|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 17, 2022 13:23:41 GMT -6
Wow! Do you still work for hire? I mean, I probably couldn't afford you, but that's very nice work. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 17, 2022 13:25:42 GMT -6
Holmes Basic doesn't get nearly the love it deserves. I mean it was written by a professor of neurology who untangled the disorganized mess that was original D&D. I don't think B/X or BECMI would have been as well written as they were without the hard work he did! Not to mention the fact that he basically invented the... Basic Rules concept. Quickstart tasters are ubiquitous these days, but it started with Holmes. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Dec 17, 2022 14:57:55 GMT -6
Wow! Do you still work for hire? I mean, I probably couldn't afford you, but that's very nice work. Sometimes, yes. Limited bandwidth these days though. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Dec 17, 2022 16:46:28 GMT -6
The numbers don't really surprise me, but I am a bit sad that Holmes and B/X aren't flip flopped. °ᴖ° I suspect that there are two factors in this. One is, B/X is a "lingua franca" among modern day old school players, as an edition in itself. The other is, I imagine that a number of people (myself included) who enjoy Holmes over Moldvay are also aficionados of another iteration of the game like OD&D or 1e AD&D and voted accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Dec 19, 2022 7:28:19 GMT -6
The numbers don't really surprise me, but I am a bit sad that Holmes and B/X aren't flip flopped. °ᴖ° Holmes Basic doesn't get nearly the love it deserves. I mean it was written by a professor of neurology who untangled the disorganized mess that was original D&D. I don't think B/X or BECMI would have been as well written as they were without the hard work he did! Despite my love for B/X slightly over Holmes (as much as I love it) and OD&D, I’d very much like to discuss and hear of this. Perhaps this is not the thread to do so…maybe one in the Holmes forum…but, brutally honest, id feel it needs to be ‘seen’ in the general board at least…. Id very much like to know exactly why, those who are strongly informed in such, still love Holmes. I’m going to start a new thread…so….Marv….allow me in General or punt me/it into the Holmes forum, be it either which! Heheh |
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Dec 19, 2022 8:05:28 GMT -6
Actually I’d love to see that kind of thread as well. As someone who loves 1e and playing that game, I’m always intrigued by the Holmes folks. Maybe it’s just the forums I frequent but that version of our game seems to have some real ardent fans!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Dec 19, 2022 15:08:43 GMT -6
OD&D, because of its boundlessness
Holmes, because of its insightfulness
B/X, because of its succinctness
BECMI, because of its expansiveness
AD&D, because of its [attempt at] rigorousness
AD&D2, because of its tidiness
AD&D3, because of its personalization-able-ness [because I wanted to keep using the -ness suffix]
AD&D4, because of its boldness
AD&D5, because of its inclusiveness
|
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Dec 31, 2022 23:37:01 GMT -6
Late to the thread, and I apparently am the sole vote for BECMI. But I’ll stand on that lone hill with my head held high!
Basic Players Manual: Best introduction to D&D ever. Hands down. You have a “choose your path” adventure that teaches you about your character, how combat works, how magic works, saving throws, hit points… everything. And then it adds a kicker story of friendship (maybe even love) murder, loss, grief and a desire for revenge that will never leave you. Death to Bargle! Aleena shall be avenged!
Great stuff.
And the rules clean up some of the mistakes— yes, mistakes, and I stand by that— from B/X.
Once you get to CM, the game adds the excellent War Machine system and Weapons Mastery. And then in the RC and the Gazetteers (which are incredible) you get some other useful options to add, and you have a very flexible game that takes you from zero to hero to king to god… hard to beat that range of possibilities.
