|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:So you think everyone in here is mad that some assholes make fun of D&D 4E? I don't think "everyone here..." anything. Because I know thinking in stereotypes is dumb.
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I just want to know - if the OSR has nothing in common except for liking old games why do they bother with a name? Not everyone on story-games is a Ron Edwards fanboy or a narrativist. Same everywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Ooooh you. Got me there. Good job avoiding the question. So let me ask in a way where you won't dodge like a politician. Earlier today? "We don't hate people who play older editions, just people who insist everyone play their way or calls 4e players anime WoW babies" is an extremely common sentiment here. Stereotypes are bad and dumb and not helpful and antifun and antismart and antilearning and make all this annoying game stuff that everyone hates and complains about happen. If you can't agree to that idea than the part of this thread where you talk to me and vice versa probably isn't going to get too far.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:How is this not a stereotype? Like, that's what that is, you're just trying your best to not call it your stereotype of a grog.txt poster. Also, I don't recall that sentiment ever being said here other than someone making fun of some grob who actually said things like that. Either you agree that is it bad to say "all 4e fans are anime WoW babies" because that's a stereotype or you don't. If you don't, I think you are a terrible person. If you do, then I would submit that saying "OSR people are..." is just as bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
Gerund posted:False dichotomy. Try again.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:44
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:I don't think anyone is disputing your notion that, in principle, at least one good man must live in OSR and as such we must not destroy the city. Ok? Ok. Did you not read what I already posted twice about how the OSR defines itself? Please go back and re-read it then.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Sorry man, you said the OSR aren't actually a thing that exists, can't stereotype imaginary groups (Except Elves. gently caress those magic immortal assholes.) Read my last post.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:48
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:What I have garnered is that it is a collective label for a group of people who cannot be generalized in any way. Which seems to defy basic logic, but okay. If so I will re-post my definition a third time. If not, we are not having a conversation.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:No, see, you defined it like this, right No, that was not a definition, that was my answer to the question "why do they have a name?". Again: If I give you a definition of the OSR, will you acknowledge that I gave you a definition?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Assumethisisreal posted:He's more fun than you guys
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Jabor posted:
Well, there's DIY D&D. But honestly while I'm sure people can dig up Dragonsfoot posters who make them sad all day long, the major lights: James Mal, Jeff, Joesky, etc--these are all people who have done really good, generous things and never let a racist, sexist word out of their skulls ever. I may not give a gently caress about demihuman level limits, but all the major voices of the OSR have been really cool to me, to my players, and to everyone I've ever heard of who interacted with them. These are the loudest voices. And they are very good ones.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
counterspin posted:OSR, from the outside, produces nothing but poo poo talkers. It's that simple. You folks, bopping along in your insular OSR cocoon, don't notice this, because you get good material out of OSR, and you don't get poo poo from OSR people. But for an outsider, who receives absolutely nothing positive from OSR, because they simply don't play the games involved in it, all they get from OSR is poo poo. Your making up your own definition of OSR does not effect this at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Because Jeff stays on his blog, boopin' away at his own stuff, while the poo poo talkers are evangelical. You don't hear the poo poo, because it's all aimed away from you. The poo poo talkers aren't too interested in talking poo poo at folks who play the same games as them. But for those of us who play more then just straight out old school games? Oh, we get to hear plenty from the poo poo talkers. They have a whole lot to say about us! Y'know who poo poo talks me most? Kent, BT, Libramarian and people here. And in pretty much the same ways. The narcissism of small differences ensures that people can and will use any difference between you and them to try to puff themselves up. If you play 3.5 they will come down on you for that (as the grogs did days after my first 3.5 post). If you play AD&D they will come down on you for that (as this thread did, long ago, days after my first AD&D post). The hate is precisely and in all ways symmetrical. It's get off my lawn this and neckbeard that and if you can't see that it comes from both sides and every possible philosophy you've failed to use whatever critical tools you may have developed here in this thread hard enough and are just using them to prop up your end of the propaganda war. I put out a book. People called it Old School Renaissance because I used shortform stats and lots of random tables. If that's all it takes to be OSR, then it's a club it's pretty hard to be embarrassed about joining and not one which demands a whole lot from its members,
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
counterspin posted:Great, a set of rules for doing xp in DnD games. Something I stopped doing two loving editions ago. Why should I loving care? It's useless to me. Meanwhile, I've spent the whole time since the release of 4e listening to morons flying the OSR flag repeating the same 4 stupid arguments over and over again. If OSR disappeared tomorrow into the sun, my life would be better. The same is true for many, many people. And that's why OSR gets poo poo on. My point is that there is not much cool OSR content that anyone "inside" has access to that you do not. You are not penalized for being "outside" by anyone who actually produces good poo poo rather than people who hang out on forums blowing their noses at you and calling the snot pattern "OSR".
