would an OD&D game set in Zothique be "not D&D" for some reason?

Very likely so.

Hmm... well, I don't want to pick on you, James! But I think it might be worth pressing onward a bit, since it seems as if we may be on the verge of staking out real territory here. So I proceed with admiration and respect, but boldly.

Geoffrey raised an interesting point regarding REH's Conan piece "A Witch Shall Be Born", in which the villainess subjects her own sister to rape, oversees the rape of many locals and slaughters numerous innocents. Clearly some heavy-duty villainy happening here.

Clearly, also, we're allowed to include some Conan stuff in OD&D. He's right there in my spiffy Supplement IV (sent to me by a certain kindly gentleman). But, thematically, I guess we can't include the tyrannies of the evil Salome.

Likewise, there's clearly some Smith stuff in D&D (such as Castle Amber). So we can include some Smith... but we can't set our game in Zothique, or use its predominant themes.

And back to Vance... we can use some things from the Dying Earth, such as spell memorization mechanic, but we can't use other elements from those very same stories.

I have two problems here. First, all of the sudden I have no idea what I can and can't use before my games cease to be "D&D". I don't have any special copies of Howard, Smith and Vance where the "D&D" portions are highlighted in green to distinguish them from the "not D&D" portions. So it seems, if I may press you pointedly on this note, that I have to wait until after the fact when I'm standing before the Court of Arbitrary Aesthetic Guidelines to receive an ad hoc judgment of my efforts.

Second, even if the thematic guidelines were so clearly laid out to me that I could go through my own copies of Howard, Smith and Vance with my own green highlighter to distinguish the acceptable from the unacceptable... it seems then that, if I want to follow these guidelines, what I'm really deciding to do is endlessly regurgitate a pastiche of Howard, Smith and Vance. I probably can't do Howard, at least not all of him; I definitely can't do Smith or Vance. I cannot set my game in Zothique without it becoming "not D&D", likewise with the Dying Earth.

Now, if what I have described simply is the way it is... then I don't agree with what you say D&D is or isn't. I don't think D&D is doomed only to endlessly recycle the blander elements of these authors in an inoffensive pastiche. If that's really all it is, then I don't know why anyone would make a big deal out of D&D or be particularly hot to embrace it. It would seem to me, in that case, to be arbitrary and calcified and prohibited from saying anything interesting. And it would leave me in the awkward position of encouraging people not to play OD&D, but something that allows the participants some creative freedom. Which is weird because creative freedom is one of these main features that I thought OD&D had in the first place.

[Zulgyan]

JAMES:

But why does some guy naming his little book Supplement V take away your sleep? Is that something SO serious.

Because of the contravertial moral issues in Carcosa, yes, maybe TSR would have not published Carcosa. Yes, Carcosa might have been to controvertial to publish.

But as for the rest...

Hmmmm... TSR published the WITCHCRAFT supplement in TD. This is a new type of magic in the same way Carcosa sorcery is.

TSR published modules with high tech spaceships, robots, techintems (blackmoor modules, barrier peaks).

... a Psionic system.

... trillons of monsters, classes, races...
.... hit locations, critical hits, lots of wacky combat rule alternatives...

rules for WWII weapons with D&D characters.

Cthulhu mythos in Deities and Demigods, and an introduction on how Cthulhu magic would work, in D&D parameters.

ok, a lot of that stuff... how is all that different from Carcosa?

Unless you say that all that stuff published by TSR for D&D is not D&D, I can't find sense to it.


And going back to the moral issues... I see in D&D demon summoning, random prostitute tables (what other reasons for it than interaction with the PCs and possible sexual activity), assasin class, half-orcs. Innocent orc babies, evil looking party in Moldvay.

So D&D itself is not that morally clean either.

[James Maliszewski]

I think Carcosa, in its unexpurgated form, is too graphic for TSR ever to have published it. I also think, even in its expurgated form, that it's too grim and morally ambiguous for TSR ever to have published it. And before anyone mocks me for adhering to the late 80s TSR Code that banished the words "demon" and "devil" to Concordant Opposition, I mean Outlands, bear in mind that I'm talking about the TSR of the mid-70s, which put a naked woman on an altar on the cover of Supplement III.