So, obviously, this is my favored edition. And gets my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Jan 2, 2023 7:53:59 GMT -6
Late to the thread, and I apparently am the sole vote for BECMI. But I’ll stand on that lone hill with my head held high! Basic Players Manual: Best introduction to D&D ever. Hands down. You have a “choose your path” adventure that teaches you about your character, how combat works, how magic works, saving throws, hit points… everything. And then it adds a kicker story of friendship (maybe even love) murder, loss, grief and a desire for revenge that will never leave you. Death to Bargle! Aleena shall be avenged! Great stuff. And the rules clean up some of the mistakes— yes, mistakes, and I stand by that— from B/X. Once you get to CM, the game adds the excellent War Machine system and Weapons Mastery. And then in the RC and the Gazetteers (which are incredible) you get some other useful options to add, and you have a very flexible game that takes you from zero to hero to king to god… hard to beat that range of possibilities. So, obviously, this is my favored edition. And gets my vote. I…I dunno. So. I don’t wanna argue this, nor do I wanna fully agree. I think B/X kicks BEMCI/RC’s a** all over the place in every way. But. I was there…so…lemme ‘s’plain…. Fall of 1986. I’m 12. Of course by then I was well aware of D&D (Mentzer Basic, etc was huge…the cartoon…action figures, every Southern Baptist family, including my own, advertised the heck outta the game for us kids the last four or five years). I first had in my hands a friends’ older brother’s copy of Holmes. We played soon after. In a few months, another friend sold me his old copies of B/X (I was expecting BE), but was still kinda only sorta happy…because…ya know…you’re 13 and anything new is “obviously” “better”, etc, so I wanted the Mentzer books….but I still became immediately invoked and in love with them, despite that….d**n…no Elmore art! Ugh!…heheh…but, so yeah…still fell for it, loved it, found it was SO much more easy to use! Grabbed the AD&D1E PHB (because my older sisters were awesome), and constantly bought copies of Dragon (OH! Oh!…and this was cool!…my local Bookland not only had a decent gaming section, but also kept a whole lot of many, many months old issues of Dragon for forever in said game section…so I was buying ‘brand new’ issues…like…#101, when #130 was new. Cool and fun stuff…and a used book store all of my family frequented had old issues as well for a dollar…I think the cover price then was three bucks…so…again…fun!) Anyway! Still pined for the Mentzer books, imagined I was missing something, Now! Most pertinent to what parzival was saying…. I’m growing as the system is growing. I grab the first Gaz. I flipped through a bunch of other stuff at the time (like the Trail Maps and such), still I’m eating up Dragons then and from a few years prior….then the RC is announced…and explained…and wow….I could hardly believe it! ALL of everything I’d ever wanted these past many years all along? All put together? In a hardback? When I and my high school girlfriend were in that Bookland the very day it was released and I grabbed it off the shelf like a kid in a candy store, she saw my joy, grabbed it from my hands and took it to the register and bought it for me…I thought I was in Heaven! I. Have. All. Of. D&D. I’m. Done. Finally! Thank the heavens! Still the Gaz stuff…etc, etc, etc. But then I found I kept coming back to my “old” B/X books…because they were more fun, easier to use, and far easier to understand. Even as I expanded with other 1E books…and more and more….and when I bought the core books for 2E and splat books for that…yeah…woulda made sense to use abd or rely on my RC….nope…I’d look at it a lil bit….go right back to my “old” B/X books…the ones I didn’t even want in the first place. When I finally did have my own copies of BECMI….I owned then about a year or so, and sold them to a fellow from DF here in town. Too dense. Too, too verbose to read and to use, practically. However….as it was that era….I did, in fact grow as the system did. Had my mother not been a (“Devil’s game”) person….I really would have been one who had Mentzer Basic, and moved up and up, quite naturally. All the while having a local new bookstore that still kept multiple year old issues of Dragon stuffed on the shelf with recent game stuff. Heheh. I wonder. I guess I’d be a Mentzer guy now. So strange. I became of “D&D age” in the Mentzer age…but am far more fond of B/X and Holmes due to circumstance, despite having nostalgia for BECMI and RC and even the Endless Quest books. Heheh |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 2, 2023 9:32:24 GMT -6
And the [BECMI] rules clean up some of the mistakes— yes, mistakes, and I stand by that— from B/X. I'm not really familiar with BECMI, could you elaborate on this point? |
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Jan 2, 2023 9:58:53 GMT -6
I get it— really. I started with Holmes in 1980 (age 14) and it was magical. But we switched to 1e as soon as it appeared. (And I, too, bought my D&D stuff at Anderson’s Bookland in my hometown. Great store.)
I came to BECMI when I purchased GAZ 1: The Grand Duchy of Karameikos, and discovered the simpler system behind that product as a result. I had grown tired of 1e’s absurd complexity, while 2e’s profusion of added classes and powers left me cold. So intrigued by GAZ 1, I picked up Mentzer Basic and read through it.