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:The OSR is a group of people who are an active drain om the hobby through their blind insistance that only a handful of games mad 40 years ago are TRUE ROLEPLAYING and actively not only reject newer, better mechanics but also drive away new blood from the hobby out of a pathetic desire to remain the King Nerd via mastery of clunky, obscure mechanics. Doctor Pepper, you're way beyond on the conversation but I have like 4 of you a day so I forgive you. Question for you all...You have this wonderful word "grog". It sounds bad, it is bad. Why not just keep saying that instead of saying "OSR" which means you saying it about Jeff and Joesky etc, too? I mean, it effectively separates the problem from the problemless. Why not just use it? I mean, not one single part of this OSR blogger, f'rinstance... http://monstermanualsewnfrompants.blogspot.com/2012/05/arborea-wow.html ...overlaps with any part of "grog".
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:See, here's the problem: First of all: yeah, they totally did. Right in this thread, right before Mandy got called out for putting extension cords on her wishlist. By people in this thread that I am sure you would call dicks. And have I been told my edition was not D&D? About a thousand times when our show came out, by OSR people. And they were dicks, too. So, wrong on both counts.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Well then here is tremendous news for you that I guess you didn't know until today. If you play 4th ed you will get called a WoW anime baby not playing real D&D by someone because that person is a dick. And if you play AD&D you will be called a neckbeard nostalgist by MKill or casualoblivion or someone in this thread because that person is a dick. This is actual reality here. Did you not know this until today?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
counterspin posted:Unlike the OSR, those people come from communities that might, at some point, produce something I give a poo poo about. Welcome to your awesome taste-based prejudice, then. I like tiramisu, it doesn't mean Italy is always right.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
Hamboning posted:What the gently caress are you even saying? All you're doing is mashing words you've seen in this thread together in an attempt to 'burn' us for 'being the real grognards', when all you're doing is consistently proven that you are unable to actually read beyond the first three sentences anyone posts. Any time you are asked a direct question, you either mis-interpret, cherry-pick, or outright ignore what the poster has said, choosing to re-arrange everything you've said previously because you're to intellectually lazy to actually defend your point. Please do the research next time, Hamboning. Anyway the rest of your post is terribly abstract. What is your specific beef?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I dunno MKill, and does casual oblivion even post here? Dr Nick posted:What, exactly, is the Old School Renaissance about if not editions or pretending like the 80s was a magical time of innocence and pure role playing when Mom would bring us tang and cookies down to the basement and Reagan kept us safe from the commies?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
Dr Nick posted:Zak S was doing this earlier as well. Why is it so hard to understand that the people who speak out against rapegames don't literally think they will force non rapists to rape? No, it's just the rhetoric is confusing when it is mixed up with hyperbole so I was trying to separate which was which to better understand the position. Position: "Treating rape casually leads to rape culture." Hyperbole: "Oh no the Grogs won't play games unless they get to enact rape fantasies!"
