The AD&D trap?

[Zulgyan]

Wow, there has been a LOT of talk lately of uniting all old-schoolers under one document, rules-set or game "to unite us all". The intention seems very good but... ins't that falling into the trap where AD&D fell? Ins't that creating a line bewteen right or wrong D&D?

That is my fear. In search for definition, standardization and unity we may fall into AD&D's trap.

Guys, we must not be united by a "rules-set", we must be united by our "friendship" and mutual acceptance of each other's "way to do D&D". By "sharing stuff" by means like this forum or "Fight-On!".

I'm puzzled.

Just a random thought in the middle of the night, subject to change.

Cheers to all and happy gaming,

Z.

[busman]

Yeah, this was exactly my point in the other thread. We need an OSGA type banner to be under, not a rule set. Then under the same Association we can all play our own set of rules but still create a sense of community amongst a larger group of players.

[greyharp]

I think perhaps the misunderstanding here is about the term "universal system".

James' original blog post was not talking about a single "rules-set", but a lingua franca - "a...reworking of common terms ("Hits to Kill" or HTK, instead of "Hit Points," for example) so that meaning was conveyed without using terms specific to any single edition (or even game)" - that can be used to produce "new products that are professionally made".

As I pointed out in a comment to that blog entry, Fight On! has made an attempt at doing just that - using a non-OGL, non-copyrighted set of gaming terms to produce rpg material that is usable by a variety of old school rpg's.

[jrients]

Yeah, greyharp has the right of it. We don't need a single system. It would be houseruled to death anyway. We just need to be able to communicate to one another effetively.

[dwayanu]

Since when does anyone own the terms "hit points," "hit dice" "armor class," "move," "damage" and "alignment"?

[redpriest]

Jun 3, 2008 9:24:00 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Since when does anyone own the terms "hit points," "hit dice" "armor class," "move," "damage" and "alignment"?

They don't. At least, last I heard, neither SJG nor Chaosium were paying any fees to WoTC to use "hit points", "move", "damage" or any other such terms.

[calithena]

A lot of these terms are in WoW too. Anything that Hasbro and Blizzard both use is more or less immune from prosecution, I think. Unless the big dogs decide to team up.

You can make a case that if you use all the terms together you're effectively referencing someone else's IP. But given the huge number of systems that use most of them, you really just have to pick one or two to change from whatever system of the old-school type you favor (and there are hundreds in print) to change.

[calithena]

I think doing your own thing and having fun is what it's all about. The OGL is a publisher's tool, useful for some, less useful for others. So basically, I'm with Zulg, though if others want to use OGL or try to get others on the same page rules-wise I don't begrudge them the effort.

[mythmere]

I agree completely.
As one of the retro-clone "people," I should point out that retro-clones have two basic purposes: (1) to foster the creation of resources for the cloned game, and (2) to bring players who've NEVER played the OOP games the experience of free-form gaming. The goal should not be to get old schoolers to actually play the new game. That's why I've always opposed, for example, having OSRIC in the 1e discussion sections of Dragonsfoot.

In terms of Swords & Wizardry (I'm not pimping - this is relevant), the goal is a little broader than past retro-clones. Here, having pared the rules back down to their original form, it has reached a root language for discussion, common to all the later editions that built upon those fundamental concepts.

With the magazine envisioned for S&W, the objective is to be able to wrap in discussions of all the fantasy retro-clones, and develop an approach similar to the wide-open free-for-all that was Dragon Magazine in its early days. The way I've been communicating that, and thinking of it in my mind, is to take the basic fundamental roots of the game, and then "imagine the hell out of it." When you do this, everything developed from the White Box suddenly comes into focus not as a new edition but as one particular, highly detailed, system of house rules built on the basics. There is a common language for talking about these, and an infinite number of other ways, other approaches, other ways to capture the lightning of a particular fantasy idea.

So, I'm violently against the idea of anyone trying to establish a new game system designed to pull all old-schoolers into playing it. There are strong and legitimate reasons why people prefer one edition over another. There is no "problem" to "solve" there. There is, however, an opportunity to draw all old schoolers into a common area - the gaps and the undiscovered country where the editions haven't gone, or where they can be house-ruled.

My magazine, which is tentatively titled "Knockspell," is not going to be aimed at any specific game (although S&W is the common language being used - it will read much like a Dragon Magazine back in the White Box days if I do it right). It's not going to look at editions -- it's aiming for that undiscovered country where the various editions didn't explore, or where there was a road not taken, a choice that foreclosed. I want to deconstruct and de-codify, and then see what kinds of new vistas open up. It's sort of the opposite of a universal system, really - it's focusing on how to build out from the common language already existing in the skeleton of every edition.