If TSR could not have published it, I take that to be a warning sign that we've crossed a line somewhere. We can quibble and argue about where the line exactly is and if I've done a poor job of drawing a map to just where you can see this line, but I don't think that in any way denies the existence of a line or the fact that Carcosa crossed it.

Remember too that I'm not calling for Geoffrey's head or dubbing him the spawn of Satan here. I have a great deal of admiration for what he tried to do with Carcosa and believe it to be a remarkable work of the imagination; I just happen to believe that it's a flawed work and one that deviates too much from conventions of D&D, conventions I will hasten to add that, while inspired by pulp fantasy tales, are not synonymous with them or their content. I think it fruitless to use "Howard wrote this" or "CAS wrote that" as a bludgeon, because the simple fact is that D&D wasn't written by Howard or Smith or Vance but by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, whose final product is more than the sum of its parts. It's filled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and weirdness that attests to its multifarious origins, but I think, if one is open to it, an underlying pattern and ethos can be seen and that pattern and ethos are very different than the ones that underlie Carcosa. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. But I really hope I can be forgiven for feeling that, while OD&D may be a toolkit, it was never intended to be used to build certain things.

[James Maliszewski]

Nov 11, 2008 13:46:19 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

But why does some guy naming his little book Supplement V take away your sleep? Is that something SO serious.

Where did I say that it troubles my sleep? I'm taking the time to respond to people who had disagreements with my review; that's rather different than saying I am disturbed by Carcosa. If I had been disturbed, I wouldn't have spent hours reading it, thinking about it, and writing a massive review, the longest and most detailed review of the product yet -- a review where I did not once resort to invective, name-calling, or denunciation to make my points.

You may not agree with my critiques and that's fine, but there's a world of difference between our having a genuine disagreement about the merit of Carcosa and my being disturbed by it, because I can assure you I am not.

What I am disturbed about, though, is the amount of flak I'm catching for having the temerity to think Carcosa isn't flawless. I tried to be even-handed, open-minded, and fair; I think I succeeded. I certainly gave the book a better hearing than it's received on most other forums. And yet I still can't catch a break. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Anyway, I'm done here. You all know where to find me if you want to chat.

[Zulgyan]

And what about the City State of the Invinsible Overlord (quite morally ambiguos too)?

That ain't D&D either?

I accept that the moral issues of Carcosa are very disturbing and I understand that they can be a deal breaker for most. I'm not endorsing this aspect of the product.

That's way I went straight into the non-controvertial portions, where you said they where not D&D.

Happy Gaming to all!

[Zulgyan]

Where did I say that it troubles my sleep?

That was just metaphorical. I'm sorry if I caused any offense. A metaphor meaning that I think you take the D&D/not-D&D aspect as too important or fundamental. I think that if we get into the D&D/not-D&D discussions too often, there is no benefit for the oldschool community at all, but unnessesary fights and quarrel. Why further creating more walls that divide us?

I'm not attacking you, just showing you my point of view, giving some examples to support it, in a civilized, peaceful manner.

I you wish, please answer to those examples and not this "troubles my sleep" stuff that is only secondary and was not meant to be literal. You are ignoring the main aspects of my argumentation james.

I'm sorry for any offense I may have caused.

[dwayanu]

From the Sorcerer's Scroll: "Tolkien in Dungeons & Dragons," is a column by Rob Kuntz (reprinted in Best of The Dragon) that speaks to some of these issues. Even if one dismisses an implicit "appeal to authority" on what the game is, the article offers some insight into the rationale.

[Zulgyan]

Finally, I'm not saying that Carcosa is flawless. I'm not even saying if it's good or bad game supp.

I was just saying that the statement that it is not D&D is a bit unfair when you compare Carcosa with the loads of stuff found in the other supplements, in The Dragon, Fight On!, and other TSR products.

