Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 9:15:57 GMT -6
Well, Kesher ... I appreciate the information. I'm always curious as to what is out there and available.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 17, 2011 9:46:54 GMT -6
My pleasure!
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Aug 17, 2011 10:53:16 GMT -6
Yes, thanks for the info. I had an inkling that something like that was involved, but wasn't sure of the details. I do have to say, though, that the whole Energy Points thing and the way alignment works are exactly what I don't want in an RPG. I hope the game does help spread the concept of Gygaxian play, as you explained the term, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 17, 2011 11:11:08 GMT -6
Gygaxian: I actually think it's explained pretty clearly on pages 10-12 of the preview document, ending with the following: Here's the thing--a lot of us around here already play this way. Many of us have ALWAYS played this way; the text is directed mostly at a crowd who never has, or once did, but drifted away. He's really just explaining what other documents like the Old School Primer are trying to explain--an approach to the game that was prevalent at its beginning. I'm thinking that for folks around these parts, that's the thing everyone is most curios about. I know Aaron is not George, and so can only answer by pointing to what has been written by the designer, but I don't find the above to be much of a justification for the claim. Those features certainly were never unique to Gygax, did not originate with Gygax, and were largely contradicted by the creation of AD&D. "rulings" not rules was the prevalent paradigm among almost all gamers untill Gygax changed it with the publication of AD&D. As Aaron points out, it is a characteristic of "old school" but not particularly any more of Gygax than anybody else playing BitD. On the other hand, there's a pretty clear path that Gary took the gaming world down that is arguably exactly the opposite of the above. Here's a short sample of a "Gygaxianism" from the preface to the DMG: "Returning again to the framework aspect of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, what is aimed at is a "universe" into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and "laws", players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu, for all milieux will have certain (but not necessarily the same) laws in common. Character races and classes will be nearly the same. Character ability scores will have the identical meaning - or nearly so. Magic spells will function in a certain manner regardless of which world the player is functioning in. Magic devices will certainly vary, but their principles will be similar. This uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information. ...The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging and equitable. Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither." Lots of other quotes from this time period indicate Gary was pushing a "stick to the rules" paradigm of gaming. Isn't that at least as "Gygaxian", if not more so? True, in OD&D Gary promoted rulings over rules, but that changed, and was never a special signature of "Gygaxianism" to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 17, 2011 19:04:39 GMT -6
What we've got here is failure to drink the kool-aid. Hey now, that comment seems to me just shy of sniping. Agreed. Let's play nice, please. The goal is to have civilized and intelligent discussion on cool gaming topics. If you have specific points, feel free to make them. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 17, 2011 19:08:31 GMT -6
[Those features certainly were never unique to Gygax, did not originate with Gygax, and were largely contradicted by the creation of AD&D. "rulings" not rules was the prevalent paradigm among almost all gamers untill Gygax changed it with the publication of AD&D. As Aaron points out, it is a characteristic of "old school" but not particularly any more of Gygax than anybody else playing BitD. On the other hand, there's a pretty clear path that Gary took the gaming world down that is arguably exactly the opposite of the above. Excellent points all. I had this general feeling of what you were saying, but you have provided some excellent research and quotes to pin it down for me. Thank you! Flexible and freestlyle rules are a trait of OD&D, but I don't know that I would say it was a trait of "Gygaxian" gaming. Look at the material that Gary put together for AD&D, Lejendary Adventures, Dangerous Journeys, etc, and I think that Gary's style would appear to be one where rules are very carefully and laborously laid out rather than being left loose and up for interpretation. And as much as I find the three guidelines interesting: 1. RULINGS ALWAYS TRUMP RULES
2. COMMON SENSE ALWAYS TRUMPS EVERYTHING ELSE
3. DURING THE GAME, THE MC [DM] IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITYI just don't have any sense that the rest of the preview reminds me much of traditional "old school" gaming. May just be me, though. |
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 17, 2011 22:08:36 GMT -6
Apologies to anyone offended by my snark. Particularly Kesher, whose table I enjoy playing at, including an early playtest of this game.