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
If you'd like me to explain the rhetorical use of "simplicity" in OSR circles I can but if you'd rather just kind of kick it around then that's ok. Let me know. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Lemon Curdistan posted:Or you could go ahead and explain it rather than posting like this? Then people could decide whether they agree with your explanation or not! There is a disconnect in the use of the term in different gaming communities. In the OSR, "simplicity" does not necessarily translate to "clarity about what to do with a given moving part". It is more about reducing PC and monster statblocks down to very short sets of numbers that are quick to generate for players or quick to think up for GMs inventing enemies. Jack is correct in saying that ACKs even having skills and feats is less simplicity than most other OSR designs go for. However, like many independent game products, ACKs does not exist to represent the mean average of all the tastes of all the people in its faction, it exists to be the game the people who wrote it want to play. If ACKs looks suspiciously like someone's house rules for red box D&D, it's because that is precisely what it is. The authors ran a certain kind of game and made a published product that reflected their shared interests.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:An "official product"? Not to be nitpicky, but I think you just mean "published product". Yes, you're right. Fixing that now.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Gau posted:This isn't simple for most people, though, it's explicitly more complex. I get the idea of using a sort of shorthand, but it's not very intuitive. poo poo, trying to explain what HD 6*** means to someone who grew up on 3.X is...not an easy task. Absolutely. Every single version of the game is "easy to understand" to different people. Part of this depends on their gaming background, and part of it depends on what kind of thinker (visual, mathematical, logocentric etc) they are.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:So in more flowery terms exactly what I said. OSR Simplicity is simplicity to people who already memorized/know the rules in question. ...or to new players who can remember the 3 terms in the string and who consider deciding what to do with the monster described a trivial task. Like most OSR stuff now is written in a sort of skeletal (AC 8 or 12, HP 23, ATK +5 2-8dmg) format. That's 3 terms to remember, all of which appear in all D&Ds in one way or another. Some have a move stat appended. Special attacks and defenses are generally described completely out (more rarely: "as Sleep spell" or anything like that since different editions and clones use different versions of spells). The not-simple part is not rules in this case, but knowing what to do with that creature as a GM to make an interesting game.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:It's more than that. "2-8" is a big example of relying on the target's preexisting knowledge to figure out how you're supposed to generate numbers in that band. That is all true. In the entry level OSR products (that is--the actual clones and other game--which are, in general, the least exciting) this stuff is usually explained. In the supplements and blog entries it isn't and the audience is assumed to be familiar with whatever systems that product supports. If Idol of the Frog God were sold by WOTC for mass consumption rather than distributed free to a few hundred hobbyists, I'd say writing "2d6" instead of "2-12" would be wise. I also don't think its author would disagree with me.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Point is: when OSR people say "simple" they usually mean "not a lot of stats and not a lot of interlocking math between those stats".
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
Piell posted:So, there's no good reason to use 2-8 instead of 2d4 other than bullshit nostalgia, then. Good to know. Not at all--if you're looking down a long weapon chart (as you do when shopping in AD&D) number ranges are often more quickly telling than die arrangements in terms of which weapon you want to buy (in a die arrangement like 2d6 sometimes the first number in the series is important compared to another and sometimes the third term is). Then you pick a weapon based on the damage range, do the math to figure what die to use, and have that die ready for every fight. If you're looking at a short list of powers in a combat (as you do in 4e) and comparing them to each other, then die arrangements are more helpful because it is easy to play "which of these 3 digits (2d6+4 or 3d6+4) is better" because it's a shorter list and usually each only differs from the other by one term and it's pretty obvious. They fit their context, in other words. But both require a tiny bit of math to get all the information you might want.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