[hackman]

I'm glad you guys have taken this topic up via this thread. Honestly I was a bit confused when this whole thing popped up, in what two or three threads on this board? At first, it was like ok an association, then we began to argue, just a bit about a rules set. I'd chipped in that a source document from which to publish OD&D would be good, via legal use of terms etc. I've written a level for the megadungeon soon to appear in Fight On! hence some of my interest in that. However, Cal already had an understandable terminology and I just used that, not a big deal really. The association seemed to me like a good way to build on the community support we already have here and possibly be used to organize some type of small convention in the future, possibly. Bottom line for me is that a "comprehensive" rules set is like herding cats, especially for the folks that hang out here, but I just now understood what the issue was.

[hellbender]

Jun 8, 2008 15:30:44 GMT -6 mythmere said:

I agree completely.
As one of the retro-clone "people," I should point out that retro-clones have two basic purposes: (1) to foster the creation of resources for the cloned game, and (2) to bring players who've NEVER played the OOP games the experience of free-form gaming. The goal should not be to get old schoolers to actually play the new game. That's why I've always opposed, for example, having OSRIC in the 1e discussion sections of Dragonsfoot.

Your second point has sort of bothered me for a couple of days. While I understand the idea is to bring in people new to the experience of classical gaming, I hope the idea isn't to discourage oldschoolers from playing the retro-clone games, either. One of my b/x players wanted to switch to Labyrinth Lord for his kids (the newness and availability of material) and we are looking forward to playing Mutant Future as well. I played b/x in the early 80's and Gamma World (which Mutant Future isn't) and I feel that the retro-clones help bridge a gap between generations.

[greyharp]

Jun 10, 2008 4:21:04 GMT -6 @hellbender said:

While I understand the idea is to bring in people new to the experience of classical gaming, I hope the idea isn't to discourage oldschoolers from playing the retro-clone games, either. One of my b/x players wanted to switch to Labyrinth Lord for his kids (the newness and availability of material) and we are looking forward to playing Mutant Future as well. I played b/x in the early 80's and Gamma World (which Mutant Future isn't) and I feel that the retro-clones help bridge a gap between generations.

From what I've seen on the various forums, this has been an unexpected occurrence - a benefit even - for the authors of the clones, people actually want to play their versions of the games. What a compliment.

I want to introduce OD&D to my group when it's my turn to DM next. If Matt's Swords & Wizardry is a close enough clone to the original for me, I'll will definitely be using it, which will save me from handling my original books. When members of my group want copies of the rules it won't be a problem. We'll end up playing the clone, yes even me the old schooler of the group, but we'll still be playing OD&D.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 10, 2008 4:21:04 GMT -6 @hellbender said:

Jun 8, 2008 15:30:44 GMT -6 mythmere said:

(2) to bring players who've NEVER played the OOP games the experience of free-form gaming. The goal should not be to get old schoolers to actually play the new game.

Your second point has sort of bothered me for a couple of days. While I understand the idea is to bring in people new to the experience of classical gaming, I hope the idea isn't to discourage oldschoolers from playing the retro-clone games, either.

I think that Mythmere's point is more that trying to "convert" an old gamer is probably a losing battle -- that if a person has been playing AD&D (for example) for 15 years and you put an AD&D clone into his hands he'll just say "OSRIC? But I already play AD&D; why should I switch?"

As an old-timer myself I have chosen to look carefully at some of the retro games with the hope of switching over. My thinking is that if I can play OD&D (for example) and everyone who wants a copy can get "Swords & Wizardry" we can use essentially the same rules and who cares what I call the game?

I spearheaded a playtest group for Castles & Crusades and mostly played it as if it was 1980 again. My players loved it becasue it was this neat, new game. I loved it because it was essentially this neat, old game.

What I have discovered in 30+ years of DM-ing is that no matter what I call the rules I pretty much run the same thing. I have no problem running a D&D module one week and an AD&D module the next, because I mostly ignore big stat blocks and focus on the few numbers I actually care about. The rules mostly go away when the adventure begins.

In this way, pretty much all D&D-like games are the same to me: OD&D, B/X, LL, AD&D, OSRIC, BFRPG, and now S&W.

[Zulgyan]

What I like about S&W is that it will enable me to put toguether my own version of OD&D and distribute it legally (is this correct?).

[hellbender]

With my group three of us are oldschool (with two other sometimes players) and then there are younger people and the children of one of the players. With kids and and unhealthy wife, one player has limited funds (I help out with food from time to time) and newer games like Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game are great for his budget. I share lots from ebay with him as well, but it is easier to use newer material than chase down rulesets/modules/etc for him, especially since he doesn't have internet service right now. My group has no problem with the retro-clones and I think anyone who is a "hardsell" is probably being difficult just to be difficult.

[redpriest]

Jun 10, 2008 6:30:50 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

My thinking is that if I can play OD&D (for example) and everyone who wants a copy can get "Swords & Wizardry" we can use essentially the same rules and who cares what I call the game?

...

In this way, pretty much all D&D-like games are the same to me: OD&D, B/X, LL, AD&D, OSRIC, BFRPG, and now S&W.

Fin groks.