I was tired and did not exercise the self restraint necessary to keep my negativity below the threshold appropriate to this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 18, 2011 6:09:27 GMT -6
The goal is to have civilized and intelligent discussion on cool gaming topics. If you have specific points, feel free to make them. I guess part of the reason for me sniping was that I have so many specific criticisms I don't know where to start. For one, I think players interested in the old school would be far more interested in Gary's notes than in a game inspired by one man's interpretation of those notes. Especially when that game started out as 4E house rules, but then evolved to include a lot of indie mechanics. How is any of that inspired by Gygax's notes? It suppose it could be, but we don't know, because we don't get to see the notes, and Strayton hasn't explained, and it doesn't jive with our expectations as a group pretty familiar with Gygaxian ways. Kesher, while you do not expect blind faith of us, and do Strayton a great service in your efforts to explain his game, I feel he is expecting a great deal of blind faith. He claims his game is inspired by Gygax's notes, that his own ideas are very similar to Gygax's, and offers us not much but a game with few, if any, old school elements, and a whole lot of what I perceive as self-aggrandizing hype. I know you don't want to be an apologist, and I fear you stray close when excusing his unsubstantiated hype as a result of being a screenwriter. That is not meant to criticize you, but to explain that I think his hype remains distasteful and unexcused. It seems to me like this game is targeting players who enjoy new school games, trying to sell them on old school ideas and indie mechanics, offering a loose, watered-down version of each that won't appeal to (most) players who enjoy old school or indie games. It seems to me like a lot of giving each customer what they don't want, not a unifying edition, as it has been pitched. I hope I have managed to present a sample of specific points appropriate to civilized, intelligent discussion. The post is not meant to be comprehensive. I tried not to offend, but if I failed, the fault is mine, and I apologize. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 18, 2011 8:18:54 GMT -6
The goal is to have civilized and intelligent discussion on cool gaming topics. If you have specific points, feel free to make them. I guess part of the reason for me sniping was that I have so many specific criticisms I don't know where to start. I hope I have managed to present a sample of specific points appropriate to civilized, intelligent discussion. The post is not meant to be comprehensive. I tried not to offend, but if I failed, the fault is mine, and I apologize. Hey, giantbat, you're cool. You've been here a long time and offer great comments and observations along the line and I respect what you have to say. I had noticed that Kesher seemed bothered by your tone and I respect him on these boards as well, which is why I was hoping to give a reminder rather than having to wait until things got really heated between you guys and then somehow try to patch things up.  And I hope that my post wasn't giving you the impression that I was trying to "call you out" or anything like that. Your list is well thought out, and you have some of the same reserations about this rules set that I do. For one, I think players interested in the old school would be far more interested in Gary's notes than in a game inspired by one man's interpretation of those notes. Oh, and giantbat you get an EXALT for this. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 18, 2011 8:45:39 GMT -6
Apologies to anyone offended by my snark. Particularly Kesher, whose table I enjoy playing at, including an early playtest of this game. I was tired and did not exercise the self restraint necessary to keep my negativity below the threshold appropriate to this forum. No worries, my friend--I know you well enough to know that was uncharacteristic! A few thoughts: I can't disagree with this. And I'm hopeful that, given this game and the movie that's close to being made about Gary, Gail may decide to publish those notebooks in some form. I agree at least in part here--I'm still uncomfortable with the tenor of promotion, and I've told him so, for whatever that's worth. This I have to push back on. I first and foremost got involved in this game because I saw a lot of potential in its mechanics and philosophy. I believe it's achieved a lot of that potential in its final form. While I see the whole "end the edition wars!" as not all that useful (as plenty of people around here, for instance, play multiple editions), I think it does offer a solid way for, to use Big Model terms, all three Creative Agendas (Narrativist/Gamist/Simulationist) to play the same game together with a minimum of friction. I also think the mechanics themselves, from character creation onwards, help to create unique, memorable characters and empower the players to do things with those characters they might otherwise never thought to do. Undoubtedly some of my enthusiasm for the game itself is personal--while I love the complete openness and flexibility of ODD, I also have a real fondness for what some call personality mechanics. I love, as a GM, to have player-chosen handles to engage their characters on a level other than immediate personal threat. Also, in my experience, the results of that push and pull often generates ideas for me that otherwise I wouldn't have thought of. I know plenty of people around here have been doing stuff like this as players and DMs off the top of their heads for decades, or as a result of carefully built houserules; not so for me. In the end, hype and Gary's notebooks aside, I'd encourage anyone, once the quickstart rules are up, to simply give the game a try and then accept or reject on those merits alone. OH, and I certainly hope you're planning to play this Sunday...  |