I think you may have missed something. Again, imagine you are shopping in AD&D. There is a list of weapons a page long. If you have number ranges you only have to look at one column all the way down to see which weapons do more damage (and the first column only says 1 or 2). If you have die ranges you have to look at 2 separate columns. The 6 at the end of 2d6 makes it bigger than 2d4 whereas the 3 at the beginning of 3d6 makes it bigger than 2d6. It entirely depends on what situation you're imagining. And, again, in both cases you have to do math. Die arrangements make a lot of sense when there are a few numbers to look at and those numbers are big, number ranges make sense when the numbers are lower and there are a lot of them. And even if it isn't easier for you, I can tell you it is for my (totally new to gaming) players and I don't have a motive to lie about that.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Did you guys skip the part of my post where I described how if you're scanning a long column of weapon damage numbers if it's a range you only have to look at one column whereas if it's a die arrangement you have to look at two columns and then multiply out? 1d4 is a bad example. Small numbers like 2d8 vs 3d4 are more like what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Piell posted:2d8 vs 2-16 I'm not talking about how much space it takes up, I'm talking about how easy or hard it is to scan for the biggest weapon damage if you have a whole column of those.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Death Pits of Crap posted:You still run into the problem in which you need to induce the combination of dice necessary for a given value range. If char-op is a concern, it might be easier to add a separate "average damage per hit" column to the data table. Using "Damage X-Y" notation to try to make "average damage per hit" easier to calculate isn't worth the extra difficulty of finding how you roll for that damage in the first place. The best would obviously be to provide both but the point is there is actually a real rationale for doing it either ways if you have actual context. That is, while many things in AD&D were done that way for dumb reasons, this one has a reason and is not just repeated today out of nostalgia or a desire to have less people play the game.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
ZeeToo posted:Oh, no, I might have to look two characters to the right or left! You're assuming the end point is to know what dice to roll. Realistically, a player wants to know both things: the maximum damage s/he can cause and which dice to roll. Each notation provides one of those 2 important pieces of information instantly.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Hamboning posted:Zak, I refuse to believe that everyone you've played with is incapable of basic multiplication. My blog's not called "Playing D&D With People Who All Graduated High School". I will tell you right now, if I tell Kimberly Kane she's got a 3d6 weapon or a 4d4 spell she will not know which does more damage. But, more than that, no matter which is easier for you, the idea that the only reason to use number range is nostalgia is on the face of it silly. Not everyone is you. It depends on who's playing.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
True Evil Bob posted:Multiplication of the size of numbers that are relevant here is something that most schools I know of had students memorize by like 3rd grade. Are you accusing me of lying about my players? And, if so, what motive could I possibly have? I chuck out annoying AD&D legacy crap out of my game all the time, I won't go out of my way to make this tiny exception about this picayune thing. I actually believe what I am saying based on observation of actual real new-to-D&D-outside-the-typical-D&D-demographic humans. I am positing that perhaps I am not unique in this regard. Do you admit it is possible, just possible, that there might be a perceived real game advantage in some situations to having a different damage notation for reasons that might be actually good?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Jabor posted:You've literally presented no reason to use 4-16 instead of 4d4. Then you are at least grasping what I am saying far beyond the level at which your compatriots are. As I said earlier--use both.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
Pangalin posted:What kills me is so many of Zak's arguments have rested, at least partly, on "it works for my players" or "my players don't think it's a problem" and now, "my players are complete idiots for which I have the greatest contempt". Um, this is getting gross and disturbing in the assumptions you're making but I'm KK's math tutor for the GED--I know what math she can and can't do. You should also all apologize for calling her "stupid" because she can't multiply.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:Zak quit dodgin my post and please explain why it's easier/less confusing to use 2-12 instead of 2d6. Also please explain to me another reason to use it besides "It was in an older game", since [Blah Blah see my post for full points of the futility of using a number line instead of the newer notation] The "12" instantly tells you the maximum damage on a hit with that weapon which is sometimes exactly the piece of information you are looking for.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
A HUNGRY MOUTH posted:At worst it's "Kimberly Kane can't do math," which for all I know is true. You guys realize that people who are illiterate/innumerate/have extreme difficulty with reading or mathematics actually exist, right? I don't think they do. I think the idea is "everyone processes information cognitively like we do, we find this easy, therefore it universally is". Which seems far more disturbing than anything else I've ever read here.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 02:01
|
|