[geoffrey]

Nov 11, 2008 13:02:54 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Nov 11, 2008 12:51:04 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

On the other hand, comparing Carcosa with 4e, I think that's going to far...

OK, how about Arduin? Is it fairer to say that Carcosa is a lot like Arduin in its relationship to OD&D? If so, is Arduin D&D? If not, why not?

I think it is very fair to compare CARCOSA to the Arduin Trilogy published in the 1970s. I've always considered the Arduin Trilogy to be D&D.

I've been thinking about CARCOSA's mechanics. Very little differs from the 1974 rules. The dice conventions are simply a wild way to understand the rules of 1974 D&D. Nowhere in the 1974 rules does it say what dice to roll for HD or to determine damage. Neither do the rules say when or how often to roll a character's hp. So the dice conventions do not change the D&D rules.

Of course, none of the monsters, lotuses, or high-tech items change anything. They are just "more stuff" to throw into a D&D campaign. Robots? Just more stuff.

Psionics and mutations? These are additions, not changes to the 1974 rules.

All that's left is the sorcerer character class and its rituals. The sorcerer replaces magic-users and clerics, and its magic works differently than does the magic of magic-users and clerics. Only Carcosan sorcerers and sorcery actually change the mechanics of the 1974 rules. Everything else remains the same.

(And, to be clear, it would be EASY to play a Carcosa game with magic-users and clerics in it. Just tack on the sorcerous rituals and allow spell-casters who properly research them to perform them in addition to their normal spells. Or do that in your home campaign. Yet another option is to include sorcerers as a new character class alongside all the other classes.)

So, mechanically, the question each person must consider is whether replacing the 1974 D&D magic system with a different magic system makes the work non-D&D. Both CARCOSA and Arduin do this, and I consider both CARCOSA and Arduin to be D&D.

[coffee]

I'm going to jump in here and show my support for JamesM.

I've already shown my support for Geoffrey by buying my own copy of Carcosa. I can't say whether it's D&D or not, but I don't think that really matters. I do think, as does James apparently does, that Carcosa is an amazing piece of work. I hope it goes on to inspire others to produce their own supplements. (hint, hint)

But I think we're all missing an important point here: James gave us a review. And it did what reviews do, gave us the reviewer's considered opinion of the product. In this, James has done us all a service, whether you agree with him or not. Unlike the ferocious and ill-informed flames against Carcosa (on other forums, I might note, not this one), James actually read it and thought about it.

And then, he gave us his opinion.

Since it is an opinion, you don't have to agree with it. In fact, you shouldn't blindly agree with anything (especially anything I write...).

I respect the right of the respondents thus far to express their opinions as well. It's been a lively debate (and I use the word debate because I don't think it's an argument. At least not yet.)

But we seem to be getting to an irresolvable point: Is it or is it not D&D?

Honestly, I don't care.

It's available for use with D&D, and that's all that matters. Use it, don't use it. Either way won't change anything.

I've heard that it's better to debate a point without resolving it than to resolve a point without debating it. Well, this point has been pretty well debated, and I don't see anybody changing their minds, so it doesn't look to me like it can ever be resolved.

And that's okay. There's really enough latitude in D&D to accept all points of view.

So, can we move on to something really important, like whether Hobbits have any right to exist? Thanks.



As usual, this is just my two coppers.

[badger2305]

Nov 11, 2008 17:29:05 GMT -6 coffee said:

But I think we're all missing an important point here: James gave us a review. And it did what reviews do, gave us the reviewer's considered opinion of the product. In this, James has done us all a service, whether you agree with him or not. Unlike the ferocious and ill-informed flames against Carcosa (on other forums, I might note, not this one), James actually read it and thought about it.

.....

There's really enough latitude in D&D to accept all points of view.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. Thank you!

[Finarvyn]

Nov 11, 2008 17:29:05 GMT -6 coffee said:

I'm going to jump in here and show my support for JamesM.

I've already shown my support for Geoffrey by buying my own copy of Carcosa.