|
|
|
Post by pessimisthalfling on Aug 18, 2011 9:08:23 GMT -6
Hello Everybody! I'm sorry I've been kind of quiet for the past few days. After months of writing and revising, I just needed to take a bit of a mental break. I appreciate the fact that the discussion has stayed intelligent and respectful. I've been reading some pretty nasty and unrealistic stuff elsewhere. At first it's all very amusing, but in time it start to wear you out a bit. For one, I think players interested in the old school would be far more interested in Gary's notes than in a game inspired by one man's interpretation of those notes. Especially when that game started out as 4E house rules, but then evolved to include a lot of indie mechanics. How is any of that inspired by Gygax's notes? It suppose it could be, but we don't know, because we don't get to see the notes, and Strayton hasn't explained, and it doesn't jive with our expectations as a group pretty familiar with Gygaxian ways. Herein lies our problem. I apologize in advance if this comes across as overly-confrontational. I'm very passionate about this game, but I do not intend to offend anybody in its name. (It's still game after all) I have a question for the group. Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes? Please take into account what Gail Gygax said about the game: So Gail herself, who has read the notes, is confident enough in the game to give it her endorsement publicly. If you were not aware of the aforementioned quote, then you are implying that we are lying about our claims. If you were aware of her endorsement, then you are implying that she doesn't know what she's talking about or that she's lying as well. I just wish to know so that I can better answer everybody's questions. I do understand frustration that notes haven't been made available to the general public. Unfortunately that's not my call to make. The only thing I can do is talk about the game I helped write. I've noticed that there's a misconception about the game's "indie" elements. It seems to me that some people think that we created a FATE clone with the "OD&D" attitude. That's very far from the truth. The Secret Fire is designed to be a challenging game of exploration where you, the player, utilize your knowledge and wits to overcome overwhelming odds. The few "indie" elements that are present in the game help you out a bit, but they will not do the job for you. I think that over emphasizing on the "indie" element has lead to an erroneous characterization of the game. Impartial reviews are starting to pop up around the net and none of them have categorized The Secret Fire as an indie game. We are working on a free quick start rules set that will hopefully answer some of the questions about the game's mechanics. |
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Aug 18, 2011 12:03:36 GMT -6
I have a question for the group. Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes?... Gail herself, who has read the notes, is confident enough in the game to give it her endorsement publicly. If you were not aware of the aforementioned quote, then you are implying that we are lying about our claims. If you were aware of her endorsement, then you are implying that she doesn't know what she's talking about or that she's lying as well. Yes, I do think that's overly confrontational. I don't think any of us want to get into questioning one another's veracity, intent, or qualifications to talk about the things we're here to talk about. I think the problem is that we're talking about two separate things here: a) a game George & his team created b) a set of Gary's papers that George was given access to by Gail as background for his screenwriting work, during the same period that the game in a) was under development One problem with a) is that the game underwent changes in its name and mission statement during its development. The Legends & Labyrinths thread makes it clear that some of us are excited about a game that combines new-school and old-school mechanics, and all of us are generally OK with the existence of such a game and its discussion here. The confusion is that there was a very clear "4E meets 0E" mission statement for the original L&L. Now that The Secret Fire is a different game, we're talking about indie elements etc. because it's not as clear what the mission statement of this different game is. One problem with b) is that I believe George is under a non-disclosure agreement that keeps him from talking about the contents of the papers he has access to. So even if they said "to make the perfect RPG you should do this and this," and he then did those things in The Secret Fire, he couldn't say so. The overall problem is that being presented with a) and b) at the same time sets up lots of room for inference and uncertainty. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect some explanation of the relationship between the game at hand and Gary's notes, or for there to be some frustration when that explanation isn't clear - even if there are good reasons why it can't be explained. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 18, 2011 12:11:42 GMT -6