Keep in mind that at this point I was 19 or 20. I knew how to play D&D. Portions of the 1e PHB, DMG and MM were effectively memorized. I understood this set was written for young, inexperienced players, particularly those who had no one to teach them how to play. Holmes was, as well, but Holmes honestly had problems— rule conflicts and contradictions and a limited assumed structure— enter dungeon, explore it, leave, stock up, come back to same dungeon… It just wasn’t clear that the game could do anything more. And it was clear to me that Mentzer Basic was a more solid system, and encouraged different adventuring ideas and structure than Holmes. I could also see that it was also more accessible to young readers. If Mentzer’s Basic had problems, they were in the way that the rules were introduced in piecemeal fashion— Mentzer’s Basic is not really conducive to looking up rules answers on the fly.
But even though I was an experienced player, I thoroughly enjoyed the brilliance of Mentzer’s introductory solo adventure— especially because with the presentation of Aleena he introduced the idea of D&D as more than just killing monsters and looting their stuff. From the start, he shows a game capable of encompassing drama and emotion, of giving characters personal motivations for what they do. Absolutely brilliant.
But it wasn’t just that— it was the simplicity of the system.
Three alignments, to end the over-the-top debates about “Awful Good.” No “Good” and “Evil” character dichotomy (to soothe concerns of any parents who actually bothered to read the rules.)
Seven core classes. Just seven. You were what you were, you did what it said on the tin. You couldn’t min/max your way through an “awesome character build” (gag) or try to make a “winning” combination of “kewl powerz”. No, your character had to differ by its actions, and no class was innately more powerful than another— they were all just different.
So the emphasis wasn’t on character creation, it was on adventuring— exactly where it needed to be.
And a combat round that made sense— ten seconds, not a full minute (!).
The Declarations Phase, which finally made all that stuff about interrupting a spell a possibility (it’s literally not possible for that to happen according to RAW in any other edition).
And a simple modifier chart for stats: -3 to +3, almost across the board. No more pointing to this chart or that chart. Just plug in the number and go.
And the return to “roll 3d6, in order, then adjust” helped break the “power number” systems that plagued 1e (and every other edition since). You were what you rolled. Deal with it, and use your imagination.
And when “prestige” classes like Paladin and Druid were added, they didn’t break the game. Becoming a Paladin didn’t make you a virtual super hero, far superior to every other Fighter out there. It also didn’t make you better than the Cleric. Just different to both. Same for Druid— no überpowered nature god, just a person with a different set of spells (and some interesting class limitations). No one’s gonna make an “awesome character build” (gag) in this game!
And of course the previously mentioned expanded rules ideas of the CM and I sets— War Machine, Weapons Mastery, the Paths of Immortality, etc.. Great stuff.
So I snatched up the rest of the boxed sets (by this point I worked at a bookstore and had a very healthy employee discount) and every GAZ… and of course the exceptional Rules Cyclopedia, which was finally the one volume reference work that did make looking up rules easy to do.
Only later did I acquire a copy of Moldvay’s Basic. Reading it, I see the appeal of it. But it’s got minor problems— RAW, the combat system can’t produce the combat example, and has contradictory wording in places. It’s much better composed for looking things up, and the system is essentially the same as BE with only minor differences. But it lacks the introductory masterpiece quality that Mentzer Basic provides the newbies, and doesn’t really explore the dramatic possibilities of the game. And I’ll be honest, I wasn’t a fan of Erol Otus art at the time (I’ve later come to appreciate his quirky, surreal style, but at the time I didn’t).
The Rules Cyclopedia is now my go-to reference book. It’s not without flaws— the Declarations Phase got inadvertently dropped, though the combat text implies that it’s still present. (On this one, I blame the location of the Declarations Phase being solely mentioned in the Mentzer Basic Dungeon Masters Rulebook and not also in the Players Manual. Allston lifted the combat order chart from the latter, and failed to notice that it didn’t include the phase). But for me it’s simply the best D&D book ever produced by TSR. It won’t teach you the game as well as either Mentzer or Moldvay, but if you need to know something, it’s pretty much all there. (It really only lacks the monsters of the Creature Catalog, and some of the nifty elf spells from the Alfheim Gazetteer to be truly complete for my purposes… but I can deal!)