But I think we're all missing an important point here: James gave us a review. And it did what reviews do, gave us the reviewer's considered opinion of the product. In this, James has done us all a service, whether you agree with him or not.

Thank you, Coffee, for bringing up this point.

Both Geoffry and James are frequent posters here and I want both to feel "at home" and comfortable to remain active.

I admire the effort that Geoffry put into his supplement, and the fact that he was willing to made adjustments when he found that some objected to his work. (Think about that for a moment. How many authors are willing to do that?)

I also admire the fact that James (1) bothered to do a very lengthy and detailed review, and (2) was willing to give fair and honest opinions of both the strenths and weaknesses of the product.

Both have taken a lot of heat from one side or the other, but both have done a great service to the world of OD&D. Both have earned our respect on these boards, and our thanks.

[geoffrey]

Very kind words, Finarvyn. Thank you.

Anyone who has actually read CARCOSA is in a logical position to review it, whether the review praises, d**ns, or a combination thereof. How much more so for those who have actually bought CARCOSA! And James was the very first person to buy my book.

I'm grateful to James both for his purchase and for his thoughtful review. On my blog I'm detailing where I differ with James. We old-school D&Ders are big enough to disagree with each other on a wide variety of topics. Just look at the disagreement over the thief character class (for example).

A big thanks to everyone who has bought CARCOSA, to everyone who has reviewed it, and to everyone who has asked questions and made reasonable comments. I hope CARCOSA adds to everyone's fun! ;D

[Melan]

My position here is that Carcosa fits in as Supplement V from a "three little brown booklets and optional add-ons" point of view, but doesn't fit in as Supplement V from a "three little brown booklets and a succession of expansions and clarifications building up a coherent game with a unified vision" point of view. It seems to me people are seeing OD&D from different perspectives here; Zulgyan as the first and James from the second. I do not see either POV as invalid.

[geoffrey]

Good point. CARCOSA builds upon the 3 little brown booklets and nothing else. It ignores the first four D&D supplements.

[shadowheart469]

Hey Geoffrey,

Thank you for writing, and publishing, Carcosa. I enjoyed reading it, and as my intro indicates, it is (along with Philotomy's website) one of the main reasons I am here and interested in OD&D.

[Finarvyn]

I finally bought a copy of Carcosa (sanitized version) and am reading through it. I'm impressed. There are a lot of really neat ideas contained therein. :-)

[yesmar]

Does Carcosa on balance come off more like The Arduin Grimoire, or more like Empire of the Petal Throne and Metamorphosis Alpha?

Personally, Arduin turned me off when I was younger because I thought it altered game fundamentals too much. EPT was basically D&D mechanics applied to an amazingly rich world, comparable to Tolkein in both breadth and depth. (Now I believe that the fabric of Tékumel well exceeds that of Middle Earth.) MA was (and still is) a wonderful expression of Brian Aldiss' ideas about failed generation starships.

Given all that, MA is a game, so that's out. EPT is a world and Arduin is, well, a whole mess of wild and crazy stuff. Carcosa has mechanics, but it is also a world based on works of various weird fiction authors. The multi-colored men remind me ever so slightly of Barsoom, as well. I think it's unfair to compare Carcosa to these other works on the face of it, but if I had to I'd say it's part Arduin, part EPT. Carcosa as a world is nowhere nearly as rich as Tékumel. Carcosa's mechanical modifications, while seen as extreme by some, still don't seem anywhere nearly as extreme as those from Arduin back in the day.

Also, what is a 'supplement' anyway? Supplement I seems to be a good answer-- lots of rules/new stuff for the TLB. Blackmoor is a weird case because 50% of it is an adventure (albeit, a cool adventure). Supplement III is really psionics, demons, and artifacts, while IV is gods. Supplement I has lots of balance. The rest, not so much. Carcosa isn't balanced, like I, and feels a lot like II+III to me.

Personally, I'm using Carcosa as a demi-plane in my own personal ruined pile. It's a perfect fit and I'm glad that I have it to challenge my players in the future.