I have a question for the group. Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes? No, I don't think you are lying about the notes. Gail herself, who has read the notes, is confident enough in the game to give it her endorsement publicly. If you were aware of her endorsement, then you are implying that she doesn't know what she's talking about or that she's lying as well. I hope no one takes this the wrong way, and I have no "Anti Gail Gygax" agenda. I don't like her, I don't dislike her. She married Gary, and that is almost the extent of what I know about her. Gail Gygax may be a perfectly nice person, but I haven't seen a lot to indicate that she is a savvy role player or has extensive knowledge of RPG design. I have seen things to the contrary, however, when she pulled all dealings with Troll Lord Games on products which Gary himself had endorsed. Some products which were unfinished (the CZ line, for example) and the way she has treated loyal fans leaves much to be desired and has caused a lot of fans to be unhappy with the decisions made after Gary's death. As far as I know, Gail Gygax hasn't spent much time playing RPGs, going to game conventions, hanging out on message boards chatting about gaming, or anything else which might lend direct credibility to her understanding of the subject. As such, her endorsement of a product doesn't carry much weight in my mind. If I had a question about throwing the prefect spiral or how to beat a "cover two", I'm not likely to ask Gisele Bundchen (Tom Brady's wife) either.  Sorry. Had to post a pic.  |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 18, 2011 12:13:16 GMT -6
Tavis, Thou Art Exalted for the clarity of your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 18, 2011 12:21:43 GMT -6
One problem with a) is that the game underwent changes in its name and mission statement during its development. The Legends & Labyrinths thread makes it clear that some of us are excited about a game that combines new-school and old-school mechanics, and all of us are generally OK with the existence of such a game and its discussion here. The confusion is that there was a very clear "4E meets 0E" mission statement for the original L&L. Now that The Secret Fire is a different game This troubled me as well. This may be off-topic for this thread, but since you mentioned it I'll chime in. When I first heard of the "4E meets 0E" philosophy behind L&L I was fully in support of it. As time has passed and the game has drifted far from its original stated plan (okay, two games with the same name so maybe only one of them has done so, I don't know anymore) I felt a lot of frustration. Instead of checking the design blogs daily, I started checking weekly and eventually not at all. The material posted simply didn't seem to fit what I expected. Not to say it is bad, but just that it wasn't what I was expecting. Same thing with SECRET FIRE. When I hear "Gary's Secret Notes" I think about something OD&D/AD&D with maybe some of the evolutionary elements that Gary described in the old "Sorcerer's Scroll" editorials in Dragon before he and TSR parted ways. What I'm seeing in the limited previews just don't seem to fit that model. Not to say it is bad, but just that it wasn't what I was expecting. |
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Aug 18, 2011 12:24:17 GMT -6
Fin, not knowing anything about football, I am tempted to think that "cover two" is what Mrs. Brady's dress is just barely doing in that picture, and the secrets thereof (is it spray-on material?) are ones only she could answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 18, 2011 20:34:10 GMT -6
Hey, giantbat, you're cool. You've been here a long time and offer great comments and observations along the line and I respect what you have to say. I had noticed that Kesher seemed bothered by your tone and I respect him on these boards as well, which is why I was hoping to give a reminder rather than having to wait until things got really heated between you guys and then somehow try to patch things up. And I hope that my post wasn't giving you the impression that I was trying to "call you out" or anything like that. Your list is well thought out, and you have some of the same reserations about this rules set that I do. Really, I don't think I was being very cool with my first comment, and since one of the most recent threads I participated in (a while back) resulted in another user and myself having our own little flame war in front of everyone, I'm not so sure I deserve the benefit of the doubt you're providing me. But thanks. I definitely wasn't going to heat anything up with Kesher; I respect him too and was trying to figure out if it would be best for me to apologize publicly, apologize privately, or just shut up already. Throwing some cold water is always prudent as a moderator though, and helped me decide. You were gentle and may have had no intent to call me out, but I probably needed to be called out. I was being lazy and snarky instead of making the effort to express ideas worthy of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 18, 2011 20:46:41 GMT -6
No worries, my friend--I know you well enough to know that was uncharacteristic! I'm not so sure it was uncharacteristic, but it was uncharitable. I meant it to jest more than cut, but my tongue was overly sharp and dull at the same time. I forgot to add to my earlier post that I was eager to hear dissenting opinions. I consider what you've put forth in the "push back" portion of your post as valid as my own opinions, we're both entitled to hold and express them, we simply disagree on some matters. Last thing I want to be is this guy:  And I have to admit I found some diamonds in the rough during our playtest, isolated systems that I felt contributed to enjoyment of the game. But overall, I was not impressed. I would also encourage anyone to give the game a chance and form their own opinions about it. I don't expect anyone to accept my criticism on blind faith. Not sure yet... really, it's far enough from my cup of tea, I'm not sure I'd enjoy more TSF, or contribute to the table's enjoyment. |
|
|
|
Post by giantbat on Aug 18, 2011 21:20:28 GMT -6
I have a question for the group. Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes? Fin has covered this pretty well, but - I don't doubt you've read the notes.