With only some minor details, Moldvay and Mentzer produced the same game. Mentzer just cleared up some confusion and created the Best Intro to D&D.
Aside from that, you can take the additions of Mentzer in the CM and I sets and add them to Moldvay with little effort. Or you can leave ‘em out if they’re not your thing.
Either way, the combo of B/X/ECMI/RC is the best version of the game for my money. Easy to learn, easy to use, easy to house rule, and not favorable to rules lawyers or min/maxers. It’s just fun.
|
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Jan 2, 2023 10:09:40 GMT -6
And the [BECMI] rules clean up some of the mistakes— yes, mistakes, and I stand by that— from B/X. I'm not really familiar with BECMI, could you elaborate on this point? Sort of did that above. But in Moldvay, the combat RAW doesn’t match up with the combat example— Morgan does things in the example which the combat rules would prohibit. Also, Moldvay makes a point of stating that spells can be interrupted— only again, with the combat RAW, there’s no way for that to happen, as spells aren’t declared until the player’s turn— and nothing can interrupt what the player does on the player’s own turn. Moldvay might be meaning to say that if a spellcaster loses initiative and is hit by an enemy attack the spellcaster can’t cast a spell… but that’s not the same thing as interrupting a spell and therefore losing the spell outright, which is what the text actually says. How can you lose a spell you haven’t decided to cast yet? You can’t— it’s a logical impossibility. Plus, in the combat example in B, Morgan is shown interrupting the initiative of the monsters with a missile attack— but by the rules, there’s no way for that to happen. It’s either one side’s initiative or the other’s. There’s no “overwatch” or “interrupt” mechanic in the game, which would be necessary for the combat example to work. Mentzer’s rules clear this up. There are some other contradictory quirks in X as well, but they’re largely minor. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jan 2, 2023 11:21:08 GMT -6
Parzival, I will join you on that hill. My thoughts are pretty straightforward: - the division between B/X and B/E as two separate games is a fallacy. CMI works with BX 100% as it would with BE, because BE is nothing more than a revised edition of BX (i.e., a clean up of the same text, not a new version of the game; think Call of Cthulhu's true use of the term 'editions' instead of D&D's use of the word 'edition' when they really mean 'version'). - Most people I've played B/X with actually use B/E's rules interpretations as the assumed intent, meaning that by their standards they're actually playing B/E anyway, just with B/X encumbrance numbers (though IME those are rarely consulted) and B/X cleric spell charts (though more than once I've played with a group online who used the B/E charts and didn't realize B/X's were different). - B/X is the better rules reference, but B/E is the better teacher. - Both have excellent and evocative art in their own ways. - B/E has a superior set of spell lists. - CMI has an excellent set of extra monsters, items, and tables, which are all still fully applicable to level 1-14 games and shouldn't be ignored just because they're 'not intended for B/X'. - The mass combat, domain and siege rules (all of which largely aren't Mentzer's, BTW) are the only time in TSR's history that such systems were considered in such detail, outside of a minis game. Even AD&D games could benefit from a bit of CMI mass combat and domain rules. - As a gift I tend to buy my nephews and nieces the Mentzer Basic set, but at the table I tend to run with Moldvay and a sheet of the revisions in Mentzer that I like to use.
|
|
Parzival
Level 6 Magician
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 401
|
Post by Parzival on Jan 2, 2023 12:52:55 GMT -6
My great nieces and nephews live not far from my parent’s home (their great-grandparents). They are over all the time. As the oldest three are now 12, I left my original Mentzer Basic rules and a set of dice for them to “discover” (with the full approval of their parents).