- I don't doubt you've been inspired by the notes, and poured that inspiration into TSF.
- I don't doubt that Gail has stated she confidently endorses what you have derived from the notes.
- I don't have anything against Gail.
- I haven't seen anything that I would have expected to result from such claims.
- I haven't seen any explanation of what was derived from the notes.
- I haven't seen the notes. (And I understand that's not your fault.)
- None of this provides me any reason to confidently believe that you or Gail have derived from the notes what I would have, or perhaps that the notes in question contain anything that I would find particularly inspirational.
- I am not implying the things you state I must be implying.
I would not call TSF an indie game, not in that sense. But as someone who followed The Forge in its early years, I consider TSF to have many elements which resemble characteristic mechanics of indie systems. It is possible that these elements were examples of parallel innovation, but in any case indie games popularized many similar elements, so seeing them I call them such. I don't think TSF is an indie game at core. Rather, I think it's a system of D&D house rules that has gone through several iterations, borrowing elements from multiple editions, starting with newer ones and shifting toward older ones. But it has a lot of what I would call indie elements added onto that core, and they stand out to me as the more noteworthy portion of the game. Essentially, without the indie elements, I think TSF would amount to a somewhat unremarkable D&D simulacrum. I think that's a good move. People will be able to satisfy their curiosity and come to their own conclusions before deciding to purchase. One thing that's pretty clear is that the game developers poured a lot of passion into TSF. Clearly it's a game you enjoy, and I'm sure many others will as well. In the end, I'm probably not one of them, and I disagree with a lot of decisions you've made, some about the game, more about how the game has been presented. But good luck to you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 23:59:14 GMT -6
I have a question for the group. Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes? No, I don't think you are lying about the notes. Gail herself, who has read the notes, is confident enough in the game to give it her endorsement publicly. If you were aware of her endorsement, then you are implying that she doesn't know what she's talking about or that she's lying as well. I hope no one takes this the wrong way, and I have no "Anti Gail Gygax" agenda. I don't like her, I don't dislike her. She married Gary, and that is almost the extent of what I know about her. Gail Gygax may be a perfectly nice person, but I haven't seen a lot to indicate that she is a savvy role player or has extensive knowledge of RPG design. I have seen things to the contrary, however, when she pulled all dealings with Troll Lord Games on products which Gary himself had endorsed. Some products which were unfinished (the CZ line, for example) and the way she has treated loyal fans leaves much to be desired and has caused a lot of fans to be unhappy with the decisions made after Gary's death. As far as I know, Gail Gygax hasn't spent much time playing RPGs, going to game conventions, hanging out on message boards chatting about gaming, or anything else which might lend direct credibility to her understanding of the subject. As such, her endorsement of a product doesn't carry much weight in my mind. I fully agree with this entire statement. As to the things that Gail Gygax has done since Gary passed away, I fear that someone who has only bad advice to offer has her ear and I am personally very disappointed with how badly the ball has been dropped in regard to getting things published and into the hands of fans that were (previously) lined up to buy and now maybe not so much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 0:09:15 GMT -6
I am withholding judgement until I see the game. However, I am not interested in any 3E or 4E elements which can only detract from the old school nature that is being touted and any indie elements or any elements that relate to or derive from the nonsense of The Forge/Ron Edwards would not be positive either. Show me something that goes OD&D one better, something that I believe is possible but something no one in the last 37 years has come even remotely close to that doing, including Gygax himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Aug 19, 2011 1:18:56 GMT -6
I am not interested in any 3E or 4E elements which can only detract from the old school nature that is being touted or any elements that relate to or derive from the nonsense of The Forge/Ron Edwards I think this is as impossible as saying "I want a RPG with no Gygaxian elements whatsoever". Any sufficiently large sample of gamers will include people who have independently replicated every idea that people on the Forge promulgated, just like any survey of the way people really played back in the day will include those whose procedures of play looked a lot like those later formalized by indie storygames as well as those whose house-rules looked a lot like the tactical and define-everything emphasis of 3E/4E. I think that the way we talk about these elements in a RPG often has as much to do with our preconceptions as it does with the designer's intent or background. As blind men exploring an elephant, it can be helpful if we're able to say "I played 3E and I'm feeling something like that over here"; even if it's actually elephant balls, we can do some work with the shared vocabulary we've got, and what else can we do? If you're not interested in new games, that's cool and it's great that we have a community that's collectively interested in mining more from the original one. But I think it's definitely the case that the way we approach OD&D is informed by what some of us learned from elements of 3E, 4E, and Forge/indie design - even if what we've learned is "this direction might seem promising but we've seen where it leads". |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 19, 2011 5:56:53 GMT -6
Really, I don't think I was being very cool with my first comment ... I'm not so sure I deserve the benefit of the doubt you're providing me. In my mind, one or two little incidents are not a pattern made. In general your positives far outweigh your negatives. That's why we keep you around. Throwing some cold water is always prudent as a moderator though ... You were gentle and may have had no intent to call me out, but I probably needed to be called out. I was being lazy and snarky instead of making the effort to express ideas worthy of discussion. Honestly, that's the hardest thing about being a moderator. I probably would have let the original comment slide, but as it seemed to give Kesher offense I figured I needed to do something. Since I believe that both of you have awesome things to contribute here, I decided to act quickly. Now, back to the discussion at hand: If you're not interested in new games, that's cool and it's great that we have a community that's collectively interested in mining more from the original one. But I think it's definitely the case that the way we approach OD&D is informed by what some of us learned from elements of 3E, 4E, and Forge/indie design - even if what we've learned is "this direction might seem promising but we've seen where it leads". This is a most excellent point. My goal here was to explore the past, in a sense, by keeping OD&D alive. On the other hand, we want the game to grow and expand. We do this by offering ideas and trying to explain to each other how we interpret the rules. And by introducing new game elements. I don't dislike indie games and I certainly don't dislike Ron Edwards. Ron has put together his own little world at the Forge where folks can discuss his ideas and expand upon them. To me, however, most indie games fall into a totally different roleplay category than OD&D. Maybe we need a thread where we discuss what OD&D means to us, but to me it's a simple set of rules with a certain feel and philosophy to them. Changing the game too much breaks it away from OD&D (at least in my own mind) and it becomes something else. I can't say if that something else is "better" or "worse" because it's just different. What little I've seen of THE SECRET FIRE seems to tread very close to crossing that invisible line in my brain into "something else" and I have a tough time blending that concept with what I know of Gary's designs. I guess that's where I run into issues and I'll have to buy TSF and read it before I can finally figure out if it totally crosses that line or not. What I'm trying hard not to do is make up my mind with only limited data. I'm afraid I've posted too much on this topic without actually seeing the game.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 9:54:53 GMT -6
I have a question for the group. Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes? Not really. But I'd rather have a copy of Gary's notes than yet another role playing game. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 19, 2011 10:08:42 GMT -6
Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes? What notes? Gail herself, who has read the notes, is confident enough in the game to give it her endorsement publicly. Her quote doesn’t say anything about the notes. If you were aware of her endorsement, then you are implying that she doesn't know what she's talking about or that she's lying as well. Gail has lost a lot of goodwill in this community. A LOT. And it’s not helped by people like you and JRT who try to make it sound as if every criticism is a personal attack against her. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Aug 19, 2011 12:58:44 GMT -6
I was kind of looking forward to seeing this game, but I got a look at the complete finished product today and was extremely unimpressed. It reads very pretentiously (I got the impression the author loved to hear his own voice, so to speak) and it is not "old school" at all in the methods presented. It's an immersive character type of game, not an exploration game like D&D. I think the constant references to Gygax and quotes from original D&D sources are very misleading as to the game's actual purpose and content.