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 2, 2023 23:57:21 GMT -6
- B/X is the better rules reference, but B/E is the better teacher. It was the solo choose-your-adventure style intro that turned me off all those years ago when it came out. I'm wondering if that is because I already knew how to play by then and for me it was redundant? There is also something about the writing of B/X that really appeals to me. I do like BECMI quite a bit though, the boxed sets were impressive. Imagine a world where AD&D never existed, and BECMI was D&D. It may have been a better world and avoided a lot of arguments among teenage nerds parsing the AD&D rules. Not that there wouldn't have still been plenty of disagreements, just that BECMI quite honestly is better written as rules than AD&D. (AD&D is still more enjoyable to read, like a wise old grandpa telling you stories by the fireplace) BECMI is the true inheritor of the OD&D legacy. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 3, 2023 0:01:23 GMT -6
OD&D, because of its boundlessness Holmes, because of its insightfulness B/X, because of its succinctness BECMI, because of its expansiveness AD&D, because of its [attempt at] rigorousness AD&D2, because of its tidiness AD&D3, because of its personalization-able-ness [because I wanted to keep using the -ness suffix] AD&D4, because of its boldness AD&D5, because of its inclusiveness Not gonna disagree. I'm surprised at how much I've come to like 5e. It pays homage to the best of all previous editions and was made for old and new fans alike. Sad to see it go and where the game is headed. It really looks like the coming edition is not going to be for me and my friends. No matter! We will always have OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI and the rest! |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 19, 2023 9:25:18 GMT -6
It’s a painful Sophie’s Choice, but treating ‘best’ as meaning “what I turn to most often” brought me to B/X. From its debut, that impressed me as a convenient presentation of the essential core of OD&D (including key bits from Supplement I).
For me, it seems easiest to start with that and then borrow elaborations from elsewhere to bolt onto the chassis.
My Expert book especially is so worn, perhaps I ought to look into Old School Essentials. I think the price is likely to seem high to me, as I don’t much care how pretty handbooks are (and small runs don’t get economies of scale).
The OD&D booklets have often been what I took on the road, because of their physical dimensions. However, considering what else I’d like to bring, and how much I’m likely actually to use, Basic and Expert fitting in a slender binder is commonly the Goldilocks option.
My LBBs are even more worn than my B/X books.
AD&D appeals to a pack rat tendency I have that isn’t necessarily healthy. I also have more than one copy of the PHB, which makes it advantageous with players who often want to look up spells. That’s just one way in which it tends for me to involve more player engagement with mechanics — which, when players want that, would probably be better served by Second Edition (at least if I were prepared to use 2E particulars).
I gave away Mentzer Basic years ago to a kid, and haven’t used the ECMI materials lately. When the Rules Cyclopedia was new, it tempted me but I missed the chance, and now it fetches collector’s item prices.
The way Frank ‘stretched’ things to 36 levels is not quite to my liking, though I can roll with it, and not what I envisioned from the brief mention of a Companion to follow Moldvay/ Marsh/ Cook. The actual elaborations are to my mind a mixed bag, Weapon Mastery being one about which I’m ambivalent (though I gather it works very well for some groups).
Looking to a prospective new campaign, I keep leaning toward AD&D and then back toward BX, and then to Basic Fantasy. Then I start thinking I ought to get DCC, which is something that potentially could get a shelf presence at the FLGS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 19, 2023 10:09:38 GMT -6
When the Rules Cyclopedia was new, it tempted me but I missed the chance, and now it fetches collector’s item prices. You can buy a new copy from DTRPG. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 19, 2023 10:28:09 GMT -6
When the Rules Cyclopedia was new, it tempted me but I missed the chance, and now it fetches collector’s item prices. You can buy a new copy from DTRPG. Thanks for pointing that out! It seems actually a surpringly low price for the POD hardcover. It’s an easy way, though, for WotC to get revenue from the back catalog. Had they been pro-active enough about doing it well, the relationship with the OSR might have been more positive. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 19, 2023 10:54:47 GMT -6
I’m one of those for whom 4E seemed ill served by being billed as D&D. The primary reason was how much the tactical combat game outweighs everything else. Secondarily was the extent of dissociated (anti-simulation) mechanics, which leads into the tertiary tendency to treat everything else with the “skill challenge” formalism.
I haven’t gotten around yet to playing Pathfinder 2E, but it looks to be something that could hold my interest even if it does not quite scratch the same itch as old school D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 19, 2023 11:11:44 GMT -6
D&D 5E seems to be very successful at being enough folks’ “good enough compromise” to get them back to playing together instead of hurling brickbats at each other.