Different strokes for different folks, but I'd be quite amazed if more than a few posters on this board liked what was presented in this game. It's very new school/indie in feel, and not much like OD&D in spirit at all, though it tries very hard to convince you it is part of that legacy. I can almost guarantee it will rub many of you the wrong way... you will be happier sticking with D&D I suspect, but by all means give it a read if you can, and make up your own mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by pessimisthalfling on Aug 19, 2011 14:04:26 GMT -6
Hello everybody, Now I realize that my second post in this thread did come across as overly-confrontational. That wasn't the point, so I'll try to be a bit more tactful from now on. I'll do my best to uphold the positive tone that's been a part of most of the discussion. I hope I didn't imply to be one of the "people in the know" because I'm not. My primary role during the development of the game was to write the fluff to give the game a very specific tone. (By fluff I mean Spell descriptions, skills, ect. Fear not: there is no Game Fiction in the book.) By mentioning the notes I added to the confusion that Tavis pointed out earlier, and became an active participant in a discussion to which I can't I add anything of value. I admit that that was a mistake on my part. I'll stick to talking about the way the game plays, which was my only objective from the beginning. Do you think that we are lying about Gary's Notes? What notes? Her quote doesn’t say anything about the notes. If you were aware of her endorsement, then you are implying that she doesn't know what she's talking about or that she's lying as well. Gail has lost a lot of goodwill in this community. A LOT. And it’s not helped by people like you and JRT who try to make it sound as if every criticism is a personal attack against her. I was trying to offer some evidence that the notes do indeed exist and that Gail, someone who was close to Gary, thinks that the game is reflects some of her husband's ideas. It was a point I brought up; and a lot of you guys didn't think it was a valid one. (Finn's hilarious picture stand out!) That's fine; that sort of thing happens during a discussion. I do have one question though: Who is JRT? Anyhow, As a member of the development team it "kind of sucks" to hear that someone didn't enjoy the game, but I respect everybody's opinion. We are all gamers and I know that we probably agree more often than we disagree. I hope I explained myself a bit better this time around. Hopefully I've managed to Dispell Awkwardness. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 19, 2011 14:45:12 GMT -6
I think this may indeed be the friendliest place on the IntraWeb! One of many reasons I keep on posting... I think I'm done with thread at this point--I'm going to play TSF this Sunday, at which point I'll start talking about actual play, which is more interesting than intentions anyway. It also seems to me like the Old/New school dichotomy has started rearing its pointless head again. Which is why I pretty much agreed with everything Tavis said above. My experience of playing Basic and Advanced D&D while young informed my experience of playing of indie games which all then informed my experience of playing ODD which now rolls into informing my playing TSF. FWIW, I wrote a post about this in the early days of my blog. I just went back and reread it, and I still stand by it: Old School ---> New School ---> Open SchoolI just wanna Play the Game and Have Fun, which I think is pretty much true for most of us. As always, I run a Free Campaign, so come play with me anytime! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 14:47:03 GMT -6
I think another reason it may be a bit of a tough sell in these here parts is that a lot of us have "heard it all before".
For instance, way back in the mid 80s when Fantasy Hero came out, one of the authors said that one working title was YARG -- "Yet Another Roleplaying Game". There was a feeling even THEN that the fantasy RPG market was supersaturated, and THAT was almost 30 years ago.
Essentially, if anybody wants to write a fantasy rpg for their own amusement, I support them wholeheartedly. Expect me to plop down my own hard-stolen GP, however, and my attitude instantly becomes one of "This had better be good. Let me get my 2-handed axe in case it isn't."
It's just that so MANY of us have been exposed to the marketing blatt of so MANY games over the years that at some point a) they all begin to sound alike, and b) even hearing it gives us extreme flatulence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 15:12:28 GMT -6
Now I realize that my second post in this thread did come across as overly-confrontational. That wasn't the point, so I'll try to be a bit more tactful from now on. I'll do my best to uphold the positive tone that's been a part of most of the discussion. You're proud of your work and you were defending it. Your reaction was understandable and you're among friends. Don't sweat it. |
|