As a GM, though, I find the overall feel of it too much at odds with how I’d like to run to make it my first choice. I’m happy to play in a 5E game that’s not fighting against the grain of the design. Old-school D&D, I think, is easier to adapt to a wide range of different styles. That’s partly a matter of player culture, but also partly of the starting material.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 19, 2023 11:17:08 GMT -6
D&D 5E seems to be very successful at being enough folks’ “good enough compromise” to get them back to playing together instead of hurling brickbats at each other. As a GM, though, I find the overall feel of it too much at odds with how I’d like to run to make it my first choice. I’m happy to play in a 5E game that’s not fighting against the grain of the design. Old-school D&D, I think, is easier to adapt to a wide range of different styles. That’s partly a matter of player culture, but also partly of the starting material. 5e won me over. After my experience with 4e I didn't want to have anything to do with any edition produced by Wizards. But I got slowly pulled into 5e and came to appreciate how much of an homage to all of the "greatest hits" of D&D's long history it is. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 19, 2023 11:20:54 GMT -6
‘best’ as meaning “what I turn to most often” brought me to B/X. From its debut, that impressed me as a convenient presentation of the essential core of OD&D (including key bits from Supplement I). B/X has aged well. It is also my go to. Everything about B/X from the clarity of the writing, to the simplification without being too simple, the aesthetics of the books, and the adventures made to go with it. In particular B2 and X1. And it has the best character sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 19, 2023 11:49:00 GMT -6
Back in the day, there was an article in which Gygax deprecated OD&D as a mess. My initial response was to disagree, but more soberly I realized that I had done a significant bit of sorting things out. That investment is I think something that gives one a fondness, and there’s often (certainly was in my case) a further investment in the tailoring the text encouraged. The more it’s one’s own baby, the more what others might regard as flaws become charming features.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 19, 2023 12:37:03 GMT -6
Turning to the OSR, I find Basic Fantasy especially notable for how much it’s brought things back from the commercial paradigm to a hobbyist one. I hope the current project of liberating it even from the OGL will succeed in further securing that.
Materials are provided both in PDF and in .odt (which one can edit in Libre Office). The core rules paperback is just $8.25 plus shipping from Lulu; hardback and spiral bound are also “at cost” or close enough (and except for covers, are black and white). There’s evidently no big layout for art to recover, illustrations I think being mostly volunteered by players with some talent. I don’t know in how many languages it’s presently available, but anyone is free to add another.
The modernizations strike me as likely to appeal to a broad demographic while keeping it much in the spirit of the old game. Variants to get in some ways more into the Advanced flavor are available.
So far, it seems that the community is a lot more into a ‘classic’ style, but it ought to be easy to adapt more weird or ‘gonzo’ material from other sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 22, 2023 11:46:02 GMT -6
I've been using Basic Fantasy quite a bit lately. A new edition is in the works after the news about WotC's new OGL broke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 22, 2023 18:43:34 GMT -6
I think that Iron Falcon has some merits. Chris has just put out a monster book and a module that both look pretty sweet.  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 29, 2023 20:28:52 GMT -6
I think that Iron Falcon has some merits. Chris has just put out a monster book and a module that both look pretty sweet. Iron Falcon is particularly excellent it deserves more attention. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 30, 2023 13:08:14 GMT -6
I’m not very familiar with Iron Falcon. My impression is that it’s meant to be closer to a literal retro-clone (of which edition I’m not sure). Meanwhile, like Swords & Wizardry, it still sets aside strict fidelity in favor of how the author actually prefers things in play. If others can clue me in more as to what makes it stand out, I’ll be interested.
The main thing I’ve noticed is that does not have the prominent community that has grown around BFRPG. The latter is arguably a “killer app” even more than any particulars of the rules set.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 30, 2023 13:32:38 GMT -6
I know I’m not (nor is anyone else) in position to be OSR Tsar. That said, the proliferation of works that are basically retreads of the same old thing seems to me not very inspiring.
I gather that the categorization is disputed, but I reckon Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG part of the OSR. It definitely brings its own distinctive character both in systems and in scenarios. (As with the earlier DCC line, the latter seem to me often more linear than I’d prefer, but increasingly evoke the Weird Tales flavor of old-school sword & sorcery tales.)
I’d like to see less elbow grease and page count devoted to rehashed core rules sets, more to scenarios and supplements that explore more novel territory. While the amount of conversation needed varies, the dozens of existing rules sets are broadly compatible.
That lingua franca aspect strikes me as a key selling point of the OSR. Supplements can bolt on options to take the game in other directions, while keeping the essential chassis still in the same ecosystem.
|
|
